LivingHistory: Mormonism’s ‘9/11 mosque moment’ came in 1903

[Mosby]

Just found this article, it kinda puts the whole "Mormons hating on Mosques and Islam thing" into focus.

http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/of-mos ... -mentality

[pritchet1]

.

[Like]

Just found this article, it kinda puts the whole "Mormons hating on Mosques and Islam thing" into focus.

http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/of-mos ... -mentality

This article is too good not to fully post it here

On September 11, a group of individuals united by their faith brutally killed a large number of innocent people. Years later, other members of the religion to which these murderers belonged attempted to build a religious center nearby. Politicians did not protest, the media did not hype the construction of the building to manufacture controversy, and the nation remained largely ignorant of the religious edifice. If this sounds at odds with what America has witnessed in the past few days, that’s because it is.

The aforementioned scenario refers not to the wrongly-named “Ground Zero Mosque”, but to a couple of chapels outside of Cedar City, Utah, belonging to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.


The September 11th mentioned above was in 1857, when 50 to 60 armed members of the local militia, who were also Mormons, attacked and killed around 120 emigrants heading to California by wagon. Today, there stands within just a few miles of that scene two LDS chapels housing five separate congregations.

Perhaps another example is in order. On August 6, 1945, the United States government extinguished the lives of over 70,000 Japanese, and injured at least the same number, through the use of the newly-engineered atomic bomb. Hiroshima was extraordinarily scarred, the lives of thousands of innocent individuals snuffed out in seconds. Today, however, the United States government operates three ammunition depots within the Hiroshima Prefecture, and a military base less than two dozen miles away.

The above examples are offered in an attempt to rebut, through indirect reference to the golden rule, the public outcry that has saturated America’s airwaves in the past few days. Mormons, especially—we who have been collectively targeted by mob rule and coercive government action—should keenly understand and sympathize with those of other faiths who are placed in a similar situation.

But we generally don’t. Why not?

Fundamentally, the issue of the proposed Islamic community center boils down to property rights. Either individuals are free to purchase and use their own property as they see fit (provided they do no harm to others), or they’re not. Opponents of the project superficially acknowledge this argument, but qualify it with a litany of conditions: they should be sensitive to the families of the 9/11 victims; they have their property rights and freedom of religion, but should exercise them elsewhere; their selected location is too close to “ground zero”; and the construction of this mosque will be seen as a victory for Islam right in the very location where some of its adherents forced America to its knees.

Yawn.

These qualifiers are simply subtle demonstrations that the person using them in no way respects property rights, nor the freedom of religion. Worse still, members of the LDS Church who espouse such intellectually hollow rhetoric place themselves (perhaps unknowingly) in an awkward situation divorced from their own history. We, too, have been castigated in the public square for the actions of others who claim our religion as their own. We believe that man will punished for his own sins, but want to tie the sins of others to an entire religion in an attempt to deny them their pursuit of happiness. We claim “the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may,” and yet, we don’t.

Some have expressed concerns about the impact of allowing an advocate for Sharia law to have such a strong foothold in New York City, and the potential political implications such a large community center would have. Again, though, this fear (or any of its derivations) reeks with hypocrisy when vocalized by Latter-day Saints. One of the primary rallying cries for the anti-Mormon mobs was in regards to the significant political power the Mormons wielded through their unified votes, and the mixture of religion and politics in the theo-democratic institutions with which Joseph Smith experimented. The Prophet was mayor of his city, commanded a powerful militia, spearheaded institutions that combined religious and political power into one, and even sought out the highest political office in the United States government! Any one of these actions alone would have fed sufficient controversy to the opposing mob, but their combination ultimately proved fatal for the man who restored the gospel of Jesus Christ to the Earth. We Mormons of all people, then, should immediately, sincerely, and vocally reject any sort of similar uproar targeted at others.

If we Mormons have learned anything from our history, it’s that a group of individuals whipped into a fanatic frenzy based on hearsay, emotional appeals, and populist rhetoric can quickly transform into a mob bent on alienation, persecution, and even destruction. Having been subjected to an extermination order, forceful ejections from property, pillage, plunder, and a deprivation of every comfort imaginable, our Latter-day Saint ancestors would surely be appalled at the degree to which many of their posterity are exhibiting some of the same characteristics in reference to those of another faith.

We who have historically suffered such persecution should be among the most ardent defenders of individual liberty, private property, freedom of religion, and freedom of association. We should be passing this latest litmus test with flying colors, boldly standing up for the oppressed minority now targeted by mob mentality, expressing sympathy and support—not necessarily for this specific project in its specific location, but for the right its organizers have to pursue it, and the freedom that should accompany such a right.

That we have collectively failed in this regard is a stain on our much-revered, Moroni-inspired Title of Liberty, and a lost opportunity to prove that we have learned from our past. Where once we were the victims of the mob, now we are part of it.

[pritchet1]

We didn't make plans for destroying the US;

http://www.homelandsecurityus.com/PDF/GovtExM.pdf

This also may be of interest - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Islam

And this - http://newstime.co.nz/apostates-from-is ... khari.html

And even this - http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran ... ostasy.htm

[Hyrcanus]

We didn't make plans for destroying the US;

http://www.homelandsecurityus.com/PDF/GovtExM.pdf

This also may be of interest - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Islam

And this - http://newstime.co.nz/apostates-from-is ... khari.html

You're smarter than this.

We don't think of it that way as members of the Church, but those with poor intentions certainly read many of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young's statements as supportive of the overthrow of the government. Just in one instance Brigham declared Martial Law in Utah and ordered the various militias under his control to prepare to repel US forces.

Here is one looney toon with his own odd take:

http://mormonconspiracy.com/

He sees things like the Council of Fifty as active conspiracies to wrest control of the government. He reads statements about the ultimate theocracy the Lord will bring as a government controlled by Mormon's. We think he is nutty for reading it that way, but many Muslim's feel the same way about their extremist brethren.

Edit: What exactly is the appropriate litmus test to administer to determine when it is acceptable to toss out property rights and the freedom of religion? What criteria needs to be met for those guarding principles to be discarded?

[pritchet1]

.

[Hyrcanus]

So do Muslims who live in the US deny what is written in the Qur'an?

We've already seen what happens to those who convert to Christianity here in the US, who are female. And we've seen the beheadings of those who live outside the US.

I do not wish to live under Sharia Law.

They don't deny the Qur'an, but their interpretation might differ from yours. Just as our interpretations of the Bible, BoM, D&C and PoGP differ from our critics who read all sorts of ridiculous things that aren't actually being said.

You keep referencing the extremities some members of Islam will go to, many Christians and/or Mormons have done some equally terrible things.

You're equivocating living under Sharia Law to the building of this Mosque. They aren't the same thing. I'd fight living under Sharia Law as well, but that isn't what is being discussed here. You're falling into the trap of using logical fallacies to justify your position.

[pritchet1]

.

[Mosby]

We didn't make plans for destroying the US;

http://www.homelandsecurityus.com/PDF/GovtExM.pdf

This also may be of interest - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Islam

And this - http://newstime.co.nz/apostates-from-is ... khari.html

And even this - http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran ... ostasy.htm

Pritchet- I have always loved your post's and your insights here- but posting sources of "Islamic world domination" from HomelandSSecurity is a but much.

Maybe we would take your "research" more seriously if you posted some facts about Islam from a more respected source like Sean Hannity, Mark Levin - or Laura Ingram

Please tell me that linking to HomelandSSecurity was a joke right?

[pritchet1]

I had to scroll down to read the English translation.

[Hyrcanus]

The mosque in question (which would probably make it #101 as to mosques in NYC) is a false flag situation, because we know that 9/11 was also a false flag. I am not against building buildings, but I don't care for what that particular building will symbolically represent. (For that matter, I do not like what Wall Street represents.)

I'd also like to see the victory mosques on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem removed, so the new temple in Jerusalem can be built.

I'm just not too hip on Islam and what is written to be "gospel" in the sacred writings of Muhammad.

At least we have a temple in NYC, after it was rejected to being built in White Plains.

So why are you advocating the government stomping on freedom of religion in order to enforce your personal preference in religion?

[pritchet1]

The "gubmint" is not stalling the building from being built. On the contrary, the POTUS is using his influence and using taxpayer money to promote its being built.

That is just not correct. But he hasn't done anything that has been correct.

[singyourwayhome]

That's a great question. I'm not sure enough of myself right now to have a good answer. After reading Connor's blog entry, I stand corrected. I think he's right.
It might still be a KIND idea for the Imam to not build there... but I think he does have the right to do it.

[SmallFarm]

That's a great question. I'm not sure enough of myself right now to have a good answer. After reading Connor's blog entry, I stand corrected. I think he's right.
It might still be a KIND idea for the Imam to not build there... but I think he does have the right to do it.

I'm completely sure that the Imam is trying to be directly provocative. The point is we are greater fools to be offended when that is the intent.

[pritchet1]

The Center for Security Policy has a number of links discussing Stealth Sharia -
http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/index.xml

See also Jihad Watch - http://www.jihadwatch.org/

[Mosby]

For those who haven't let fear cloud their eyes, here's an interesting article:

http://mormonism.suite101.com/article.c ... connection

[pritchet1]

American Grand Jury Discussion continues;

http://americangrandjury.org/the-brothe ... -the-guard

[pritchet1]

Why Muslims do what they do;

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/27092

[pritchet1]

The POTUS' Fatwa;

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/27070

[InfoWarrior82]

There needs to be more of a drive to investigate this shady Imam otherwise you're going to have a hard time battling the constitution to prevent the mosque from being built.

[SmallFarm]

There needs to be more of a drive to investigate this shady Imam otherwise you're going to have a hard time battling the constitution to prevent the mosque from being built.

But why battle it being built in the first place? I mean, the Imam is probably trying to be provacative, like the bully that stands three inches in front of your face and screams "Hit me I dare you." But what is the most appropriate response? Like that bully, the Imam is trying to start a fight and make it look like we started it. My response would be to ignore the whole mess.

[pritchet1]

Actually, the other player in the game that owns half the property and owes taxes on it, may be instrumental in it not being built.