Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Anti-Mormon


Recommended Posts

Posted
14 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Vlad the Impaler is acknowledged to have existed.

 

I have given myself the name of Dan as one of my many many names and I self-identify as a Danite.

And yes I exist

Good to see you.

Posted
6 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

 

And Mouw suggests we are about to become like those typical Evangelicals?

From what I read (which wasn't the complete blog) he doesn't deal with what is a key approach to the most fundamental difference between our beliefs...we are teaching even more so imo the concept of being literal sons and daughters of our Father.  From what I have seen of YW, it is a hige emphasis.  Even ifwe were tostep away (Idon't think that we are) from both the concept that God the Father is an exalted man and the concept we can become gods as he is God, the literal spiritual sons and daughters---not only creations, but family---will keep the distance between our faiths sufficient.

Posted (edited)
45 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don't think I get what you're driving at. The Missouri Danites were not myths or legends either; Utah Danites are.

 

 

39 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Um, ok :rolleyes:.

"Um OK" what? How does Vlad the Impaler not being a myth or legend help your case? I still don't get it.

Quote

 Hey I'm completely fine if you believe this.  

Believe what? That there were no Danites after Missouri?

That appears to be the consensus among reputable historians as well. Are you "completely fine" with them?

Quote

I don't know why it bothers you so much that I suspect they were still in existence for at least some of the early years in Utah. 

It was mainly your  a priori, take-it-for-granted attitude about it. To Russell first, and later to me when I called you on it. I should think we ought to be beyond the age of 19th and early 20th century gullibility by now. Reputable sources that I'm aware of acknowledge today that a relatively brief existence of Danites during the Mormon Missouri War gave rise to later myth and legend.

It's like the dogma that Brigham Young secretly ordered MMM. No intelligent, honest and informed individual I'm aware of seriously contends that anymore.

Quote

 

I simply asked Russell for information regarding the two different editions of Bishop's book (that he stated took place).  Once again, I own a copy of the 1st edition and I'd like to know what changes or additions were made in the 2nd edition.  He made the statement and he said he'd get back to me with some examples when I posted a CFR.

I'll wait to hear from him on this.

 

Well, that's between you and Russell of course. Again, if there was only one reference to Danites in Utah in the first edition, but if a subsequent edition contained multiple such references, that's a sure indication of shenanigans on the part of Lee's attorney.

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Posted
2 hours ago, ALarson said:

:lol:

And, I believe they are now referred to as the Strengthening Church Members Committee ;)

(Or something like that)

Ah yes, the SCMC. They've replaced the Danites as the modern-day bogeymen to the Church's antagonists.

 

Posted
1 hour ago, ALarson said:

Perhaps, but Russell said, " I'll look up some examples and get back to you".  So, I'll just wait.  But, thanks

Okay, I found it.

The second edition was printed in 1905, under the longer (and even more lurid) title: "The Mormon menace; / being the confession of John Doyle Lee, Danite, an official assassin of the Mormon church under the late Brigham Young."

The "danites" are liberally sprinkled throughout this awful tome, beginning with the title. However, I've come to the conclusion that the manipulations can't be blamed on William Bishop, but on one Alfred Henry Lewis. Hugh Nibley gives examples of how Lee/Bishop/Lewis embroider "danite" stories starting at around page 693 of Tinkling Cymbals and Sounding Brass.

Posted (edited)
49 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It was mainly your  a priori, take-it-for-granted attitude about it. To Russell first, and later to me when I called you on it.

I don't remember that happening at all :) (You "called" me on what exactly?  That's pretty funny actually.)  I originally just asked for a complete quote (regarding Bishop's letter to Lee).  It was interesting to read through Bishop's quote (when cacheman provided it), even though I felt it did not at all contain what someone said it would or did.

Russell made a comment.  I asked Russell a couple of questions.  He answered and I issued a CFR on one of his answers.  He said he'd get back to me with some examples and I thanked him. 

I have posted pretty consistently since then (content wise) and have been cordial, IMO (I even supplied the quote you requested).  You are the one who seemed to get really worked up because we didn't agree.  Again, I'm completely fine that we disagree.

49 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Reputable sources that I'm aware of acknowledge today that a relatively brief existence of Danites during the Mormon Missouri War gave rise to later myth and legend.

Hey Scott, I'm fully aware that for you, Reputable = Faith Promoting.  Again, that's fine.

49 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Well, that's between you and Russell of course. Again, if there was only one reference to Danites in Utah in the first edition, but if a subsequent edition contained multiple such references, that's a sure indication of shenanigans on the part of Lee's attorney.

Well, there are actually 3 references to the Utah time period in the 1st edition (if you count the words "Danite" and "Danites"), but I'm looking forward to what Russell comes back with on this.  It will be interesting to see how many additions were made using those words in the 2nd edition.

.

Edited by ALarson
Posted (edited)
25 minutes ago, Russell C McGregor said:

Okay, I found it.

The second edition was printed in 1905, under the longer (and even more lurid) title: "The Mormon menace; / being the confession of John Doyle Lee, Danite, an official assassin of the Mormon church under the late Brigham Young."

The "danites" are liberally sprinkled throughout this awful tome, beginning with the title. However, I've come to the conclusion that the manipulations can't be blamed on William Bishop, but on one Alfred Henry Lewis. Hugh Nibley gives examples of how Lee/Bishop/Lewis embroider "danite" stories starting at around page 693 of Tinkling Cymbals and Sounding Brass.

Wow, thanks for looking this up Russell.  I honestly did not know the title was changed and it was reprinted (sort of... :) ) in 1905 (28 years after Bishop's 1st edition).  I'll look it up!

I do have to say that the word "Danite" and "Danites' were sprinkled throughout the first edition too (30 times), but maybe not as liberally as in the 2nd edition (?).    

Thanks for your honestly regarding not being able to blame the manipulations on Bishop.  I'm not sure who Alfred Henry Lewis was (something else for me to look up!).

Page 693?  How many pages are in this book?  Holy Cow!  (I need to look up the amount of pages in the first edition...was it that long?  For some reason, I don't remember it being anywhere near that many pages.)

Again, thank you Russell.  I appreciate you taking the time to do this.  It's very interesting information.

EDT:

Bishop's, "Mormonism Unveiled" was 406 pages, so Lewis's book was 300 pages or more longer (?).  I really do want to look this book up and read the history/info on it (2nd book).  I have to wonder how many people have even heard of the 2nd book or seriously read it?

.

Edited by ALarson
Posted
5 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Wow, thanks for looking this up Russell.  I honestly did not know the title was changed and it was reprinted (sort of... :) ) in 1905.  I'll look it up!

I do have to say that the word "Danite" and "Danites' were sprinkled throughout the first edition too (30 times), but maybe not as liberally as in the 2nd edition (?).  

Well no, they're not "sprinkled throughout." They're mostly concentrated in the bit that talks about the Missouri troubles.

5 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Thanks for your honestly regarding not being able to blame the manipulations on Bishop.  I'm not sure who Alfred Henry Lewis was (something else for me to look up!).

Page 693?  How many pages are in this book?  Holy Cow!  (I need to look up the amount of pages in the first edition...was it that long?  For some reason, I don't remember it being anywhere near that many pages.)

That's page 693 of Nibley's book, not Lee's book.

5 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Again, thank you Russell.  I appreciate you taking the time to do this.  It's very interesting information.

.

Endlessly so.

For example, I also learned that "Wild Bill" Hickman, Ann Eliza Webb Dee Young Denning and Mrs Fanny Stenhouse, the three most widely quoted sources on Utah Danites all collaborated with the same anti-Mormon hack writer, one J. H. Beadle.

 

Posted
10 minutes ago, Russell C McGregor said:

That's page 693 of Nibley's book, not Lee's book.

Oh, ok.  Thanks for clarifying!  I thought, "wow, that's a lot of additional pages".

Posted (edited)
15 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

And if such questions cannot be answered, doesn't that throw a great deal of doubt on the supposition that they ever existed at all, especially in the absence of any evidence?

"Evidence"?  You want indisputable evidence?

Well, I have seen them talking into their wrist watches at General Conference.  They were obviously trying to track down anyone who shouted "No".
What more evidence do you need -->> someone wearing a red hat that says "Danite' on it?

Edited by cdowis
Posted (edited)
14 hours ago, consiglieri said:

May I have your permission to put this gem in my signature line?

Yeah, that's hilarious! 

(Re this Scott Lloyd quote:  "For you to definitively state that vampires do not exist is naive.")

You do need to read the thread for context though.

Edited by JulieM
Posted (edited)
13 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

"Um OK" what? How does Vlad the Impaler not being a myth or legend help your case? I still don't get it.

I didn't bring Vlad the Impaler up as part of this discussion (you did).  I just acknowledged that yes, he existed and he wasn't a myth.  

.

Edited by ALarson
Posted
15 hours ago, ALarson said:

 

Hey I'm completely fine if you believe this.  I don't know why it bothers you so much that I suspect they were still in existence for at least some of the early years in Utah

 

This is the key question.

Most Mormons will accept faith-promoting stories on scant evidence, while rejecting non-faith-promoting stories on the same (or even better) evidence.

It is more whether Mormons want to believe a particular concept that controls, rather than the evidence in support of the concept. (Mormons are hardly alone in this, of course.)

For instance, in the recent General Conference, Elder Cook spoke of a spirit appearing in the mirror at the temple.  There is no basis for this story other than Elder Cook says he heard it from somebody else, but I expect this story was snapped up as being absolutely true by the faithful listenership.

 

Posted
1 hour ago, consiglieri said:

This is the key question.

Most Mormons will accept faith-promoting stories on scant evidence, while rejecting non-faith-promoting stories on the same (or even better) evidence.

It is more whether Mormons want to believe a particular concept that controls, rather than the evidence in support of the concept. (Mormons are hardly alone in this, of course.)

For instance, in the recent General Conference, Elder Cook spoke of a spirit appearing in the mirror at the temple.  There is no basis for this story other than Elder Cook says he heard it from somebody else, but I expect this story was snapped up as being absolutely true by the faithful listenership.

 

The Boxer

SEE

 

Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, consiglieri said:

For instance, in the recent General Conference, Elder Cook spoke of a spirit appearing in the mirror at the temple.  There is no basis for this story other than Elder Cook says he heard it from somebody else, but I expect this story was snapped up as being absolutely true by the faithful listenership.

I can understand why one who has never had a profound spiritual experience in the temple would refuse to "snap up" such accounts.  I have had several first person accounts of such experiences, and a dedicated, professional antiMormon also related first person accounts (the video link is in another post).

The account by Elder Cook is consistent with these other experiences, and I find it credible.  But there are those who demand that it be published in a peer reviewed professional journal to be credible.

Edited by cdowis
Posted
22 hours ago, consiglieri said:

May I have your permission to put this gem in my signature line?

Of course.

And make sure you strip it of its context so that the unwary will think Scott is actually arguing for the existence of vampires.

We wouldn't want you to strain yourself by doing anything honest, now would we?

 

Posted
9 hours ago, ALarson said:

I didn't bring Vlad the Impaler up as part of this discussion (you did).  I just acknowledged that yes, he existed and he wasn't a myth.  

.

Vlad the Impaler existed and he wasn't a myth; legendary vampires based on the history of Vlad the Impaler never existed, and they are a myth.

Missouri Danites existed and they weren't a myth; Utah Danites based on the history of Missouri Danites never existed, and they are a myth.

Get it now? I'm amazed I had to connect the dots for you on that.

Posted
10 hours ago, JulieM said:

Yeah, that's hilarious! 

(Re this Scott Lloyd quote:  "For you to definitively state that vampires do not exist is naive.")

You do need to read the thread for context though.

 

1 hour ago, Russell C McGregor said:

Of course.

And make sure you strip it of its context so that the unwary will think Scott is actually arguing for the existence of vampires.

We wouldn't want you to strain yourself by doing anything honest, now would we?

 

I took it as a jest. That's why I didn't respond.

Of course, if he doesn't mean it as a jest and really intends to put it in his sig line devoid of context, that is troubling indeed.

Posted
2 hours ago, Russell C McGregor said:

 

We wouldn't want you to strain yourself by doing anything honest, now would we?

 

No more than you would want to strain yourself by saying anything intelligent, I'm sure.

Posted (edited)
23 hours ago, ALarson said:

Russell made a comment.  I asked Russell a couple of questions.  He answered and I issued a CFR on one of his answers.  He said he'd get back to me with some examples and I thanked him. 

You also tossed off an unsubstantiated remark about Danites in Utah. Russell contradicted you, saying the Danites were disbanded during the Missouri period. You contradicted him (again with no substantiation), and that's when I corrected you.

Quote

I have posted pretty consistently since then (content wise) and have been cordial, IMO (I even supplied the quote you requested).  You are the one who seemed to get really worked up because we didn't agree.  Again, I'm completely fine that we disagree.

Except that you've provided no substantiation, while I have. You've only said you've read some things, but have declined to cite them.

Quote

Hey Scott, I'm fully aware that for you, Reputable = Faith Promoting.  Again, that's fine.

This is laughable. Wikipedia is "faith-promoting"? Come on!

By "reputable," I mean reliable in terms of accuracy and credibility, not the degree to which it does or does not promote faith.

Encyclopedia of Mormonism, while it is LDS-friendly and produced by Mormon scholars, is published by MacMillan and is designed to be informational, not devotional.

Likewise, the "Gospel Topics" essays are designed primarily to convey information.

Yours really was a fatuous statement.

And again, you've offered no real substantiation for your notion that the Danites persisted through the Nauvoo period and into the Utah period.

All you've really done is fulfill your own pledge (I didn't request it; I only held you to it) to provide the quote from Brigham Young about Danites in Utah, which, in light of what is conveyed in the Wikipedia entry, was obviously meant to be sarcastic, as Brigham Young over the years persistently denied the existence of any Danite band in Utah. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume the reason you failed to mention that fact is that you didn't know it.

 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Posted
6 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

No more than you would want to strain yourself by saying anything intelligent, I'm sure.

Boo! 

Foul!

Foul!

Hissssssssss...

Let's put a dunce cap on this fellow!

Just some more examples of how people can be mean and rude and cruel to other people.

Posted
23 hours ago, ALarson said:

Thanks for your honestly regarding not being able to blame the manipulations on Bishop.  I'm not sure who Alfred Henry Lewis was (something else for me to look up!).

.

We are still left with the fact that Bishop said in private correspondence to Lee that he would be tampering with the text of Lee's memoirs before publication. And thus, the published memoirs are rendered forever unreliable as evidence of any complicity by Brigham Young in MMM.

The fact that Bishop is not responsible for the alterations and additions made by Lewis doesn't mean he never made any alterations or additions of his own.

Moreover, as ttribe pointed out in this thread, by the time of his death, Lee was so embittered that he was unreliable in his own right.

Posted
16 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Boo! 

Foul!

Foul!

Hissssssssss...

Let's put a dunce cap on this fellow!

Just some more examples of how people can be mean and rude and cruel to other people.

Where were you when Russ said the same thing about my honesty?

Posted
5 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

Where were you when Russ said the same thing about my honesty?

Somewhere on this planet,  but I didn't see that.

Would you like a green smoothie to help you feel better?  My wife says they are very good for me.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...