You sure you wanna get into that aspect? We can talk about MMM.
We sure can. The problem is there is little to talk about. MMM was not a directive to kill heretics, it was a fog of war mistake where BY may have at worse covered up for some criminals against a government he held suspect, for good reason. That’s the worst case.
We can contrast that with the wanton slaughter of tens of thousands of innocent people as long as you want, and that’s before we get into anything truly pukeworthy.
We can talk about Missouri. Trust me…there is a lot of blood on both sides…
Yes, we can talk about Missouri, and the defensive acts the LDS had to take as it was driven from state to state and eventually out of the country, leaving it’s murdered people in the ground as it left, let alone ransacked properties behind.
I’d be happy contrast that with murdered Cathars, all day long.
the only reason there is less blood on LDS hands is because they only come to being in 1800s.
That is a slanderous McCarthyistic statement, to hold someone accountable for actions they simply did not do. That is a wrong thing to do.
We are much better off talking about doctrine.
It’s understandable you might feel that way. Personally, I couldn’t carry water for a Church with the blood of millions of innocent people on it’s hands, before we even get to the doctrine which is nearly as troubled.
Why is this “going there”? Imagine the LDS Church never existed. How could you possible defend this activity? The murderous popes, the suppressions, the torture, the multiple Crusades, the Inquisitions.
Forget me, forget the LDS Church. How is this remotely defensible?