Your sig line quote is bogus. The only source of it is Dudley Leavitt, one of the chief massacre participants. He obviously would want to hear that kind of stuff coming out of Young's mouth. The other witness(es) to that event didn't document this saying.
Ipse dixit fallacy.
I'll add my own appeal to authority - Gene Sessions doesn't doubt its authenticity.
The biggest problem MMM scholars face is the quality of the evidence, and the fact that some of the evidence is tainted by the participants themselves who felt a need to find suggestions of validation.
Your sig line quote cites exactly to just such a problem.
Quoting Gene Sessions to me is irrelevant and immaterial. I form my own conclusions on the basis of Leavitt's life and Peterson's biography of Juanita Brooks, Leavitt's grand-daughter.
The biggest problem MMM scholars face is the quality of the evidence, and the fact that some of the evidence is tainted by the participants themselves who felt a need to find suggestions of validation.
Your sig line quote cites exactly to just such a problem.
It's invalid because you say so. That's what ipse dixit means.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
The biggest problem MMM scholars face is the quality of the evidence, and the fact that some of the evidence is tainted by the participants themselves who felt a need to find suggestions of validation.
Your sig line quote cites exactly to just such a problem.
It's invalid because you say so. That's what ipse dixit means.
No really? My gosh, I didn't fathom that. My goodness, what a moron. I am.
I am usually pretty good at picking up scriptural references, but this one escapes me.
Where's it from?
I can't get enough of Holy Scripture (lit. ref.), so I went to the usually excellent LDS scripture site and searched on 'gore' and 'gored'. As I thought, oxen don't get gored, they gore (you know, with their horns?). It's people that get gored, scripturally speaking.
I suppose Pahoran was overwrought, and mixed his metaphors a bit. Or is there some other explanation I missed?
Zadok: I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis. Maksutov: That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
Chap wrote:I suppose Pahoran was overwrought, and mixed his metaphors a bit. Or is there some other explanation I missed?
You missed a common literary reference.
My learning is mostly limited to the fount of Holy Writ, so I would seriously be grateful if you could tell me what the common literary reference is.
Zadok: I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis. Maksutov: That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
Chap wrote:I suppose Pahoran was overwrought, and mixed his metaphors a bit. Or is there some other explanation I missed?
You missed a common literary reference.
Indeed, I heard the expression first about 10 years ago when I watched an old movie about civil unrest in the 60's. I don't recall the name of the film, but in it a young student compares the then-current unrest with the American Revolutionaries in their fight against Britain. A Revolutionary comes to meet this boy and talks to him about the difference. In other words, this movie was probably conservative propaganda.
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy. eritis sicut dii I support NCMO