DCP lashes out at critics of proxy baptism for S. Wiesenthal

[_Mercury]

You obviously do not understand the mechanics of professional security.

Obviously. I do have a government "classified secret" security clearance; does that count?

I guess you clean the toilets at a govt installation. That could be the NV test site, white sands, etc. Theres a whole lot of toilets there.

All that you are saying is that your a milktoast who was able to pass a review. Hell, if you are in teh western US I probably know one of the investigators that did your review. None of your friends called you a russian spy and your credit rating is at or above average. You don't have a drug problem, etc. All average things. It is glaringly obvious that you don't understand the security industry.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

What else is there besides the "trial and the history of the case?"

Since the trials didn't occur until many years after the massacre, there's quite a bit (Lee wasn't executed until nearly 20 years after the massacre). A careful reading of the entire letter makes clear that Bishop simply asks Lee to give him all facts behind the incident and afterwards. For example, Bishop requests Lee to produce "the remainder of your manuscript." He also asks for Lee's personal "Journals." Bishop continues:

"I do wish you to write up your history fully from the time you came to Salt Lake, until the trial began -- giving a full statement of all the facts and doctrines connected with the Reformation and especially give me all the facts that will throw light upon or that were connected with the massacre and the Leading men of Utah as connected with it ...."

Bishop closes his letter: "In Justice to yourself & to me -- as well as your family, 'tell it all.'"

I see nothing in this letter to suggest (as you seem to do on p. 213 of your article) that Bishop is asking Lee to fabricate or embellish any facts, or that Bishop himself intends to do so. Over and over, he asks Lee to give a full history and all facts concerning the massacre and events leading up to the time of trial. Bishop only states that he will add in "facts" relating to the trial and history of the case (which you conveniently omitted with your ellipses). Bishop's entire letter, in my opinion, does not support your conclusion that Lee's confessions cannot be trusted because Bishop made stuff up. If anything, this letter (when read in full) establishes that Bishop was asking Lee to provide the full story. Whether Lee, in fact, did is debatable, but this letter does not support your branding Bishop a liar.

At the least, I challenge Bagley and Brooks' reliance on Lee's confessions for conclusions about efforts during trial by the Church to thwart justice. Doesn't that fall within "trial and history of the case?"

In your article (p. 213), you write: "I do not see how Bagley can place any faith in Lee's confessions, particularly those written as Mormonism Unveiled." (bold mine for emphasis). Now, you seem to be backing off that broad statement and limiting your statement to reliance on Lee's confessions to establish the Church's efforts to thwart justice during the trial. That's a step in the right direction.

[_rcrocket]

What else is there besides the "trial and the history of the case?"

Since the trials didn't occur until many years after the massacre, there's quite a bit (Lee wasn't executed until nearly 20 years after the massacre). A careful reading of the entire letter makes clear that Bishop simply asks Lee to give him all facts behind the incident and afterwards. For example, Bishop requests Lee to produce "the remainder of your manuscript." He also asks for Lee's personal "Journals." Bishop continues:

"I do wish you to write up your history fully from the time you came to Salt Lake, until the trial began -- giving a full statement of all the facts and doctrines connected with the Reformation and especially give me all the facts that will throw light upon or that were connected with the massacre and the Leading men of Utah as connected with it ...."

Bishop closes his letter: "In Justice to yourself & to me -- as well as your family, 'tell it all.'"

I see nothing in this letter to suggest (as you seem to do on p. 213 of your article) that Bishop is asking Lee to fabricate or embellish any facts, or that Bishop himself intends to do so. Over and over, he asks Lee to give a full history and all facts concerning the massacre and events leading up to the time of trial. Bishop only states that he will add in "facts" relating to the trial and history of the case (which you conveniently omitted with your ellipses). Bishop's entire letter, in my opinion, does not support your conclusion that Lee's confessions cannot be trusted because Bishop made stuff up. If anything, this letter (when read in full) establishes that Bishop was asking Lee to provide the full story. Whether Lee, in fact, did is debatable, but this letter does not support your branding Bishop a liar.

At the least, I challenge Bagley and Brooks' reliance on Lee's confessions for conclusions about efforts during trial by the Church to thwart justice. Doesn't that fall within "trial and history of the case?"

In your article (p. 213), you write: "I do not see how Bagley can place any faith in Lee's confessions, particularly those written as Mormonism Unveiled." (bold mine for emphasis). Now, you seem to be backing off that broad statement and limiting your statement to reliance on Lee's confessions to establish the Church's efforts to thwart justice during the trial. That's a step in the right direction.

I congratulate you for your willingness to believe Lee. After all, he puts George Smith in present day Kanosh on or about Sept 1 1857 when he was preaching in Salt Lake City.

[_MormonMendacity]

You obviously do not understand the mechanics of professional security.

Obviously. I do have a government "classified secret" security clearance; does that count?

Well that doesn't prove anything. I have one, too, and that doesn't make you an expert on "...the mechanics of professional security."

[_Rollo Tomasi]

I congratulate you for your willingness to believe Lee.

My comments questioned your indictment of Bishop, not whether Lee was believable.

After all, he puts George Smith in present day Kanosh on or about Sept 1 1857 when he was preaching in Salt Lake City.

You'll have to point out where Lee says this. Bagley has GAS arriving back in Salt Lake on August 31 (p. 113). And your article (p. 214) on this point states that Sept. 1 is "an approximate date deduced from Lee's text." (emphasis added). I'd appreciate your providing this text, because I have found some of your past deductions questionable.

[_christopher]

Perhaps DCP's feelings about Jewish people are from teachings of his prophet Brigham Young-



In the Journal of Discourses the following statement by Brigham Young concerning the Jewish people is recorded:

". . . You may break their iron bands, and set them at liberty, and but few of them will receive the Gospel.

Why is this? Because their fathers heard the Gospel, and most of them rejected it; and the curse of the Almighty is upon them, and upon their posterity until they have wrought out their salvation by suffering; for the last shall be first, and the first shall be last. A nation which has had the privilege of receiving the everlasting covenant, and has rejected it, will be saved in the kingdom of God, but it will be among the very last which will receive the Gospel. Perhaps you will marvel at this. It is no marvel to me, because I perceive natural principles and sound reason for all these providences of the Almighty. All His providences to His people upon the face of the whole earth, are perfectly philosophical. Then recollect, there is a chance for all who are honest in heart. What shall we do with those who are dishonest? Let them remain with the good until the time comes to cast them away, and gather out the good.

We might say much on this point, showing you why things are as they are concerning the inhabitants of the earth receiving or rejecting the Gospel. Do you suppose they believe in Jesus Christ at Jerusalem? Can you make a Christian of a Jew? I tell you, nay. If a Jew comes in to this Church, and honestly professes to be a Saint, a follower of Christ, and if the blood of Judah is in his veins, he will apostatize. He may have been born and bred a Jew, have the face of a Jew, speak the language of the Jews, and have attended to all the ceremonies of the Jewish religion, and have openly professed to be a Jew all his days; but I will tell you a secret--there is not a particle of the blood of Judaism in him, if he has become a true Christian, a Saint of God; for if there is, he will most assuredly leave the Church of Christ, or that blood will be purged out of his veins. We have men among us who were Jews, and became converted from Judaism. For instance, here is brother Neibaur; do I believe there is one particle of the blood of Judah in his veins? No, not so much as could be seen on the point of the finest cambric needle, through a microscope with a magnifying power of two millions. This is a secret that you will perhaps find out, in a coming day, to your satisfaction. The Lord knew how to preach to the Jews, and told them what the truth was. You may as well undertake to command the most degraded of these Indian tribes, and give them arms and accoutrements, and try to put them through the regular military exercise, as to preach to the Jews to make them believe in the Lord Jesus Christ.

Jerusalem is not to be redeemed by the soft still voice of the preacher of the Gospel of peace. Why? Because they were once the blessed of the Lord, the chosen of the Lord, the promised seed. They were the people from among whom should spring the Messiah; and salvation could be found only through that tribe. The Messiah came through them, and they killed him; and they will be the last of all the seed of Abraham to have the privilege of receiving the New and Everlasting Covenant.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

In the Journal of Discourses the following statement by Brigham Young concerning the Jewish people is recorded:

". . . You may break their iron bands, and set them at liberty, and but few of them will receive the Gospel.

Why is this? Because their fathers heard the Gospel, and most of them rejected it; and the curse of the Almighty is upon them, and upon their posterity until they have wrought out their salvation by suffering; for the last shall be first, and the first shall be last. A nation which has had the privilege of receiving the everlasting covenant, and has rejected it, will be saved in the kingdom of God, but it will be among the very last which will receive the Gospel. Perhaps you will marvel at this. It is no marvel to me, because I perceive natural principles and sound reason for all these providences of the Almighty. All His providences to His people upon the face of the whole earth, are perfectly philosophical. Then recollect, there is a chance for all who are honest in heart. What shall we do with those who are dishonest? Let them remain with the good until the time comes to cast them away, and gather out the good.

We might say much on this point, showing you why things are as they are concerning the inhabitants of the earth receiving or rejecting the Gospel. Do you suppose they believe in Jesus Christ at Jerusalem? Can you make a Christian of a Jew? I tell you, nay. If a Jew comes in to this Church, and honestly professes to be a Saint, a follower of Christ, and if the blood of Judah is in his veins, he will apostatize. He may have been born and bred a Jew, have the face of a Jew, speak the language of the Jews, and have attended to all the ceremonies of the Jewish religion, and have openly professed to be a Jew all his days; but I will tell you a secret--there is not a particle of the blood of Judaism in him, if he has become a true Christian, a Saint of God; for if there is, he will most assuredly leave the Church of Christ, or that blood will be purged out of his veins. We have men among us who were Jews, and became converted from Judaism. For instance, here is brother Neibaur; do I believe there is one particle of the blood of Judah in his veins? No, not so much as could be seen on the point of the finest cambric needle, through a microscope with a magnifying power of two millions. This is a secret that you will perhaps find out, in a coming day, to your satisfaction. The Lord knew how to preach to the Jews, and told them what the truth was. You may as well undertake to command the most degraded of these Indian tribes, and give them arms and accoutrements, and try to put them through the regular military exercise, as to preach to the Jews to make them believe in the Lord Jesus Christ.

Jerusalem is not to be redeemed by the soft still voice of the preacher of the Gospel of peace. Why? Because they were once the blessed of the Lord, the chosen of the Lord, the promised seed. They were the people from among whom should spring the Messiah; and salvation could be found only through that tribe. The Messiah came through them, and they killed him; and they will be the last of all the seed of Abraham to have the privilege of receiving the New and Everlasting Covenant.

Well, using DCP's logic, I guess the Jews can't count BY as "among their few friends in the world." ;)

[_Infymus]

Here is something that Brigham Young said about the Jewish People:

You may break their iron bands, and set them at liberty, and but few of them will receive the Gospel.

Why is this? Because their fathers heard the Gospel, and most of them rejected it; and the curse of the Almighty is upon them, and upon their posterity until they have wrought out their salvation by suffering; for the last shall be first, and the first shall be last. A nation which has had the privilege of receiving the everlasting covenant, and has rejected it, will be saved in the kingdom of God, but it will be among the very last which will receive the Gospel. Perhaps you will marvel at this. It is no marvel to me, because I perceive natural principles and sound reason for all these providences of the Almighty. All His providences to His people upon the face of the whole earth, are perfectly philosophical. Then recollect, there is a chance for all who are honest in heart. What shall we do with those who are dishonest? Let them remain with the good until the time comes to cast them away, and gather out the good.

We might say much on this point, showing you why things are as they are concerning the inhabitants of the earth receiving or rejecting the Gospel. Do you suppose they believe in Jesus Christ at Jerusalem? ____Can you make a Christian of a Jew? I tell you, nay. If a Jew comes in to this Church, and honestly professes to be a Saint, a follower of Christ, and if the blood of Judah is in his veins, he will apostatize._____ He may have been born and bred a Jew, have the face of a Jew, speak the language of the Jews, and have attended to all the ceremonies of the Jewish religion, and have openly professed to be a Jew all his days; but I will tell you a secret--there is not a particle of the blood of Judaism in him, if he has become a true Christian, a Saint of God; for if there is, he will most assuredly leave the Church of Christ, or that blood will be purged out of his veins. We have men among us who were Jews, and became converted from Judaism. For instance, here is brother Neibaur; do I believe there is one particle of the blood of Judah in his veins? No, not so much as could be seen on the point of the finest cambric needle, through a microscope with a magnifying power of two millions. This is a secret that you will perhaps find out, in a coming day, to your satisfaction. The Lord knew how to preach to the Jews, and told them what the truth was. You may as well undertake to command the most degraded of these Indian tribes, and give them arms and accoutrements, and try to put them through the regular military exercise, as to preach to the Jews to make them believe in the Lord Jesus Christ.

Jerusalem is not to be redeemed by the soft still voice of the preacher of the Gospel of peace. Why? Because they were once the blessed of the Lord, the chosen of the Lord, the promised seed. They were the people from among whom should spring the Messiah; and salvation could be found only through that tribe. The Messiah came through them, and they killed him; and they will be the last of all the seed of Abraham to have the privilege of receiving the New and Everlasting Covenant.

Well according to Brigham Young, Jewish people can never accept the gospel. Period.

I see your speaking as a man and raise you $10 dollars.

Ah wait a minute, just as I posted, somebody beat me to the punch. Ah well.

[_Enuma Elish]

I see your speaking as a man and raise you $10 dollars.

How about simply the misuse of a late 19th century religious quote spoken by a man of whom I myself have heard the Jewish Rabbi of the Salt Lake City congregation Kol Ami praise as an individual whose feelings of brotherly kindness towards Jews allowed in 1873 for the formation of the first formal Jewish congregation in Utah, even when Jews struggled with anti-Semitic agendas witnessed throughout most of the United States.

The quote in question of course simply reflects Brigham Young’s 19th century opinion that based upon the scriptural grounds that "the first shall be last, and the last shall be first,” the conversion of the Jewish nation would not occur before Christ's second coming. I can assure you that as a 19th century Christian, Brigham was not alone in this opinion.

To paint Brigham Young as an anti-Semite, however, based upon his interpretation of this New Testament passage is a gross act of intentional slander.

When it comes to Brigham Young’s interactions with the Jewish community, one should note that whereas Jews often suffered from anti-Semitic actions throughout most of the United States, the Hebrew Benevolent Society was formed in Utah in 1864.

The group held religious services in the LDS Masonic Hall in the spring of 1866. The year 1866 also marks the date for the first Salt Lake cemetery deeded to the Jewish community by Brigham Young.

Also, in 1867, Jews observed High Holyday (Rosh Hashonah [New Year] and Yom Kippur) in the Seventies Hall at the special invitation of President Young.

Clearly, for an anti-Semite, Brigham Young chose a peculiar way to manifest his disdain.

[_Mercury]

I see your speaking as a man and raise you $10 dollars.

How about simply the misuse of a late 19th century religious quote spoken by a man of whom I myself have heard the Jewish Rabbi of the Salt Lake City congregation Kol Ami praise as an individual whose feelings of brotherly kindness towards Jews allowed in 1873 for the formation of the first formal Jewish congregation in Utah, even when Jews struggled with anti-Semitic agendas witnessed throughout most of the United States.

The quote in question of course simply reflects Brigham Young’s 19th century opinion that based upon the scriptural grounds that "the first shall be last, and the last shall be first,” the conversion of the Jewish nation would not occur before Christ's second coming. I can assure you that as a 19th century Christian, Brigham was not alone in this opinion.

To paint Brigham Young as an anti-Semite, however, based upon his interpretation of this New Testament passage is a gross act of intentional slander.

When it comes to Brigham Young’s interactions with the Jewish community, one should note that whereas Jews often suffered from anti-Semitic actions throughout most of the United States, the Hebrew Benevolent Society was formed in Utah in 1864.

The group held religious services in the LDS Masonic Hall in the spring of 1866. The year 1866 also marks the date for the first Salt Lake cemetery deeded to the Jewish community by Brigham Young.

Also, in 1867, Jews observed High Holyday (Rosh Hashonah [New Year] and Yom Kippur) in the Seventies Hall at the special invitation of President Young.

Clearly, for an anti-Semite, Brigham Young chose a peculiar way to manifest his disdain.

Who claimed BY was anti-semitic?