I was following the postings on a certain message board
yesterday -- not one that I generally frequent, but a
board linked to in an on-line article about the Oscar
awards. Seems that a certain public figure was allowed
to make the announcement for a particular movie....

Anyway, to cut a long story short, the reaction to this
incident provoked a lengthy series of extremely hostile
remarks, regarding that particular public figure.

Some postings were simply expressions of anger... anger
at what that public figure represented, purportedly had
done, allegedly was doing, to seriously harm others.

Another set of postings, intermixed with angry ones,
centered upon hatred -- expressed utter contempt and
horror that such a person even be allowed on the TV.

Finally there came the inevitable "put a bullet in
the heart" of that much hated Academy Awards presenter.

The poster got away with the remark, for awhile, because
the wording said something like "I WISH somebody would
put a bullet in..." rather than, "I WILL put a bullet..."

In the context of reactions to Mormonism, and to religion
in general, where do we draw the line, in expressing
feelings of anger, hatred, and advocating violence?

For example, could I today say -- "I'd murder any member
of a religion who carries out mountain meadow massacres."
or...... "I will murder..." or, "I want you to murder..."
???

Where do we draw the line, between being angry and being
criminal in our expressions against such things?

UD

ok so I know this is very wrong, but I have imagined:
1. A large asteroid taking out most of Utah
2. The active volcanoes in Yellowstone Park erupting and taking out Montana, Idaho, Utah,
3. Alien spaceships like they had in Independence Day coming to reclaim their children (the first presidency and the twelve) and anybody else in all the temples all over the world, of course they'd just think it was the rapture.
4. Tectonic plates moving again, making the rockies higher than the himalayas and in the process swallowing most of Zion


I know it's absolutely terrible, but it just gives me warm fuzzies to think about it all being gone.

So as sad as it is I understand that anger and hatred can make us think things that really do go against what we know to be right



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/26/2013 01:21PM by minnie.

minnie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ok so I know this is very wrong, but I have
> imagined:
> 1. A large asteroid taking out most of Utah
> ...

Even a small meteorite hitting Temple Square
would make for interesting newspaper headlines. I
really wouldn't want it to hurt anybody though.

UD

Maybe one that is super small by the time it impacts, and it hits the JS memorial building, penetrates the walls, and hits that marble statue of JS right in the pecker.

Even as an atheist, I'd be telling every TBM that it was a sign from god ;)

Don't you like me? Why do you want to wipe out Montana?

If the Yellowstone Caldera blew, everyone in the areas you mention would die, almost immediately. Then the cloud would expand and, probably, cover a large area of Canada and the US. It would kill many more and make life difficult in North America.

Being as YNP is in WY, it would be the first to go.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/26/2013 04:11PM by John_Lyle.

John_Lyle Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Don't you like me? Why do you want to wipe out
> Montana?
>
> If the Yellowstone Caldera blew, everyone in the
> areas you mention would die, almost immediately.
> Then the cloud would expand and, probably, cover a
> large area of Canada and the US. It would kill
> many more and make life difficult in North
> America.
>
> Being as YNP is in WY, it would be the first to
> go.

In 1959 I was thrown out of bed, in Idaho Falls,
when the Hebgen Lake quake struck. Folks over in
Jackson Hole had their roofs collapse on them.

Luckily it was a relatively minor thing and Yellwstone
didn't go nuclear..... that time.

Local Mormons were sure that "The Prophet" would make
some profound announcement -- maybe even issue a
revelation. A month later it was all forgotten.

UD

Some people's cluelessness is breathtaking. They probably make bomb jokes in airport security screening lines.

Brother Of Jerry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Some people's cluelessness is breathtaking. They
> probably make bomb jokes in airport security
> screening lines.

Well, yeah, even if the presumed target were a retired
national leader, etc.

But there are plenty of other possible targets of violence
that do not fall within the circle of national security.

The last Days of 1847 parade that I attended in SLC was
in 1982. I do not even recall seeing the LDS President's
car, but the fellow I was with pointed out a Church
Security agent on the street, and told me that there
were others on the Main Street (State Street?) rooftops.

"Why?" I asked?

"Snipers -- to take out assassins. That bastard gets more
death threats than you can imagine..."

Now, maybe that's true, and maybe it isn't. But I doubt
there are Mormon spies monitoring this message board,
tracing back the ISP addresses of posters calling for
revenge against the mountain meadows massacring religion.

My view, is that engaging in such desires and threats
harms our own mental health, and is a sort of cancer,
inflicted on the nation/community.

Others might argue that NOT allowing these feelings and
desires public expression just keeps them bottled up
until they get acted out in violent episodes.

I'm curious to know -- what are the limits, here on
this board, for example.

UD

Oh gee, so swell you've gotten past the anger stage, but talking condescendingly to other posters is pretty low. You chased one off the board yesterday.
Nobody here gets to regulate anyone else's recovery process.
If you think a post crosses into actual 'threat' territory, use the report button rather than scolding. True threats will not stand here, but I think you are lost when it comes to venting. Part of recovery will involve ranting and raging for many people. Getting them to suppress it is not healthy, it's what mormons want us to do, contention being of the devil and all that.

Put on your happy face! :D

Just an observation: the Internet has given people the opportunity to use the keyboard like a gun filled with bullets that they can fire away, most often in anonymity displaying the most debasing, and disgusting of humanity as if it was acceptable.

Why? I have often wondered why it is so important for people to use filthy, violent, criminal, threatening language when expressing an opinion. I, personally, discount all of that kind of expression as garbage and not credible.

What ever happened to being civil and decent and showing some respect for other human beings when sharing an opinion?

Why is hate so acceptable?

And why do others accept such expressions?

SusieQ#1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
...
>
> What ever happened to being civil and decent and
> showing some respect for other human beings when
> sharing an opinion?
>
...

I've seen it all my life. Had a neighbor down the street
who paraded around with a shotgun, yelling at anybody
that ventured near his fenced-in property.

But something new is happening now. I could walk away
from that unhappy angry guy and ignore him.

I could watch a Shakespeare play, in which the king yells
out, "will nobody rid me of this turbulent priest," and
know that the death threat was made in the context of
actually criticizing such inhumanity.

Today the old context is disappearing.

Today I cannot walk away from a voiced threat and be
certain that physical distance removes the danger.

But... What would be the moral difference between my
stating on-line that I would like to see a certain LDS
leader dead, and my posting the same message, along
with directions to the grade school his kids attend?

At some point, I guess the proverbial "line" must be
drawn -- by majority rule, or wisdom, or something.

How can that be done, in today's changing world?

UD

I often wonder why some claim that anger and hate as part of the grieving process are negative and must be quashed, but those same people support anger and hate when they are cloaked as religious belief and call it freedom of religion.

Surrender Dorothy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I often wonder why some claim that anger and hate
> as part of the grieving process are negative and
> must be quashed, but those same people support
> anger and hate when they are cloaked as religious
> belief and call it freedom of religion.


The memory that got me to thinking about this matter
was the Libyan assassination of a fellow we knew, on
the Weber State campus, back in 1981. I can't recall
if Nabil was then a registered student, but several
people knew him.

His deteriorating dead body was discovered in the trunk
of a car, a stone's throw from the home of one of man
good friends, Gary Carter. I was there just after the
corpse was taken away.

Anybody who was living in Ogden at the time will recall
the response -- mostly directed at the WSC (now WSU)
Iranian students. There were very few Libyans to
direct anger at. But, for a few days at least, the
"Let's lynch the ragheads" rhetoric was very strong.
An Iranian student I knew then avoided attending classes,
to avoid the "wipe the Muslims off the map" jeering.

Why do I recall that, so vividly? Because, then, I was
one of those same anger-filled people -- almost a mob --
that wanted the "others" wiped out.

This was long, long before 911, but the palpable hatred
of an alien religion was very strong and I bought into
it. I'd have probably strung up Gaddafi's mullah, as
my buddies then were yelling out, if I could have.

UD

Opinions wrapped up in pretty packages are often inane and useless and serve no one. They generally represent the masking of feelings or burying hurt and anger, which is destructive to the human psyche. I know of no one who can just snap their fingers and let go of every negative instantly--never to feel it again. And, I distrust anyone who claims to be able to do that.

When you come here, you have to accept that this is a firing range of sorts. We are all free to shoot at the bullseye with our honesty. Most include wit and humor in their arsenal, but I appreciate when someone just needs to get it all out in any style they want to.

There is something in-between vitriol/hate and the pretty Pollyanna presentation of opinion a few recommend. If you have a strong opinion, put it out there strongly--it may help to be clever, be classy, clear and concise, and you may make more progress in presenting your case, but harnessed rage is powerful. It is controlled anger and it is an important tool in making things better. Just ask Martin Luther King. If he had wrapped his agenda in ribbons and bows, the black people would still be stuck 'being patient' for their equality as those in control of the status quo urged them to do. Just be patient!?!?
No, he harnessed the passionate rage, nonviolently, and found that middle ground of righteous harnessed anger that served his cause so well.

When people complain about anger and hate, it often only serves the purpose of diverting attention away from a truly serious issue that needs addressing.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/26/2013 04:54PM by blueorchid.

MLK did wrap it in non-violence. To me, he found a way to draw a line against violence without violence or hatred.

But I owe much to harnessed rage.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/26/2013 03:34PM by thingsithink.

+1

As per your usual, blueorchid, beautifully said.

>
> What ever happened to being civil and decent and
> showing some respect for other human beings when
> sharing an opinion?
>
One of my favorite cartoons is a picture of 2 aliens hovering above earth, and you can see little depictions of bomb blasts occuring below the aliens. One alien says to the other alien "As far as I can tell they're fighting over which religion is the most peaceful."

Even with taking the humor of the cartoon into consideration, there seems to be a lot truth behind that statement.

Not my personal opinion, but it appears you need to gerrymander the line to exclude thoughtful queries at a minimum.

Personally, the mental health angle rings true.

There would be an un-ending string of spectacular smitings in my wake. The whole "absolute power corrupting absolutely" would probably apply to me.

Not that I'm evil, just human. The Old Testament God is a very petty, nasty, vengeful sort. I'm quite convinced that he accurately reflects the nature of the humans who created him. Jesus of the New Testament is more lovey, touchy feelly, also a reflection of His creators. I'm both. I imagine most of us are both at one time or another and fall somewhere in between most of the time.

I'm quite certain that my personal line is based on my current circumstances and biology. I kind of have a hard time viewing this topic a purely a moral question. Violence is part of our nature, suppressing it is probably also part of our nature. Both probably have evolutionary advantages. The legal question is probably best addressed in the courts where there is at least a codified attempt and rationality.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/26/2013 02:33PM by koriwhoremonger.

This may be too nit-picky, but I don't really draw the line at "criminal," but at "moral" (as I define as meaning harmful to society).

For example, if I recorded a phone call between myself and a GA and published it to make the GA look bad, that is legal in Utah... but in many states it wouldn't be without the GA being aware of the recording.

So the same action could be criminal in one place but not another.

So if I magically knew that the only way to stop the church was by committing a "criminal" activity (but one I didn't consider morally wrong) I'd still be willing to do it, and then suffer the consequences.

An extreme example is always to look back at Hitler and ask if a person could time travel if they personally would be willing/capable of assassinating Hitler (if they knew that it would only have positive effects on the timeline). Most people would condone such an action, but few would be willing to execute him themselves.

I do not think that the church is as bad as Hitler (even though they view me as worse than Hitler since I deny the Holy Ghost all the time), and therefore I do not condone any threats or violence against them.
BUT- they are not benign, and as such I would condone a subset of "criminal" actions depending on the situation (most would likely fall under the "Hacktivism" category of "criminal").

Lurking never-mo here. It is so rare that I have a chance to share this and have it be perfect for the situation

International Association of Time Travelers: Members' Forum Subforum: Europe – Twentieth Century – Second World War

11/15/2104

At 14:52:28, FreedomFighter69 wrote:
Reporting my first temporal excursion since joining IATT: have just returned from 1936 Berlin, having taken the place of one of Leni Riefenstahl's cameramen and assassinated Adolf Hitler during the opening of the Olympic Games. Let a free world rejoice!

At 14:57:44, SilverFox316 wrote:
Back from 1936 Berlin; incapacitated FreedomFighter69 before he could pull his little stunt. Freedomfighter69, as you are a new member, please read IATT Bulletin 1147 regarding the killing of Hitler before your next excursion. Failure to do so may result in your expulsion per Bylaw 223.

At 18:06:59, BigChill wrote:
Take it easy on the kid, SilverFox316; everybody kills Hitler on their first trip. I did. It always gets fixed within a few minutes, what's the harm?

At 18:33:10, SilverFox316 wrote:
Easy for you to say, BigChill, since to my recollection you've never volunteered to go back and fix it. You think I've got nothing better to do?

11/16/2104

At 10:15:44, JudgeDoom wrote:
Good news! I just left a French battlefield in October 1916, where I shot dead a young Bavarian Army messenger named Adolf Hitler! Not bad for my first time, no? Sic semper tyrannis!

At 10:22:53, SilverFox316 wrote:
Back from 1916 France I come, having at the last possible second prevented Hitler's early demise at the hands of JudgeDoom and, incredibly, restrained myself from shooting JudgeDoom and sparing us all years of correcting his misguided antics. READ BULLETIN 1147, PEOPLE!

At 15:41:18, BarracksRoomLawyer wrote:
Point of order: issues related to Hitler's service in the Bavarian Army ought to go in the World War I forum.

11/21/2104

At 02:21:30, SneakyPete wrote:
Vienna, 1907: after numerous attempts, have infiltrated the Academy of Fine Arts and facilitated Adolf Hitler's admission to that institution. Goodbye, Hitler the dictator; hello, Hitler the modestly successful landscape artist! Brought back a few of his paintings as well, any buyers?

At 02:29:17, SilverFox316 wrote:
All right; that's it. Having just returned from 1907 Vienna where I secured the expulsion of Hitler from the Academy by means of an elaborate prank involving the Prefect, a goat, and a substantial quantity of olive oil, I now turn my attention to our newer brethren, who, despite rules to the contrary, seem to have no intention of reading Bulletin 1147 (nor its Addendum, Alternate Means of Subverting the Hitlerian Destiny, and here I'm looking at you, SneakyPete). Permit me to sum it up and save you the trouble: no Hitler means no Third Reich, no World War II, no rocketry programs, no electronics, no computers, no time travel. Get the picture?

At 02:29:49, SilverFox316 wrote:
PS to SneakyPete: your Hitler paintings aren't worth anything, schmuck, since you probably brought them directly here from 1907, which means the paint's still fresh. Freaking n00b.

At 07:55:03, BarracksRoomLawyer wrote:
Amen, SilverFox316. Although, point of order, issues relating to early 1900s Vienna should really go in that forum, not here. This has been a recurring problem on this forum.

11/26/2104

At 18:26:18, Jason440953 wrote:
SilverFox316, you seem to know a lot about the rules; what are your thoughts on traveling to, say, Braunau, Austria, in 1875 and killing Alois Hitler before he has a chance to father Adolf? Mind you, I'm asking out of curiosity alone, since I already went and did it.

At 18:42:55, SilverFox316 wrote:
Jason440953, see Bylaw 7, which states that all IATT rulings regarding historical persons apply to ancestors as well. I post this for the benefit of others, as I already made this clear to young Jason in person as I was dragging him back from 1875 by his hair. Got that? No ancestors. (Though if anyone were to go back to, say, Moline, Illinois, in, say, 2080 or so, and intercede to prevent Jason440953's conception, I could be persuaded to look the other way.)

At 21:19:17, BarracksRoomLawyer wrote:
Point of order: discussions of nineteenth–century Austria and twenty–first–century Illinois should be confined to their respective forums.

12/01/2104

At 15:56:41, AsianAvenger wrote:
FreedomFighter69, JudgeDoom, SneakyPete, Jason440953, you're nothing but a pack of racists. Let the light of righteousness shine upon your squalid little viper's nest!

At 16:40:17, BigTom44 wrote:
Well, here we frickin' go.

At 16:58:42, FreedomFighter69 wrote:
Racist? For killing Hitler? WTF?

At 17:12:52, SaucyAussie wrote:
AsianAvenger, you're not rehashing that whole Nagasaki issue again, are you? We just got everyone calmed down from last time.

At 17:22:37, LadyJustice wrote:
I'm with SaucyAussie. AsianAvenger, you're making even less sense than usual. What gives?

At 18:56:09, AsianAvenger wrote:
What gives is everyone's repeated insistence on a course of action which, even if successful, would only save a few million Europeans. It would be no more trouble to travel to Fuyuanshui, China, in 1814 and kill Hong Xiuquan, thus preventing the Taiping Rebellion of the mid–nineteenth century and saving fifty million lives in the process. But, hey, what are fifty million yellow devils more or less, right, guys? We've got Poles and Frenchmen to worry about.

At 19:01:38, LadyJustice wrote:
Well, what's stopping you from killing him, AsianAvenger?

At 19:11:43, AsianAvenger wrote:
Only to have SilverFox316 undo my work? What's the point?

At 19:59:23, SilverFox316 wrote:
Actually, it seems like a pretty good idea to me, AsianAvenger. No complications that I can see.

At 20:07:25, Big Chill wrote:
Go for it, man.

At 20:11:31, AsianAvenger wrote:
Very well. I shall return in mere moments, the savior of millions!

At 20:14:17, LadyJustice wrote:
Just checked the timeline; congrats on your success, AsianAvenger!

12/02/2104

At 10:52:53, LadyJustice wrote:
AsianAvenger?

At 11:41:40, SilverFox316 wrote:
AsianAvenger, we need your report, buddy.

At 17:15:32, SilverFox316 wrote:
Okay, apparently AsianAvenger was descended from Hong Xiuquan. Any volunteers to go back and stop him from negating his own existence?

12/10/2104

At 09:14:44, SilverFox316 wrote:
Anyone?

At 09:47:13, BarracksRoomLawyer wrote:
Point of order: this discussion belongs in the Qing Dynasty forum. We're adults; can we keep sight of what's important around here?

I had no idea that people were so into these "what if"
time travel scenarios. But, it's interesting to read
the variety of views expressed in those exchanges.

If we could be ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that time traveling
to assassinate a problematic leader in the past would
wonderfully improve our current world, should we do it?

Or, as a Futurama variation on the same theme, if we
had the same certainty about an upcoming future event,
and could stop a bad incipient crime, should we do it?

All of the possible paradoxes of temporal interference
aside, there remains the basic question -- should we?

But, taking one step back, I don't suppose we can ever
be fully certain as to the outcome of such decisions,
either in a fanciful time-travel scenario, or in our
actual contemporary lives.

I'd say that it's a crap shoot. Go back and assassinate
Hitler, only to then discover that Ernst Roehm becomes
the German leader who invades Poland.

We determine that a grandson of a current LDS apostle will
one day hijack American Democracy and establish the
world-wide theocratic State of Deseret. So, it is decided
to kill apostle and his sons today, so that the grandson
is never born.

What could possibly go wrong?

I see a probable progression in such thinking:

Idealism/Fear ---> Anger/Determination ---> Rage/Action
At some point we human beings choose to draw a line,
over which we will not cross, and will not let others
cross. Or, at least some of us try to draw that line.

Expressing our Idealism, or Fear, or Anger seems not only
justified to me, but sometimes absolutely necessary.

Moving from that sort of venting, to uncontrolled Rage,
seems much more problematical. Even if we attempt to
cloak that rage in terms of the justification of
wiping out totalitarian dictators (past or present).

UD

On this board in particular, I agree with WinkWinks. Almost everyone on this board is recovering from being involved with a cult. Some of them have been involved for DECADES.

Leaving a religion can be some what scary for some people but mostly it just involves going to a new church or deciding not to go to church.

Leaving the LDS Church is the same as leaving a cult. You suddenly have no support structure and since your entire life was the cult, you have no life.

Anger is going to be a natural reaction to that. I had a lot of anger about it (and still do, occasionally) in the years immediately following some major LDS-based events in my life. I coped by writing stories.

Everyone copes differently and this board is definitely going to be a place for people to vent their frustrations regarding the cult. As well it should be.

What I find very difficult to understand is the bitter, unreasoning hatred against "a certain person" and her political spouse expressed by "certain groups."

The only thing that I take comfort from is that I am absolutely positive that such corrosive hatred eats away at the soul. There won't be much left of their souls, for sure.