Quote:
|
Originally Posted by SeattleUte
The view, as expressed by Talmage and others, is this: Christianity lost its way and along with it the material world fell into a "Dark Ages" which coincided with a Great Apostacy. The idea of a Great Apostacy is derivative of the archaic idea of a "Dark Ages" throughout Christendom, and integral to this notion was the concept that during the time of the "Great Apostacy" the world was in intellectual and spiritual darkness. Some people go so far as to even suggest that the Church brought on the Enlightenment, etc., or these events occurred as a precursor to the Resoration, i.e., people were wising up and getting ready for "restoration of the gospel."
|
So the problems you have are:
1. linking an apostacy as a casuative agent of the Dark Ages, which may or may not have existed;
2. Suggesting that the enlightenemtn was a precursor to the restoration of the gospel (and that people were 'wising up accordingly) is incorrect; and, perhaps,
3. the world was not in intellectual or spiritual drakness during the 'dark ages.'
My response would be:
1. Were there "Dark Ages?" Not worldwide, certainly, as I already alluded to islamic ascendency during the first millenium in Western Europe. Was at least part of the world bereft of knowledge and light? Hard to deny this. If one considers a religious perspective then, as Fus noted, the loss of the priesthood itself consituttes a loss of light and knowledge that negatively affected the world. Does this mean there was no 'light' or knowledge whatsoever? Of course not. Does Talmadge say this? I haven't read his books in a while, but I don't think so. Even the much mlaigned Brigham Young says that ALL truth is part of the gosel, and thus their were clearly aspects of truth known to large chunks of the population in the world and thorughout Western Europe. None fo them had the priesthood, however, and so they undoubtedly suffered as a result, from my perspective.
Btw, my perspective is not allowed in your worldview and thus to criticize persons such as me for our perception of world events from your completely secular and non-faith based frame of refernce makes us talk past each other, doing little good to either of us.
2. We get it, you think the reformation was a backlash to the agnostic/atheistic (and I'll add deism to this) views of the enlightenment. OK. This has no bearing, however, on whether God allowed or caused these events to take place in order to create a fertile field in whichi gospel ideals could take root. The point is not what Martin Luther believed, the point is that Joseph Smith lived in a place and time that allowed him to restore the gospel. Martin Luther played a role in the events leading to JS's place and time. How his role was played (and whether some commentators got it wrong) is largely irrelevant to the faith-based position that the historical record shows the world was preapred for the gopsel.
3. Dealt with in number one, although histroy from the first millenium in westerm europe and th esatern Roman empire is far from enlightened (for example, the conversion story of the Rus people to eastern christianity). It is hard for me to tell if you think the Dark Ages wern't becasue they weren't truly dark world-wide, as opposed to just western wurope, or if you think they weren't dark in Western Euope, so I will reserve further comment in the evnt you feel it important to clairfy that point.