asbestosman wrote:harmony wrote:Do you think that excuses him, if indeed either abuse allegaton is true?
Of course not. Why are you asking me such a ridiculous and insulting question?
Because it sounded like you were excusing him (if he did it), because he was also a victim of abuse (if she did it). My bad for misreading you. Please accept my apologies.
The only thing that would excuse him is if he were insane which seems unlikely. If it were post-traumatic stress that had him do it, I cannot say one way or another about sanity and moral culpability since I am no mental expert (but I'd lock him away in that case anyhow since he would seem to be dangerous except that he's already dead).
We'll never know, because he's dead.
No, I just thought it might be interesting to see if the mob would try to lynch Hugh's mother too, or she's safe since 1) she's a woman and 2) she's not a famous Mormon apologist.
Well, since Martha didn't name her grandmother in her book, I doubt the people on this thread (so kindly named by you as "the mob") would include her. But then, no one is defending her or whitewashing her or attacking her, and let's face it: she's not an LDS priesthood holding icon... so she's not going to get the same treatment. It would be relatively easy to throw her under the bus by both sides. Her son, on the other hand, has been held up as a paragon of virtue for decades, so Martha's allegations appear in a different light than an ordinary abuse allegation.
Allegations still though. And will never be anything else but.
(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.