Oh NOW you did it
Posted on 06/11/2010 9:44:43 AM PDT by Colofornian
Perhaps we might have someone show up & try to defend that Young isn't a false prophet. I mean I quoted him from 1863 in my last post, where Young is waxing strong about the Civil War...and even a year away from its finish, Young prophesies: "Will the present struggle free the slave? No…" (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 10, p. 250)
[I guess Young just couldn't see an emancipation proclamation coming, being a "prophet" and all that "NEVER" leads "the only true church on the face of the earth" (D&C 1:30) astray. Mormons decided to reward this kind of "vision" by naming their most prominent university after him!]
These are always tough questions for Mormon apologists, Els:
"Do we defend Young's false prophecies?"
"Do we defend Young's racism?"
"Do we defend Smith's racism?"
"Do we defend a criminal mayoral despot like Smith and thereby stand against the side of free expression in a Free Republic?"
"How can we 'reconstruct' history in a more favorable 'PR' light?"
"Or do we just stay silent...and let the crickets represent us like usual?"
Oh NOW you did it
When Mormon ‘Prophet’ and second President of the Church, Brigham Young, spoke in 1863 the following was also said:
“Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God is death on the spot. This will always be so.”
(Journal of Discourses, Vo. 10, p. 110)
_________________________________________________
Gosh I do hope some wag over in the mormnon familysearch “married” Briggy Young to lots of black women...
Just to show how this mormon doctrine was changed by the mormon god...
and that mormons are no longer racist...
You foul ANTIs BUG the hell out of us TBM’s!!
—MormonDude(I really try to answer your questions; don’t I?)
Did I do that?
“Was Joseph Smith committing criminal acts by ordering the destruction of the Expositor?” The answer you’ll get will show where their absolutes lie — and it won’t be with Freedom of the Press. “
Let’s assume that you are right (but of course you certainly are not) . . . but let’s assume you are right about the printing press . . . So does this mean that you are in agreement with the mob murdering Joseph Smith and his brother in cold blood without a trial? Surely not.
Sandy, let's assume you are right about a vigilante mob going way beyond legal boundaries who was present @ the jailhouse shooting of the Smith brothers.
So does this mean...
(a) that you endorse inmates being slipped multiple firearms, and thereby justify the jailcell actions of the Smith brothers before the shooting ever began?
(b) And that such inmates in possession of such firearms assume no inherent risks of being shot at for that illegal action?
(c) And do you conclude, that under no circumstances are inmates who are in possession of said weaponry, should not be fired upon by anybody who not's been properly/duly authorized by law enforcement or criminal justice officials?
IOW, Sandy, yes, history is clear that this mob seemingly fired upon the inmates first. But an early gun shot that wounded Hyrum Smith in the back cannot be explained as having come from external shooters. And, are you 100% certain that whatever members of the mob shot first where not told by jail guards that the Smiths had weapons smuggled into them?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.