Joanna Brooks: The Long March Continues

[_Darth J]

Droopy:

Name names as to who on this board feels that either Joanna Brooks or John Dehlin needs to be shielded from criticism.

[_Droopy]

Joanna's getting a lot of "airplay" these days.

That which is popular, of course, is also true.

It is indeed a dilemma for the Church is it not? As noted before, things are changing.

No. Its a dilemma for those who will not accept, keep, and defend the teachings and doctrines of the Church. It is a "dilemma" for those who are not valiant and do not have adequate oil in their lamps as the wedding feast approaches. The Church will move on without them, if it is their desire to remain behind in Babylon.

I see concern by leaders about the youth in a different way than I ever have. Young adults are less active. They are less likely to toe the line. They put off marriage longer and are having fewer children.

The dilemma then - whether to let of the iron rod and wander off (on strange roads) is theirs, not the Church's.

They are more tolerant of diversity.

Was it really necessary to regurgitate formatted pop leftist can't?

What will the Church look like in 20 years? It certainly does not look like it did when I was young.

Looks the same to me, except that those who are truly faithful and enduring to the end are even stronger and more determined than when I was young.

Lots of the strong rhoetoric has been abadoned. The lessons aer milk toast elementary school lessons.

The lessons have been geared to the consequences both of the destruction of the pubic schools, and consequent debasement of reading comprehension skills and a post-literate, more visually oriented society, as well as to the fact that the fundamental doctrines need, at this time, to be restated and re-internalized over and over again until they sink in

The Church backpeddles (I am sure Droopy will disagree) from some of its more deep and different doctrines. Just check out Mormonism 101:

Yes, its pure self-justificational nonsense, but if it works for you, please indulge in it to your heart's content.

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/mormonism-101

Well we will see. Will the Church retrench? Will it eventually take a hard line stance against the Dehlins, Brooks and evevn the Bushmans and Givens?

That depends upon what lines they eventually step over, the unique conditions of each case, and what the Spirit directs.

Will the hard liners win? Maybe? If yes the Church will be much smaller I think.

The "hardliners?" Even the light which you once had, Jason, will be lost. That's the inevitable pattern and procedure.

Or will it become more open tent like and progressive and tolerant of diversity?

Doctrine and Covenants 1:31

Matthew 7:14

If yes it certainly will lose a lot of what it is or has been. Course one thing is certain. The LDS Church has changed and modified over its short history a number of times and has done so to survive grow and thrive. I think it will do so again and again.

Squirt ink with abandon, Jason. You will have your reward.

[_Droopy]

As part of our ongoing series we like to call Droopy Cannot Maintain A Coherent Thought, we present the following:

All social pathologies within the black community that affect blacks at disproportionate, and in some cases vastly disproportionate rates, including a 70% out of wedlock birth rate, massive family breakdown, violence, drug use, gang involvement, and general over-representative criminality; disproportionate welfare dependence and unemployment, precipitous high school drop out rates etc., are understood to be the direct or indirect result of systemic, institutional racism, and not sociocultural dynamics internal to certain segments of the black community itself . . . . . . . . the internal social and cultural dynamics of a substantial subset of the American black community is primarily responsible for the fundamental and apparently intractable problems that afflict that community . . . . present black social pathologies, or to a aspect of black culture that produces people like Tupac Shakur, Snoop Dogg, and Tookie Williams (and countless teenagers and youths who parrot their clothing, mannerisms, attitudes, values, and language) in substantially disproportionate numbers . . . .

VERSUS

“White Mormons face no systemic cultural poverty. They are on par socioeconomically with the rest of America, and in fact fare slightly better in terms of education and affluence.”

Neither do American blacks

Correct. There is no systemic poverty among American blacks as a group. Between two thirds and three quarters of the American black population is situated somewhere within the middle class, and this has been the case for a long time.

And that is why, to this very day, no living Mormons born since the later 19th century play the persecution card.

None that I've ever seen or heard, no.

The Bill of Rights only applies to the federal government, not to state or local governments.

Ever heard of "incorporation," Darth?

At the time period Droopy's double standard (it's okay for Mormons to bitch about their distant history of being persecuted, but not black people) is referencing, the 14th Amendment did not exist, and thus the incorporation doctrine did not yet exist, either.

A meaningless triviality, which I will accept. To restate, the Mormons of the time had the protections of the Constitutions removed from them and became non-persons, very much as Jews had become throughout much of the world over time.

Also, I wonder what the context of the extermination order was. Perhaps Droopy could comment on the early Mormons' peaceful relations with their neighbors.

Good to see you've now come out and exposed yourself as a supporter of genocide and extermination against a peaceful, civil, law abiding body of American citizens who became the target of violent religious bigotry towards whom you clearly harbor a similar simmering hatred.

And yes, the Mormon's relations with their neighbors was always and everywhere peaceful - until certain Christian ministers showed up and stirred the pot a bit. Then there were the abolitionist sentiments, plural marriage (legal, at the time), and other stressors, but nothing the Saints ever did could possibly have justified the slightest violence and pillage against them, let alone genocide by a state government (gone utterly rogue, at that time).

But then I'm sure a malignant little creep like yourself, who would have loved to have presided over the plunder, destruction, rape, rioting, and murder that the Saints endured at that time, will be able, with a bit of clever lawyerly sophistry, find a way to justify and whitewash the massive civil rights violations the Saints underwent and which you so sorely miss not having been a part of.

[_Equality]

She's apparently a fragile flower, just like Dehlin, who cannot for a second take what she dishes out.

Are you suggesting that Brooks and Dehlin are in some sort of BDSM relationship? And that Dehlin, as submissive, can't take what Brooks dishes out on him? Or is your syntax confusing me?

[Guest]

Correct. There is no systemic poverty among American blacks as a group. Between two thirds and three quarters of the American black population is situated somewhere within the middle class, and this has been the case for a long time.

Which undercuts your assertion that blacks disproportionately have all these problems you ascribe to them as a group.

And that is why, to this very day, no living Mormons born since the later 19th century play the persecution card.

None that I've ever seen or heard, no.

Well, I'm glad to know that living by yourself in a cave in the mountains for the last 50 years has worked out for you.

The Bill of Rights only applies to the federal government, not to state or local governments.

Ever heard of "incorporation," Darth?

Wait a minute, Droopy. Precedent is evil and bad and Morlockian, remember? Constitutional law vitiates the pure, self-executing document of the Constitution qua Constitution. Remember?

In any event, Droopy, your belief that you have said something knowledeagble is simply you outwitting yourself (not exactly a Herculean task.) The reason the U.S. Supreme Court adopted the incorporation doctrine and the concept of substantive due process is BECAUSE the Bill of Rights only applies to the federal government.

At the time period Droopy's double standard (it's okay for Mormons to bitch about their distant history of being persecuted, but not black people) is referencing, the 14th Amendment did not exist, and thus the incorporation doctrine did not yet exist, either.

A meaningless triviality, which I will accept. To restate, the Mormons of the time had the protections of the Constitutions removed from them and became non-persons, very much as Jews had become throughout much of the world over time.

The only meaningless triviality at work here is your observation that antebellum Mormons were denied the protection of the Bill of Rights by state governments, which is not possible because state governments at that time were not bound by the Bill of Rights.

Also, I wonder what the context of the extermination order was. Perhaps Droopy could comment on the early Mormons' peaceful relations with their neighbors.

Good to see you've now come out and exposed yourself as a supporter of genocide and extermination against a peaceful, civil, law abiding body of American citizens who became the target of violent religious bigotry towards whom you clearly harbor a similar simmering hatred.

There was no genocide, and the Mormons were not a peaceful, civil, law-abiding body of American citizens. That's what, inter alia, the Mormon War was about. You are also begging the central question. If all this conflict with early Mormons was based on religious bigotry, then why were other movements arising from the Second Great Awakening not subjected to similar treatment? Or was it maybe social and political conflict, not persecution of religion qua religion?

And yes, the Mormon's relations with their neighbors was always and everywhere peaceful - until certain Christian ministers showed up and stirred the pot a bit.

See, e.g.: Sidney Rigdon. See also: Joseph Smith.

Then there were the abolitionist sentiments, plural marriage (legal, at the time), and other stressors, but nothing the Saints ever did could possibly have justified the slightest violence and pillage against them,

See: straw man (I am referring to the impetus for this conflict, not whether it was legally or morally justified)

let alone genocide by a state government (gone utterly rogue, at that time).

It's strange that you could possibly be a Mormon, seeing as how the State of Missouri killed them all long before you were born.

But then I'm sure a malignant little creep like yourself, who would have loved to have presided over the plunder, destruction, rape, rioting, and murder that the Saints endured at that time, will be able, with a bit of clever lawyerly sophistry, find a way to justify and whitewash the massive civil rights violations the Saints underwent and which you so sorely miss not having been a part of.

For example, here is something I said on February 27th of this year:

No. Joseph Smith was not killed because of his religious beliefs. He was killed because of his unlawful destruction of a printing press that published true things that Joseph Smith was hiding from his followers and the general public. That does not make Joseph Smith's murder either legally or morally justifiable at all, but it was Joseph Smith's own reaction to the Expositor's publication that led to his death. viewtopic.php?f=1&t=22784&p=561130&hilit=murder+expositor#p561130

Huh. It sure looks like I have taken exactly the opposite position of your histrionic babbling. I think that objective reality was probably invented by leftist anti-Mormons for the express purpose of making you look foolish, Droopy. Would you agree?

ETA:

the massive civil rights violations the Saints underwent

So the antebellum Mormons were denied the rights to which they were entitled under the Bill of Rights, but state governments at that time were not bound by the Bill of Rights, which means that state government did not deny them those rights because they were not applicable to the states, but the state governments violated those rights anyway.

[_Darth J]

plural marriage (legal, at the time)

Droopy, tell me the name of the state or territory of the U.S. that has ever recognized the legal validity of plural marriage.

[_Darth J]

Incidentally, Droopy, why are you entitled to get so outraged about the persecution of the early Mormons, when it did not effect you and happened long before you were born?

[_DarkHelmet]

plural marriage (legal, at the time)

Droopy, tell me the name of the state or territory of the U.S. that has ever recognized the legal validity of plural marriage.

He will probably quote D&C 132. The law of god Trump's all other laws.

[_Droopy]

There was no genocide,

It was intended to be such, or near such, by Boggs.

and the Mormons were not a peaceful, civil, law-abiding body of American citizens. That's what, inter alia, the Mormon War was about.

Yes they were, overwhelmingly. You are a cacophonous liar and demagogue, and an apologist for the removal of the unalienable rights guaranteed by the constitution from a peaceful, overwhelmingly law abiding people - citizens of the Untied States - and hence, an apologist for every act of mob violence and rapine that took place in that environment.

You are running here on the longest and most thoroughly discredited anti-Mormon propaganda cobbled and resurrected from the lurid, sensationalistic "Danite" hysteria of the 19th century, and utterly debunked since that age. No one in their right mind (which nicely excludes you) who has any actual historical understanding of who the Danites actually were believes that they had anything to do with the Church, Joseph Smith, or the Brethren of the time, and that this tiny band of fanatics (who, by your own argument, could be forgiven for having been driven to their own vigilantism by the long standing non-Mormon bigotry, violence, and persecution around them) were in any concievable way representative of the Mormons as a whole, or of the teachings of the Church, which could not possibley have been used to sustian and justifiy their actions.

You, Darth, now join Goebbles, Coughlin, and Ed Decker as purveyors of wild historical revisionism in the name of equally wild, fervid personal bigotry and for whom any moral considerations, let alone intellectual, have long ago been abandoned in the heat of the crusade.

You are also begging the central question. If all this conflict with early Mormons was based on religious bigotry, then why were other movements arising from the Second Great Awakening not subjected to similar treatment?

Get serious. Oh, that's not part of your modus operandi? Sorry I asked.

Vermin. Do you know what that term means? Take off all your clothes, stand in front of a full length mirror, and stay there until the full weight of this linguistic sign sinks to the very center. The rot at that center will then, doubtless, absorb and consume that term as life sustaining nutriment. You will then be one.

[_Droopy]

Droopy, tell me the name of the state or territory of the U.S. that has ever recognized the legal validity of plural marriage.

Everywhere, vermin, before 1862 (and later, in 1882, when polygamy was made a felony).