Danite or not? - Page 3 - cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board

Dan · 06-07-2006, 12:34 AM

It doesn't compartmentalize so easily. If you just go by apologetics then it it separates nicely, but apologetics is usually found wanting. This situation was much more fluid. The danites were much larger in number than I think you may realize. They were an informal militia, so to speak, sworn to protect one another and the saints. They were formed after many depridations at the hands of mobs and misfits. Joseph knew of the existence and actions of the Danites. It was not as the Documentary History of the Church and apologists make it out to be. Once the Nauvoo charter was approved and a standing army was authorized, the danites and others who were not danites became Legioneers. There was no more need for the secrecy of the Danite band.

realtall · 06-10-2006, 05:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dan

And by the way, if I had a dollar for every disavowal put out by the church and its leaders that was just plain false, well, I could take a lavish trip around the world.

Does that bother you at all? If I knew that to be true for certain it would probably bother me. Church leaders continualy fibbing their way out of unfavorable history in such a public way sounds really serious. Esp if they are still doing it.

Dan · 06-12-2006, 01:31 AM

Sometimes yes, and sometimes no. They are doing what they think is best for the members of the church. Joseph set the standard early on, those that came after followed his lead. I can see why it is done and can agree with it, but I can also see the flip side and desire to have open honesty to help solidify some members further, even if it means some or a lot of members fall away because of it. It is what it is and I accept it. They can do what they will do. It is their choice. I do not condemn them as I trust they have much more information than I do and that their hearts are in the right place. This is hard for many to accept because of a belief in honesty (which is correct). But who here does not fudge the truth and avoid the spilling the beans to their kids or others they know in an attempt to protect them. The lines are blurred. What has made it hard for the church is the internet age, where it becomes quite clear that obfuscation is par for the course for certain circumstances. Go read Dallin Oaks' "lying for the Lord" (as it is informally called) speech. A simple internet scan will bring it up.

06-07-2006, 12:34 AM	#21
Dan Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Elk Grove, California Posts: 211	The situation was not as rigid as you suggest It doesn't compartmentalize so easily. If you just go by apologetics then it it separates nicely, but apologetics is usually found wanting. This situation was much more fluid. The danites were much larger in number than I think you may realize. They were an informal militia, so to speak, sworn to protect one another and the saints. They were formed after many depridations at the hands of mobs and misfits. Joseph knew of the existence and actions of the Danites. It was not as the Documentary History of the Church and apologists make it out to be. Once the Nauvoo charter was approved and a standing army was authorized, the danites and others who were not danites became Legioneers. There was no more need for the secrecy of the Danite band. __________________ Dan Temet Nosce - \"Know Thyself\"

06-12-2006, 01:31 AM	#23
Dan Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Elk Grove, California Posts: 211	Does it bother me? Sometimes yes, and sometimes no. They are doing what they think is best for the members of the church. Joseph set the standard early on, those that came after followed his lead. I can see why it is done and can agree with it, but I can also see the flip side and desire to have open honesty to help solidify some members further, even if it means some or a lot of members fall away because of it. It is what it is and I accept it. They can do what they will do. It is their choice. I do not condemn them as I trust they have much more information than I do and that their hearts are in the right place. This is hard for many to accept because of a belief in honesty (which is correct). But who here does not fudge the truth and avoid the spilling the beans to their kids or others they know in an attempt to protect them. The lines are blurred. What has made it hard for the church is the internet age, where it becomes quite clear that obfuscation is par for the course for certain circumstances. Go read Dallin Oaks' "lying for the Lord" (as it is informally called) speech. A simple internet scan will bring it up. __________________ Dan Temet Nosce - \"Know Thyself\"