MarginOfError

Members
  • Posts

    6240
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    20

MarginOfError last won the day on December 9 2024

MarginOfError had the most liked content!

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Religion
    So Mormon...You Don't Even Know.

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

MarginOfError's Achievements

  1. That's easy enough to do. D&C 139:22 makes it very clear you should just listen to MOE and send him your life savings.
  2. I hate to do this to you, because I really don't want you to think I'm picking on you. But.....(here I go picking on you anyway)...in fairness, the Guide to the Scriptures does in fact say "Ham’s wife, Egyptus, was a descendant of Cain;" https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/gs/ham?lang=eng when you look at the sources on that, one of them is Abraham 1:23, 25...one that we already showed doesn't actually state that Egyptus is descended from Cain. That additional nugget is quite literally extra-scriptural. The other two sources it uses for justification are from Psalm and basically just call Egypt the land of Ham. It doesn't make any tie between Ham's wife and Cain. So you end up in a position of having to decide how faith you put into the "Guide to the Scriptures." Seeing as it isn't canonized, I put it in the 'tread carefully' category.
  3. We can have more fun with this with genetics research. Genetics indicate that all humans came out of Africa, and that we all descended from black ancestors. 😁
  4. It's completely understandable. If you're my age or older (I sure hope you're not older than me..no one should have to suffer that indignity), you kind of grew up hearing these things. It happens to me, too.
  5. Just go along with the assignment. Tabula (game) - Wikipedia
  6. oh boy.... You've still got a problem here. You have to demonstrate that those interpretations were given when they were "moved upon by the Holy Ghost." You haven't managed to do that. You've only made the statement that you think they were. Contemporary church leaders would disagree with you. Who should I believe? (that's a rhetorical question) Moses 7:7-8 says 7 And the Lord said unto me [Enoch]: Prophesy; and I prophesied, saying: Behold the people of Canaan, which are numerous, shall go forth in battle array against the people of Shum, and shall slay them that they shall utterly be destroyed; and the people of Canaan shall divide themselves in the land, and the land shall be barren and unfruitful, and none other people shall dwell there but the people of Canaan; 8 For behold, the Lord shall curse the land with much heat, and the barrenness thereof shall go forth forever; and there was a blackness came upon all the children of Canaan, that they were despised among all people. Enoch uses words that indicate the curse will happen in the future. To conclude that they are the same curse, you will need to demonstrate that Enoch lived before Cain killed Abel. This doesn't really bolster your argument at all. You're effectively saying, "well, the land was cursed except for where it wasn't." Again, not helping your case. The Hyksos wouldn't have been interested in the area if it didn't have value. What it seems like you're saying is that Egypt was barren until Hyksos kicked out the Canaanites. And then Egypt flourished. And then the Egyptians (Canaanites) came back, and the land continued to flourish. Why didn't the curse return? See above where it is clear that the curse against Cain and the curse against Canaan are not the same curse. Furthermore, this doesn't establish a lineage between Cain and Egyptus. You can go make your arguments against my logic in the referenced thread. I won't entertain them here. to be clear, my claim is not that this says something about Smith's attitude. My claim is that there is no evidence from Smith either way. It is at best inconclusive and uninformative. You should avoid saying anything that suggests it is. When you do, you look like you're proof texting. That's really not as true as you think it is. but okay. Regardless, what the Lord's seer brought forth does not support your conclusion.
  7. I'm going to have a little fun with you here, because if you go back to my original posting where I lay out the justification of my claim of Nephite racism, you're among the people who liked it. At the time you seemed to have no objection. So what changed? 😝 Honestly, this is one of those areas I think we can have reasonable disagreement on the matter. I'm going to assume we could agree that the one paragraph could be removed and the remainder of my analysis is sound. (Correct me if I'm wrong)
  8. If your assumption that Canaan is not related to Cain, then you have a different problem. Because nowhere in the Book of Abraham does it specify that Egyptus is a descendant of Cain. I have only ever heard two justifications for claiming the Egyptus preserved the curse of Cain are 1) The Canaan is a derivation of Cain, which we seem to agree is not true. 2) That because 'through her the curse was preserved' therefore she must be a descendant of Cain. But this is problematic because the curse being discussed is the curse against Canaan, not against Cain. The source material simply doesn't support the conclusion, and the contemporary interpretations of the time to justify it are based on a flawed interpretation of biblical history. I'm going to point out here that out of 7 paragraphs of referenced and sourced discussion showing the flaws in concluding the curse of Cain was preserved through Egyptus, you've only taken issue with one of those...one that can be demonstrated not to support your logic anyway.
  9. Ah, but the question wasn't about apostasy. With the Bible, even with the apostasy, Christianity was and is very much alive (and would be even absent the Restoration).
  10. Interesting hypothetical. A simple answer: none of it. Genesis is entirely non-sensical without Exodus. Leviticus has no foundation without Exodus. The very premise to the entire Pentateuch is Exodus. Without the Pentateuch, the rest of the Old Testament is useless. (Not that it survived this scenario anyway). Without the Old Testament, there's no context for Jesus's ministry, which is entirely absent from this Bible. Without the teachings of Jesus, none of the rest of those books carry weight. It's a bunch of advice based on a missing fantasy at that point. With just this version of the Bible, Christianity is dead.
  11. There is no scriptural basis that directly ties the Canaanites to Cain. The word Canaan is not derived from the word Cain. There is no historical nor logical ground on which to draw the connection of Canaan to Cain, regardless of what the Guide to the Scriptures has to say about it. One must consider many other issues related to this topic First, the "Curse of Canaan" fell on them after they went against the people of Shum in war. The curse had two components. The first was that their land was cursed and unfruitful. The second was that their skin turned black so they would be despised of all people. If you evaluate these curses critically, they don't hold up well. Remember that the Book of Moses suggests that the land of Egypt was found by a daughter Ham and Egyptus. She settled there, and "and thus, from Ham, sprang that race which preserved the curse in the land." But the first condition of the curse--the barren and unfruitful lands--can't be applied to Egypt, which became an agricultural power house and regional power. The other condition of the curse--black skin--is known to be historically inaccurate. Egyptians likely had a large diversity in skin tones as they were a cultural cross roads that would intermarry with African, Mediterranean, and Middle Eastern cultures. Next, let's look at the actual curse that was applied to Cain. Genesis 4:9-14 gives the story of Cain's curse. While it holds the same condition of unfruitful crops, keep in mind that Cain was first a foremost a farmer who was reluctant to sacrifice his best crops. What's more, the curse as described in Genesis gives no indication that it would perpetuate beyond Cain. Nor does Smith's translation in Moses 5 apply this any further. To be clear, neither Moses nor Smith felt any compulsion to describe the curse of Cain being extended into his posterity. Continuing with the curse against Cain, the mark against Cain was not a curse. In fact, it was given specifically for his protection. "Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the Lord set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him." (Genesis 4:15). In contrast to this, the curse against the Canaanites was given so that they were "despised among all people" (Moses 7:8). These two curses are incongruent in this aspect, which would indicate that they are not the same curse. Another minor quibble you can take up is that the lands described in Genesis (and by extension, Moses) are the names of the lands that would have been familiar to Moses's target audience. Those would be the Israelites of his time. So it would be prudent to understand the nature of the word Canaan, which is unclear among biblical scholars. It is derived from a word root that can mean "low" or "subjugated." The most prevalent interpretations among scholars are that it refers to the low-lying lands near the Mediterranean Sea (in contrast to the Aram or Aramaic lands, meaning the highlands further away). Some also interpret is as subjugated as it was a provincial territory controlled by Egypt at the time of Moses when his audience would recognize it). The fact that Canaan and Cain have a homophonic root is coincidence, not etymological. Regarding the use of the Book of Mormon to justify curses of black skin and any related consequences, we should keep in mind a few things. For instance, the Nephites were objectively a racist culture. And while the Nephites are often portrayed as the protagonists, they were also very often the villains. Moroni stated pretty clearly that there were faults in the Book of Mormon. We might we wise to assume those faults are not limited to the translation, but also to the people themselves, and maybe we ought not perpetuate some of their mistakes. (You can read more detail about this in a separate comment I made some time ago) Regarding the belief that the curse of Cain was preserved through Ham, this was a common folklore that gained popularity in Christian circles to justify slavery. It is not Hebrew in origin. There's no indication that the Israelites believed this. And even if it were true, if you go back to the original curse against Cain, the mark was given for his protection. If you apply that curse (and that protection) to his descendants, it is on you to explain how using the Bible to justify slavery and the denial or priesthood to repentant individuals satisfies the condition of protecting his descendants. Lastly, the existence of black men who weren't ordained to the priesthood in Smith's time does not say much at all about whether he approved or disapproved of it. Men weren't ordained to priesthood service on the scale to which we are accustomed. In fact, even ordination to the Aaronic priesthood tended to happen in the same manner in which we ordain men to the office of High Priest now. That is, they were ordained when they were asked to fulfill some leadership position or specific service to the church for which priesthood authority was required. It isn't a big stretch of the imagination to think that even antebellum white religious leaders would be hesitant to call black skinned individuals into church leadership. If they were using the justification that black skinned people were descended from Ham, they were using a racist justification that was prooftexted into Christian theology in the 17th and 18th centuries; it is not a justification that is supported by scripture nor would have been interpreted by the audience to whom Genesis was first written.
  12. I already think you're being overly conservative in how you go about sharing your insights. If you pay close attention to the covenants you make in the temple, the only things you covenant not to reveal outside of the temple are the names, signs, and tokens you receive as part of the ordinance. There is nothing wrong with discussing the covenants, insights, or lessons gained in the temple with others outside the temple. Note: I'm not advocating for sharing every detail willy-nilly. As open as I am about sharing my experiences in the temple, I still try to keep my discussions respectful and relevant. But I have very few reservations about sharing my insights with close friends and family that have made the same covenants. I'm also aware that there is a lot of advice and counsel out there about not sharing details of the temple ordinances. Lots of it from various prophets, apostles, and general authorities. I'm still going to stand strong on the text of the actual covenants made, and posit that there are times when more openness is warranted than what is culturally recognized. I could get on board with "some special revelation or insights." But "any"? That's squarely in the realm of preposterous. Your son got bad advice from someone he trusted. I hope you're able to persuade him otherwise. I'm going to say this, and it will sound a little braggy, but I promise I don't mean it to. It just sets context for my point. When I was younger, I was an ordinance worker on an early morning shift where I would officiate either two or three endowment session each shift (I was the young guy...). I estimate that in the three years I was an ordinance worker, I officiated somewhere between 150 and 200 endowment sessions*, as well as hundreds of additional sealings, initiatories, baptisms, and confirmations. Now my point: with all that time and exposure, nothing has enhanced my understanding of the temple more than conversations with my parents, close friends, and other workers. Hearing their insights and perspectives was absolutely essential in inspiring new questions to ponder when sitting in the temple. * I know that isn't actually a lot. A person who attends the temple once per week for an endowment session will hit 150 sessions in three years and 200 in four years. At the time, however, I lived two hours away from the temple and was both a full time student and full time employee. But another way to look at it is this: the typically weekly patron will spend about eight hours per month in the temple. Between my two shifts, I would spend twelve to fourteen hours in the temple each month. And I still needed to talk to other people to really develop an understanding and appreciation for what I was experiencing.
  13. As a bleeding heart liberal, I don't love UBI. In fact, I rather suspect UBI to be a last ditch effort to prevent that total demise of a failing society. @Carborendum is correct, to a point, that wealth cannot be generated without labor, and UBI encourages removing labor from the system. What would happen, however, if that assumption proved to be false? What if wealth could be generated without labor? The nightmare scenario happens with the introduction of technologies that can replace labor. What happens with automation eliminates the need for food service workers, logistics and transportation (delivery of goods), or retail? There has been a facility built near where I live that farms tomatoes and heavily automates the process of monitoring the tomatoes and harvesting them at the ideal time. Automation continues to grow in manufacturing sectors. And by most measures, automation produces more consistent, reliable products. And while we may never automate all humans out of an industry, it isn't unreasonable to believe cut the workforce by a third, or half. And as automation expands, the trend seems to be that the wealth generated from automation flows up toward the wealthy, not toward those who are being replaced. If we reach the point in society where there are significantly more people than there are jobs for them to work, UBI may become a necessary evil to prevent the blood bath of those who can't afford to live clawing back the ability to live from those who are concentrating the wealth. In other words, UBI is how you prevent the French Revolution. I don't want to discuss the downsides of UBI, because I largely agree with most here that it's a bad idea, and probably ought to be avoided. But I do think the growth of automation breaks the assumption that generating wealth requires labor, and we need to do some thinking about how to address that. (probably a separate discussion from the direction this thread has taken on taxation) MOE's Twisted Theories on Taxation I'm a little weird on the topic of taxes. I think sales taxes are dumb. I can get behind some use taxes, but largely, my preferred form of taxation is income tax. If I had it my way, income tax would be the only tax levied. But let's dive down the rabbit hole. The first foundational principle of MOE's taxation philosophy is that Taxes Must Be Transparent. By this, I mean that it should not take very long to figure out how much tax you're paying. As it is now, to determine the total taxes I pay I have to add up income tax, property tax, vehicle taxes, sales taxes, taxes on my utilities, and probably a host more that I can't even think of. This is absurd. The second foundational principle of MOE's taxation philosophy is that Businesses Do Not Pay Taxes. Even if you have a corporate tax, and corporation with half a brain cell will estimate what their tax liability is, adjust prices to cover it, and claim whatever exemptions they can to reduce liability, then take the difference as profit. A corporate tax is nothing more than a hidden tax on the consumer. This also bleeds into why I'm not a big fan of property taxes. Property owners who use their property will pay taxes, while those who lease their property pass those costs to their tenants. It's an unbalanced system and creates hidden taxes for tenants, which violates the first principle. The third foundational principle of MOE's taxation philosophy is that Governments Should Be Limited to Providing Universal Services. The military is an easily agreed upon example. I think Police, Fire, and EMS are relatively easy to agree upon. Personally, I would argue for including electrical, water, and internet (ISP only, not content). I think there's a good case for some portions of health care to be universal (specifically, annual physicals, well child visits, maternity care, and vaccinations). Lastly, I would personally prefer a well funded and highly competitive education system (and by competitive, I mean public school teacher positions should be well paid, highly sought after, and sensibly evaluated...again, another topic for another time) Whether you agree on the inclusion of all of those services is an interesting discussion, and actually a rather valuable discussion for a society to engage in. These principles, in my opinion, make it much easier for people to engage in the discussion of "what services does our society value, and how much do we need to contribute to pay for them?" So why do I prefer the income tax? Mostly for the pragmatic purpose of it being relatively easy to track. (Admittedly, not as easy as land, but hidden taxes and all). And it wouldn't really work unless we are willing to divorce "corporation" and "person." Otherwise you get people able to claim negative income, and other weird shenanigans. It only works if income is synonymous with "new wealth" and only corporations are able to make a profit or take a loss. I've gone on too long. make me your new punching bag.
  14. First and foremost, let me state my profound gratitude that you would take her in. Children who grow up in abusive homes almost never fully heal, but their lives are immeasurably better when someone can help them escape the patterns they learned from being abused. And that's all I'll say. Because while this has some fascinating contours as an academic discussion, I don't want to run down that route if you might still be in any phase of emotional processing. I'm not emotionally deft enough to not say something that would come out weird, and you don't need me debating the finer points of sealing theory when you're living through some pretty hefty upheavals. In other words, it isn't that I don't care, but I like to think I care enough not to open my big mouth. I'd probably go with "emotionally manipulative." I still classify that under the umbrella of abuse, though less offensive than outright emotional sabotage.
  15. Today's edition of "tell us you're old without using the words 'I'm old'"