Our own rcrocket attacks Will Bagley?

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
User avatar
Daniel Peterson
Seething Cauldron of Hate
Posts: 7173
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 12:56 pm

Re: Our own rcrocket attacks Will Bagley?

Post by Daniel Peterson »

moksha wrote:I was thinking that it would be wise for apologists to not defend something like a massacre. When one's primary purpose is to defend the Church, concomitantly defending evil that Church members have done, makes further apologetics much less credible. Sort of like they have no compass to distinguish between good and bad. Why defend the bad? A mea culpa seems much more honest, together with a reminder that this was a horrendous aberration.

Just a friendly thought...

Who defends the massacre???????




.

Morrissey
Elder
Posts: 329
Joined: Sun May 31, 2009 7:42 pm

Re: Our own rcrocket attacks Will Bagley?

Post by Morrissey »

rocket wrote:
Will's essential theme was that Brigham Young knew about the massacre before it happened and actually ordered it. In that regard, he disagreed with Juanita Brooks who concluded that Brigham Young didn't know about it in advance.


I'm not sure why this is such an issue. Historians disagree all the time on issues trivial and large. (I don't know that it is an issue or you made it one. Just noting.)

rocket wrote:In terms of an "apology", of course, my review did not concern that. Whether the United States should apologize for slavery, or for the internment of Japanese citizens, or for the atrocity of the Mexican American war (started on a fiction), or for the atrocity of the Vietnam war (started on a fiction) or the Mormon Church apologize for the massacre, is a matter beyond my interest. Perhaps an apology is in order.


For the Mormon Church to apologize, it has to first admit culpability. Honest introspection and an ability to admit mistakes are not the hallmarks of Mormon Inc.

Yoda

Re: Our own rcrocket attacks Will Bagley?

Post by Yoda »

Daniel Peterson wrote:
moksha wrote:I was thinking that it would be wise for apologists to not defend something like a massacre. When one's primary purpose is to defend the Church, concomitantly defending evil that Church members have done, makes further apologetics much less credible. Sort of like they have no compass to distinguish between good and bad. Why defend the bad? A mea culpa seems much more honest, together with a reminder that this was a horrendous aberration.

Just a friendly thought...

Who defends the massacre???????


I honestly haven't read any serious published apologists who have defended the massacre; however, I have, unfortunately, read some nuts who refer to themselves as apologists on MAD defend it.



.[/quote]

User avatar
Droopy
God
Posts: 9826
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 10:06 am

Re: Our own rcrocket attacks Will Bagley?

Post by Droopy »

or for the atrocity of the Vietnam war (started on a fiction



Just a friendly correction to rc: the Vietnam war wasn't started on a fiction. The Vietnam war stared as early as 1947, with Viet Cong burning of villages, terrorism, subversion through propaganda and direct action, and incremental occupation of the south in rural areas.

This eventuated in a full, unprovoked incursion by the north into South Vietnam in the early sixties. The U.S. responded, first led by Kennedy, and later by LBJ, according to its previous treaty obligation with the south as those obligations and the dynamics of the Cold War as were then in play were thought to require.

There was nothing fictional about the war against the south itself, which began as soon as the Soviet puppet regime in the north had consolidated its power after the end of WWII and had the resources to support the Viet Cong and prepare the NVA for a full scale invasion.
Nothing is going to startle us more when we pass through the veil to the other side than to realize how well we know our Father [in Heaven] and how familiar his face is to us

- President Ezra Taft Benson


I am so old that I can remember when most of the people promoting race hate were white.

- Thomas Sowell

User avatar
Daniel Peterson
Seething Cauldron of Hate
Posts: 7173
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 12:56 pm

Re: Our own rcrocket attacks Will Bagley?

Post by Daniel Peterson »

liz3564 wrote:I honestly haven't read any serious published apologists who have defended the massacre; however, I have, unfortunately, read some nuts who refer to themselves as apologists on MAD defend it.

Anybody can post on a message board and say essentially anything. Such a person could even be a poseur. (There has evidently been one such over on the board formerly known as FAIR during the past few days; he has no confessed that he was adopting extreme positions in order to make actual believers look bad.)

I know of no LDS scholar and of no serious, published "apologist" who "defends" the Mountain Meadows Massacre.

harmony
God
Posts: 18195
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 7:35 pm

Re: Our own rcrocket attacks Will Bagley?

Post by harmony »

Daniel Peterson wrote:I know of no LDS scholar and of no serious, published "apologist" who "defends" the Mountain Meadows Massacre.


Because it is indefensible. Mostly, LDS apologists defend Brigham.
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.

User avatar
Daniel Peterson
Seething Cauldron of Hate
Posts: 7173
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 12:56 pm

Re: Our own rcrocket attacks Will Bagley?

Post by Daniel Peterson »

harmony wrote:Because it is indefensible.

Of course it is.

So, does that fact make our disinclination to defend it suspect in some way?

harmony wrote:Mostly, LDS apologists defend Brigham.

Yup. And plenty of ordinary historians, too.

Why not?

I don't think there's any real evidence implicating him in the massacre, but I think there's quite a bit exculpating him.

harmony
God
Posts: 18195
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 7:35 pm

Re: Our own rcrocket attacks Will Bagley?

Post by harmony »

Daniel Peterson wrote:
harmony wrote:Because it is indefensible.

Of course it is.

So, does that fact make our disinclination to defend it suspect in some way?

harmony wrote:Mostly, LDS apologists defend Brigham.

Yup. And plenty of ordinary historians, too.

Why not?

I don't think there's any real evidence implicating him in the massacre, but I think there's quite a bit exculpating him.


There is no hidden agenda in my comment, Daniel. Sometimes a comment is just a comment.
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.

User avatar
solomarineris
God
Posts: 1207
Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 7:51 pm

Re: Our own rcrocket attacks Will Bagley?

Post by solomarineris »

"harmony"]Mostly, LDS apologists defend Brigham.
DCP Yup. And plenty of ordinary historians, too.
Why not?
I don't think there's any real evidence implicating him in the massacre, but I think there's quite a bit exculpating him.


HAHAHA, real evidence? How are you going to find the real evidence? By putting Fox in charge of hen house? The records of any implicating kind are purged over and over and over.
Brigham Young never had to say "Go Kill Fencher Party", he just handed the the the golden key of slaughter to Mormon Thugs.
I agree with Mormons though, this event by no means makes uninvolved Mormons guilty by association. It is a small drop in the bucket in the course of human history, my ancestors had to live through no less than one thousand Mountain Meadows Massacre's.

DCP, you need to up your courage a notch and say "Yes local Mormons alone perpetrated that heinous crime", All those who participated; Klingens, Higbees, Dames, Nephis, should be shot on site as soon a just trial would end.

Problem is; Mormon leadership chose to protect or take no action against these Men; This act alone makes them accomplices.
Will Bagley's book was a great work of historical facts. Crocket can squirm all he wants, facts aren't going to disappear anytime soon.
Just say it DCP;
"Mormons alone perpetrated this Crime"
Say it until the world hears that apologists have hope for fairness.

User avatar
solomarineris
God
Posts: 1207
Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 7:51 pm

Re: Our own rcrocket attacks Will Bagley?

Post by solomarineris »

harmony wrote:
Daniel Peterson wrote:I know of no LDS scholar and of no serious, published "apologist" who "defends" the Mountain Meadows Massacre.

Because it is indefensible. Mostly, LDS apologists defend Brigham.


Wow Harmony,
You are a Gem sometimes.
You'd make look pale whatever Liz Taylor is wearing on her neck & fingers.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], huckelberry, Stem and 25 guests