Blixa wrote:Wait, there was a 200 year stretch of actual world history where there were no "murderes, robbers, cheats, adulterers?"
As for your comments on the Danites, I refer you to the LDS church archives (as well as numerous other libraries and archives across america wherein resides plenty o' primary sources as well as the scholarly works that draw on them). The history of the organization may be ambiguous (and partly purposely ambiguous) but it in no way resembles your description of it.
You shouldn't believe everything Sally Denton writes. The Brothers of Gideon were originally formed to protect the Saints as they were being harrassed in Missouri. Then Sampson Avard decided to get a little over the top, and got cut down.
Of course, people like Denton and Brooks, and others who, as one reviewer said, "see Danites behind every bush," tend to see great cospiracies and massacres and all kinds of other horrific things in what was really a firecracker instead of a mortar.
Blixa wrote:Wait, there was a 200 year stretch of actual world history where there were no "murderes, robbers, cheats, adulterers?"
As for your comments on the Danites, I refer you to the LDS church archives (as well as numerous other libraries and archives across america wherein resides plenty o' primary sources as well as the scholarly works that draw on them). The history of the organization may be ambiguous (and partly purposely ambiguous) but it in no way resembles your description of it.
You shouldn't believe everything Sally Denton writes. The Brothers of Gideon were originally formed to protect the Saints as they were being harrassed in Missouri. Then Sampson Avard decided to get a little over the top, and got cut down.
Of course, people like Denton and Brooks, and others who, as one reviewer said, "see Danites behind every bush," tend to see great cospiracies and massacres and all kinds of other horrific things in what was really a firecracker instead of a mortar.
I've yet to read Sally Denton. I've been reading pioneer journals and diaries in the church archives, much like Juanita Brooks whose work has nothing in common with what you've just written.
Have you read Denton, or just the nameless reviewer you quote?
From the Ernest L. Wilkinson Diaries: "ELW dreams he's spattered w/ grease. Hundreds steal his greasy pants."
Blixa wrote: I've yet to read Sally Denton. I've been reading pioneer journals and diaries in the church archives, much like Juanita Brooks whose work has nothing in common with what you've just written.
Have you read Denton, or just the nameless reviewer you quote?
I read until I laughed so hard I cried. I stopped reading at that point. I have my favorite comedy writers . She isn't one of them.
charity wrote: I know you are LDS. And it scares me I could be sitting next to you in Gospel Doctrine class and not know it!
I not only tolerate, but appreciate a plurality of views. I actually enjoy those who march to the beat of a different drummer. I would love it if you were in my Gospel Doctrine class.
ludwigm wrote:"God's plan works according to the righteousness of the Saints" - - - the righteousness of the Saints was defined by the Saints themselves. The word "saint" was redefined, too.
Actually, if you look at the DSS you will find the word defined as we do. We just went back to the real meaning of the word, which had been changed over time to mean perfect people who perform miracles.
ludwigm wrote:"In the 200 years after Christ, the people lived such a law" - - - Never. NEVER. NEVER
Sure. Close your eyes, put your fingers in your ears, and shout "la-la-la-la" until the cows come home, but it won't change the truth.
ludwigm wrote:"Of course, all the bad guys had been killed off" - - - Of course. This is the most effective way to silent the antis, the doubters, the nonbelievers, all who are not us.
If you include part of your group of "us" as murderes, robbers, cheats, adulterers, I guess you would be worried. But we include honest people of whatever religious denomination as the good people of the world.
"We just went back to the real meaning of the word"
- - - I know, the adamic one, (c) Joseph Smith. (real meaning = anything is convenient to the Brethrens
"In the 200 years after Christ, the people lived such a law" - - - Never. NEVER. NEVER"
- - - The people never lived such a law. Many prophet-leader-wizard-utopist tried it. In the real history this has always failed. This is what I have said.
"If you include part of your group of us"
- - - That is not my group. It is Your. as far as I know, the Mormonism is a system which divide the people to that groups, "we" and "they". According to their (Your) definition, I am in the "they" group.
Your turn. You has the right to misunderstand. I don't care.
- Whenever a poet or preacher, chief or wizard spouts gibberish, the human race spends centuries deciphering the message. - Umberto Eco - To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin. - Cardinal Bellarmine at the trial of Galilei
charity wrote: I know you are LDS. And it scares me I could be sitting next to you in Gospel Doctrine class and not know it!
I not only tolerate, but appreciate a plurality of views. I actually enjoy those who march to the beat of a different drummer. I would love it if you were in my Gospel Doctrine class.
A different drummer than the Savior? I didn't really mean that. I would have used a MA&D board smilie there. But you asked for it!
I am curious about what plurality of views there can be when the truth is taught. I don't know of alternative truths.
ludwigm wrote: "We just went back to the real meaning of the word" - - - I know, the adamic one, (c) Joseph Smith. (real meaning = anything is convenient to the Brethrens [.quote]
That was a lame response. I referred to the DSS. I said nothing about "adamic language." Don't you have anything better?
ludwigm wrote:"In the 200 years after Christ, the people lived such a law" - - - Never. NEVER. NEVER" - - - The people never lived such a law. Many prophet-leader-wizard-utopist tried it. In the real history this has always failed. This is what I have said.
You can argue all you want. But it did occur. Of course, you can deny the historicity of the Book of Mormon. And like you said, you have the right to try to maintain your ignorance.
ludwigm wrote:"If you include part of your group of us" - - - That is not my group. It is Your. as far as I know, the Mormonism is a system which divide the people to that groups, "we" and "they". According to their (Your) definition, I am in the "they" group.
It is Jesus who divides people into sheep and goats. But the thing is, any goat can become a sheep if he wants to. We accept any and all who want to join us.
Tee hee. This is a funny post. The reason scholars don't go with Holley is that it doesn't fit the Book of Mormon. And how much would you have to hammer the text of the Book of Mormon to make it fit into an area with the climate of western New York/southern Ontario? A simple word search in the Book of Mormon will show you that the word "snow" only appears once in the Book of Mormon, and that is before they even leave the Old World.
Nothing in the narrative suggests ice or snow or any cold weather military compaigns. None of the water is mentioned as freezing over.
You can't hammer your way out of that.
You can't be serious. Apologists can't hammer their way out of something not being mentioned in the Book of Mormon? LOL!
Do you have any idea what the social complexity and the population levels of Northeastern US were during the Book of Mormon time period? Do you understand that the appearance of pottery is what normally marks the beginning of the Woodland period? These people were far, far, behind Mesoamerica in terms of social complexity. Even Mesoamerica is a stretch for the social complexity described in the Book of Mormon, but that's nothing compared to the stretch apologists would have to engage in to pretend that an advance society with at least three levels of bureaucracy existed during this time period in Northeastern US.
Mesoamerica is the only hope they have. That's why apologists are willing to hammer around the myriad contextual anachronisms in the text (the warfare being one good example - the warfare described in the Book of Mormon did not exist in Mesoamerica during the specified time period).
And you think the big problem is SNOW?
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.