TrespassersW Posted February 9, 2005 Posted February 9, 2005 tapped:What are our leaders thinking when they refuse to admit/confess that they're Human and make mistakesYes, it's a question. But the accusation part is not. "...when they refuse to admit/confess that they're Human..." is not in question, you simply state it as fact. Your question was "What are our leaders thinking" when they do this. Sorry, tapped. But misdirection and smokescreens do not constitute taking ownership of your statements and standing up for the truth.any revisionism on this re a statue at YBU would be attributable to the people who designed the statue, don't you think?Unbelievable. A repetition of your accusation that has already been decimated. Brigham Young did not always have a beard. The people who designed the statue did it exactly right. They didn't change anything. I've seen the statue up close. It looks just like some of the pictures I've seen of Brigham Young. The premise for your accusation is silly. The accusation itself is ridiculous. And the suggestion that it demonstrates revisionism shows a sad kind of desperation to find sinister motives where none exist. The accusation is FALSE. It has been demonstrated to be FALSE. You have been shown pictures that your accusation has no basis in truth. Aren't you a "stickler for truth" who values truth so much that you're willing to waste the time of your stake president over some trivial error in a Sunday School class? Where is your value for the truth now? You are the one who committed the error and you are the one refusing to correct your mistake. Not only refusing to admit that you made a false accusation, but you're actually repeating it all over again.What point are you proving repeatedly pointing out MY faults? (as you perceive them, anyway)That by your own logic, I shouldn't believe anything else you say. Should I? Look, tapped. I don't have a problem with people making mistakes. I've made plenty. What I have a problem with is your refusal to hold yourself to the same standards you use to criticize others. In fact, you make such a big production about the trivial mistakes of others, but when someone points out your own, you change the subject. Baseless accusations get tiresome very quickly. Baseless accusations from someone who is blatantly guilty of the very misdeeds he accuses others of is just plain annoying.So, you really turned someone into the police because they had out-of-state plates? This is the problem, tapped. Your standard for other people is WAY UP HERE, but your standard for yourself is... well, I don't know how low it goes. It hasn't made an appearance yet.
TrespassersW Posted February 9, 2005 Posted February 9, 2005 Dadof7:When someone reacts to evidence by jumping from topic to topic, leveling accusations that were already addressed quite completely on other threads (i.e. Brigham and beards at BYU) they are just trolling for a response.Some people get off on the attention they get by being a rhetorical pain in the donkey. Don't encourage them.Don't feed the troll.I suppose you're right. Sometimes it just feels good to point out the obvious, though, you know? Cathartic, in some ways. I understand, though, that my indulgence impacts the quality of the board in general. I think it's out of my system now, anyway. Thanks for the reminder.Actually, I'm shocked that tapped has lasted as long as he has on this board. Dunamis must be feeling charitable.
KevinG Posted February 9, 2005 Posted February 9, 2005 Dadof7:When someone reacts to evidence by jumping from topic to topic, leveling accusations that were already addressed quite completely on other threads (i.e. Brigham and beards at BYU) they are just trolling for a response.Some people get off on the attention they get by being a rhetorical pain in the donkey. Don't encourage them.Don't feed the troll.I suppose you're right. Sometimes it just feels good to point out the obvious, though, you know? Cathartic, in some ways. I understand, though, that my indulgence impacts the quality of the board in general. I think it's out of my system now, anyway. Thanks for the reminder.Actually, I'm shocked that tapped has lasted as long as he has on this board. Dunamis must be feeling charitable. Well to be perfectly honest, I've indulged a great deal of troll feeding myself. I can't fault you for your response. Sometimes I've just got to kick the brown object on the sidewalk and see if it's really a turd. In this case I noticed the relative quiet of the thread where pseudo was providing historical context and facts vs. the repetition of formerly debunked charges in this thread. I lost patience. Carry on brother danite!
TrespassersW Posted February 9, 2005 Posted February 9, 2005 Sometimes I've just got to kick the brown object on the sidewalk and see if it's really a turd. Funny. A little too accurate and it makes my flesh crawl just a little, but very very funny.
tapped Posted February 9, 2005 Posted February 9, 2005 my thing about the BY statue probably was a mistake...but as I recall, the church mostly represents him as having a beard...so, that goes against a long-held belief (mis-conception?) of mine.IF BY had a beard for a high % of his life, and was only shaven for a small %....could that be a mis-representation?I gotta think....as much as they screen prospective students for YBU...don't some still resent the tight controls? I would!
Nepheye Posted February 9, 2005 Posted February 9, 2005 Having not read posts since yesterday: what on earth does a statue of BY with a beard or not have a shred of anything to do with the MMM?I taped it for my own use. It was nice to hear some LDS historians and members acknowledge the murders. It was offensive for the historian to smile a big grin the whole time he was speaking about the Church lieing about it for over a century. It was just as equally offensive to hear the information that Lee did not name those who participated, but took their names to his grave. HOGWASH!!! Lee named two pages of them in his book, which was published after his death in 1877!!!! Even one of the Seventy participated DIRECTLY and it was done upon the orders of BRIGHAM YOUNG!!!And you side track the truth to quabble over if it is revisionist to have a statue of BY with a beard or not!!! How typically Mormon.How do all you 'Mormon saves the Constitution' believers feel about the fact that Brigham Young had set up a Theocracy of the Utah territory and that Mormons viewed the Constitution of the United States and all it's laws as not applicable to them?D.E.L.U.....never mind Go ahead and sing praises to your prophets. The words still stand true today:Vengence is Mine; Thus saith the LORD.BY tore it down. Why?Why did he die so soon after?I've heard from reputable sources that he was poisoned to bring in a new prophet to take the heat off the Church from the Feds.
pseudogratix Posted February 9, 2005 Posted February 9, 2005 It's times like this when I kind of wish Elihu was still around.
pseudogratix Posted February 9, 2005 Posted February 9, 2005 I've heard from reputable sources that he was poisoned to bring in a new prophet to take the heat off the Church from the Feds. Are you going to keep them sources all to yourself or....?
pseudogratix Posted February 9, 2005 Posted February 9, 2005 Having not read posts since yesterday: what on earth does a statue of BY with a beard or not have a shred of anything to do with the MMM? If you will take the time to read the thread, I am sure you will see how that topic came up.
Nepheye Posted February 9, 2005 Posted February 9, 2005 If I could search out the truth behind the veil of BYs death, so can you. No, I will not reveal my sources. You will have to search every living decendent to find it.And I also remember the parting shot of the program:Just let go of the grudges and forgive.AND THIS WAS SAID BY A MORMON?!?!?!?!?Sounds like someone out of touch with everyone but themselves."Vengence is Mine;Thus saith the LORD"
TrespassersW Posted February 9, 2005 Posted February 9, 2005 Having not read posts since yesterday: what on earth does a statue of BY with a beard or not have a shred of anything to do with the MMM?If you will take the time to read the thread, I am sure you will see how that topic came up. I'll save you the trouble, Nepheye, and just plead guilty. I derailed the thread. I'm done now. So, carry on.
tapped Posted February 9, 2005 Posted February 9, 2005 pseudo:to me in retro...the context is my allegation of the habit(?) of church leaders to present things in the way they think is most favorable (PR).This, at least is 'information management'. I think the churches empahsis on PR should be reined back.
pseudogratix Posted February 9, 2005 Posted February 9, 2005 If I could search out the truth behind the veil of BYs death, so can you. No, I will not reveal my sources. You will have to search every living decendent to find it. I will take that as yet another false accusation to add to the list of false accusations made in this thread.
pseudogratix Posted February 9, 2005 Posted February 9, 2005 to me in retro...the context is my allegation of the habit(?) of church leaders to present things in the way they think is most favorable (PR). In what way did Joseph Fielding Smith present things unfoundedly favorable to the Church in "Essentials in Church History" (see complete excerpt @ http://www.fairboards.org/index.php?showto...40entry171814 )?
Nepheye Posted February 10, 2005 Posted February 10, 2005 Pseudo, because I tell the truth and am not one to give up my source, that does not make it a lie. Do you think Jesus lied when He refused to answer by what authority He said and did things? Because He didn't directly answer them did that make Him a liar in your mind?It will be known publicly in good time.Brigham Young was murdered by his own to save the Church.If it doesn't become public knowledge in this life I'm sure God will make sure all the Mormons hear the truth on the day of the LORD. In the meantime I'll suffer in silence and be seen as a liar for telling you the truth.
pseudogratix Posted February 10, 2005 Posted February 10, 2005 In the meantime I'll suffer in silence and be seen as a liar for telling you the truth. Okay, correction. I will add it to the list of unfounded accusations made in this thread so far. No need to suffer in silence any more.
Nepheye Posted February 10, 2005 Posted February 10, 2005 Thanks, Psuedo, but I wasn't suffering too much I don't know everything, but what I do is enough for me never to join a Church that has such a history and doesn't handle its mistakes more openly and in a manner consistant with the fruits of the Spirit.
Outshined Posted February 10, 2005 Posted February 10, 2005 Brigham Young was murdered by his own to save the Church. We all love a good consipracy theory, don't we?
pseudogratix Posted February 10, 2005 Posted February 10, 2005 I don't know everything, but what I do is enough for me never to join a Church that has such a history and doesn't handle its mistakes more openly and in a manner consistant with the fruits of the Spirit. That nice and all, but after all that you are still left holding an unfounded accusation about the death of Brigham Young.
tapped Posted February 10, 2005 Posted February 10, 2005 pseudo:a thought....isn't that a bit of an overstatement?an accusation...(to me) is like one person saying to another living individual "You did such and such a crime".... with the emphasis on this being a public or at least semi-public statement / accusal of a crime.There are many awful things that occur without ever having sufficient proof to resolve the matter (ever hear of O.J.?)many of these 'accusations', I think, are (merely) opinions...same as some of my postings here. each individual is entitled to their own opinions about other individuals & organizations....an example might be my statement that the church is too heavy into the PR aspect of information management....
pseudogratix Posted February 10, 2005 Posted February 10, 2005 isn't that a bit of an overstatement?...Please indicate which statement of mine you are referring to. My mind-reading device is malfunctioning right now. an example might be my statement that the church is too heavy into the PR aspect of information management....Again, in what way did Joseph Fielding Smith present things unfoundedly favorable to the Church in "Essentials in Church History" (see complete excerpt @ http://www.fairboards.org/index.php?showto...40entry171814 )?
tapped Posted February 10, 2005 Posted February 10, 2005 Nepheye's statement did not name a specific individual....
pseudogratix Posted February 10, 2005 Posted February 10, 2005 Nepheye's statement did not name a specific individual.... Nonetheless he made the unfounded accusation that "someone" murdered (poisoned) Brigham Young.
Pahoran Posted February 10, 2005 Posted February 10, 2005 Nepheye,you screamed:Even one of the Seventy participated DIRECTLY and it was done upon the orders of BRIGHAM YOUNG!!!I'm not shy; I'll spell it right out. That notion is a delusion.The truth is that it was done contrary to the orders of Brigham Young.And the notion that there was a "cover up" is a lunatic fringe fantasy. Through all the years of inactivity in investigating the massacre, the gentiles were in charge in Utah. I have pointed this fact out on numerous occasions, but the most clueless poster in the known universe just doesn't get it.To show you how inept the gentile authorities were, I point out the fact that Lee was acquitted at his first trial. Why? The conspiracy theorists have some Twilight Zone notion about the Church doing secret deals, but the reality is much less exciting: the prosecution simply bungled it.Those who hate the Church love the MMM, because it gives them the nearest thing they'll ever get to a valid accusation against us.So near, and yet so far....Oh, and Tapped: the lesson Church members need to learn from the MMM is not just "do your own thing." The participants in that crime were NOT just "following orders," they were being Heroically Independent Mavericks.Regards,Pahoran
emaughan Posted February 10, 2005 Posted February 10, 2005 Oh, and Tapped: the lesson Church members need to learn from the MMM is not just "do your own thing." The participants in that crime were NOT just "following orders," they were being Heroically Independent Mavericks.If all the Saints of that time "did there own thing" there would be a lot more blood on the hands of the saints.Our critics on this board failed to point out why - if Brigham was behind it all - that this pattern did not repeat itself over and over? If local leaders were being commanded to kill all gentiles, then MMM would be just one of hundreds. Unfortunately to come to such a conclusion would require the use of logic on the part of the critics, oh well.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.