Posted on 08/18/2007 11:25:10 AM PDT by tantiboh
Due to USA Today's copyright complaints, I couldn't link to the actual editorial, and I didn't think it wise to excerpt the actual piece, but here's the address:
http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2007/08/hollywoods-terr.html
The review is also discussed here:
http://www.romneyexperience.com/2007/08/14/new-defenses/
Excerpt: "Michael Medved reviews September Dawn, the upcoming flick about an episode of 19th century Mormon violence. Medved makes the very good point that Mormons generally take their public opinion licks pretty well, with no signs of rioting in the streets or driving explosives laden cars into crowds. Given this, Medved argues that Hollywood’s drive to portray Mormons as terrorists, while giving Islamic Jihadists a complete pass, is a little suspicious. This is not a Romney-focused argument, but it’s nice to see a vigorous defense of a minority religious community that is full of nothing if not good citizens."
Oh, I'll betcha ya tell that to all of the hubbies & potential hubbies you're sealed to...:)
“Mormons won’t respond with any comparable rage, no matter how badly September Dawn tarnishes the memory of their faith’s founders. In fact, the LDS Church has adopted an official policy of ‘no comment’ regarding the film, and there have been no examples of young Mormons strapping dynamite to their bodies and blowing themselves up to protest perceived insults to their religion. They have cheerfully endured another recent film assault (Jane Fonda’s Georgia Rule) that showed Mormons as stupid, petty, sexually repressed losers, and an edgy episode of TV’s South Park showing the story of Joseph Smith with a background chorus describing it as ‘dumb-dumb-dumb.’”
This too shall pass.
Hey, ya forgot the 'chloroform formula': To render your statement as authentically authoritative, ya should have wrote: "And it came to pass, that this too shall pass."
off to see a video on
Faith Without Works Hebrews 11, James 2
http://www.byu.tv/index.html?start=46800&stop=48600&show=&ep=http://qmplive.xlontech.net/byutv/stream/070815.qvt
Followed by
The Trial of Your Faith
1 Peter 1- 2
I was often puzzled by the phrase “and it came to pass.” The reason for such a term was clarified to me when I learned Italian.
The phrase is translated to Italian as “e avenne.” Avenne is the remote past conjugation of the Italian verb for “to happen.”
Unfortunately, English conjugations are somewhat more limited than many other languages, so we make up for it clumsily by adding words; for example, one of my favorite Italian words to say is “impararebbero,” meaning “they would learn.” Since we have no conditional tense of the verb “to learn,” we must fake it by adding the word “would.”
Viewed in this light, the term “and it came to pass” becomes a grammatically crucial component to relating the history. It wouldn’t make much sense without it in Italian, for example, even though it is a strange construction in contemporary English.
I reject the idea that a man as uneducated as Smith could have realized this.
It was a small verification for me of the authenticity of the Book of Mormon as an ancient record.
Friend of ours (not LDS) went to see the Dead Sea Scroll exhibit in San Diego last week. He said one of the scrolls mentions “Alma of Judah”. It’s the first time the name “Alma” has been found in ancient scriptures. Check it out.
http://www.sdnhm.org/scrolls/description.html
By the way, I know there are lots of female Alma’s (including a cousin of mine) but how did Joseph Smith know about a Prophet named “Alma”?
Of course, one could look at it from the other point... maybe “Plausible deniability” is not a recent invention....
I enjoyed your link. Thanks for posting it.
One of the more interesting things I ran across in it is that Mrs. McLean was “married” to Mr. Pratt by the Mormon Church without any legal form of divorce from Mr. McLean. Apparently the Church didn’t think it important.
Since the phrase is found 480 times in the King James translation, quite possibly Smith got it from there. It’s got a nice archaic ring.
Indeed. An interesting nugget:
” The phrase is not unique to the BofM, the Bible utilizes the phrase or one of its derivatives, 526 times in the Old Testament and 87 times in the New Testament. This supports the fact that this phrase “and it came to pass” is Hebrew in origin and correlates with Nephi’s statement, “Yea, I make a record in the language of my father, which consists of the learning of the Jews and the language of the Egyptians.”
Apparently, the Maya people, who lived in Southeast Mexico and Guatemala, may have adopted the phrase “and it came to pass.” Recent discoveries in the translations of the glyphs of the 7th Century AD Maya ruins of Palenque manifest the phrase “and then it came to pass” and “it had come to pass.” Recently, another glyph has been interpreted as “and it shall come to pass.””
Source: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/5499/bom/came2pass.html
Refer to:
http://frontpage2000.nmia.com/~nahualli/LDStopics/1Nephi/1Nephi1.htm
http://www.meridianmagazine.com/ancients/040707pass.html
OK. Next you'll tell me that the literal French word "adieu" is in the english Book of Mormon (and it is) because it comes from the old French word "adieu" which in the Old French means "I commend (you) to God" and that because "adieu" has such a divine linkage, that Joseph in his "divine wisdom," decided to leave the French word in an English edition of the Book of Mormon.
(Now the only problem with such a backwards injection of "adieu" being in the Book of Mormon, & hence, that this "French" word likewise then somehow made it as scratched onto golden plates [ya gotta remember that Joseph's BoM renderings was suppose to be a "translation," after all & not mere conjured-up-phrases out of thin air], is that "adieu" even in the old French only goes back less than 700 years...and that Old French was not even developed at the time that the Book of Mormon was scratched onto golden plates)
Unfortunately, English conjugations are somewhat more limited than many other languages, so we make up for it clumsily by adding words...Viewed in this light, the term “and it came to pass” becomes a grammatically crucial component to relating the history. It wouldn’t make much sense without it in Italian, for example, even though it is a strange construction in contemporary English. I reject the idea that a man as uneducated as Smith could have realized this. It was a small verification for me of the authenticity of the Book of Mormon as an ancient record.
You're kidding, right? Because Joseph chose "it came to pass" (12 letters) instead of a potential 10-letter Enquivalency ("it happened") or a 14-letter English equivalency ("it came to happen") or an 18-letter English equivalency ("it happened in the past") that this is also evidence somehow of divine origin?
Come on, you said yourself that "pass" means "happened" in Italian! So what? How is an Italian word that can be translated as a longer word ("happen" vs. the English word "pass") any snappier?
Look a little closer at that Italian word: The italian word e avenne is a word directly tied to our English word, "avenue." ("Pass" is often used as a road, as in mountain pass). So there's something "magical" about "it came to pass" just because the Italians render it to the equivalent of "it came to traverse" (they went an avenue in time)?
~”OK. Next you’ll tell me that the literal French word “adieu” is in the english Book of Mormon (and it is) because it comes from the old French word “adieu””~
No, it’s in the Book of Mormon because it most closely resembles the actual meaning that was being translated. You tell me one word in English that has the same precise meaning and connotation as does “adieu.” There is no English word that conveys the same sort of “until next time” sense. Joseph was free to use any word he liked to convey the meaning being translated. Since “adieu” has long been a well-known word amongst English speakers (like, for example, “hors d’ouvres,” “ciao,” and, fittingly, “ennui”), it was an appropriate choice.
~””adieu” even in the old French only goes back less than 700 years...and that Old French was not even developed at the time that the Book of Mormon was scratched onto golden plates”~
Your argument falls apart. Not a single word of the Book of Mormon existed when the record was written, French or English. It was an -ancient- record being translated into -modern- language. This criticism is like discounting the Book of Mormon because the word “tent” or “temple” or “faith” or -gasp!- “Christ” did not exist when the record was compiled.
~”...that this is also evidence somehow of divine origin?”~
I expressed my point clumsily. I did not say “divine origin,” though I believe that. I said “ancient record.” There are a lot of strange phrases and archaic usages in the Book of Mormon, many of which do not exist in the Bible as far as I’m aware. Such occurrences connote an ancient record; my small epiphany about the phrase “and it came to pass” helped me make this connection. It won’t mean much to you, of course, but it does to me, so I’m pretty satisfied.
~”The italian word e avenne is a word directly tied to our English word, “avenue.””
Sorry, you made up that etymology from whole cloth. You’re talking to a man who is fluent in Italian, so you’re treading on ground with which you are unfamiliar. Don’t do such things in the age of Google unless you become an excellent liar. “Avenue” is derived from Old French:
http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/a/a0545000.html
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=avenue
Old French derivation? Goodness, I hope that doesn’t mean we can’t use the word...
“E avenne” is two words. “E” = “And.” “Avenne” = remote past (a concept nonexistent in English) participle of “to happen.” “Avenne” is rarely used in Italian speech, making it a rather archaic term too. My point was to illustrate the clumsiness of the English language, and therefore the need to embrace strange constructions (such as “and it came to pass”) in order to preserve precise meaning. The KJV translation of the Bible is the same way in many instances.
If only we could all just learn Esperanto!
I’m amazed at what you guys are talking about, but would you mind telling me what this means, it is the slogan of the ‘13eRegiment De Dragons Parachutistes’.
AU DELA DU POSSIBLE
“I use IMDB.com for a lot of my movie info.”
- I too, use IMDB.com to sample other users views on a film before I go see it.
I was not aware of this particular massacre so I sampled a number of sites which described the atrocity as well as the history of events leading up to it. It seems the history of murders of Mormons back east which drove them to seek refuge in Utah might account for the paranoia of the more extreme members of the Church and, from what I read, it seems the background of the massacre has been well documented and the leader of the Mormon group which carried out the killings was tried and hanged for his leadership role.
This seems to give the lie to the movie directors claim that there is a big cover up about the events surrounding the massacre. If the movie was an honest depiction of this tragedy, it might be worth viewing, but the directors depiction of it as a cover up suggests to me that he has an agenda and I’m not interested in sitting through a phony propaganda film - with a “love story” tacked on.
Nor do other think it was important for husband to lock up his wife and to deny her free will to witch church she wanted to join.
Being married in the temple for eternity is different than being married for time.
When one is married for time that means they we earthly relations.
***
No Sir, it was not Mormonism that desolated McLean’s home—but that spirit that comes in bottles, prepared his heart and him for deeds of desperation and at last he found a pretext in my religion, that was unpopular, and upon this ground he might treat his family with personal violence,—thrust his wife into the street and lock the doors—send his children, while yet infants upon the high seas to go many thousands of miles without one friend they had ever seen.
And now it is no marvel that he is prepared to tell a lie and swear to it—imprison innocent persons, and drag them before an excited populace in a land where mob law bid defiance to the Constitutional government and the Civil Courts. I have no hope of justice in this land Sir.
If I had a chance I could bring truthful testimony from the days of my childhood until the present moment, that I have lived a life of strict virtue, industry and faithfulness in the duties belonging to my station. But I see no motive.
For after all the adopted course of this government, would sanction my imprisonment and perhaps the shedding of my blood. Because I will not deny what I know to be the Truth of Heaven!
...I was in McLean’s kitchen, parlor and bed room, while my father was at peace in the midst of his own household thousands of miles distant. And if my husband came enraged and intoxicated to either neglect or abuse his family how could my father know it? Who but a wife knows bedroom scenes? It is true if I had gone for my neighbors and brought them to see him lying with his head hanging nearly off the bed, one coat sleeve off, and the other on, one boot off and the other on, and the vomit over his boots and all richly perfumed with old bourbon, (or some other well known beverage that adorns the shelves of the fashionable saloon).
...32. Pratt Journal, 24 January 1856: “Jan. 24 The day in slayriding and visiting Bro. Keslar with five of my wives viz: Belinda, Elizabeth, Mary, Hannahette and Eleanor.” Reva Stanley, in Archer of Paradise (Caldwell, Idaho: Caxton Press, 1937), pp. 293-94, 296, didn’t rule out the possibility that Parley and Eleanor lived as a married couple,
...but favored the idea that the marriage was a Platonic gesture to provide Eleanor a husband in eternity. The evidence is not conclusive either way, except it was Parley’s habit to live with his wives.
http://jared.pratt-family.org/parley_histories/parley-death-stephen-pratt.html
lot of those marriage was for eternity and not time I know it is confusing but when one reads the standard works it brings clarification to passages in the Bible.
What you say, as far as I know, is true. John D. Lee was the ringleader and instigator of the event, by all accounts. One thing that is profitable to understand is that the early Mormons had been ejected from their homes and property by force or threat three times already. They fled the nation in order to avoid another occurrence.
By the time they were in Utah, they had gone from “flight” mode to “fight” mode - they were not going to have their homes seized again, and they were ready for a war to prevent it.
It was within the framework of this mindset that a wagon train came through with members who claimed to be among those that had brutally ejected them from Missouri - and by all accounts, they weren’t quiet about it.
So, Lee gathered up a group and convinced them to attack the train after forcing them to give up their weapons. He was, indeed, tried and hanged by the State of Utah; however, critics often state that this was not nearly enough action in response to such an atrocity, and I tend to think that the Church should have excommunicated every last one of the participants, and Utah should have exercised more punishment. But it didn’t happen for whatever reason, so understandably there’s a lot of lingering bitterness.
One thing that the critics claim is that Young condoned these attacks. They point to various bits of rhetoric, etc. that he used in the weeks prior, and they assume that because he was the leader - some of them use the word dictator - then nothing went on in the territory without his blessing. The fact is, he sent my messenger instruction to Lee to let the train pass peaceably. The messenger arrived two days too late.
The problem with September Dawn is that it portrays Young as a megalomaniac, and sees to it that he is accused of actively covering up the events. It uses quotes of his wildly out of context and makes the rest up out of whole cloth, thereby attempting to demonize the whole of the LDS Church as a result. It is, as you say, a propaganda film.
Don’t be naive.
I couldn’t tell you. I don’t speak French.
I have no doubt that the McLean marriage had fallen apart, and that Mormonism, while a contributing factor, was probably only one of them.
Mrs. McLean had every right to pursue the religion of her choice.
I just found it interesting that the Mormon Church had no qualms about “marrying” her to another man while her first marriage was still legally in effect.
You don’t understand it is a different kind of marriage.
There are marriage that are until death do we part.(earth)
There are eternal marriages that are for all eternity and sometime it does not include time (earth)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.