What is an anti-Mormon?

[_huckelberry]

Question:

Am I the only one in here who is NOT here to criticize/make fun of the church and those who still believe that it's true?

I really don't want to be barging into an 'ex/critic of/ completely against Mormons and Mormonism" support group.

I mean, that's just rude.

If you are looking for a forum that protects Mormons from criticism valid or otherwise, and/or you feel like you cannot adequately defend your own beliefs here, I would recommend Mormon Dialogue & Discussion Board.

It is a board where the moderation makes no bones about being biased toward believers and as long as your version of 'true Mormonism"matches that of the moderators you will get along just fine. ...

Our strength and weakness here is the fact that opinions are not censored by moderators who ban people.

Niadna has been posting on Carm where she would encounter nastier comments than the crowd of hecklers here. I though her post here was rather good humored . Now this thread has provided genuine information of value but with nobody else on her side she buried under a pile. How come people have no sympathy for her but instead start a chorus of cat calls and hoots to encourage her to leave?

[_Res Ipsa]

Hey, Huck. I think that was Fence Sitter, not me.

[_Lemmie]

Niadna has been posting on Carm where she would encounter nastier comments than the crowd of hecklers here. I though her post here was rather good humored . Now this thread has provided genuine information of value but with nobody else on her side she buried under a pile. How come people have no sympathy for her but instead start a chorus of cat calls and hoots to encourage her to leave?

Maybe we didn't read the same thread. I saw grindael provide a great deal of information correcting quite a number of her fairmormon-based errors, which she either didn't acknowledge or acknowledged with insults to him; what i didn't see was "a chorus of cat calls and hoots to encourage her to leave." With the exception of Shulem being his usual self, I saw people responding to the ideas and comments within her posts the way posters here typically respond to ideas and comments in any other person's posts. Are you arguing that somehow, because of her religion, people treated her factual statements differently than they would otherwise?

[_Fence Sitter]

Niadna has been posting on Carm where she would encounter nastier comments than the crowd of hecklers here. I though her post here was rather good humored . Now this thread has provided genuine information of value but with nobody else on her side she buried under a pile. How come people have no sympathy for her but instead start a chorus of cat calls and hoots to encourage her to leave?

How would you like to see that sympathy expressed? I agree some posters have been brutal on her, but others have engaged her in a respectful manner as I believe I have done. As far as people siding with her, no one is preventing you from trying to defend what she is saying. If you think she has said something that is worth defending, step up and help her, otherwise your criticism is just an attempt to patronize her. I am sure she does not want people to come to her side just because they feel sorry for her.

"Chorus of cat calls"? Nonsense and what an over statement. One person has told her she is on the wrong board which moderation immediately posted a warning about. I referenced another board and told her what it had to offer. In no way did I suggest she should leave this board. If I had I am sure RI would have let me know. You and I have different definitions of a "Chorus of cat calls."

[_Lemmie]

"Chorus of cat calls"? Nonsense and what an over statement. One person has told her she is on the wrong board which moderation immediately posted a warning about.

And in all fairness to candygal, maybe that moderation comment was made in an excess of caution, because I didn't interpret her statement as a violation of rule 1 AT ALL. Maybe just being more familiar with her posting style allows for a different interpretation, but in no way did her post read to me as though she was "dis-inviting" naidna from posting here.

[_Niadna]

I quoted you as saying WHAT, precisely?

What I said. If you go back and look, it should all become clear to you. But at the rate your going, I have my doubts.

grindael, that's just dodging. You made a claim. I asked a question about it. You get to clarify it.

Do NOT tell me to 'go back and look," because "it should all become clear to [me]."

If you think I'm too stupid to understand you, then refusing to clarify simply makes you look like a school yard bully.

Just tell me. Please.

[_Niadna]

No one in their right mind would claim that the murder of the Smith's was LEGAL because his murderers were acquitted.

Of course they do, and have done so.

In both incidents it was a case of 'jury nullification,' and it COULD be argued that the results of the civil trial against the men who destroyed the Jackson County press is 'jury nullification,' too, since even though the defendants were found to have actually destroyed the press, burned the building down and tortured two men, the jury told them that it was perfectly OK for them to have done that.

I mean, really....damages of "a penny and a peppercorn" is a pretty clear message.

When jury nullification happens, it is a statement that the jury disagrees with the law...declaring that the defendants, while it is obvious that they committed the act for which they were on trial, didn't do anything wrong by committing that act.

As in...the murderers of Joseph Smith admitted that they had done so. By acquitting them, the jurors said that it was perfectly OK for them to have done so....and that, friends and neighbors, is saying that the act was legal.

When the men who actually destroyed Law's press were tried, there was no question about whether or not they had actually destroyed it. The question was...had they done something illegal when they did so?

The court finding was no, they hadn't done anything illegal. If destroying the press was not ILLEGAL, then it was....wait for it...legal.

It doesn't matter what you think, or I think, or what Gov Ford thought.
Until the verdict is appealed to a higher court of law, the decision and finding stands. Even then they couldn't do that, though I notice that the idea of 'double jeopardy' being unacceptable was completely ignored in the case of the destruction of Law's press.

[_moksha]

Niadna...you are on the wrong board..check into MD@D..you will be their cuppa Dr. Pepper.

Here Niadna can be a person of distinction and a standard bearer for her faith. At that other place, she would be a face in the crowd and feel the pressure to bob her head in unison.

The court finding was no, they hadn't done anything illegal. If destroying the press was not ILLEGAL, then it was....wait for it...legal.

Generally, freedom of the press is held to be sacrosanct. Destruction of private property is usually viewed as vandalism and a malicious act. Inciting a riot can be viewed from various perspectives. Getting those Beantowners worked up enough to dump a bunch of tea in the harbor could be viewed as a positive depending on who would ultimately win that war. The EPA would not be so forgiving.

[_Res Ipsa]

No one in their right mind would claim that the murder of the Smith's was LEGAL because his murderers were acquitted.

Of course they do, and have done so.

In both incidents it was a case of 'jury nullification,' and it COULD be argued that the results of the civil trial against the men who destroyed the Jackson County press is 'jury nullification,' too, since even though the defendants were found to have actually destroyed the press, burned the building down and tortured two men, the jury told them that it was perfectly OK for them to have done that.

I mean, really....damages of "a penny and a peppercorn" is a pretty clear message.

When jury nullification happens, it is a statement that the jury disagrees with the law...declaring that the defendants, while it is obvious that they committed the act for which they were on trial, didn't do anything wrong by committing that act.

As in...the murderers of Joseph Smith admitted that they had done so. By acquitting them, the jurors said that it was perfectly OK for them to have done so....and that, friends and neighbors, is saying that the act was legal.

When the men who actually destroyed Law's press were tried, there was no question about whether or not they had actually destroyed it. The question was...had they done something illegal when they did so?

The court finding was no, they hadn't done anything illegal. If destroying the press was not ILLEGAL, then it was....wait for it...legal.

It doesn't matter what you think, or I think, or what Gov Ford thought.
Until the verdict is appealed to a higher court of law, the decision and finding stands. Even then they couldn't do that, though I notice that the idea of 'double jeopardy' being unacceptable was completely ignored in the case of the destruction of Law's press.

You are confusing two different concepts: whether the act was legal and whether the jury convicted the defendants. We can tell whether the act was legal by looking at the act and the relevant statutes. The jury gets to decide whether to convict. The judge would state the relevant law in the jury instructions, but I don't believe we have those.

[_Shulem]

You are confusing two different concepts: whether the act was legal and whether the jury convicted the defendants. We can tell whether the act was legal by looking at the act and the relevant statutes. The jury gets to decide whether to convict. The judge would state the relevant law in the jury instructions, but I don't believe we have those.

That's exactly right. The jury is not the Legislature. Legal laws were in place long before Joseph Smith violated the Constitution by destroying the press. It's a travesty when a jury fails to convict someone for breaking the laws and committing illegal acts.

Although Niadna has made many interesting and valid points, she has lost the argument. A crime is never legal!!