Lucy Harris wrote:If the book is closely tied to the culture of Dartmouth College, and in particular to Ethan Smith, yes. Not so much as the immediate region, as to the area North-- as in Canada and the borders thereunto. Those natives were still spunky. The ones south were aah- too downtrodden to benefit from an education.
Kishkumen wrote:The Dartmouth connection is one that needs a lot more exploration, in my opinion. In general terms it seems to fit so well.
Nevo wrote:Can someone please spell the Dartmouth theory out in more detail? I'm at a loss to see how a cabal of Dartmouth congregationalist ministers could have produced a book so antithetical to infant baptism, paid clergy, and Calvinist doctrines generally.
Kishkumen wrote:Chap wrote:"Cherry pick": to cite material disproving a point of view held by Kishkumen.
I am happy for readers of this board to make up their minds which of us has the more reasonable point of view on this matter.
Cherry pick: Chap rephrases and re-presents what he has said numerous times, and then quotes the one that suits him or makes him look best at whatever point in the conversation he chooses to deploy it.
No one should be mistaken about the fact that you entered the conversation with a chip on your shoulder, expressions of disdain, etc., and that your reference to "Cat in the Hat" should be understood in that context.
Whitewash it though you may, and even find friends to back you up on that.
Chap wrote:The man is obsessed ... still, I am glad he not longer insists that everyone agrees with him.
Chap wrote:by the way, on 'disdain': I am happy to state that I don't admire the Book of Mormon as a religious text, a literary work or an attempt at imitating the grammar of the KJV. And I don't think I am alone in having that opinion, on this board or elsewhere. Of course I'd still feel the same way if no-one agreed with me.
Kishkumen wrote:Chap wrote:The man is obsessed ... still, I am glad he not longer insists that everyone agrees with him.
LOL! Oh, yes, and everyone who has seen you pester me on one thread and then another would agree that I am the one who is obsessed.
Nice try, Chap.
Kishkumen wrote:Chap wrote:by the way, on 'disdain': I am happy to state that I don't admire the Book of Mormon as a religious text, a literary work or an attempt at imitating the grammar of the KJV. And I don't think I am alone in having that opinion, on this board or elsewhere. Of course I'd still feel the same way if no-one agreed with me.
Yes, Chap, I am well aware of your uninformed views.
Chap wrote:To pester: to have the temerity to disagree with, or to comment on in any way other than by way of expressing admiration for, a post by Kishkumen on this discussion board, or to fail to accept that his judgement and tastes are a tribunal from which there is no appeal.
Chap wrote:Have read a good number of religious texts from a variety of cultures? Check.
Have read a good number of literary works, again from a variety of cultures? Check.
Be familiar with the grammar of the KJV? Check.
(Of course, as an anonymous coward, I could be lying about all that)
Lucy Harris wrote:My librarian found this article for me, and I ordered the book.
http://blog.beliefnet.com/stevenwaldman ... d-fue.html
Rev. Samuel West of Dartmouth declared the pope to be “the second beast” of Revelation while Joseph Perry warned his Connecticut neighbors that they would soon need to swap “the best religion in the world” for “all the barbarity, trumpery and superstition of popery; or burn at the stake, or submit to the tortures of the inquisition.” And, he reasoned, English lawmakers were being controlled by the devil; the Quebec Act “first sprang from that original wicked politician.”