Quoted: Quoted: When was the last time God commanded that a civilization be destroyed?   Japanese emperor, 1930's, China and Korea?  The Jihad against the western world right now?

I personally don't believe any of those were commanded by God.  For me the don't even apply.  Remember, I'm a devout Christian, not a Muslim nor a follower of Shintoism.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: When was the last time God commanded that a civilization be destroyed?   Japanese emperor, 1930's, China and Korea?  The Jihad against the western world right now? I personally don't believe any of those were commanded by God.  For me the don't even apply.  Remember, I'm a devout Christian, not a Muslim nor a follower of Shintoism.

If you want to limit it to the Christian god, then maybe the last times were the Spanish Conquistadors in the new world, the war between the popes in Europe, the Thirty-year war, the Hundred-Year war, the Spanish Inquisition, the War of the Roses, and Bloody Mary's reign. Some of the recent tribal squabbles in Africa might qualify on a smaller scale. Northern Ireland not long ago is a small example, too.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: When was the last time God commanded that a civilization be destroyed?   Japanese emperor, 1930's, China and Korea?  The Jihad against the western world right now? I personally don't believe any of those were commanded by God.  For me the don't even apply.  Remember, I'm a devout Christian, not a Muslim nor a follower of Shintoism.

So, you are making excuses.

Okay, mr. devout Christian, acknowledge that your god is not the god of Abraham and the Jews, and we will quit asking you why your god ordered the death of innocent infants because he was too lazy to do it himself.

The Jewish god is a spiteful, jealous, grudge-holding, murderous, and dare I say, evil god. Please tell me how your god is the same one as the Jews' if you don't believe that anything in the OT applies to you anymore.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: When was the last time God commanded that a civilization be destroyed?   Japanese emperor, 1930's, China and Korea?  The Jihad against the western world right now? I personally don't believe any of those were commanded by God.  For me the don't even apply.  Remember, I'm a devout Christian, not a Muslim nor a follower of Shintoism. If you want to limit it to the Christian god, then maybe the last times were the Spanish Conquistadors in the new world, the war between the popes in Europe, the Thirty-year war, the Hundred-Year war, the Spanish Inquisition, the War of the Roses, and Bloody Mary's reign. Some of the recent tribal squabbles in Africa might qualify on a smaller scale. Northern Ireland not long ago is a small example, too.

Very interesting examples.  Of course, you should know me well enough by know (especially in this forum) to know that I believe that there was a general apostacy and that there were no prophets or apostles on the earth after John the Revelator until about 1830.  Many good and inspired men, of course, but no prophets or apostles.  No offense intended towards Arfcom Catholics.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: When was the last time God commanded that a civilization be destroyed?   Japanese emperor, 1930's, China and Korea?  The Jihad against the western world right now? I personally don't believe any of those were commanded by God.  For me the don't even apply.  Remember, I'm a devout Christian, not a Muslim nor a follower of Shintoism. So, you are making excuses. Okay, mr. devout Christian, acknowledge that your god is not the god of Abraham and the Jews, and we will quit asking you why your god ordered the death of innocent infants because he was too lazy to do it himself. The Jewish god is a spiteful, jealous, grudge-holding, murderous, and dare I say, evil god. Please tell me how your god is the same one as the Jews' if you don't believe that anything in the OT applies to you anymore.

Oh good grief!

You obviously haven't read through this entire topic, or else you're just -ing.  You're understanding of how Christians view the transition from OT to NT is surprisingly small.  There was a thread on the subject not too long ago.  Go read it and come back when you're a little better educated.

Also, your personal spite of Jehovah has very little relevance as far as I'm concerned.  No skin off my back (though I can't say the same for your spiritual well being).

Quoted: If you want to limit it to the Christian god, then maybe the last times were the Spanish Conquistadors

Whose actions, when reported to the King and Queen of Spain, were criticized even in their time as harsh and un-Christian...

in the new world, the war between the popes in Europe,

More about politics than about religion

the Thirty-year war, the Hundred-Year war, the Spanish Inquisition,

Again, political problems more than religious ones. In the era where religious power and sovereign state power were the same, there was a whole lot of shenanigans going on. The conflicts were as much about lands, titles, and wealth as anything else. The inquisition was an attempt to stop the decline of the Catholic Church's power as it was mixed up in all that stuff.

the War of the Roses, and Bloody Mary's reign.

Mary was a tyrant who had lots of other motives for her actions besides religion. Again, it is impossible to point to religion as the sole explanation of the events you have listed, as that is a lopsided view of history. Religious motives were one of a number of motivations for all of them. Besides which, not one of them recounts an absolute edict from God Himself such as the one recorded in Sammuel.

Some of the recent tribal squabbles in Africa might qualify on a smaller scale. Northern Ireland not long ago is a small example, too.

Northern Ireland's problems are about national sovereignty, not religious persecution, at least not exclusively.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: When was the last time God commanded that a civilization be destroyed?   Japanese emperor, 1930's, China and Korea?  The Jihad against the western world right now? I personally don't believe any of those were commanded by God.  For me the don't even apply.  Remember, I'm a devout Christian, not a Muslim nor a follower of Shintoism. If you want to limit it to the Christian god, then maybe the last times were the Spanish Conquistadors in the new world, the war between the popes in Europe, the Thirty-year war, the Hundred-Year war, the Spanish Inquisition, the War of the Roses, and Bloody Mary's reign. Some of the recent tribal squabbles in Africa might qualify on a smaller scale. Northern Ireland not long ago is a small example, too. Very interesting examples.  Of course, you should know me well enough by know (especially in this forum) to know that I believe that there was a general apostacy and that there were no prophets or apostles on the earth after John the Revelator until about 1830.  Many good and inspired men, of course, but no prophets or apostles.  No offense intended towards Arfcom Catholics.

OK then, let's talk about Brigham Young.  Do you consider him a Prophet, Seer and Revelator?  Brigham Young was up to his eyeballs in the blood shed by his Danites like Orrin Porter Rockwell and Wild Bill Hickman and the militia of his Kingdom of Deseret in places like Mountain Meadows.

Quoted: OK then, let's talk about Brigham Young.  Do you consider him a Prophet, Seer and Revelator?  Brigham Young was up to his eyeballs in the blood shed by his Danites like Orrin Porter Rockwell and Wild Bill Hickman and the militia of his Kingdom of Deseret in places like Mountain Meadows.

I wondered how long it would be before the Danites showed up in this thread.....

Quoted: Quoted: OK then, let's talk about Brigham Young.  Do you consider him a Prophet, Seer and Revelator?  Brigham Young was up to his eyeballs in the blood shed by his Danites like Orrin Porter Rockwell and Wild Bill Hickman and the militia of his Kingdom of Deseret in places like Mountain Meadows. I wondered how long it would be before the Danites showed up in this thread.....

The Danite group was ended the moment LDS Church leadership found out about it.  It was never sanctioned by LDS Church leaders.  Therefore, Danites aren't even valid to this discussion.

Of course, it makes sense that Kundry, one of our resident anti-Mormons, would try to bring it up.

Mountain Meadows is much the same story.  A local Bishop organized a mob of locals and indians and committed mass murder.  Despite Kundry's obvious inference, it was never sanctioned by LDS general authorities, who only found out about the massacre after the matter.

Quoted: As for God asking us to kill eachother, when was that last time God asked you to kill anyone? {God shouldn't ask us to "kill" ANYONE - we should "forgive for they know not what they do" and we should "do unto others as we would want done to us" and we should "love our neighbor as ourselves" - that is the message Jesus taught. So did God's message and intention for us change?} When was the last time God commanded that a civilization be destroyed?  It's been at least several thousand years.  Considering that, I don't understand why you seem so worried.

An apparent major inconsistency in the Bible that I can't even begin to understand or explain worries me.

Quoted: Quoted: As for God asking us to kill eachother, when was that last time God asked you to kill anyone? {God shouldn't ask us to "kill" ANYONE - we should "forgive for they know not what they do" and we should "do unto others as we would want done to us" and we should "love our neighbor as ourselves" - that is the message Jesus taught. So did God's message and intention for us change?} When was the last time God commanded that a civilization be destroyed?  It's been at least several thousand years.  Considering that, I don't understand why you seem so worried. An apparent major inconsistency in the Bible that I can't even begin to understand or explain worries me.

I can understand why perceived inconsistancies could bother you.

I just don't see it as my place to tell God what He should and shouldn't be doing.  Seems presumptious to me.

As for application of principles changing, there's lots of examples of that in the Bible.  For example, Jesus didn't do away with the law to not commit adultry.  In fact, he expanded on it.  The major change was that the punishments for sin shifted towards the spiritual and away from the temporal.  An adulterer is no longer stoned in this life.  Doesn't mean that adultery is no longer sin, just that the punishment will be much more closely tied to a spiritual application.

Same could be said for killing.  Murder is still a sin, and now we are supposed to control our anger too.

As for civilizations be destroyed, the last time I can recall the Lord giving such a command was in OT times.  Perhaps there was a change in how justice upon civilizations is applied, much as there was a change in how personal justice is applied.

Of course, much of what I'm saying here comes from my own musings.  Perhaps you should approach the Lord about this.

The sacrifice of Christ changed many dynamics in how the world worked. The full extent of those changes and the full ramifications of the work He did in repairing the rift between God and man is something even the Bible cannot fully disclose. It gives us some hints and ideas, but the full change in the relations between God and mankind as a whole made possible by that sacrifice cannot be fully appreciated on this side of life.

The Bible says that Christ is ever at the right hand of God making intercession for us, and not merely for Christians but for all of humanity. When the Prince of heaven becomes humanity's great interceeding advocate, that would indeed have a powerful effect upon the balance of judgement and mercy.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: OK then, let's talk about Brigham Young.  Do you consider him a Prophet, Seer and Revelator?  Brigham Young was up to his eyeballs in the blood shed by his Danites like Orrin Porter Rockwell and Wild Bill Hickman and the militia of his Kingdom of Deseret in places like Mountain Meadows. I wondered how long it would be before the Danites showed up in this thread..... The Danite group was ended the moment LDS Church leadership found out about it.  It was never sanctioned by LDS Church leaders.  Therefore, Danites aren't even valid to this discussion.

It seems Joseph Smith Jr., Prophet, Seer and Revelator of the Mormon Church was of a different opinion.  “In 1838, Joseph Smith had his scribe George W. Robinson keep a diary which was called "The Scriptory Book of Joseph Smith Jr President of The Church of Jesus Christ, of Latterday Saints in all the world." This diary contains a very important entry under the date of July 27, 1838, which has been crossed out. Mr. Marquardt worked very carefully with this portion of the record and was finally able to decipher most of the words. He discovered that the entry related to the Danite band. It not only confirmed the existence of the band but said it was organized for the purpose of making things right and cleansing the Church.”

“The Mormon scholar Scott H. Faulring, who later transcribed Joseph Smith's diaries, verified that the reference related to the Danites (see An American Prophet's Record: The Diaries and Journals of Joseph Smith, p. 198). Unfortunately, neither Marquardt nor Faulring were allowed access to the original diaries and therefore had to depend on photocopies and microfilms. Recently, however, two prominent Mormon scholars, Dean C. Jessee and David J. Whittaker published a transcription of this highly significant entry. They also confirmed that the entry relates to the Danites. Moreover, since they had access to the original diary, they were able to decipher a number of words that neither Marquardt nor Faulring could make out. Their transcription of these words, in fact, seems to suggest that the Danites were going to use physical force to set things ‘right’: “

“...the bretheren or Saints... have come up hither Thus far, according to the order <Rev?> of the Danites, we have a company of Danites in these times, to put right physically that which is not right, and to cleanse the Church of very great evils, which hath hitherto existed among us inasmuch as they cannot be put to right by teachings & persuasyons. This company or a part of them exhibited on the fourth day of July [illegible word] They came up to consecrate by companies of tens, commanded by their captain over ten." (Brigham Young University Studies, Winter 1988, page 14)

Moving on from Joseph Smith Jr. to Brigham Young we find the following:  John D. Lee, who had been a member of the church's secret Council of Fifty, charged that the Mormon police committed murders for the church and that "Under Brigham Young, Hosea Stout was Chief of Police." Hosea Stout was a member of the Danite Band and later served as a body guard for Joseph Smith. Besides serving as Chief of Police in Nauvoo, he was an officer in the Nauvoo legion. Fortunately, Hosea Stout's diary has survived and proves to be one of the most revealing documents that we have had access to. The fact that it was written by a faithful Mormon makes it even more significant. In his diary, Stout frankly tells of some of the violent methods used by the Mormon leaders. For instance, under the date of April 3, 1845, Hosea Stout recorded the following in his diary:

"In the morning I went to the Temple and was roughly accosted by Brs Cahoon & Cutler about a circumstance which took place last night at the Temple. They said that the old Police had beat a man almost to death in the Temple. To which I replied I was glad of it and that I had given orders to that effect in case anyone should be found in the Temple after night and they had only done as they were told, or ordered... we concluded to lay the matter before President Brigham Young and get his advice... Brother Brigham came to us and we related the matter to him and he approved of the proceedings of the Police and said he wanted us to still guard the Temple to regulate the matters there which was done to our satisfaction and justification." (On The Mormon Frontier, The Dairy of Hosea Stout, vol. 1, p. 32)

In his confessions, Bill Hickman tells that he received orders from Brigham Young through Apostle Hyde to eliminate Jesse Hartley, a man whom the church leaders did not trust: "...I set out with Judge Appleby and Rev. Orson Hyde... When we had got... into East Cañon, some three or four miles, one Mr. Hartley came to us from Provo City. This Hartley... had married a Miss Bullock, of Provo... at the April Conference, Brigham Young, before the congregation, gave him a tremendous blowing up, calling him all sorts of bad names, and saying he ought to have his throat cut...

"I saw [Apostle] Orson Hyde looking very sour at him, and after he had been in camp an hour or two, Hyde told me that he had orders from Brigham Young, if he came to Fort Supply to have him used up. 'Now,' said he, 'I want you and George Boyd to do it.'... Boyd came to me and said: 'It's all right, Bill; I will help you to kill that fellow.' One of our teams was two or three miles behind, and Orson Hyde wished me to go back... Hartley stepped up and said he would go... Orson Hyde then whispered to me: 'Now is your time; don't let him come back.' We started, and about half a mile on had to cross the cañon stream... While crossing, Hardey got a shot and fell dead in the creek....

"I went on and met Hosea Stout... I then told him all that had happened, and he said that was good." (Brigham's Destroying Angel, 1904 reprint, pp. 96-98)

“Hickman confessed to me that he personally knew of thirteen persons having been murdered, some of them by him, and others by various Danites; that at one time he murdered a man by the name of Buck at the personal request of Brigham Young." ( R. N. Baskin, Reminiscences of Early Utah, p. 150)

Of course, it makes sense that Kundry, one of our resident anti-Mormons, would try to bring it up.

 

Do you mean to say that no Mormon could be trusted to tell the truth about the history of the Mormon Chruch?

Mountain Meadows is much the same story. A local Bishop organized a mob of locals and indians and committed mass murder. Despite Kundry's obvious inference, it was never sanctioned by LDS general authorities, who only found out about the massacre after the matter.

That “local Bishop” was John Doyle Lee.  Just what was his relationship to Mormon Prophet, Seer and Revelator Brigham Young?  Why John Doyle Lee was nothing less than a son, sealed for time and all eternity to Brigham Young in the Mormon Temple so that in the Mormon hereafter he might share in Brigham’s anticipated glory.  “I was adopted by Brigham Young as one of his sons, and for many years I confess I looked upon him as an inspired and holy man.”  John D. Lee, Confessions    Let’s see what John D. Lee had to say in his confessions about the knowledge the “Lord’s anointed” had of the murder of over 120 unarmed men, women and children who had surrendered to their Mormon killers under a white flag.

“I believe that most of those who were connected with the Massacre, and took part in the lamentable transaction that has blackened the character of all who were aiders or abettors in the same, were acting under the impression that they were performing a religious duty. I know all were acting under the orders and by the command of their Church leaders; and I firmly believe that the most of those who took part in the proceedings, considered it a religious duty to unquestioningly obey the orders which they had received.”

“The immediate orders for the killing of the emigrants came from those in authority at Cedar City. At the time of the massacre, I and those with me, acted by virtue of positive orders from Isaac C. Haight and his associates at Cedar City. Before I started on my mission to the Mountain Meadows, I was told by Isaac C. Haight that his orders to me were the result of full consultatation [sic] with Colonel William H. Dame and all in authority. It is a new thing to me, if the massacre was not decided on by the head men of the Church, and it is a new thing for Mormons to condemn those who committed the deed.”

John D. Lee was the only person tried for the murders at Mountain Meadows.  Certainly no one believes John D. Lee committed the murders of over 120 unarmed men, women and children all by himself, yet the fact of the matter is it fell to him to be the scape goat for Brigham Young.  The reason for this is to be found in Mormon scripture.  “It is better that one man should perish than that a nation should dwindle and perish in unbelief.”  I Nephi 4:13.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: OK then, let's talk about Brigham Young.  Do you consider him a Prophet, Seer and Revelator?  Brigham Young was up to his eyeballs in the blood shed by his Danites like Orrin Porter Rockwell and Wild Bill Hickman and the militia of his Kingdom of Deseret in places like Mountain Meadows. I wondered how long it would be before the Danites showed up in this thread..... The Danite group was ended the moment LDS Church leadership found out about it.  It was never sanctioned by LDS Church leaders.  Therefore, Danites aren't even valid to this discussion. It seems Joseph Smith Jr., Prophet, Seer and Revelator of the Mormon Church was of a different opinion.  “In 1838, Joseph Smith had his scribe George W. Robinson keep a diary which was called "The Scriptory Book of Joseph Smith Jr President of The Church of Jesus Christ, of Latterday Saints in all the world." This diary contains a very important entry under the date of July 27, 1838, which has been crossed out. Mr. Marquardt worked very carefully with this portion of the record and was finally able to decipher most of the words. He discovered that the entry related to the Danite band. It not only confirmed the existence of the band but said it was organized for the purpose of making things right and cleansing the Church.” “The Mormon scholar Scott H. Faulring, who later transcribed Joseph Smith's diaries, verified that the reference related to the Danites (see An American Prophet's Record: The Diaries and Journals of Joseph Smith, p. 198). Unfortunately, neither Marquardt nor Faulring were allowed access to the original diaries and therefore had to depend on photocopies and microfilms. Recently, however, two prominent Mormon scholars, Dean C. Jessee and David J. Whittaker published a transcription of this highly significant entry. They also confirmed that the entry relates to the Danites. Moreover, since they had access to the original diary, they were able to decipher a number of words that neither Marquardt nor Faulring could make out. Their transcription of these words, in fact, seems to suggest that the Danites were going to use physical force to set things ‘right’: “ “...the bretheren or Saints... have come up hither Thus far, according to the order <Rev?> of the Danites, we have a company of Danites in these times, to put right physically that which is not right, and to cleanse the Church of very great evils, which hath hitherto existed among us inasmuch as they cannot be put to right by teachings & persuasyons. This company or a part of them exhibited on the fourth day of July [illegible word] They came up to consecrate by companies of tens, commanded by their captain over ten." (Brigham Young University Studies, Winter 1988, page 14) Moving on from Joseph Smith Jr. to Brigham Young we find the following:  John D. Lee, who had been a member of the church's secret Council of Fifty, charged that the Mormon police committed murders for the church and that "Under Brigham Young, Hosea Stout was Chief of Police." Hosea Stout was a member of the Danite Band and later served as a body guard for Joseph Smith. Besides serving as Chief of Police in Nauvoo, he was an officer in the Nauvoo legion. Fortunately, Hosea Stout's diary has survived and proves to be one of the most revealing documents that we have had access to. The fact that it was written by a faithful Mormon makes it even more significant. In his diary, Stout frankly tells of some of the violent methods used by the Mormon leaders. For instance, under the date of April 3, 1845, Hosea Stout recorded the following in his diary: "In the morning I went to the Temple and was roughly accosted by Brs Cahoon & Cutler about a circumstance which took place last night at the Temple. They said that the old Police had beat a man almost to death in the Temple. To which I replied I was glad of it and that I had given orders to that effect in case anyone should be found in the Temple after night and they had only done as they were told, or ordered... we concluded to lay the matter before President Brigham Young and get his advice... Brother Brigham came to us and we related the matter to him and he approved of the proceedings of the Police and said he wanted us to still guard the Temple to regulate the matters there which was done to our satisfaction and justification." (On The Mormon Frontier, The Dairy of Hosea Stout, vol. 1, p. 32) In his confessions, Bill Hickman tells that he received orders from Brigham Young through Apostle Hyde to eliminate Jesse Hartley, a man whom the church leaders did not trust: "...I set out with Judge Appleby and Rev. Orson Hyde... When we had got... into East Cañon, some three or four miles, one Mr. Hartley came to us from Provo City. This Hartley... had married a Miss Bullock, of Provo... at the April Conference, Brigham Young, before the congregation, gave him a tremendous blowing up, calling him all sorts of bad names, and saying he ought to have his throat cut... "I saw [Apostle] Orson Hyde looking very sour at him, and after he had been in camp an hour or two, Hyde told me that he had orders from Brigham Young, if he came to Fort Supply to have him used up. 'Now,' said he, 'I want you and George Boyd to do it.'... Boyd came to me and said: 'It's all right, Bill; I will help you to kill that fellow.' One of our teams was two or three miles behind, and Orson Hyde wished me to go back... Hartley stepped up and said he would go... Orson Hyde then whispered to me: 'Now is your time; don't let him come back.' We started, and about half a mile on had to cross the cañon stream... While crossing, Hardey got a shot and fell dead in the creek.... "I went on and met Hosea Stout... I then told him all that had happened, and he said that was good." (Brigham's Destroying Angel, 1904 reprint, pp. 96-98) “Hickman confessed to me that he personally knew of thirteen persons having been murdered, some of them by him, and others by various Danites; that at one time he murdered a man by the name of Buck at the personal request of Brigham Young." ( R. N. Baskin, Reminiscences of Early Utah, p. 150) Of course, it makes sense that Kundry, one of our resident anti-Mormons, would try to bring it up.   Do you mean to say that no Mormon could be trusted to tell the truth about the history of the Mormon Chruch? Mountain Meadows is much the same story. A local Bishop organized a mob of locals and indians and committed mass murder. Despite Kundry's obvious inference, it was never sanctioned by LDS general authorities, who only found out about the massacre after the matter. That “local Bishop” was John Doyle Lee.  Just what was his relationship to Mormon Prophet, Seer and Revelator Brigham Young?  Why John Doyle Lee was nothing less than a son, sealed for time and all eternity to Brigham Young in the Mormon Temple so that in the Mormon hereafter he might share in Brigham’s anticipated glory.  “I was adopted by Brigham Young as one of his sons, and for many years I confess I looked upon him as an inspired and holy man.”  John D. Lee, Confessions    Let’s see what John D. Lee had to say in his confessions about the knowledge the “Lord’s anointed” had of the murder of over 120 unarmed men, women and children who had surrendered to their Mormon killers under a white flag. “I believe that most of those who were connected with the Massacre, and took part in the lamentable transaction that has blackened the character of all who were aiders or abettors in the same, were acting under the impression that they were performing a religious duty. I know all were acting under the orders and by the command of their Church leaders; and I firmly believe that the most of those who took part in the proceedings, considered it a religious duty to unquestioningly obey the orders which they had received.” “The immediate orders for the killing of the emigrants came from those in authority at Cedar City. At the time of the massacre, I and those with me, acted by virtue of positive orders from Isaac C. Haight and his associates at Cedar City. Before I started on my mission to the Mountain Meadows, I was told by Isaac C. Haight that his orders to me were the result of full consultatation [sic] with Colonel William H. Dame and all in authority. It is a new thing to me, if the massacre was not decided on by the head men of the Church, and it is a new thing for Mormons to condemn those who committed the deed.” John D. Lee was the only person tried for the murders at Mountain Meadows.  Certainly no one believes John D. Lee committed the murders of over 120 unarmed men, women and children all by himself, yet the fact of the matter is it fell to him to be the scape goat for Brigham Young.  The reason for this is to be found in Mormon scripture.  “It is better that one man should perish than that a nation should dwindle and perish in unbelief.”  I Nephi 4:13.

Once again you fell for the bait, Kundry.  Hook, line, and sinker.

Quoted: Why is the discussion now about Mormons?

Ask Kundry.

Quoted: Why is the discussion now about Mormons?

The murderous history of the Mormon Church is a perfect illustration of the nature of a religion led by homicidal and narcissitic "prophets".  Obviously Shane can not defend it.

Quoted: Quoted: Why is the discussion now about Mormons? The murderous history of the Mormon Church is a perfect illustration of the nature of a religion led by homicidal and narcissitic "prophets".  Obviously Shane can not defend it.

All of the religions based in the Middle East have a very violent history. Even if such stuff "isn't in their teachings" I judge religions by the fruits of their followers.

In a perfect world, we would all be atheists and/or Buddhists... I can only hope

There are a lot of interesting things in the Bible.

It's a complex book.  It's as complex and seemingly as contradictory as life itself.

What does this mean?  I don't know.

The Bible is sometimes direct and sometimes makes use of imagery.  I can't always tell which is which.

I often find that it is more productive to attempt to extract the main points of each section rather than bog myself down in literal interpretation of details.

Does that have any bearing on this question?  I don't know.

Theology is not my strong suit.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Why is the discussion now about Mormons? The murderous history of the Mormon Church is a perfect illustration of the nature of a religion led by homicidal and narcissitic "prophets".  Obviously Shane can not defend it. Ummm, are you familiar with the rules for posting in this forum?

Is there a rule that prohibits inconvenient truth?

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Why is the discussion now about Mormons? The murderous history of the Mormon Church is a perfect illustration of the nature of a religion led by homicidal and narcissitic "prophets".  Obviously Shane can not defend it. All of the religions based in the Middle East have a very violent history. Even if such stuff "isn't in their teachings" I judge religions by the fruits of their followers. In a perfect world, we would all be atheists and/or Buddhists... I can only hope

All world religions have violent histories.  This is because religions are practiced by man and men are generally violent, anti-social creatures when left to their own devices.  This is why man needs philosophy and religion.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Why is the discussion now about Mormons? The murderous history of the Mormon Church is a perfect illustration of the nature of a religion led by homicidal and narcissitic "prophets".  Obviously Shane can not defend it. All of the religions based in the Middle East have a very violent history. Even if such stuff "isn't in their teachings" I judge religions by the fruits of their followers. In a perfect world, we would all be atheists and/or Buddhists... I can only hope All world religions have violent histories.  This is because religions are practiced by man and men are generally violent, anti-social creatures when left to their own devices.  This is why man needs philosophy and religion.

That does make sense, especially when considered from the point of view of the armed citizen.  

We, as citizens must be armed because the world is full of violent, anti-social creatures, and there's nothing inherently dangerous in an armed citizen, but a violent, anti-social creature who believes himself a Prophet of God qualifies as a public menace every time.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Why is the discussion now about Mormons? The murderous history of the Mormon Church is a perfect illustration of the nature of a religion led by homicidal and narcissitic "prophets".  Obviously Shane can not defend it. All of the religions based in the Middle East have a very violent history. Even if such stuff "isn't in their teachings" I judge religions by the fruits of their followers. In a perfect world, we would all be atheists and/or Buddhists... I can only hope All world religions have violent histories.  This is because religions are practiced by man and men are generally violent, anti-social creatures when left to their own devices.  This is why man needs philosophy and religion. That does make sense, especially when considered from the point of view of the armed citizen.   We, as citizens must be armed because the world is full of violent, anti-social creatures, and there's nothing inherently dangerous in an armed citizen, but a violent, anti-social creature who believes himself a Prophet of God qualifies as a public menace every time.

Any violent, anti-social creature, regardless of religious belief or lack thereof, can be considered a public menace.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Why is the discussion now about Mormons? The murderous history of the Mormon Church is a perfect illustration of the nature of a religion led by homicidal and narcissitic "prophets".  Obviously Shane can not defend it. Ummm, are you familiar with the rules for posting in this forum? Is there a rule that prohibits inconvenient truth? I suggest you go and read the rules tacked at the top of this forum before making any further posts like the one I quoted. If you want to beleive we have a rule against "inconvenient truth"  then fine, but please understand the rules before continuing with this line of discussion.

THANK GOD!   (whichever one you believe in)

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Why is the discussion now about Mormons? The murderous history of the Mormon Church is a perfect illustration of the nature of a religion led by homicidal and narcissitic "prophets".  Obviously Shane can not defend it. Ummm, are you familiar with the rules for posting in this forum? Is there a rule that prohibits inconvenient truth? I suggest you go and read the rules tacked at the top of this forum before making any further posts like the one I quoted. If you want to beleive we have a rule against "inconvenient truth"  then fine, but please understand the rules before continuing with this line of discussion.

Be that as it may, I note that neither Shane nor any other Mormon apologist has been able to refute the statements of Bill Hickman, John D. Lee and Joseph Smith Jr. himself on the intimate involvement of Joseph Smith Jr. and Brigham Young in the homicide that was prevalent during the reigns of Smith and Young as Prophets of the Mormon Church.  Prophets, by the very nature of their delusion, tend to believe themselves above the laws of society and such lawlessness makes them extreemly dangerous to a society based upon the rule of law.

What we have here is a failure to commmunicate. A bunch of Gentiles will never understand why God gave those orders, he may have been preventing something that was far worse. The old Testement was never intended for Gentiles.

Quoted: What we have here is a failure to commmunicate. A bunch of Gentiles civilised people will never understand why God delusional 'prophets' gave those orders, he they may have been preventing something that was far worse experiencing a particularly sever chemical imbalance that day. The old Testement was never intended for Gentiles civilised people.

There, now it makes sense.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Why is the discussion now about Mormons? The murderous history of the Mormon Church is a perfect illustration of the nature of a religion led by homicidal and narcissitic "prophets".  Obviously Shane can not defend it. Ummm, are you familiar with the rules for posting in this forum? Is there a rule that prohibits inconvenient truth? I suggest you go and read the rules tacked at the top of this forum before making any further posts like the one I quoted. If you want to beleive we have a rule against "inconvenient truth"  then fine, but please understand the rules before continuing with this line of discussion. Be that as it may, I note that neither Shane nor any other Mormon apologist has been able to refute the statements of Bill Hickman, John D. Lee and Joseph Smith Jr. himself on the intimate involvement of Joseph Smith Jr. and Brigham Young in the homicide that was prevalent during the reigns of Smith and Young as Prophets of the Mormon Church.  Prophets, by the very nature of their delusion, tend to believe themselves above the laws of society and such lawlessness makes them extreemly dangerous to a society based upon the rule of law.

So you are comparing yourself to them by thinking that you are above the law of the boards here?

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Why is the discussion now about Mormons? The murderous history of the Mormon Church is a perfect illustration of the nature of a religion led by homicidal and narcissitic "prophets".  Obviously Shane can not defend it. Ummm, are you familiar with the rules for posting in this forum? Is there a rule that prohibits inconvenient truth? I suggest you go and read the rules tacked at the top of this forum before making any further posts like the one I quoted. If you want to beleive we have a rule against "inconvenient truth"  then fine, but please understand the rules before continuing with this line of discussion. Be that as it may, I note that neither Shane nor any other Mormon apologist has been able to refute the statements of Bill Hickman, John D. Lee and Joseph Smith Jr. himself on the intimate involvement of Joseph Smith Jr. and Brigham Young in the homicide that was prevalent during the reigns of Smith and Young as Prophets of the Mormon Church.  Prophets, by the very nature of their delusion, tend to believe themselves above the laws of society and such lawlessness makes them extreemly dangerous to a society based upon the rule of law. So you are comparing yourself to them by thinking that you are above the law of the boards here?

If you have a problem with the words of Bill Hickman, Orrin Porter Rockwell, John D. Lee, Joseph Smith Jr., or Brigham Young, I suggest you take it up with them or their apologists.

Quoted: In a perfect world, we would all be atheists and/or Buddhists... I can only hope

Atheists didn't exactly rack up a spectacular record on human rights in the last century if you intend on counting things that way....

Quoted: Quoted: In a perfect world, we would all be atheists and/or Buddhists... I can only hope Atheists didn't exactly rack up a spectacular record on human rights in the last century if you intend on counting things that way....

I'm not an Atheist, but I'm curious, what did they do?

Quoted: Quoted: Atheists didn't exactly rack up a spectacular record on human rights in the last century if you intend on counting things that way.... Would you agree that more people have been killed in the world in the name of god than any other reason?

+1
UNDENIABLEY true

Quoted: Quoted: Atheists didn't exactly rack up a spectacular record on human rights in the last century if you intend on counting things that way.... Would you agree that more people have been killed in the world in the name of god than any other reason?

How many?

Approximately.

Quoted: Quoted: Would you agree that more people have been killed in the world in the name of god than any other reason? How many? Approximately.

Counting fetuses?  

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Would you agree that more people have been killed in the world in the name of god than any other reason? How many? Approximately. Counting fetuses?

No.

And you can't count blacks pre-1865 because they weren't "human beings" either.

Same goes for indians and all other primative barbarian peoples.

Back then they weren't considered "fully human" beings and so killing them wasn't the same as killing "real" human beings.

Here are some numbers of the  people killed by the godless.


Mao Ze-Dong (China, 1958-61 and 1966-69) 49,000,000

Jozef Stalin (USSR, 1934-39) 13,000,000

Adolf Hitler (Germany, 1939-1945) 12,000,000

Pol Pot (Cambodia, 1975-79) 1,700,000

Quoted: Here are some numbers of the  people killed by the godless. Mao Ze-Dong (China, 1958-61 and 1966-69) 49,000,000

drastically overestimated, based upon the death statistics during the famine years before the cultural revolution

Jozef Stalin (USSR, 1934-39) 13,000,000

give this one to you

Adolf Hitler (Germany, 1939-1945) 12,000,000

no go, this guy was incredibly religious before he came to power, and in fact got the idea to kill off the Jews from a Catholic monk.

EDIT: atleast, that is what the history channel said.

Pol Pot (Cambodia, 1975-79) 1,700,000

again, give this one to you.

Quoted: Quoted: Here are some numbers of the  people killed by the godless. Mao Ze-Dong (China, 1958-61 and 1966-69) 49,000,000 drastically overestimated, based upon the death statistics during the famine years before the cultural revolution

The famine was imposed - like what Stalin did.

Jozef Stalin (USSR, 1934-39) 13,000,000 give this one to you

That's way low. More like 50-80 million.

Adolf Hitler (Germany, 1939-1945) 12,000,000 no go, this guy was incredibly religious before he came to power, and in fact got the idea to kill off the Jews from a Catholic monk. EDIT: atleast, that is what the history channel said.

He didn't kill "for god".

Pol Pot (Cambodia, 1975-79) 1,700,000 again, give this one to you.

By most estimates, the number of humans killed under Communism "for political motivations" hovers close to 200,000,000. And that's just by the Commies.

Then there was WWI: 15,000,000 killed - but no "killing for god" there.

But let's not limit ourselves to just recent years...

There was the Mongol Conquest Wars - 40,000,000 killed across the 13th Century. Not for god or religion but rather for pure power and domination, not in "the name of religion".

Congo Wars and all the other African Colonial Wars (1880s-early 1900s): almost 10,000,000 killed - but not "for god".

The Chinese Civil Wars circa 700BC claimed another 35,000,000. Although again they were not religious wars.

The overthrow of the Ming Dynasty (1618-1644) and there goes another 25,000,000 killed for politics and power, not religion.

Napoleonic wars (1803-1815) - minimum of 3-5,000,000 killed for politics, not religion.

Russian Civil War of the early 20th Century - another 9,000,000 killed. But not in the name of religion.

Not a single war America fought in was "for god": The American Revolution, the Korean War, Mexican War, War of 1812, the Civil War and all others easily top a million Americans dead - but not "for god".

And these are just a few from the past.

And then even most recently: Sudan, Rwanda and Burundi - almost 4 million murdered for being of the "wrong tribe", not for religious reasons.


Oh, you wanna mention the Crusades as an example of a "religious war" that killed millions? - Okay, but that was 1-2 million tops.

No - "killing for god" or "killing for religion" is NOT the major cause of deaths in human history. No way and not even close. Unless you can find a way to summon up close to 300,000,000 killings because that'd be what it would take to say that "religion is responsible for more killing than any thing else".


BOTTOMLINE: The number one single reason accounting for more human killings in history (far more than anything else) is POLITICS, not religion.

Quoted: ...BOTTOMLINE: The number one single reason accounting for more human killings in history (far more than anything else) is POLITICS, not religion.

Religion IS politics, my friend.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Here are some numbers of the  people killed by the godless. Mao Ze-Dong (China, 1958-61 and 1966-69) 49,000,000 drastically overestimated, based upon the death statistics during the famine years before the cultural revolution The famine was imposed - like what Stalin did. Jozef Stalin (USSR, 1934-39) 13,000,000 give this one to you That's way low. More like 50-80 million. Adolf Hitler (Germany, 1939-1945) 12,000,000 no go, this guy was incredibly religious before he came to power, and in fact got the idea to kill off the Jews from a Catholic monk. EDIT: atleast, that is what the history channel said. He didn't kill "for god". Pol Pot (Cambodia, 1975-79) 1,700,000 again, give this one to you. By most estimates, the number of humans killed under Communism "for political motivations" hovers close to 200,000,000. And that's just by the Commies. Then there was WWI: 15,000,000 killed - but no "killing for god" there. But let's not limit ourselves to just recent years... There was the Mongol Conquest Wars - 40,000,000 killed across the 13th Century. Not for god or religion but rather for pure power and domination, not in "the name of religion". Congo Wars and all the other African Colonial Wars (1880s-early 1900s): almost 10,000,000 killed - but not "for god". The Chinese Civil Wars circa 700BC claimed another 35,000,000. Although again they were not religious wars. The overthrow of the Ming Dynasty (1618-1644) and there goes another 25,000,000 killed for politics and power, not religion. Napoleonic wars (1803-1815) - minimum of 3-5,000,000 killed for politics, not religion. Russian Civil War of the early 20th Century - another 9,000,000 killed. But not in the name of religion. Not a single war America fought in was "for god": The American Revolution, the Korean War, Mexican War, War of 1812, the Civil War and all others easily top a million Americans dead - but not "for god". And these are just a few from the past. And then even most recently: Sudan, Rwanda and Burundi - almost 4 million murdered for being of the "wrong tribe", not for religious reasons. Oh, you wanna mention the Crusades as an example of a "religious war" that killed millions? - Okay, but that was 1-2 million tops. No - "killing for god" or "killing for religion" is NOT the major cause of deaths in human history. No way and not even close. Unless you can find a way to summon up close to 300,000,000 killings because that'd be what it would take to say that "religion is responsible for more killing than any thing else". BOTTOMLINE: The number one single reason accounting for more human killings in history (far more than anything else) is POLITICS, not religion.

WOW, do you have sources on that?  I didn't think that there were even 40 million people in the known world (to kill) in the 1200's, let alone accomodating the 100's of millions of  ppl or so for the conquerers, the ones they didn't conquer, the ones they didn't kill but DID conquer...

Just where are you getting these magic numbers from?

Quoted: Just where are you getting these magic numbers from?

There are many many citations and references listed throughout this site:

Source

Quoted: Quoted: Just where are you getting these magic numbers from? There are many many citations and references listed throughout this site: Source

Thanks, I looked at that site and it looks fishy to me.

I found this:

"...Small wonder given what we "know" to have Objectively happened: In 1258 Hulagu led an expeditionary force, presumed overwhelmingly large, to Persia and Iraq having subdued the remaining powers of Turkish Central Asia including assorted trading city-state khanates and the realm of the Khwarizm Shah. [None of these entities represented much capacity to resist.] The ruler of Iraq, the last as it turned out of the Abbasid Caliphs al-Nasir, refused to surrender [self-evidently without prospect of success] and for his heroism died horribly at Mongol hands. For resisting the city was relegated to massacre and pillage. Death toll estimates begin at 200,000 inhabitants; they go as high as 800,000: The waters of the Tigris ran red with human blood for days, weeks, on end. ..."
on this site: http://historicaltextarchive.com/sections.php?op=viewarticle&artid=241
(sorry, my link-fu has never been good)

But just logically, it doesn't make sense, dude.  There weren't a ton of people back then.  If there was a war that knocked out (let's say) 25% of the knowof the world, it would've gotten more play in history class, like the plague did.


Wikipedia also lists your stats, but I could say that I was supergirl and wikipedia would print it (as long as it was spelled correctly).

Quoted: But just logically, it doesn't make sense, dude.  There weren't a ton of people back then.

Maybe there would have been a lot more had there not been so many wars that wiped out millions at a time.

BTW... did you see the numbers and sources listed for estimates of world population throughout history there?

Quoted: If there was a war that knocked out (let's say) 25% of the knowof the world, it would've gotten more play in history class, like the plague did.

Quoted: Wikipedia also lists your stats, but I could say that I was supergirl and wikipedia would print it (as long as it was spelled correctly).

Wikipedia is a fairly dependable resource for information. It IS checked many times over and errors don't last long.

So do YOU have a bunch of sources that REFUTE those numbers???

Or are you simply relying on the selective smidgens of historical revisionism they teach in history class?

As I said - "religion" is not the major cause of most wars and human deaths. Not by a long shot. But that myth is perpetuated by Religiophobic atheists - just like how they perpetuate the myth that "separation of Church and State" is in the Constitution.

Quoted: Quoted: But just logically, it doesn't make sense, dude.  There weren't a ton of people back then. Maybe there would have been a lot more had there not been so many wars that wiped out millions at a time. Quoted: If there was a war that knocked out (let's say) 25% of the knowof the world, it would've gotten more play in history class, like the plague did. Quoted: Wikipedia also lists your stats, but I could say that I was supergirl and wikipedia would print it (as long as it was spelled correctly). Wikipedia is a fairly dependable resource for information. It IS checked many times over and errors don't last long. So do YOU have a bunch of sources that REFUTE those numbers??? Or are you simply relying on the selective smidgens of historical revisionism they teach in history class? As I said - "religion" is not the major cause of most wars and human deaths. Not by a long shot. But that myth is perpetuated by Religiophobic atheists - just like how they perpetuate the myth that "separation of Church and State" is in the Constitution.

dude, are you stalking me?

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: But just logically, it doesn't make sense, dude.  There weren't a ton of people back then. Maybe there would have been a lot more had there not been so many wars that wiped out millions at a time. Quoted: If there was a war that knocked out (let's say) 25% of the knowof the world, it would've gotten more play in history class, like the plague did. Quoted: Wikipedia also lists your stats, but I could say that I was supergirl and wikipedia would print it (as long as it was spelled correctly). Wikipedia is a fairly dependable resource for information. It IS checked many times over and errors don't last long. So do YOU have a bunch of sources that REFUTE those numbers??? Or are you simply relying on the selective smidgens of historical revisionism they teach in history class? As I said - "religion" is not the major cause of most wars and human deaths. Not by a long shot. But that myth is perpetuated by Religiophobic atheists - just like how they perpetuate the myth that "separation of Church and State" is in the Constitution. dude, are you stalking me?

Apparently just in two threads.