IS __ "MORMON AVENGER" __ 1st SNUB NOSE ?

imported post

thx997303 wrote:

rpyne, I never said I support Romney.

Click to expand...

I am pretty sure that rpyne was referring to your support of Ron Paul, not Romney.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earmark_(politics)

imported post

man, i did get all confused there.

I dont aupport either one. Not right now anyway.

We'll see who is running and who is worthy of support as it gets closer, but i feel that 2010 is what we should focus on right now.

imported post

combatcarry wrote:

Porter Rockwell was a murderer indicted on two counts for killing John and William Aiken. He died before going to trial. His victims never received fairness or justice.

The Salt Lake Tribune editorialized that he "participated in at least a hundred murders . . . ."

I would hope any movie about him wouldportray him as the cold blooded killer that he was.

Click to expand...

Is that the same Salt Lake Tribune that celebrated the death of Brigham Young? Hardly a reliable or even-handed source. Indeed, it is almost beyond comprehension that anyone could participate "in at last a hundred murders" and only be indicted for two deaths.

He was a hard man who lived in hard times. He was a sworn lawman in the days when a whole lot of justice was handled outside the courtroom.

Those who condemn him as a cold blooded killer based on two indictments and an editorial from the then staunchly anti-Mormon Salt Lake Tribune are probably showing some bias or bigotry, either toward Rockwell himself, or perhaps the entire church to which he belonged.

imported post

utbagpiper wrote:

combatcarry wrote:

<snip>
Those who condemn him as a cold blooded killer based on two indictments and an editorial from the then staunchly anti-Mormon Salt Lake Tribune are probably showing some bias or bigotry, either toward Rockwell himself, or perhaps the entire church to which he belonged.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

For brevity I gave only two facts about Rockwell'smurdering ways. How many facts about the Destroying Angel of Mormondom/leader of the Danites (a Mormon vigilantegroup sworn to exact blood vengeance) would be appropriate before we can accuse him of murder?Anyone can study his past and decide for themselves. His record can stand for itself. Of course any study of his past should include both sides. Not just sources approved by the LDS church.

p.s.... Did youjust accuse me ofbeing abiased bigot? :shock:

imported post

combatcarry wrote:

For brevity I gave only two facts about Rockwell'smurdering ways. How many facts about the Destroying Angel of Mormondom/leader of the Danites (a Mormon vigilantegroup sworn to exact blood vengeance) would be appropriate before we can accuse him of murder?Anyone can study his past and decide for themselves. His record can stand for itself. Of course any study of his past should include both sides. Not just sources approved by the LDS church.

p.s.... Did youjust accuse me ofbeing abiased bigot? :shock:

Click to expand...

If you want to condemn sources "approved by the LDS church" then you should not rely on sources from the enemies of the LDS Church either. To do so certainly makes one look biased against the LDS Church and perhaps bigoted to boot. As does your one sided description of the Danites.

We could test your objectivity by asking for YOUR take on the Mormon Extermination order issued by Missouri Governor Boggs, the murder of Jospeh and Hyrum Smith while in a jail in Illinois, or even the mormon exodus to Utah.

Or you might just save us the time and tell us right up front what you think of the LDS Church both currently and its early leaders, members, and history. It's all off topic here. But since your response to someone's post about making a movie about a legendary Utah gun owner is to accuse him of murder, post sources comprised entirely of those hostile to the LDS Church, and you now spew forth one sided venom about the Danites (and probably could not begin to give us any objective data about the Quorum of the 50), we might just as well see if you even attempt to be objective about the LDS Church or whether your are, biased and bigoted. I mean, if someone suggested another moving about Butch and Sundance, would you be all over the fact that they were thieves and murderers who killed peace officers? If not, why the strong emotion over Rockwell, Danites, and Brigham Young?

Got issues with the LDS Church or its members?

Charles

imported post

I have issues with people always out to make themselves appear to be the innocent victims of bigotry.

"It's prejudice! It must be because I'm..."

Get over yourself and your religion. Nobody cares.

imported post

... utbagpiper ...

Kind of reminds me of the lies being told by the MSM and the brainless sheeple about our RKBA . Ignorance , apathy , and bigotry is the yardstick I use in every conversation . AgainI am not Polish however I all ways could not figure out about Polish jokes . Why were we making fun of a great warrior people that did not want to be behind the Iron Curtain ? When I first heard MSNBC say that Mitt Romney would be taken out at the knees because he was Mormon , my soulasked whatin the world am I being told to believe this time . Why was an atheist media making a commend about religion ? Why was I hearing outright hatred, envy , and fright about a person running to be POTUS .Instead of ignorance I want to know . Instead of apathy I want to care . Instead of bigotry and blaming others I want to take my own responsiblities upon my own shoulders .

If we stay divided again and lose more of our rights I am really going to get pissed . The 2010 elections start in 2009 . Hey wait a second . I will bet that is why the second amendment is not a front burner item right at the moment .

f we get our act together and organize now we can spank even a popular sitting POTUS . If we believe the evil lies as facts without thoughtful verification and only discern thru ignorance , apathy , and bigotry , so be it .

imported post

marshaul wrote:

I have issues with people always out to make themselves appear to be the innocent victims of bigotry.

"It's prejudice! It must be because I'm..."

Get over yourself and your religion. Nobody cares.

Click to expand...

If nobody cares, then nobody needs to comment on it, right?

A San Francisco address....hmm.. What are the odds you do care very much about some of the non-RKBA political positions taken by the LDS Church.

Get over yourself and your "religion". Nobody cares.

imported post

R a Z o R wrote:

... utbagpiper ...

Kind of reminds me of the lies being told by the MSM and the brainless sheeple about our RKBA . Ignorance , apathy , and bigotry is the yardstick I use in every conversation . AgainI am not Polish however I all ways could not figure out about Polish jokes . Why were we making fun of a great warrior people that did not want to be behind the Iron Curtain ? When I first heard MSNBC say that Mitt Romney would be taken out at the knees because he was Mormon , my soulasked whatin the world am I being told to believe this time . Why was an atheist media making a commend about religion ? Why was I hearing outright hatred, envy , and fright about a person running to be POTUS .Instead of ignorance I want to know . Instead of apathy I want to care . Instead of bigotry and blaming others I want to take my own responsiblities upon my own shoulders .

If we stay divided again and lose more of our rights I am really going to get pissed . The 2010 elections start in 2009 . Hey wait a second . I will bet that is why the second amendment is not a front burner item right at the moment .

f we get our act together and organize now we can spank even a popular sitting POTUS . If we believe the evil lies as facts without thoughtful verification and only discern thru ignorance , apathy , and bigotry , so be it .

Click to expand...

RAZOR, I agree about the religious bigotry directed at Romney.

As an active LDS, however, I'm certainly not bigoted against Romney's LDS religion. Indeed, I'm probably one of the only people on this entire board to ever "support and sustain" him as he served in an LDS ecclesiatical position.

But I do have VERY serious concerns about his true positions on RKBA, as well as a host of other political issues that are off topic here.

I'm happy to unite behind a candidate who truly supports my RKBA. I'd love to see solidly pro-RKBA candidates retake Congress in 2010. I'd love to see a solidly pro-RKBA candidate win the White House in 2012; I just have SERIOUS doubts about whether Romney is even nominally pro-RKBA, much less solidly so.

Charles

imported post

utbagpiper wrote:

If you want to condemn sources "approved by the LDS church" then you should not rely on sources from the enemies of the LDS Church either. To do so certainly makes one look biased against the LDS Church and perhaps bigoted to boot. As does your one sided description of the Danites.

We could test your objectivity by asking for YOUR take on the Mormon Extermination order issued by Missouri Governor Boggs, the murder of Jospeh and Hyrum Smith while in a jail in Illinois, or even the mormon exodus to Utah.

Or you might just save us the time and tell us right up front what you think of the LDS Church both currently and its early leaders, members, and history. It's all off topic here. But since your response to someone's post about making a movie about a legendary Utah gun owner is to accuse him of murder, post sources comprised entirely of those hostile to the LDS Church, and you now spew forth one sided venom about the Danites (and probably could not begin to give us any objective data about the Quorum of the 50), we might just as well see if you even attempt to be objective about the LDS Church or whether your are, biased and bigoted. I mean, if someone suggested another moving about Butch and Sundance, would you be all over the fact that they were thieves and murderers who killed peace officers? If not, why the strong emotion over Rockwell, Danites, and Brigham Young?

Got issues with the LDS Church or its members?

Charles

Click to expand...

Response to paragraph 1: I said to study both sides. This would include the LDS historians, and non-LDS historians.

Response to paragraph 2: Strawman argument. Wasn't the subject Porter Rockwell? Would the discussion of any of those issues really be appropriate here?

Response to paragraph 3: Yes, I would hope any movie about any historical figure would be as accurate as possible including Butch and Sundance. You obviously are the one showing the strong emotion. Even lowering to calling me a biased bigot.

Response to paragraph 4: I have "issues" with the lies of the LDS leadershipand the whitewashing of their history (including the history of Porter Rockwell, and Brigham Young). I was raised LDS and (thank God) now realize that I was lied to for a big part of my life. I was even encouraged by my seminary teacher to read fictional books glorifying Porter Rockwell. Most of my family and friends are LDS and I know the majority of LDS members are loving, kind people with values very similar to mine. I don't have any problem with LDS members (including you Charles), but I do have problems with LDS history, doctrine, and theology.

imported post

utbagpiper wrote:

A San Francisco address....hmm.. What are the odds you do care very much about some of the non-RKBA political positions taken by the LDS Church.

Click to expand...

Oh, so now because I *may* oppose political positions taken by a supposedly nonprofit religious organization, I must be guilty of religious bigotry?

Hah! Way to make yourself appear the shining example of what I was referring to.

imported post

.

imported post

marshaul wrote:

Oh, so now because I *may* oppose political positions taken by a supposedly nonprofit religious organization, I must be guilty of religious bigotry?

Hah! Way to make yourself appear the shining example of what I was referring to.

Click to expand...

Then feel free to deny it outright. Tell us all you have no (negative) opinion of the LDS church.

Tell us you were not opposed to Prop 8.

Tell us my assumptions and inferences about your positions are materially in error.

Otherwise, given your comments on a Utah thread I strongly suspect YOU are the shining example of what you were referring to as you assume anyone who disagrees with granting official legal sanction to certain lifestyles must be acting only from bigotry against those who engage in that activity.

imported post

combatcarry wrote:

Response to paragraph 1: I said to study both sides. This would include the LDS historians, and non-LDS historians.

Response to paragraph 2: Strawman argument. Wasn't the subject Porter Rockwell? Would the discussion of any of those issues really be appropriate here?

Response to paragraph 3: Yes, I would hope any movie about any historical figure would be as accurate as possible including Butch and Sundance. You obviously are the one showing the strong emotion. Even lowering to calling me a biased bigot.

Response to paragraph 4: I have "issues" with the lies of the LDS leadershipand the whitewashing of their history (including the history of Porter Rockwell, and Brigham Young). I was raised LDS and (thank God) now realize that I was lied to for a big part of my life. I was even encouraged by my seminary teacher to read fictional books glorifying Porter Rockwell. Most of my family and friends are LDS and I know the majority of LDS members are loving, kind people with values very similar to mine. I don't have any problem with LDS members (including you Charles), but I do have problems with LDS history, doctrine, and theology.

Click to expand...

You SAID to study both sides, but chose to reference ONLY the side hostile to the LDS Church, Rockwell and Brigham Young. "I can't hear what you are saying because what you are doing is too loud."

No strawman at all. Nor have I EVER seen you condemn any other movie about a historical figure. Indeed, I suspect you've watched "Butch and Sundance The Early Days" and quite enjoyed it despite it glorifying a couple of thieves and murderers.

And I think your response has made pretty clear you do have some biases against the LDS Church. That is your right. I appreciate the honesty about your history. Frankly about what I expected when I read your first response. But do us a favor and try to keep them off an RKBA forum except for the rare times when they are actually relevent. As Jensen points out, this thread sucks. And I probably should have just let it go.

But, I've grown tired of the LDS Church being one of the last groups (along with gun owners and white christian males in general it seems) that is fair game to be hated and attacked at every turn simply because someone doesn't agree with some aspect of what it teaches.

I don't care what anyone thinks about the LDS Church, or its history. In both my personal and political lives I get along great with those who have a wide range of opinions and beliefs there. But when those beliefs have to be vocalized and people start using termnology like "sources approved by the LDS Church" or "I was lied to growing up by LDS leadership" I will respond with my views.

I don't agree with some of the theology or doctrines of MOST churches. But I feel zero need to bring that up, to attack those churches, or otherwise rail against them. I bet you don't feel the need to snipe at the history of the Catholics or Baptists or Jews. Yet you feel justified harping on the LDS church?


Charles

imported post

Mitt Romney carrying a Colt Detective .38 snub .

He just shot a BG on top of a roof getting into a helicopter .

Mitt still has his finger on the trigger ready for further action .

imported post

utbagpiper wrote:

R a Z o R wrote:

GUNS & AMMO May 2009 page #18 ... answer 8. D

Brigham Young's legendary bodyguard , Orrin Porter Rockwell is associated with the very short or barrelless revolver . Sounds like a good movie and too bad it would not be done with fairness or justice . Reminds me of the way the liberals fear ................. MITT ROMNEY .

Click to expand...

To be fair, a lot of gun owners also don't care for Romney's political positions. So too a LOT of conservatives.

I lived in the Boston area when Romney served as the LDS Stake President. I am active LDS and happily raised my hand to sustain Romney in that ecclesiastical position. I respect his business acumen.

But I have to tell you, I was also living in Boston when he was released from that Church position and ran against Ted Kennedy for US Senate. I was never so happy to be able to vote absentee in Utah as I was after watching a couple of debates and seeing so very LITTLE difference (without any real distinction) between Romney and Kennedy.

In his campaign for governor, Romney made clear the NRA was NOT going to care for him or his policies. Under him, Massachusetts is one of the tiny minority of States to have a State level scary looking gun ban AFTER the federal ban expired. Massachusetts remains in the minority of States NOT to be shall issue on permits to carry defensive firearms in public. On issues outside the charter of this forum Romney's record is also anything but conservative: from abortion, to homosexual conduct, to government intervention into and control of health care, Romney's positions right up to the moment he ran for president were all left of center, to put it very kindly.

There is no doubt that religious bigotry worked against Romney in his run for President. I find such bigotry repulsive.

I strongly suspect that Romney's business acumen would be of great value to the nation at this time.

I'd like to give him the benefit of the doubt on non-gun issues like abortion, what the definition of marriage is or ought to be, and even health care.

But he continues to support and defend the basic concept of government mandated and controlled health care.

And he continues to be less than friendly toward RKBA.

At this time, Romney remains a New England, Rockefeller, liberal republican rather than a true conservative. And while what the vast majority of what that entails is off topic here, his less than rousing support for my RKBA--including to own scary looking guns, and to carry guns in public for self defense--is most certainly on topic and is A reason I can't support him for public office, at least until such time as he evinces real support for my RKBA.

If he is called as an LDS General Authority, he will have my sustaining vote.

But he won't get my support for public office until he REALLY, truly, supports my RKBA...except perhaps as the lessor of various evils depending on who all is running.

Charles

Click to expand...

Very well said and should be required reading for conservatives. I lived in the PDR of Taxachusettes and can readily attest to Mit's being anti-gun. While, to some extent, any Republican running for that office has to downplay pro-gun feelings, Romney had none to downplay. That's why I opposed him this time and will in the future if he decides to run for pres. I have many LDS friends who think highly of him for business accumen and spiritual belief, but know him for what he is wrt the 2A. And that is completely inimical to their--and my, beliefs. If he were to get the nom and run against Hussein Obooba, I'd vote for him. But then if the devil himself ran against Obooba, I'd vote for him, too.

imported post

utbagpiper wrote:

<snip> But do us a favor and try to keep them off an RKBA forum except for the rare times when they are actually relevent. As Jensen points out, this thread sucks. And I probably should have just let it go.

But, I've grown tired of the LDS Church being one of the last groups (along with gun owners and white christian males in general it seems) that is fair game to be hated and attacked at every turn simply because someone doesn't agree with some aspect of what it teaches.

I don't care what anyone thinks about the LDS Church, or its history. In both my personal and political lives I get along great with those who have a wide range of opinions and beliefs there. But when those beliefs have to be vocalized and people start using termnology like "sources approved by the LDS Church" or "I was lied to growing up by LDS leadership" I will respond with my views.

I don't agree with some of the theology or doctrines of MOST churches. But I feel zero need to bring that up, to attack those churches, or otherwise rail against them. I bet you don't feel the need to snipe at the history of the Catholics or Baptists or Jews. Yet you feel justified harping on the LDS church?


Charles

Click to expand...

I've been thru this before. If you don't like the message you attack the messanger. My posts are all completely relevant to the subject: Porter Rockwell. You seem to have drug the church into it. I didn't. I called Rockwell a murderer and you drug in the LDS church.Everything I stated were indisputable facts. I challenge you to prove otherwise rather than go off on a zillion rabbit trails.

Why are you so quick to yell hate, persecutionand call me names? In the future I would suggest if you are going to drag in theLDS church defend them on their own terms and avoid the name calling.

imported post

utbagpiper wrote:

marshaul wrote:

Oh, so now because I *may* oppose political positions taken by a supposedly nonprofit religious organization, I must be guilty of religious bigotry?

Hah! Way to make yourself appear the shining example of what I was referring to.

Click to expand...

Then feel free to deny it outright.  Tell us all you have no (negative) opinion of the LDS church.

Tell us you were not opposed to Prop 8.

Tell us my assumptions and inferences about your positions are materially in error.

Otherwise, given your comments on a Utah thread I strongly suspect YOU are the shining example of what you were referring to as you assume anyone who disagrees with granting official legal sanction to certain lifestyles must be acting only from bigotry against those who engage in that activity.

Click to expand...

Our country was founded upon the pillar of separation of church and state (try reading some Jefferson). That your religion refuses to keep separate these concepts is a fault of its own, not a sign of religious bigotry on my part.

If your church engages in serious political action (we're not talking lightweight position-taking here), you don't get to claim religious bigotry when people disagree with political positions taken by said church. Sorry, you can't have your cake and eat it too.

Yes, I opposed prop 8. Why you even have a position on the matter, as a resident of another state, is far beyond me. Feel free to continue to imagine yourself the innocent victim of religious prejudice!

:lol:

imported post

combatcarry wrote:

I've been thru this before. If you don't like the message you attack the messanger. My posts are all completely relevant to the subject: Porter Rockwell. You seem to have drug the church into it. I didn't. I called Rockwell a murderer and you drug in the LDS church.Everything I stated were indisputable facts. I challenge you to prove otherwise rather than go off on a zillion rabbit trails.

Why are you so quick to yell hate, persecutionand call me names? In the future I would suggest if you are going to drag in theLDS church defend them on their own terms and avoid the name calling.

Click to expand...

You "indisputable facts" consist of the fact that a very anti-LDS publication accused Rockwell of being involved in "over 100 murders" and that he was indicted for two of them at the time he died. While the SLTribune did, in fact, editorialize that Rockwell had done such things, that is no more evidence he actually did than is the SLTribune's anti-gun editorials wrt our RKBA evidence that we ought to adopt the East or Left Coast gun laws they espouse.

I have not called you names. I pointed out that you were showing some bias and potential bigotry in the narrow sources you chose to quote. And if you want to come on an RKBA forum and go off about how the LDS Church "lied to you", be prepared to be called out on it.

Now, would you like to drop this off topic thread and see if we can get back to where we agree and work together on RKBA?

Charles

imported post

marshaul wrote:

Our country was founded upon the pillar of separation of church and state (try reading some Jefferson). That your religion refuses to keep separate these concepts is a fault of its own, not a sign of religious bigotry on my part.

If your church engages in serious political action (we're not talking lightweight position-taking here), you don't get to claim religious bigotry when people disagree with political positions taken by said church. Sorry, you can't have your cake and eat it too.

Yes, I opposed prop 8. Why you even have a position on the matter, as a resident of another state, is far beyond me. Feel free to continue to imagine yourself the innocent victim of religious prejudice!

:lol:

Click to expand...

I have read Jefferson. And I know the context and source of his quote on the "wall of separation". You folks who wish to drive all morality from public debate have twisted the intent and standing of the Danburry Letter beyond all recognition. If you want to study some history on religion in this nation, go see how may States actually adopted official State religions after the 1st amendment was ratified. Government is not to interfere with churches. Churches, an church members are most certainly suppose to provide input into public polices.

It was John Adams who opined:
“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
But just as I suspected, you do have issues with the LDS church and its political involvement, so your attempt to claim my assumptions about you were false was, in fact, an attempt to deceive on your part. That makes you a liar and a bigot. And yes, I am calling YOU names.

I don't care who disagrees with my political position, or the political positions of the LDS Church. To be honest, I don't fully agree with every political position the LDS Church takes.

But when riotous mobs shut down a house of worship, THAT is NOT simple disagreement with political matters. And those criminals who engaged in it are lucky that the temple president and other church leaders are far more Christian than I. Because I know what my response would be to an angry mob vandalizing my property, threatening violence, and denying access and it would have a whole lot to do the reason this site exists.

When white powder is mailed to the Salt Lake LDS Temple it is not simply political disagreement. When scriptures are burne outside an LDS Church it is NOT simple political disagreement.

Such things are hate crimes They are the grossest kind of bigotry. And ANYONE who defends such conduct as anything but, is a small minded bigot no different than the hooded cowards who dare to call themselves "knights". So go out your bed sheet and sign up because in having defended and downplayed overt, criminal conduct against the LDS Church simply because you disagree with a political position you have shown yourself to be of the same small mind.

You are correct. Not every disagreement with the LDS Church or its members is because of bigotry. I've made very clear that I do not support Romney for President due to his position on my RKBA. It has nothing to do with religious bigotry as he and I belong to the same church.

But in your self-righteous zeal, you fail to realize that neither is every disagreement with the militant homosexual political agenda based on hate, bigotry, or phobia towardy homosexuals. Consenting adults ought to be free to live their private lives in peace. But judges should not be forcing their views on an electorate and those who would welcome such dictates this time ought to recall that 95%+ of the time, those same judges will happily strip you of any and all RKBA. And the vast majority of this nation is pretty well convinced that we need not, should not, officially sanction, condone, reward, nor encourage homosexual conduct by calling it "marriage."

Charles