Mormons - more persecutors than persecuted

[_Jaybear]

Stem, sometimes dialogue with you is like trying to knit fog.

I am saying that in my opinion Mormons per se do not claim persecution. However the people that formally or pseudo formally represent the Church are prone to claiming persecution when things don't go their way.

I can't tell you how many times in the last year and a half, someone has remarked that that BYU was kept out of the PAC 12 because of religious bigotry.

This despite the fact that Utah had a Mormon president, a Mormon coach, and more Mormon students and football players than any D-1 school, save one.

Its not all Mormons that harbor a persecution complex. Just the ones who think they are special because they are Mormon.

[_maklelan]

It's probably a few more than the 11 plus the Haun's mill victims. I'm sure there were a few other isolated incidents on both sides.

So you're just guessing? That doesn't strike me as a particularly good way to provide a "kill count" to determine a simple majority. When you can give me a firm number then we can talk about a simple majority. Until then, while the Mountain Meadows Massacre was absolutely the most horrific and inexcusable single act of violence ever perpetrated by any side in the interaction of Latter-day Saints and others throughout the world, the fact that violence against Latter-day Saints has continued in many different forms from then until today, while violence perpetrated by Mormons is incredibly rare, rather undermines the notion that the responsibility unilaterally lies with Mormons.

And how do we tabulated blood atonement and the killing of apostates? Mormons killing Mormons.

Let's start at the beginning. Name a single case of a Latter-day Saint demonstrably being killed by another Latter-day Saint because of blood atonement or apostasy.

In any case, you'd be hard pressed not to conclude that Mormons have historically been far more violent against their neighbors than vice versa.

Why would I be hard pressed? Because you guess it's not true? Mormons have on one occasion in history been far more violent against their neighbors. What examples can you point to from the twentieth century of Mormons being "far more violent against their neighbors than vice versa"?

And yes, that means they don't get to call themselves a persecuted people. If MMM had never happened, then it would be different.

So when Mormon #141 is killed then Mormonism will shift from being persecutor to persecuted? And you can't even say for sure whether or not that threshold has been met? What kind of criterion is this?

Think of the Catholics. Before they had any power, they were indeed a persecuted people.

There were no Catholics before they had power. The Catholic Church was established at the ascension of Christianity to absolute rule.

But after the Spanish Inquisition and the Crusades and all that, they kind of lost the right to call themselves persecuted, you know?

No, I don't know. I don't think that responsibility for violence or persecutor status is something that is inherited, and I don't think that a religious community's descendants must suffer a comparable degree of violence against them in order to be absolved of their guilt. That sounds pretty barbaric, actually. It also sounds like something someone would concoct just to try to rationalize their disapprobation of a given religious community.

[_Buffalo]

Stem, if some group tried to take away your priesthood and invalidate your marriage, don't you think you'd feel just a little persecuted?

not in the least.

Bull.

[_maklelan]

Oh brother, because a relatively few "gentiles" tarred and feathered Joseph Smith (most likely for his indecent proposal to the sister of one of the Mob), that means gentiles are persecutors? And because of that, you minimize the deaths of the Fancher party?

My goodness, Stem, the "lanks" you will go in order to complain about the Gentiles...

And you minimize the deaths of people killed recently only because of their religion because of the deaths of the Fancher party? Perhaps you can tell the next family that has a son murdered because he's a missionary that until the list reaches 141 they should know that they cannot feel persecuted. It would disgrace the memory of the Fanchers. Once the list reaches 141, though, they can begin to feel persecuted. At that point the weight of persecution shifts and the memory of the Fanchers is irrelevant. What a brilliant analysis, Buffalo.

[_Jaybear]

And you minimize the deaths of people killed recently only because of their religion because of the deaths of the Fancher party? Perhaps you can tell the next family that has a son murdered because he's a missionary that until the list reaches 141 they should know that they cannot feel persecuted. It would disgrace the memory of the Fanchers. Once the list reaches 141, though, they can begin to feel persecuted. At that point the weight of persecution shifts and the memory of the Fanchers is irrelevant. What a brilliant analysis, Buffalo.

Are you saying that Mormon missionaries are being killed for being Mormon? Or is this hypothetical outrage your are expressing?

[_Buffalo]

So you're just guessing? That doesn't strike me as a particularly good way to provide a "kill count" to determine a simple majority. When you can give me a firm number then we can talk about a simple majority. Until then, while the Mountain Meadows Massacre was absolutely the most horrific and inexcusable single act of violence ever perpetrated by any side in the interaction of Latter-day Saints and others throughout the world, the fact that violence against Latter-day Saints has continued in many different forms from then until today, while violence perpetrated by Mormons is incredibly rare, rather undermines the notion that the responsibility unilaterally lies with Mormons.

If you have more deaths to bring up, go ahead and do it. But I've listed the major events.

Violence against Mormons is a lot rarer, statistically, than violence committed BY Mormons.

Let's start at the beginning. Name a single case of a Latter-day Saint demonstrably being killed by another Latter-day Saint because of blood atonement or apostasy.

Thomas Coleman
Anna Pulitzer

Why would I be hard pressed? Because you guess it's not true? Mormons have on one occasion in history been far more violent against their neighbors. What examples can you point to from the twentieth century of Mormons being "far more violent against their neighbors than vice versa"?

20th century Mormons have been much more civilized. No argument here.

So when Mormon #141 is killed then Mormonism will shift from being persecutor to persecuted? And you can't even say for sure whether or not that threshold has been met? What kind of criterion is this?

I can say for sure that the threshold has not been met -for the same reason I can say that two cups of water of the same size (one about 1/4 full, one almost completely full) do not contain equal amounts of water, even without knowing the exact mL).

There were no Catholics before they had power. The Catholic Church was established at the ascension of Christianity to absolute rule.

You're quibbling over the brand name.

No, I don't know. I don't think that responsibility for violence or persecutor status is something that is inherited, and I don't think that a religious community's descendants must suffer a comparable degree of violence against them in order to be absolved of their guilt. That sounds pretty barbaric, actually. It also sounds like something someone would concoct just to try to rationalize their disapprobation of a given religious community.

Ah, the straw man. A forum classic.

[_maklelan]

I don't know Stem, the deaths (not to mention rapes!) of the Fancher party vs you getting a wedgie in high school. I don't know that the two balance out.

So if Mormons are persecuting a group through non-violent means it's still persecution, but if other groups are persecuting Mormons through non-violent means it's not persecution because that non-violent "persecution" doesn't compare to being murdered? Why does the putative persecution of women and gays not have to be weighed against murder and rape? It seems as if you mean to insist that the violence perpetrated against Mormons is absolutely meaningless until the simple majority shifts. Until that point, non-violent persecution perpetrated by Mormons is weightier than however many murders of Latter-day Saints have taken place since 1830. More brilliant analysis.

[_Buffalo]

Oh brother, because a relatively few "gentiles" tarred and feathered Joseph Smith (most likely for his indecent proposal to the sister of one of the Mob), that means gentiles are persecutors? And because of that, you minimize the deaths of the Fancher party?

My goodness, Stem, the "lanks" you will go in order to complain about the Gentiles...

And you minimize the deaths of people killed recently only because of their religion because of the deaths of the Fancher party? Perhaps you can tell the next family that has a son murdered because he's a missionary that until the list reaches 141 they should know that they cannot feel persecuted. It would disgrace the memory of the Fanchers. Once the list reaches 141, though, they can begin to feel persecuted. At that point the weight of persecution shifts and the memory of the Fanchers is irrelevant. What a brilliant analysis, Buffalo.

Do you have an example of this? I've not heard of anyone recently being killed for being a Mormon missionary.

[_maklelan]

Are you saying that Mormon missionaries are being killed for being Mormon? Or is this hypothetical outrage your are expressing?

I am indeed saying that Mormon missionaries have been killed for being Mormon. Certainly you are aware that this happens from time to time. It's quite rare among LDS missionaries as compared to those of other faiths, but it happens.

[_Buffalo]

I don't know Stem, the deaths (not to mention rapes!) of the Fancher party vs you getting a wedgie in high school. I don't know that the two balance out.

So if Mormons are persecuting a group through non-violent means it's still persecution, but if other groups are persecuting Mormons through non-violent means it's not persecution because that non-violent "persecution" doesn't compare to being murdered? Why does the putative persecution of women and gays not have to be weighed against murder and rape? It seems as if you mean to insist that the violence perpetrated against Mormons is absolutely meaningless until the simple majority shifts. Until that point, non-violent persecution perpetrated by Mormons is weightier than however many murders of Latter-day Saints have taken place since 1830. More brilliant analysis.

Prop 8 was temporary. Murder is forever.