I received a comment, today, on my Christmas Eve post. It's a bit cryptic. But, I want to respond to it. I'm putting it here because I wanted everyone else to give it a look and see what they thought. And, because, I hate responding to LONG posts in comments. It's too hard to keep going back and forth.
K. OF Creich said...
Lovely children--I am envious. I was
too ill to have any, many of the descendents who live or lived near Mountain
Meadows have died or are ill. Isotopic Radiation is bad for living things.
Can you site some sources where I can verify this claim? I was under the impression that the area was being held in trust by the LDS Church and they didn't want any development at the site because they are afraid of what might be dug up that would further implicate the LDS brethren. Where would the radiation have come from? There's never been any government testing in that area. I've been there and it's actually a gorgeous place. If there were levels of radiation great enough to make people ill, one would think there would be an environmental impact as well. That aside,...I'm sorry to hear that you were unable to have children. Infertility can be devastating.
So I never had any kids, but as an oldest child, i never lacked for parental
love-mine for my brats--or the responsibilties of co-parenting.
Who are your brats? Your siblings?
I suspect Atheism to be a religion,and think it ought to be handled as all
others, including the separation of Church and State--it's Constitutional
Protection stems from this premise.
I suspect you don't really understand atheism, then. If atheism is a religion, then please share, with all of us, the tenets of the atheist faith. Please share the framework for worship and, indeed, what we are worshipping. If atheism is a religion, then you should be able to point to a place where we gather to worship or some sort of organized, central hierarchy. I don't really understand what you're trying to say with your nod to the constitution. *I* suspect that the reason you'd like atheism to be considered a religion is because you imagine that there's an atheist agenda that you'd like to keep out of schools or public life. The problem with that is that there's no agenda except for the agenda you have made up in your head.
Religion creates a family bond, or in mixed families, families, bonds.
Mmmmkay. There are many other stimuli and/or circumstances that create familial bonds, too. That doesn't make the stimulus or circumstance a religion.
Children love religion for this reason, but if parents try to control their
childrens' late adolescent or adult beleifs, for methis crosses the line. Ditto
withthe rejection or exclution of family or extended family members on the basis
Well, first I'm going to have to ask you to provide evidence for your statement that "children love religion". I don't think this is an accurate statement. Children like stability and consistency and affection. Certainly, those things aren't only provided by religion. I do agree with you that rejecting and excluding family members based on a religion premise crosses the line of human decency...and for the LDS, which you claim to be a member of, it's hypocrisy.
I am Mormon. I took Philosophy at BYU, and whatever you are, causation cannot be
proven--it cannot even be prove that the hammer striking the nail drives it into
the wood. All we have is a sequence of events linked together by
paradigms-systems of beleif or religion, including Atheism, are ways of linking
phenomena. We cannot prove that a Deity existed.
Can I ask why you didn't go to a school outside of your faith? Doesn't that seem a little insular to you? Are you surprised that your BYU philosophy classes would feed you an answer that suited/suits your religious precepts? I'm not.
I don't need to prove causation to reject a creator.
We have so much more than a "sequence of events linked together by paradigms". We have science and natural law to show us how life has progressed. We have history to illuminate our past. We have anthropology and archeology to shed light on the cultures of our human history. Atheism is not about linking phenomena together...and such claims are how I'm sure that you don't really understand what atheism is. Atheism is a position on ONE claim - the belief in the existence of a deity. That's it. The rest is the arena of other subjects or philosophical discussions. You have to get that through your head before you can even hope to claim an understanding of atheism and atheists.
I do love mythology, and the Sacred Story of Mormonism, which for me, is both
religion and ethnicity--by one quarter.
I'm sure you almost have to love mythology. Is this an admission, on your part, that the "Sacred Story" is mythology?
I was a deeply religious child. My father was a Battle Fatigue victimand my
Faith comforted me--myFaith in a love greater than any I could find at home or
in the World.
Fantastic. If you found something that gives you comfort, then I won't dispute your emotions. HOWEVER, the comfort something gives us, be it any number of things, is not, in-and-of itself, proof of the validity of the belief or thing. If I walked up to you and said, "The Smurfs gave me great comfort as a child, so the Smurfs should be worshipped and adored.", then you would be completely justified in asking me to prove the existence of the Smurfs. If I was unable to do so, which you admit being unable to do with regard to your God, then there would be absolutely, positively no reason to renounce your atheist position towards The Smurfs.
The Eastern concept of devotee/deciple, seems very sensible to me. I am a
devotee. Described as Love and Light, I can feel the Divine within me.
I don't feel or believe in the George Bush God of payback or vegence and neither
did my ancestors.
Which ancestors? Your Mormon ancestors most CERTAINLY DID believe in vengeance and payback. Did you not go through the temple? Did you not swear an oath of blood atonement? If you didn't, your ancestors did. Mountain Meadows is a perfect example of your ancestor's need for vengeance. Since some of the Fancher Party came out of Southern Missouri, Brigham Young ordered the attack on the grounds that these people "may have been" related to those that chased the Saints out of Independence. Furthermore, let's look at Joseph Smith - why exactly was he arrested and placed in prison? Oh, yeah...because HE DESTROYED A PRINTING PRESS that was printing less than glowing reviews of his self-made religion and business practices and polygamy. What part of that isn't vengeful? What part of that isn't payback?
I think Brigham Youngand the bodyguards he inherited from Joseph
Smith had a plan to seperate the Misouri Wildcats and any others involved in the 40
of Joseph Smithby
keeping them on the Spanish Trail until the Boggs turnoff--so the nitro and glicerain would be kept
apart and no innocent blood would be shed--they were larglylight skinned indians from the five
nations or part indian.
Young, and Lee, KNEW that the Fancher party was NOT involved, in any way, shape, or form, with the murder of Joseph Smith. Which, let's be real honest here, was it really murder? He and his cronies got into a fire fight (WHILE IN PRINSON) and Smith fell from a second story window. There's this saying that I really, really like and use with my kids: the best defense is to not be in a position where you need to fight. Smith was in jail because he broke the law - constitutional law, at that.
The Fancher Party was assassinated BY MORMONS! Not Indians. The LDS of that area heard about the very well provisioned wagon train, the richest of the trails for that year, and the Kentucky-made rifles and horses and 200 head of cattle. At the time, Young was panicking about the fact that the United States was going to remove him from his position of governor of the Utah Territory and open Southern Utah as a viable and Union supported route to California. And, why would the government do that? Because he was breaking the law of the land. He (Young) wanted to keep Utah as a "holy kingdom of Zion" where the laws of the United States were subject to the laws of the prophet. He declared Marshall Law rather than accept the stipulations of Statehood presented by the President of the United States. In short - he was on a power trip and he ordered the deaths of 120 men, women, and children, to boost his ego and his stock. Look at the evidence - children who survived the attack saw their mothers' jewelry on the wives of the men who were identified as the attackers. They painted their faces to look like Native Americans to throw off the Fanchers. If the mormon men were innocent, why didn't they IMMEDIATELY return the children to their families back in Arkansas? Why did they treat the surviving children like slaves and, in at least one case, force a surviving child to wash her mother's blood out of a dress so the ladies of the house could wear the dress? These are not the actions of benevolent rescuers.
The plan went awry partly because the Fancher did not understand the wartime
currency system and how to procure provisions. Threats, arrogance and bullying
were their downfall, but all hopedthat no innocent person would be killed or
Bullshit. They'd made it to Utah as the richest and best provisioned wagon party in the history of the trail. There's absolutely NO REASON that they suddenly became inept and bullish at Mountain Meadows. Go read the testimony and the history - the stuff that you DON'T get from your Church. THE TRUTH!
The rest of your comment was a testimony. You're entitled to it. But, there's nothing in it that stands on its own. If others want to read it and respond, then they can find it on the Christmas Eve post.