Darren10 Posted January 5, 2016 Author Posted January 5, 2016 8 minutes ago, omni said: This was a smart move by the church. Hopefully Mr. Bundy will take this to heart and cooler heads will prevail. I live on the East Coast and am continually amazed at the ignorance regarding Mormons coming from my highly educated colleagues. Situations like will not help. We'll forgive you since you live on the east coast. (I AM just kidding)
Darren10 Posted January 5, 2016 Author Posted January 5, 2016 AH HA!!! Quote This weekend, a camouflage-wearing militia member said this when asked his name by Oregon Public Radio: “I’m Captain Moroni, from Utah.” Quote According to Oregon Public Radio: During an April 2014 standoff with federal officials, supporters and members of the Bundy militia cited Book of Mormon passages centering on Captain Moroni. There were also several flags quoting Captain Moroni’s own writing on his “title of liberty.” Often next to American flags, these banners read “In memory of our God, our religion, and freedom, and our peace, our wives, and our children.” Cliven Bundy — the Nevada Rancher who called on militia and anti-government forces to help him in the showdown with the Bureau of Land Management – cited his own Mormon faith as a reason for what he viewed as a favorable outcome. This one's a doozy: Quote The Spectrum, a newspaper covering the Utah-Nevada area, in August 2014 quoted Cliven Bundy saying at a political event that God showed his favor by protecting members of the Bundy group from being killed during the earlier standoff: “If the standoff with the Bundys was wrong, would the Lord have been with us?” Bundy asked, noting that no one was killed as tensions escalated. “Could those people that stood without fear and went through that spiritual experience … have done that without the Lord being there? No they couldn’t.” And: “If our (U.S.) Constitution is an inspired document by our Lord Jesus Christ, then isn’t it scripture?” Bundy asked the crowd. “Yes,” a chorus of voices replied. “Isn’t it the same as the Book of Mormon and the Bible?” Bundy asked. “Absolutely,” the audience answered. Man, that's so wrong. I actually don't fault him for being inspired by moronic to the point of being wiling to fight for a cause he believes in. The last portion though is way off the charts bad. The US Constitution is NOt on par with scripture. neither the Book of Mormon, nor the Bible. We do not treat the Constitution as we do scripture, period. That's very dangerous ground to tread.
Stargazer Posted January 5, 2016 Posted January 5, 2016 42 minutes ago, Darren10 said: Trespassing is a good start for acting illegally. Question: Federal land essentially belongs to the people but only authorized people may run that land. This protest is to control that land so their trespassing would be illegal only because they are not authorized personnel, correct? Question: Is it not peaceful because they are armed? If a man robs a bank by passing a note saying "gimme yer dough" to the teller and he has no weapon with him then it is robbery. If a man robs a bank by passing a note saying "gimme yer dough" to the teller, but also points his finger concealed in his jacket pocket in order to suggest a hidden weapon, then it is armed robbery. I believe that the law considers it armed robbery if he is actually armed during the robbery, even if he keeps it unseen.
Calm Posted January 5, 2016 Posted January 5, 2016 49 minutes ago, Darren10 said: Question: Is it not peaceful because they are armed? Not in this context, it isn't in my opinion. 1
Popular Post Calm Posted January 5, 2016 Popular Post Posted January 5, 2016 35 minutes ago, Darren10 said: That's a fine position but what should people do. The federal government is essentially arresting and kicking ranchers off their lands for things they've been doing for generations only because the federal government decided to take over land they were already on and issue federal regulations upon them, even on their own property. The Supreme Court won't help, they've already ruled (in a decision I vehemently disagree with) that government may take land for special interests so thwarting them when they take land in the public interest would be near to impossible since the latter is 100% constitutional. Staging a sitdown (or some other form of nonviolent protest) without guns and being willing to be arrested without causing harm to others or to property would be a responsible way to participate in civil disobedience. As soon as guns are involved and an implied threat they are willing to hurt others in order to get attention...they are way over the line, imo. 6
Robert F. Smith Posted January 5, 2016 Posted January 5, 2016 3 hours ago, Darren10 said: Here's from the Church Newsroom regarding the takeover of a federal building in Oregon: ............................................................ Questions: 1) What laws of the land did these protesters break? 2) How is their protest non peaceful? Your OP heading is false: Armed seizure of a federal bldg is not a peaceful protest, and the LDS Church does not condemn the Constitutional right to peacefully protest. The case of unarmed civil disobedience is of another sort, and those involved usually expect to go to jail and pay a fine. 4
bluebell Posted January 5, 2016 Posted January 5, 2016 http://m.nydailynews.com/news/national/oregon-militia-family-cites-mormonism-armed-conflicts-article-1.2484657
Robert F. Smith Posted January 5, 2016 Posted January 5, 2016 See http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/66723-armed-militia-people-occupying-federal-building-in-oregon-are-lds-and-citing-lds-doctrines-as-justification-not-really/#comment-1209574632 .
Calm Posted January 5, 2016 Posted January 5, 2016 (edited) 45 minutes ago, Darren10 said: They have said that if any violence happens it will be because the government commenced it. So a foreign government crosses the border and occupies a town...with guns to enforce their occupation. They say there will be no violence unless someone else starts firing a gun first. Peaceful? A person with a gun takes others hostage and says he won't start shooting hostages as long as the police don't shoot at him or try to get into the building to remove him. Peaceful? Just because it is land that has been taken 'hostage' and not a person doesn't seem to me to change the premise of whether or not it is violent or peaceful. The threat to respond with violence is violent behaviour itself, imo. Edited January 5, 2016 by Calm 2
Bob Crockett Posted January 5, 2016 Posted January 5, 2016 1 hour ago, Darren10 said: Who pointed a gun at whom? You didn't even read my post. Gun nuts are abhorrent people. I can tell there has been a school shooting by the Facebook posts I get telling me false stories about gun ownership. I have guns but I shut the hell up about them. 1
Darren10 Posted January 5, 2016 Author Posted January 5, 2016 51 minutes ago, Stargazer said: If a man robs a bank by passing a note saying "gimme yer dough" to the teller and he has no weapon with him then it is robbery. If a man robs a bank by passing a note saying "gimme yer dough" to the teller, but also points his finger concealed in his jacket pocket in order to suggest a hidden weapon, then it is armed robbery. I believe that the law considers it armed robbery if he is actually armed during the robbery, even if he keeps it unseen. You're applying being armed with comitting the crime of robbery. Your scenario is that the perpetrator will use deadly force in order to commit a crime. The people in Oregon are standing up, even if they are wrong to do so, to stop government overreach in controlling private property. This most definitely is an armed protest. When is it considered not peaceful would you say?
Darren10 Posted January 5, 2016 Author Posted January 5, 2016 56 minutes ago, Calm said: Not in this context, it isn't in my opinion. Thsnks, Cal.
Darren10 Posted January 5, 2016 Author Posted January 5, 2016 52 minutes ago, Calm said: Staging a sitdown (or some other form of nonviolent protest) without guns and being willing to be arrested without causing harm to others or to property would be a responsible way to participate in civil disobedience. As soon as guns are involved and an implied threat they are willing to hurt others in order to get attention...they are way over the line, imo. Definitely a worthy argument. I would like to know if this is "peaceful" just because they have guns and willing to use them. Your scenario is most definitely a pacifistic protest but I distinguish pacifism and bring peaceful. Peaceful to me seems that although you're willing to fight, you approach your disagreements without fighting and speak it out. Just because you're willing to use violence against others who use violence against you, does not change rhe peaceful approach you initially used.
Darren10 Posted January 5, 2016 Author Posted January 5, 2016 51 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: Your OP heading is false: Armed seizure of a federal bldg is not a peaceful protest, and the LDS Church does not condemn the Constitutional right to peacefully protest. The case of unarmed civil disobedience is of another sort, and those involved usually expect to go to jail and pay a fine. So it's only peaceful if you are unarmed and not willing to fight viloently or until you actually use violence?
Darren10 Posted January 5, 2016 Author Posted January 5, 2016 51 minutes ago, bluebell said: http://m.nydailynews.com/news/national/oregon-militia-family-cites-mormonism-armed-conflicts-article-1.2484657 Thanks Blue Bell. I too previously found a source showing their use of scripture. It's pretty wrong overall.
Stargazer Posted January 5, 2016 Posted January 5, 2016 9 minutes ago, Darren10 said: You're applying being armed with comitting the crime of robbery. Your scenario is that the perpetrator will use deadly force in order to commit a crime. The people in Oregon are standing up, even if they are wrong to do so, to stop government overreach in controlling private property. This most definitely is an armed protest. When is it considered not peaceful would you say? I'm not sure about that. But I would say that since peace has not yet been breached, it seems to be still peaceful. Not sure what the law would say, though. Someone can commit a robbery without being armed. Not sure what your first sentence means. If I am not misremembering, you are a lawyer. Therefore I would be cautious trying to throw legalisms around willy-nilly in your presence. However, if a man walks into my convenience store and demands money of me while displaying a firearm (even if it is still in the holster), then the man threatens deadly force, whether he uses it or not. And the threat of deadly force is reasonably (and legally) met through deadly force, since you have no idea what is in the mind of the man making the thread. Enough people have been shot by perpetrators even after they had cooperated with them, that it is by no means safe to assume that your attacker will not use deadly force if you cooperate.
Darren10 Posted January 5, 2016 Author Posted January 5, 2016 50 minutes ago, Calm said: So a foreign government crosses the border and occupies a town...with guns to enforce their occupation. They say there will be no violence unless someone else starts firing a gun first. Peaceful? A person with a gun takes others hostage and says he won't start shooting hostages as long as the police don't shoot at him or try to get into the building to remove him. Peaceful? Just because it is land that has been taken 'hostage' and not a person doesn't seem to me to change the premise of whether or not it is violent or peaceful. The threat to respond with violence is violent behaviour itself, imo. Foreign government crossing another's land is aggressive but viloent with no shooting despite their being armed? Now were this to happen than of course a use of force is called for whether or not the foreign occupiers fire or not. That is a violent response to non violent aggression. As soon as violence stops, peace returns, despite whatever level of tendion remains. Violating other people by taking them hostage is not peaceful, openly violent or not. Carrying guns to a protest is not inherently violent. Shoot the hostage takers, it's probably justified.
smac97 Posted January 5, 2016 Posted January 5, 2016 2 hours ago, Darren10 said: Who was hurt in the takeover? Ferguson was not peaceful. Had they taken over the streets and prevented cars from passing without anyone getting hurt would be peaceful, would it not? I am not sure I understand your point. Are you suggesting that the church should have waited until after someone was injured before making a statement? 1
PeterPear Posted January 5, 2016 Posted January 5, 2016 2 hours ago, Darren10 said: Using LDS canon to justify this is way inappropriate. That's grounds for ex communication in my book. I've been trying to find a source on that, do you know of one? It's not grounds for excommunication. What's "grounds" for ex-communication is when Bundy(s) is (are) convicted and thrown in jail.
deli_llama Posted January 5, 2016 Posted January 5, 2016 1 hour ago, Darren10 said: I actually don't fault him for being inspired by moronic You have an aggressive autocorrect that seems to have a keen edged humor. So, really, this guy that has taken the name Captain Moroni should have taken the name Captain Moronic? 3
Avatar4321 Posted January 5, 2016 Posted January 5, 2016 1 hour ago, Stargazer said: If a man robs a bank by passing a note saying "gimme yer dough" to the teller and he has no weapon with him then it is robbery. If a man robs a bank by passing a note saying "gimme yer dough" to the teller, but also points his finger concealed in his jacket pocket in order to suggest a hidden weapon, then it is armed robbery. I believe that the law considers it armed robbery if he is actually armed during the robbery, even if he keeps it unseen. its also considered a violent crime whether he is armed or not
thesometimesaint Posted January 5, 2016 Posted January 5, 2016 2 hours ago, Darren10 said: Trespassing is a good start for acting illegally. Question: Federal land essentially belongs to the people but only authorized people may run that land. This protest is to control that land so their trespassing would be illegal only because they are not authorized personnel, correct? Question: Is it not peaceful because they are armed? The US Constitution gives control of all federal lands to Congress to do with as they see fit. The Bundy kooks want to transfer Federal lands to private ownership by the use/threat of force. They are in essence violently taking over the government. Hopefully cooler heads will prevail. But if push comes to shove the Bundy kooks will lose badly.
thesometimesaint Posted January 5, 2016 Posted January 5, 2016 43 minutes ago, Darren10 said: Foreign government crossing another's land is aggressive but viloent with no shooting despite their being armed? Now were this to happen than of course a use of force is called for whether or not the foreign occupiers fire or not. That is a violent response to non violent aggression. As soon as violence stops, peace returns, despite whatever level of tendion remains. Violating other people by taking them hostage is not peaceful, openly violent or not. Carrying guns to a protest is not inherently violent. Shoot the hostage takers, it's probably justified. That is the threat of the use of force. Not peaceable assembly.
Darren10 Posted January 5, 2016 Author Posted January 5, 2016 35 minutes ago, smac97 said: I am not sure I understand your point. Are you suggesting that the church should have waited until after someone was injured before making a statement? That would be nice. They could have issued a statement that explicitly cautioned against violence.
Darren10 Posted January 5, 2016 Author Posted January 5, 2016 40 minutes ago, smac97 said: I am not sure I understand your point. Are you suggesting that the church should have waited until after someone was injured before making a statement? Heh!
Recommended Posts