tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post2776924525594259018..comments2024-03-28T10:44:30.518-06:00Comments on American Creation: Christopher Columbus: A Man of God?Brad Harthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comBlogger29125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-38001607567652189542018-04-04T11:19:10.010-06:002018-04-04T11:19:10.010-06:00Christopher Columbus is a murderer you say? Did he...Christopher Columbus is a murderer you say? Did he violently kill people out of selfish desire to watch men suffer? No! Of course not, Christopher Columbus was a man of God. People like to twist the circumstances to make it seem like Christopher Columbus was a murderer, who killed the Natives for no good reason, but this simply isn’t the case. Natives were killed, yes, but they were killed because the Natives were killing Christopher Columbus’ crewmen (Ballard, Timothy. The American Covenant, One Nation Under God, Volume 1. pg. 106). There was death and bloodshed on both sides. We can’t ignore that and say that Christopher Columbus was an evil scheming man because he wasn’t that at all. Columbus was called of God by the Spirit to bring men out of religious captivity to the Americas where they could practice their religion freely. (The Book of Mormon, 1 Nephi 13:12-14, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, 1981.) Christopher Columbus found the Americas because he was on God’s errand. In the journals of Christopher Columbus, we have record of him and some of his crew referencing God and asking Him for guidance (“Extracts from the Journal of Columbus.” Extracts from the Journal of Columbus < Before 1600 < Documents < American History From Revolution To Reconstruction and Beyond, www.let.rug.nl/usa/documents/before-1600/extracts-from-the-journal-of-columbus.php ). Mandinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-20068823721836358142017-12-21T13:32:30.052-07:002017-12-21T13:32:30.052-07:00Here's an article, What Mormons Should Know Ab...Here's an article, <a href="http://www.ldsliving.com/What-Mormons-Should-Know-about-Christopher-Columbus-and-the-Restoration/s/77060" rel="nofollow"><i>What Mormons Should Know About Christopher Columbus and the Restoration</i></a>, that goes along with what <b>Anonymous</b> has posted.raySollerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17527247135529580830noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-67835925399074771002017-12-21T10:56:12.414-07:002017-12-21T10:56:12.414-07:00I don't think it's right to go around cond...I don't think it's right to go around condemning a man who did so much good and was trying to do so much good. Christopher Columbus was led by God to the Americas. Sure, Columbus made mistakes--some large and some small. We are all imperfect, and God uses imperfect people to do His work on this earth. Columbus was truly trying to do what is right, and Columbus was certainly a man of God. There are records of his constant praying and asking God for help as he journeyed through the ocean. God sent Columbus to discover the Americas so He could restore truth to the chosen land. Events after the discovery of America--including building the colonies, the Revolutionary War, and creating the Constitution of Independence--provided a way for the gospel to be restored. Columbus knew what he was doing was part of a greater plan, which the Lord was preparing. Christopher Columbus was a great man, who deserves the honor and praise that we give him. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-1795891940021750982009-10-19T15:16:52.578-06:002009-10-19T15:16:52.578-06:00Sez you.Sez you.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-79965445011058938812009-10-18T17:37:45.859-06:002009-10-18T17:37:45.859-06:00TVD - I posted a response to this above. So many ...TVD - I posted a response to this above. So many Columbus posts, so little time. <br /><br />However weakened they were due to this by the late 15th century they were negotiating with the crown powers on an equal footing.jimmiraybobnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-32838732370340595462009-10-18T12:45:11.881-06:002009-10-18T12:45:11.881-06:00Thank you. My first counterargument is that the
...Thank you. My first counterargument is that the<br /> <br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investiture_Controversy<br /><br />had permanently weakened the Church's political power centuries before.<br /><br />I did keep researching it, and this is my rebuttal, also printed in another thread, and explains why the Church started "inquisitions" in the first place, and why could not pull its support, as the alternative would have been worse. But if you say the church was too weak in opposing secular power, I already stipulated that the church was too weak, and not too strong, which is the opposite of 2009's "common knowledge":<br /><br /><br /><i>I ran across this <br /><br />http://www.churchinhistory.org/pages/spanishinquisition/truth-spanish-inquisition.htm<br /><br />on the Spanish Inquisition. The author, Thomas F. Madden, seems well-credentialed and well-respected as a medieval historian.<br /><br />His take is that inquisitions [they'd been around hundreds of years before Spain's] were designed to keep mob rule from burning heretics, using proper theology and procedures.<br /><br /><br />But<br /><br />"The power of kings rose dramatically in the late Middle Ages. Secular rulers strongly supported the Inquisition because they saw it as an efficient way to ensure the religious health of their kingdoms. If anything, kings faulted the Inquisition for being too lenient on heretics. As in other areas of ecclesiastical control, secular authorities in the late Middle Ages began to take over the Inquisition, removing it from papal oversight."<br /><br />"...the constant drumbeat of accusations convinced King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella that the matter of secret Jews should at least be investigated. Responding to their request, Pope Sixtus IV issued a bull...allowing the crown to form an inquisitorial tribunal. Ferdinand...was not at first overly enthusiastic about the whole thing. Two years elapsed before he finally appointed two men. Thus began the Spanish Inquisition.<br /><br />"...As the Inquisition expanded into Aragon, the hysteria levels reached new heights. Pope Sixtus IV attempted to put a stop to it. On April 18, 1482, he wrote to the bishops of Spain:<br /><br />In Aragon, Valencia, Mallorca, and Catalonia the Inquisition has for some time been moved not by zeal for the faith and the salvation of souls but by lust for wealth. Many true and faithful Christians...have without any legitimate proof been thrust into secular prisons...deprived of their goods and property and handed over to the secular arm to be executed, to the peril of souls...causing disgust to many.<br /><br /><br />Sixtus ordered the bishops to take a direct role in all future tribunals... The accused were to have legal counsel and the right to appeal their case to Rome.<br /><br />* * *<br /><br />In the Middle Ages, the pope's commands would have been obeyed. But those days were gone. King Ferdinand was outraged when he heard of the letter. He wrote to Sixtus, openly suggesting that the pope had been bribed with converso gold...<br /><br /><br />In 1483 Ferdinand appointed Tomas de Torquemada as inquistor-general for most of Spain..."<br /><br />"[T]he Spanish Inquisition...would henceforth be an arm of the Spanish monarchy, separate from ecclesiastical authority. It is odd, then, that the Spanish Inquisition is so often today described as one of the Catholic Church's great sins. The Catholic Church as an institution had almost nothing to do with it.<br /><br />"The Spanish Inquisition, already established as a bloodthirsty tool of religious persecution, was derided by Enlightenment thinkers as a brutal weapon of intolerance and ignorance. A new, fictional Spanish Inquisition had been constructed, designed by the enemies of Spain and the Catholic Church.<br /><br />Because it was both professional and efficient, the Spanish Inquisition kept very good records...They are a goldmine for modern historians who have plunged greedily into them. Thus far, the fruits of that research have made one thing abundantly clear the myth of the Spanish Inquisition has nothing at all to do with the real thing."</i>Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-47581074276260700162009-10-17T21:32:58.813-06:002009-10-17T21:32:58.813-06:00JRB - The picture that the Church was powerless to...JRB - <i>The picture that the Church was powerless to resist Isabella and Ferdinand is ridiculo.</i><br /><br />TVD - <i>Make your case.</i><br /><br />The case is that the <i>Inquisition</i> was a RCC institution. The RCC could have withdrawn the use of this official office (the Holy Office) and made the "secular" monarchs pursue their plans for the reconquesta and new exploration on their own. But they didn't. They could have trotted out excommunication as an option (this might have been more effective with Isabella than Ferdinand). But they didn't. They were willfully complicit.<br /><br />Why did they not move to stop the Spanish inquisition and torture and the killing, of which Columbus was a tiny part? Because the goals of the "secular" rulers and the goals of the Church were the same in all cases at the time. It was a partnership honed since the late antiquity of the Roman Empire.<br /><br />As to the weakness of the Church, it was a moral weakness. They could have denied the authority of the institution that provided the engine (or at least the fuel injection) to act.<br /><br />Were there counter voices from within the Church - I believe so but don't have the time to research and cite. But you're an honest broker so I would think you could find the resources if you pursued. If there was secular or religious opposition to the Inquisitions at the time then the argument that condemning it now is merely a result of looking at the actions through 21st century beer goggle....uh, lenses is moot.<br /><br />Modern contemporary critique of Columbus and the excesses of the Church during the 15th-16th (maybe more) centuries does not constitute throwing out all of what we know as the western tradition and values.jimmiraybobnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-88321590880607323982009-10-15T14:34:04.018-06:002009-10-15T14:34:04.018-06:00You're judging the past by 21st century standa...You're judging the past by 21st century standards, by standards that existed nowhere else on the planet at that time. That's not history, it's...well, you name it, it's not history.<br /><br /><i>The picture that the Church was powerless to resist Isabella and Ferdinand is ridiculo. </i><br /><br />Make your case.<br /><br /><br /><i>Sure, there were power struggles but if the Church had put its foot down it would have been effective - the monarchs deriving their authority in the matter from the Church.</i><br /><br />Pls see<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investiture_Controversy<br /><br />The irony is that even by your own argument, the problem wasn't that the church was too strong, but that it was too weak.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-37069748486408304812009-10-15T13:53:28.148-06:002009-10-15T13:53:28.148-06:00The picture that the Church was powerless to resis...The picture that the Church was powerless to resist Isabella and Ferdinand is ridiculo. Sure, there were power struggles but if the Church had put its foot down it would have been effective - the monarchs deriving their authority in the matter from the Church.<br /><br />And it shouldn't be forgotten, the inquisition was to enforce Latin/Roman Catholic Orthodoxy. That it could, in part, be hijacked to rid Spain of its Jews and Moors was a bonus to both the Monarchy (benefiting from the acquisition of abandoned or stolen wealth) as well as the Church (elimination of competition and benefiting from the acquisition of abandoned or stolen wealth).<br /><br />Turning the actual execution over to the secular (devout Catholic) authorities was a formality to provide a good hand washing (as was the method of execution by fire to prevent the shedding of blood).<br /><br />And to confine discussion of the inquisitions to just its Spanish manifestation helps mask its pervasiveness from the 12th to 19th centuries - an ebb and flow of inhumanity and terror carried out to squelch freedom of conscience, administered through the Holy Office and initially presided over by Bishops and archbishops and later by the Dominican and other Catholic orders.jimmiraybobnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-38934033230691731612009-10-15T13:44:55.573-06:002009-10-15T13:44:55.573-06:00Brad's point about historiography is an intere...Brad's point about historiography is an interesting one. It is certainly reasonable to think conservatives (religious or otherwise) would accept a more traditional view of history. It is also possible that religious folk would take a different view of historical revisionism, although it is not obvious what that view would be.<br /><br />However, I don't think this example establishes much regarding that premise because we know that individuals and groups tend to believe charictarizations that are most consistent with their ideologies. Mormon belief may not require a positive view of Columbus, but it is most consistent with the positive view. And since Columbus bashers also tend to be bashers of the FFs, Mormons will be less likely to accept the bashers' arguments and charictarizations of history.Danielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12165084874363214919noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-46358590019685031472009-10-15T11:54:17.594-06:002009-10-15T11:54:17.594-06:00It was about the intertwined and absolute power of...<i>It was about the intertwined and absolute power of church and state providing a framework institution supporting devastating and unchecked evil.</i><br /><br />Like the Masons and the Salem witch trials, this stuff is overblown.<br /><br />And if we examine the record, like the Divine Right of Kings in Britain, you'll find it's the state pushing the church around, and not vice-versa. The true story is much more interesting than the "common knowledge" of such things...<br /><br /><i>Establishing the new Inquisition in the Kingdom of Aragón was more difficult. In reality, Ferdinand did not resort to new appointments, he simply resuscitated the old Pontifical Inquisition, submitting it to his direct control. The population of Aragón was obstinately opposed to the Inquisition. In addition, differences between Ferdinand and Sixtus IV prompted the latter to promulgate a new bull categorically prohibiting the Inquisition's extension to Aragon. In this bull, the Pope unambiguously criticized the procedures of the Inquisitorial court, affirming that,<br /><br /> "...many true and faithful Christians, because of the testimony of enemies, rivals, slaves and other low people—and still less appropriate—without tests of any kind, have been locked up in secular prisons, tortured and condemned like relapsed heretics, deprived of their goods and properties, and given over to the secular arm to be executed, at great danger to their souls, giving a pernicious example and causing scandal to many."<br /><br />Nevertheless, pressure by Ferdinand caused the Pope to suspend this bull,[10] and even promulgate another one, on October 17, 1483, naming Tomás de Torquemada Inquisidor General of Aragón, Valencia and Catalonia. In 1484 Pope Innocent VIII attempted to allow appeals to Rome against the Inquisition, but Ferdinand in December 1484 and again in 1509 decreed death and confiscation for anyone trying to make use of such procedures without royal permission.[11] With this, the Inquisition became the only institution that held authority across all the realms of the Spanish monarchy, and, in all of them, a useful mechanism at the service of the crown.</i><br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_InquisitionTom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-31505479097454899202009-10-15T07:08:59.983-06:002009-10-15T07:08:59.983-06:00If religion is to stand out, it is because it has ...<i>If religion is to stand out, it is because it has more supporters to be manipulated.</i><br /><br />Exactly.<br /><br />I think that you missed my point. It wasn't about religiousness. It was about the intertwined and absolute power of church and state providing a framework institution supporting devastating and unchecked evil. <br /><br />I know many religious people (even Roman Catholics - the tradition that I was raised in) and even churches that would not do what was done in the name of God in ages gone by. By the same token I know many atheists and agnostics that do not rally for Hitler and Mao.jimmiraybobnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-23857730547948969492009-10-15T06:27:49.729-06:002009-10-15T06:27:49.729-06:00Jensen seems to believe in the authenticity of Col...Jensen seems to believe in the authenticity of Columbus's Book of Prophecies, and he most likely approved of Columbus''s treatment of the.......Lamanites.Jhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11567400697675996283noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-47465772228633937172009-10-15T06:26:48.405-06:002009-10-15T06:26:48.405-06:00This comment has been removed by the author.Jhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11567400697675996283noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-40811682779975893502009-10-14T18:50:29.174-06:002009-10-14T18:50:29.174-06:00Tom makes a very good point.
As far as I know, re...Tom makes a very good point.<br /><br />As far as I know, religiousness has not been determined to be a well correlated variable with regards to tyranny ... much less determined to be the cause of tyranny.<br /><br />Meaning that I see no evidence to conclude that religion manifests tyranny in its followers.<br /><br />However, I expect tyrants have no problem manipulating religion (and I think eagerly do so) to achieve their goals.<br /><br />Not that I find religion to be more susceptible to manipulation than <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_ideologies" rel="nofollow">political ideologies</a> such as <i>anarchism, conservatism, environmentalism, feminism, liberalism, nationalism, socialism</i>, or <i>communism</i>.<br /><br />If religion is to stand out, it is because it has more supporters to be manipulated.bpabbotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17047791198702983998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-76849689290471669212009-10-14T16:40:58.423-06:002009-10-14T16:40:58.423-06:00I agree with Tom that it wasn't religion that ...I agree with Tom that it wasn't religion that made Columbus do the things he did. People of all faiths and no faith have committed atrocities in every nation of this planet. Perhaps the ultra-Catholic climate of the era, which did (at least in a roundabout way) defend the use of violence against Muslim "incursion" made Columbus more likely to use the same violence against Native Americans. This would be a fun post to research (and I know Alan Taylor has written on such a topic). This, however, was not the main point of my post. I was looking at how the historiography surrounding Columbus and his journey has changed and how religious communities still hold to many of the "old school" ideas, which I think is, at least in part, historically inaccurate. Dr. Jensen (who isn't some Joe Shmoe by the way) completely ignores the violence and doesn't explain Columbus' religious motives. Now, I am forced to believe that Dr. Jensen knows of these facts. He is, after all, a fairly credible historian. So why promote the "old school" view of things in the light of obvious historical evidence? <br /><br />My guess is that most religions are slow to change on things like this.Brad Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-63646585685271076412009-10-14T15:28:28.383-06:002009-10-14T15:28:28.383-06:00You can be just as wack without religion as with i...You can be just as wack without religion as with it, in fact, perhaps more so. Simple scientific method, factor out the variable.<br /><br />Religion simply isn't a factor here, it's just how Columbus' monomania assumed form.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-19587780897514025682009-10-14T14:59:00.087-06:002009-10-14T14:59:00.087-06:00No, I'm not suggesting that eating your neighb...No, I'm not suggesting that eating your neighbors would fly even in 15th-16th century Europe. I was just using Dahmer, imperfectly, as an example of evil acts in general.jimmiraybobnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-59908537184249897832009-10-14T14:50:34.068-06:002009-10-14T14:50:34.068-06:00...Stalin and Mao...
I would think that anyone re...<i>...Stalin and Mao...</i><br /><br />I would think that anyone reading/posting here would be aware of Stalin and Mao and Pol Pot and Hitler and Torquemada and Jeffry Dahmer and Caligula etc., etc., and how each displayed individual pathologies that led to mass naughtiness. And I find it tedious that when someone mentions episode A, someone else counters with, "yeah but look at episode B which was just as bad or worse."<br /><br />If I murder 2 people it doesn't really matter how many people Manson had killed.<br /><br />With the exception of Dahmer they (and Columbus) were all able to wield their madness within a larger institutional environment that either passively allowed or actively encouraged those individual pathologies.<br /><br />In the case of Columbus and Torquemada that institution would be the intersection of secular power and religious zealotry, whereby the rulers were able to accede to barbarous acts for the purpose of filling the treasury and to earn a place of pious righteousness within the eyes of the church and the church could maintain a stranglehold on Orthodoxy, while attaining greater wealth and power in secular affairs.<br /><br />Dahmer was evil but lived in a secular institutional and legal framework tempered with religious and non-religious values at odds with those of the 15th-16th century.<br /><br />Face it, Columbus was sanctioned and acting in a Christianized National interest that at the very least allowed these kinds of abuses if not actively encouraged (perhaps with some regret) the brutality of colonial conquest for God and the King. <br /><br />It would appear that nations and the Church have, for the most part, moved beyond the worst.jimmiraybobnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-55499465744944091612009-10-13T23:43:12.131-06:002009-10-13T23:43:12.131-06:00Tom, I'm not trying to make a case for the &qu...Tom, I'm not trying to make a case for the "old school" "new school" or any other school. I'm just pointing out some differences.<br /><br />Every time somebody mentions "religious conservative" you shouldn't assume they are going on the attack. I sited the "old school" argument and let it stand on its own. There's no attack here. I noted some areas where the author is wrong. I think it's both proper and accurate.Brad Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-55776967757414229292009-10-13T23:34:40.507-06:002009-10-13T23:34:40.507-06:00Ray, did you ever read any of Hugh Nibley's st...Ray, did you ever read any of Hugh Nibley's stuff on Columbus?Brad Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-79739221684903093932009-10-13T23:30:05.581-06:002009-10-13T23:30:05.581-06:00Already did, with Stalin and Mao.
That some relig...Already did, with Stalin and Mao.<br /><br />That some religions hold to "old school" doesn't make the case for "new school."<br /><br />You wanna call Columbus a murderer, etc., go ahead. But you can make your case on your own while leaving the "old school," Mormon or otherwise, out of it.<br /><br />And my main counterargument is that Columbus' psychology had more in common with Stalin and Mao's then with [pick the faith of a "religious" straw man].Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-78045778246010775802009-10-13T23:00:51.579-06:002009-10-13T23:00:51.579-06:00EXCELLENT point, Ray. I totally forgot about Wash...EXCELLENT point, Ray. I totally forgot about Washington Irving. But you are 100% right about his role and impact on the Columbus myth.<br /><br />Tom, I think you completely misunderstood my approach. This was simply a look at how the historiography has changed and how some religions still hold to "old school" ideas. I could have gone with a number of faiths, but I felt it best to use my own as an example.<br /><br />Either way, I'm sure you'll be informing me as to how I could have done this without "attacking" somebody or some faith.Brad Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-80986705824453719042009-10-13T20:19:12.542-06:002009-10-13T20:19:12.542-06:00It's an error to attribute Columbus' foibl...It's an error to attribute Columbus' foibles to his faith. True, his unshakable faith in his own rectitude was the character trait that got him his ships and his voyage, and it's logical that would extend to his religious feelings too.<br /><br />However, there have been other egotists and monomaniacs like Stalin and Mao who didn't accept even the slightest limits on their actions, and did far far worse than Christendom ever managed or imagined.<br /><br />[And Angie, you seem to have been traumatized by a church or a pastor or something. But the important thing is that you broke away and are exploring truth for yourself. Whatever you find for yourself will be the only thing that will have meaning. Surely God didn't put us here just to follow the dots unquestioningly and then die. How completely boring.]Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-32712569392043939622009-10-13T18:24:42.378-06:002009-10-13T18:24:42.378-06:00I am certain that many who were in the Churches we...I am certain that many who were in the Churches we left for various convictions we had at the time, wondered why and how we could have such convictions.<br /><br />Are we more civilized today, when we have Bernie Madoff's and other well-known public figures that do such for money, power, prestige?<br /><br />Moral judgments are made and not all are "ideal" ethical stands because situations do not present themselves so clearly. <br /><br />We all have interests and are human. So, it behooves the social contract to be honest about those interests, and desires. Then, negotiating the differences of interest can begin.<br /><br />But, it seems in Columbus' case that conversion was a do or die situation. People who are bound in this "frame" are driven people and they do damage in many ways.Angie Van De Merwehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12617299120618867829noreply@blogger.com