Mormons arguing that “Mormon” is as derogatory as the N-word

[Kishkumen]

I’ll try repeating my question - what would you see as not “relatively decent” 1800’s behaviour?

It is really dumb to continue asking an open-ended question like this when I have tried numerous times to tell you I am not playing that game. Relatively decent always depends on a certain set of circumstances.

[yellowstone123]

My point was the huge burden of leading so many people seems not to have caused Lincoln to order mass murders and marry dozens of women. Lincoln could have easily gone further than merely suspending habeas corpus if he had the inclination.

Perhaps men are tested by their circumstances but not led by them, and Brigham’s character really is to blame.

The comparison is stupid. I am not arguing that BY was a better person than Lincoln or close to as good as Lincoln. Lincoln was kept in line by the fact that he was an elected leader in a position that was well defined and limited by the Constitution and the laws. Apples to oranges comparisons like these are silly.

In a way, but ultimately, no. Not even close.

All real historians know Lincoln and his innate built in sense of honesty. When he had a general store, he also did some type of postal work. Ultimately it had to close. A few years went by and one day an official showed up requesting the postal funds he had collected. A close friend was there and knew how poor Lincoln was and thought he would need to try to cover it. Lincoln left for a minute, returned with a small bag and counted out the funds to the official down to the last penny. There was no money left. His friend was surprised Lincoln had held the money, not dipping into it during extreme poverty.

This was the Kirtland Bank Scandal in reverse to the 10th degree.

[I Have Questions]

I’ll try repeating my question - what would you see as not “relatively decent” 1800’s behaviour?

It is really dumb to continue asking an open-ended question like this when I have tried numerous times to tell you I am not playing that game. Relatively decent always depends on a certain set of circumstances.

What specific set of circumstances has led you to form the opinion that Brigham Young was “relatively decent”?

[Rivendale]

Breaking Godwin's law....he petted a dog and the trains arrived on time. Two different leaders granted solace because humanity creeped through their facade.

[yellowstone123]

I’ll try repeating my question - what would you see as not “relatively decent” 1800’s behaviour?

It is really dumb to continue asking an open-ended question like this when I have tried numerous times to tell you I am not playing that game. Relatively decent always depends on a certain set of circumstances.

What's a decent closed-ended question in this forum. I'm really curious and have a lot to learn. I would guess temple recommend questions are closed-ended but how about here.

[Dr. Shades]

You were liberated only to a certain degree? So, you thought there was a chance you were wrong about his non-prophethood?

You really amaze me. We think so differently that it makes communication difficult. Do you recognize a difference between intellectual conclusions and emotional resolution? Do you think it is possible to recognize something does not add up logically and still have an emotional inclination toward it? Do you grant that the two may take time to fully bring into line and may never be perfectly reconciled?

Only in a sentimental sense, at best.

It means the same thing to me that it does to the Chapel Mormons. And the same thing it meant to you when you were a Mormon missionary.

Yeah. I don’t know why I should have to agree with them.

Okay. Please share with us how a person being a prophet or not a prophet is a non-binary consideration.

After that, perhaps you can share with us how being pregnant or not pregnant is a non-binary consideration.

2 + 2 either = 4 or it doesn't. Similarly, a person is either receiving revelations from God or one isn't (and is lying about it). There's no room for anything other than binary thinking on this point. If I'm wrong, please explain how. . . In clear, straightforward American English.

Not all of life is a simple linear equation. In fact, much of it is not.

You didn't explain how. . . in either clear, straightforward American English or otherwise.

Hopefully you will rectify that when you explain what I asked you to explain above. Not because I'm trying to assign you homework, but because I simply can't figure out how it's possible to believe that prophethood/pregnancy is non-binary and therefore I need to be educated.

What's your opinion of his Blood Atonement doctrine and practice?

I think it is awful.

But he is still "relatively decent?"

[yellowstone123]

LOL! Relatively decent depends on the full range of behaviors at the time. For example, do you think a relatively decent person can vote for Trump? You see, I do, even though I think Trump is an awful human being and an enemy of democracy. I could never vote for Trump, but I know some people who are lovely in many ways, better than I in some ways, and yet they are voting for a person I truly abhor.

I’ll try repeating my question - what would you see as not “relatively decent” 1800’s behaviour?

That's actually really interesting. I actually love this because being brought up in the church I always heard the you are comparing Joseph Smith with today's rules and I would say, really? then we start learning the truth was hidden by the church with lots of surprises to follow when the internet came around.

Early Mormons were on the fringe; always moving to the fringe areas so that courts couldn't take jurisdiction over their crazy behavior, courts the citizens of the State or the Country created. Today, the Church can't hide the behavior of its early leaders 1800s because it's all online. We all know that where ever Joseph Smith was there was also extra-legal scandal, and it would follow him where ever he went because he kept creating it with knucklehead decision making. Joseph Smith thought he was 1844 presidential material and Brigham Young thought so too and would go out and campaign for him. At the same time Henry Clay ran James Polk ran too. Lincoln was out campaigning for Henry Clay who had been Secretary of State, a member of the United States Senate, a member of the House of Representatives and was Speaker of the House. Clay was defeated by Polk who lived a similar life. So this is 1800's behavior and this country was very lucky to have those two during that time. But the United States Senate and House was filled with the like and they were truly great and my operational definition of truly great would be services to his family, services to his state and country and fidelity to his spouse. All avoided scandal but unfortunately it led to War. The congress previously had pushed the war back with certain agreements and compromises. When I think of Brigham Young I think he is so lucky President Grant didn't say, this is boring, I want some action, recall Sherman, Hooker, Sheridan and get my horse, we're riding west. That was also 1800s behavior.

[Kishkumen]

In a way, but ultimately, no. Not even close.

All real historians know Lincoln and his innate built in sense of honesty. When he had a general store, he also did some type of postal work. Ultimately it had to close. A few years went by and one day an official showed up requesting the postal funds he had collected. A close friend was there and knew how poor Lincoln was and thought he would need to try to cover it. Lincoln left for a minute, returned with a small bag and counted out the funds to the official down to the last penny. There was no money left. His friend was surprised Lincoln had held the money, not dipping into it during extreme poverty.

This was the Kirtland Bank Scandal in reverse to the 10th degree.

All “real” historians “know”? Get over yourself. The conversation was not a comparison of the goodness of Lincoln versus Joseph Smith.

[Kishkumen]

What specific set of circumstances has led you to form the opinion that Brigham Young was “relatively decent”?

You act like “relatively decent” is some kind of high praise. This is because nothing but fierce criticism of Brigham Young will do on the board.

The set of circumstances is leader of a fugitive sect of thousands that saw a lot of violence and whose top leaders had been murdered. The sect must survive and make its way in dangerous territory shared by indigenous peoples (sometimes hostile) whose culture is quite different from theirs. Rough circumstances. I can hardly appreciate how tough it would have been to live through them.

[Kishkumen]

Only in a sentimental sense, at best.

That’s a very simplistic answer for a complicated set of questions. But it is your answer, and I can only say that your view and experience hardly define the full range of reasonable possibilities.

Okay. Please share with us how a person being a prophet or not a prophet is a non-binary consideration.

First, one has to define “prophet,” and that is itself a non-binary task in my view.

After that, perhaps you can share with us how being pregnant or not pregnant is a non-binary consideration.

Fatuous nonsense. Being a prophet, whatever that is, has very little in common with being pregnant.

Hopefully you will rectify that when you explain what I asked you to explain above. Not because I'm trying to assign you homework, but because I simply can't figure out how it's possible to believe that prophethood/pregnancy is non-binary and therefore I need to be educated.

That’s because you think the word prophet has a simple, straightforward definition to which everyone ascribes. I guess. The beauty of the whole thing is that we don’t ever have to agree about this topic.

But he is still "relatively decent?"

Yeah, relatively.

Blood atonement was a very bad idea. Frontier justice perverting Christianity, in my view. It is a good thing that it was not acted on more than the limited extent that it was. It is bad enough that it passed into historical memory where future nuts could use it to horrific ends.