Stephen168
New member
You’re funny. Thanks for giving some examples to help prove my point
- Status
Z
zaffiroborant
Guest
D
dianaiad
Guest
Refresh my memory.
Your point was…???
Mine was that there were definitely dark ages. The church, while it preserved knowledge for itself, was very selective about what knowledge WAS saved; we have the Muslims to thank for most of our classical literature.
It was also very insistent that only priests were allowed to read the scriptures–or for that matter, to read at all.
What part of any of that isn’t 'Dark?"
Z
zerinus
Guest
No disrespect intended, but it is none of your business how this thread is “still going”. It is up the posters to decide how they want it to “go,” and in what direction they want to take it. If you have a useful contribution to make to the thread, make it; if you don’t, then it has nothing to do with you how the other people choose to respond to it.Hi Zerinus,
Don’t misunderstand me, here. I could care less why Mormons don’t have crosses in their churches, no disrespect intended. I just can’t believe this thread is still going! I wanted someone to answer the OP’s original question and be done with this thread! Ay yay yay! Enough already!
Stephen168
New member
exactly
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
J
Jerusha
Guest
Illiteracy made it dark. And the fall of the Roman empire contributed to illiteracy. Ireland was an exception, since it had not been dependent upon the Romans. Read “How the Irish Saved Civilization” The only places where people had the time beyond mere survival to participate in literate activities, was in the convents and monasteries. Many men entered into the priesthood for the advantage of an education.
Only with Gutenberg did literacy become feasable again, but many people did not have the advantage of a classical education, therefore they took scriptures out of their cultural context.
And the Church’s friendship with the rich and powerful and royal was a problem. It was only with Henry VIII that the Church was able to stand up to them. And we know the consequences of that, too little, too late.
You are showing your cultural bias in your understanding of history.
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
Well despite the no disrespect intended, it sounds pretty disrespectful, uncharacteristic for an Mormon. Maybe you’re the one self-righteous and arrogant exception to an otherwise charitable, nice, giving group of people that I’ve always respected when it comes to behavior (but that I disagree with 1000% theologically).
And guess what, Zerinus, it IS my business buddy. Last time I checked there’s a little thing called the Bill of Rights and since I AM Catholic I have a right to state my opinions on this board as much as you do. The OP is “Mormons: why don’t you have crosses in your church?” Look at how many pages this thread has gone? Does it require this many pages to answer a simple question like this? Obviously this thread has gone far off course. That’s my two cents. You don’t like it? Too bad. I said it and if I feel like it I just might say it again!
N
NewSeeker
Guest
You still buy into this Protestant canard? This view has been completely debunked and reflects a bias created by Protestant historians in the 19th century that influenced the writing of U.S. high school textbooks for decades. It assumes that books during the Dark Ages were cheap and readily available to the masses (“only priests were allowed to read the scriptures”, after all, right?). Many Americans still believe this claptrap because they were taught it in school and in church. But the fact is, as others on this thread have said, the Dark Ages were caused by the barbarian hordes that invaded Rome and devastated the urban centers. The light of learning nearly went out in Europe due to centuries of war and a massive influx illiterate barbarians. It was the barbarians that snuffed out the light of civilization in the West, not the Catholic Church. The barbarian tribes that overran Europe had no written language (and thus couldn’t read). Rampant illiteracy was the inevitable result. The only place where literacy was still taught and books were still available after cities (and schools and libraries supported by civil authorities) were burned were the Catholic monasteries - and many of these were destroyed by persistent warfare, as well. Books never were readily available in the first place. It’s not like an ordinary person in the Roman Empire could get into their chariot and drive down to the local Barnes and Noble scroll store and pick up a hand written copy of Virgil or Cicero, let alone find a hand written copy of Paul’s letters or the Gospels. Before Rome fell, but especially after, the scriptures (and all books) were prohibitively expensive to reproduce, as they had to be copied out on parchment paper or vellum by hand and the only people who could still do this as time passed were the monks. There were few copies any books of any type since most libraries were destroyed and those scripture manuscripts that remained were preserved in the only place they could be preserved at the time - in Catholic monasteries - and were brought out to be read out loud during Mass. That’s right Diana - as Jerusha said - most people were illiterate after Rome fell. They couldn’t read, nor could they buy their own copy of the scriptures in the local bookstore (as no bookstores existed!), and neither could they borrow the nearest gospel manuscript from the monastery, as they were precious, expensive, and jealously guarded precisely because they were scarce and expensive. Instead, the priests then (as they still do today) read the Bible out loud to the people during Mass. The fact is, Diana, that after the fall of Rome and the the so-called Dark Ages set in (caused by the illiterate barbarians, NOT the Catholic Church!) the elements of classical learning that survived in the West were preserved and spread by the Church through the monastery system. Anyone who thinks that the Catholic Church forbade people from reading the scriptures in the medieval period, or thinks the Church caused the Dark Ages (which describes every historically “savvy” Protestant and Mormon I know) needs to go back to the university and take European History 101.
NewSeeker
D
dianaiad
Guest
No, I"m showing my understanding of history in my understanding of history.
What you have said above is true…Including the part about only monks getting educations, the fear of the clergy that the run of the mill people wouldn’t be able to understand the scriptures and needed them to be interpreted for them from the pulpit…
A big part of the problem was that the priests sent out to minister to the very lower classes were often not familiar with the scriptures themselves, and could not read; they memorized the Latin Masses. and off they went. Bless 'em…
They were, of course, partially correct: Gutenberg printed his bible, and fifty years later…oops…the Reformation.
So tell me, what part of 'but many people did not have the advantage of a classical education, therefore they took scriptures out of their cultural context. ’ is a GOOD thing?
Of course, these things are why those ages are considered ‘dark.’ Before the fall of Rome, illiteracy wasn’t quite as universal. Certainly all the Jews were literate (had to be, pretty much, at least the men…) as were most of the men in the Greek and Roman worlds. It wasn’t until Christianity took over, with the serf mentality, that literacy (and cleanliness and all sorts of interesting stuff…) went down the privy.
D
dianaiad
Guest
Hence…‘dark ages.’ You can’t have this both ways, claiming that there were no dark ages on one hand, and then saying that, well, yeah, they were but they weren’t OUR fault.
Which is it?
Now me, if you had been paying attention, I said that the only reason we still have much of the classical literature we do have is because the church saved it. For themselves, certainly, but they did save it. The problem was, they made absolutely no attempt to share it. That had to wait a few hundred years.
N
NewSeeker
Guest
I never claimed there weren’t Dark Ages. My point was that they weren’t quite as Dark as Protestants and Mormons like to make out (for their own evangelical purposes, naturally).
Yes, it took a few hundred years. Why do you think it took a few hundred years for the light of learning to go back on? And who was it that did the sharing of classical literature in the end? It was the Catholic Church that rebuilt Europe’s educational infrastructure after the devastation of universal war and founded the world’s first universities; and it was Catholic priests that developed the scientific method. “[T]hey made no attempt to share it” isn’t a very nuanced view, given the devastating impact of the barbarian invasions on civilization. You make it sound like monks were holed up in their monasteries gloating over their manuscripts saying “nope, we’re not gonna share with the illiterate serfs. No schools for them!” until the Reformation came along and fixed everything. This historical evidence says you’re wrong, of course.
NewSeeker
T
theistgal
Guest
You must be new here.I cannot believe this thread has 266 posts so far? Why don’t Mormon churches have crosses? Will a Mormon answer this already and let’s move on?
I’m reminded of the late George Carlin’s bit about how when Jesus comes back, a cross might not be the first thing He wants to see!
D
dianaiad
Guest
huh?
What in the world are you talking about? The dark ages, or early medieval times, happened. They were what they were. Any apostasy WE claim happened began considerably before they started. As it happens, my field of study includes that time period (what literary stuff we actually have of that period, which is…not a whole lot.)
We don’t have to claim that those times were ‘darker’ than they were…they were what they were. Why are you trying to make them ‘brighter’ than they actually were? I haven’t made any untrue claims about those times, y’know.
Actually?
The enlightenment…which happened around about the time of the Reformation, and the Catholic church fought it tooth and nail.
Odd. I never heard that Rene Descartes was a priest. Certainly Francis Bacon wasn’t. come to think of it, Bacon wasn’t even CAtholic. Ibn al-Haytham most certainly wasn’t.
Well, that rather depends on who the barbarians were and who were the civilized folks, don’t you think?
pretty much, yeah. Unless you can show me where the average serf type, or peasant type, actually was able to go to school—OR become priests? (they couldn’t, really, y’know.)
Dang, talk about revisionist history!
However, OK, I’m quite willing to be educated. Please show me where there were any schools for serfs and peasants. Show me where literacy was encouraged anywhere except within the monasteries, much less prized anywhere else.
Please, give me some names of medieval priests that actually taught the villagers how to read. OR learn. It is quite true that the first universities were under the aegis of the Catholic church–beginning in 1088 or so…
The BYZANTINES, however, had a university in 425. Mind you, it was rather selective and let’s face it, things in the Byzantine Empire were not quite the same as the ‘dark ages’ in Europe.
I guess that’s the part that gets me. You are talking about the barbarians who kept invading, but the reason that the Byzantines, which were in considerably better shape academically than western Europe was at the time, was nibbled to death by invasions from the west, not the west nibbled down by invasions from the Byzantines.
…and whether anybody likes it or not, at the time, the most advanced civilization belonged to the Muslims.
Z
zerinus
Guest
I don’t think that it is, actually. When you are called to be the board moderator let me know, and I will change my mind about that.
N
NewSeeker
Guest
No - I only object to specious claims that the Catholic Church caused the Dark Ages and that, if not for the Church, there would have been no Dark Ages. Sure there was ignorance and superstition. But there was also light, light preserved and protected by Catholic laymen, monks, priests, religious, and many Popes. It’s to be expected that light and dark, saint and sinner, would reside side by side within the Church - since virtually all of Europe was Catholic.
Yes, but before that there were periods that the Catholic Church supported the sciences and centers of learning. The history of Catholicism is not one long night of suppression, as you so love to imply.
Rene Decartes was Catholic. Francis Bacon was inspired by the work of Roger Bacon, who was a Franciscan Friar, who was inspired by the work of Robert Grosseteste, Catholic Bishop of Lincoln. It’s true that Muslims began their work earlier and inspired the West by the time of the Renaissance, but before Descartes and F. Bacon (and before the Renaissance) there was a Franciscan and a Bishop laying the groundwork for Europe’s scientific revolution. None of these men were solely responsible, but please give credit where credit is due - to Catholic clergymen who were the first in Europe to question scholasticism and the “tyranny” of Aristotle. Without those priests, there would have been no Decartes and Francis Bacon. As I said, there’s more nuance in the historical record than your Protestant-inspired views allow for.
I can’t argue (and haven’t argued) against the idea that educational opportunities were scarce for the vast majority, but I do take exception to your view that oppressing the serfs was the policy of the Church and (by implication of your statements) every single abbot of every single monastery in existence.
Who said anything about schools for the serfs and peasants? My point is that whatever education, learning, and vestiges of classical civilization survived the Fall of Rome existed predominantly only within the monastery system. It was the monks who saved Western Civilization from complete collapse and laid the foundation for its eventual rebirth as the dominant force in history. This is indisputable.
You are right. It took 600 years to emerge from the long night, but the foundation for modernity was laid by the decision of the Popes to create and support the modern university system. Thank you for pointing out our debt to the Church in this manner.
Actually, the Byzantines were nibbled to death by Islam, not by the West. The West only invaded Byzantium (Constantinople) once during the Crusades. True, that was a shocking and sorrowful event; it was the capstone on a long history of estrangement which led to the Great Schism. But that was not at the Pope’s order. The crusaders made that decision alone. And it only happened once. It was Muslims that pressured and eventually conquered the Eastern half of the Empire. Germanic barbarians did the Western half in. In the middle was the Catholic church, pressured on all sides, with monks doing what they could to preserve the knowledge of a crumbling civilization.
I won’t argue with that. But, of course, this was helped by the fact that Muslims “borrowed” their learning from monasteries once they conquered Christian lands in the east. So even Islam owes some thanks to the monks.
NewSeeker
Stephen168
New member
Can’t forget the Papacy: Pope Sylvester II
Stephen168
New member
Even odder is Descartes and Bacon lived after the -]Dark Ages/-] Middle Ages.
A
Answersplease
Guest
So your Mormon god can’t (not won’t but can’t) give a new revelation to your Mormon president about those people who are according the Book of Mormon cursed with a “skin of blackness”?
P
ParkerD
Guest
Answers and questions,
There is no such thing as a “curse” of a “skin of blackness”, and that is not what the Book of Mormon says. The differentiation between the Nephites and the Lamanites had to do with which group was spiritually dead because they didn’t follow the guidance of the Holy Ghost beginning in 588 BC, but all that changed in about 90 BC when many Lamanites began joining the true church of Christ and received the Holy Ghost in their lives. After that, either group could have been more righteous and devoted to God than the other group at certain points in time, depending on their righteousness.
God fulfills the prophecies of the prophets because they taught what He inspired them to teach and to prophesy. That is why prophets taught that in our day the house of Israel would be gathered from the four corners of the earth, and the Lamanite descendants are a part of that gathering. It’s happening in Mexico. It’s happening in Brazil. The gathering of Ephraim’s descendants is happening all over the world, just as prophesied in the Old Testament. The blacks all over the world are part of the gathering, just as prophesied by Abraham through God’s word to him.
God has a plan for the salvation of His children on earth. His promises are being fulfilled. He does not vary from keeping those promises and fulfilling His plan. It is being fulfilled, whether one sees it or not. (Many don’t.)
- Status