ksfisher

That would leave you with just your right ear left.

Only if accompanied by stick figure cartoons.

The last paragraph would seem to explain that: "Mormon would have seen the arrival of the Savior in Bountiful as connected to the future arrival of that same Messiah in new circumstances. We may suppose that Mormon’s naming of the Gadiantons in the two time periods tells us of his expectations of the parallels. Mormon is facing the decimation of his own people, yet he retains his optimism in the future. Mormon is saying that in the time of Helaman the destruction of the Nephites by Gadiantons was followed by the coming of the Messiah, a miracle that restored the Nephites. Mormon is expecting that after the destruction of his own people by the new Gadiantons, that the Messiah will come again, and will similarly restore the Nephites. His record will be the guide for that restoration. His optimism lives in his text, even though its fulfillment is taking longer than he would have hoped."

The sentence structure there was seeming familiar.

Ahab?

Here's a good article by Brandt Gardner re the Gadianton Robbers https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/conference/august-2002/the-gadianton-robbers-in-mormons-theological-history-their-structural-role-and-plausible-identification I'd pull some quotes out, but I'm afraid I'd be losing some of the context in doing so. The whole article really needs to be read to get a complete understanding of what Gardner is proposing.

I would agree that it was implemented imperfectly, but I don't know that calling it "just a front" does justice to what was going on either.

"The Lord showed me by vision and revelation exactly what would take place if we did not stop this practice." "I saw exactly what would come to pass if there was not something done. I have had this spirit upon me for a long time. But I want to say this: I should have let all the temples go out of our hands; I should have gone to prison myself, and let every other man go there, had not the God of heaven commanded me to do what I did do; and when the hour came that I was commanded to do that, it was all clear to me. I went before the Lord, and I wrote what the Lord told me to write." https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/od/1?lang=eng President Woodruff believed that it was revelation. Is there evidence otherwise?

Both Brigham Young and Joseph Smith believed in the principle of continuing revelation and an open canon. I believe both would respect the revelation to Wilford Woodruff outlined in Official Declaration 1.

It seems the height of folly to pretend to know what another person would say, think, or feel in a given situation. More so for people who lived in the past. “The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there.” ― L.P. Hartley, The Go-Between

Now, it was for the sole purpose to get gain, because they received their wages according to their employ, therefore, they did stir up the people to riotings, and all manner of disturbances and wickedness, that they might have more employ, that they might get money according to the suits which were brought before them (Alma 11:20)

Yet, despite this, the book was immensely popular amongst members of the church. It seems to have filled an empty space in many libraries. We had a copy. My grandparents had a copy. I wonder if we just like/d being told what we believe or do we just want to be assured that others believe the same as us?

I wonder how much of the current pendulum swing the other way is a reaction to that.

A number of vegetables aren't pollinated by the honeybee. For tomatoes, for example, you want bumble bees.

I've read the same thing in the article cited by the OP before. As with many things there seems to be both benefits and drawbacks to certain substances.