Vort

FWIW, I wouldn't recognize the Archbishop of Canterbury. Maybe if he had a name tag. I'm very sorry to hear that. I sincerely wish you the best of luck, or perhaps better stated, God's blessings in that issue.

This is an interesting topic. I do not know Patrick Mason, but I assume that Brother Mason wants other Saints to accept him as a fellow Saint, despite the fact that he disbelieves that the Priesthood ban was of divine origin. Fair enough. But does Brother Mason so honor those who insist that the Priesthood ban was indeed given by God? Or does he argue against them and try to illustrate how a just God could not possibly have been the author of blah blah blah? Because although I do not know Brother Mason, I know many others who insist that the Priesthood ban was not divine, and they somehow have little compunction to acknowledge and honor the beliefs of those who disagree with them on that issue. If such people feel so free to proclaim that Brigham Young and the other prophets and apostles were uninspired with respect to Priesthood and race issues, how dare they raise argument and contention against those who maintain that the prophets were indeed prophets, and that the origin of the Priesthood ban was indeed divine? To me, that seems an awful lot like saying, "You must be tolerant and respectful of my opinions, even when I proclaim that Church doctrine was uninspired and wicked. But I owe you no such courtesy."

Ever get that banjo removed?

As you know, I live near Seattle in the Pacific Northwest of the US. I won't be living near Seattle a year from now, though I'll still be within a few hundred miles, still in the PNW. You should come visit this area some time. It is spectacularly beautiful. I don't know if I have ever been any place that I can say was hands-down more beautiful than right here. We are famous for our conifers: Redwoods (not too many this far north, but they do exist; mostly they're found in the northern California area), Douglas firs (immense, fast-growing trees, not as tall as the largest redwoods but still magnificent and impressive, 150 feet tall and literally growing in our back yard), various spruces and pines, large and small. We also have some hardwoods, including the amazing bigleaf maple. It's a moderately large tree with the biggest maple leaves you will ever have seen, literally a foot across (I've seen even larger). Like all maples, they yield delicious sap that can be boiled down to syrup, but bigleaf maple sap is quite thin; you're better off using sugar maples such as grow in the northeast of the US, in New England, New York, Pennsylvania, that area. We have spectacular mountains, too. Mount Rainier (pronounced ray-NEAR, though it should be pronounced RAIN-ee-er, given the local fall/winter/spring drizzle) is nothing short of magnificent, dominating the south-southeast horizon as far north as Seattle or even Everett. Mount St. Helens is further south, still in Washington state, and used to be considered by some as the most beautiful of the Cascade peaks. Some called it "the Mount Fuji of the Cascades", though not to be confused with Mount Fuji in Oregon, which is indeed part of the Cascades. That all ended on May 18, 1980, when St. Helens boorishly blew ash all over eastern Washington, northern Oregon, Idaho, Montana--the whole world, if we're being inclusive. It's less beautiful now but far more interesting, worth spending a day at hiking around and seeing the various sites of interest. I went back to St. Helen's not long after my mission, perhaps five or six years after the eruption, and it looked like a moonscape. Utter devastation. Ten years later, it looked like nature was reclaiming her land. Today, a casual glance would not even reveal that such devastation occurred in our lifetimes. I'd love to host you for a visit. I'm sure I'm not the only one on this list who would.

I believe I understand and, to an extent, sympathize with this point of view. But I think it distorts the reality. Insofar as the "LDS Protestants" or "progmos" or whatever label you want to give them are simply Saints wrestling with the flesh and the doubts that arise from the flesh, I suspect the body of Saints would be nearly unanimous in embracing them and encouraging them to continue their fellowship. If we encourage those with doubts to leave, then we all are lost. The problem is not with those who doubt or whose revelatory testimonies are sometimes weak. Rather, it is with those who, doubting the veracity of the Church's claims about itself and the inspiration of its leaders, try to lead the Saints down another path, one more to their societal and political liking. There is no sin in saying, "I do not know that the Restored Church of Jesus Christ is the one and true kingdom of God upon the earth", but there is grave sin in saying, "Russell Nelson is no prophet of any God I care to follow", or "The 'Mormon' Church is wrong in not recognizing the sacred beauty of homosexual relationships, and we should stop paying our tithing and stay away from that cult until such a time as they receive a 'revelation' <wink wink> that gay couples can be sealed in the temple the same as anyone else." Even if you soften the inflammatory language, the point is that those who encourage apostasy, heresy (a term seldom used among Latter-day Saints), and rebellion against legitimate authority are the majority of the loud "progmo" voices. Theirs is not a mild, honest seeking through personal doubts and struggles; rather, theirs is a revolutionary spirit of pride and intolerance to "the establishment" and "the patriarchy". So if we are limiting our conversation to those people, those who are concerned about imposing their preferences and with absolutely no desire to repent and conform to the revealed word of God, then frankly I completely agree that (in the words of Elder McConkie) such people have found or should find their way out of the Church. And here exactly is where the progmos completely miss the boat. Of course prophets, being mortal men, are fallible. That is neither the question nor the point. When the First Presidency chose to reduce the missionary service period for elders from 24 months to 18 months, they were attempting to extend the blessings of missionary service to more young men who otherwise might not have been able to afford a two-year mission. After several years, when it became apparent that the anticipated increase in missionary service numbers did not happen and that the net effect was a drastic reduction of missionaries around the world, the First Presidency changed course and returned the missionary period to 24 months. Yet even if we choose to view this effort as some sort of failure or mistake, it makes zero difference. My duty was not to decide whether the First Presidency was making the right choice in reducing the period of missionary service; my duty was to serve as called. Are our prophets calling upon us to sacrifice our children? To engage in sexually destructive behavior? To lie to our fellow man, or embezzle funds from our work? What, exactly, are the prophets preaching that is so dangerous? To avoid fornications? Yes, in our modern perverse society, chastity itself is seen, not merely as risible, but as dangerous. So what are we to do? We are to ignore the voices of mockery and wickedness and choose to hold tight to the iron rod, and to teach our children so to do. We are to meet together with the Saints every week, drawing strength from those who share our covenants. We are to be a light to the world, so that those with eyes to see (and they do exist) may witness God in action through us, hear his voice through his Spirit and our actions, and come unto him and be our sisters and brothers in Christ. The "September Six" and their ilk liked to pretend there were great "spiritual abuses" going on in the Church. When asked to show these, they inevitably trotted out examples of aberrant behavior (e.g. leaders engaged in illegal activity) or, mostly, of leaders simply doing what they were called to do, including acting as common judges in Israel. Yes, those leaders sometimes excommunicated people they thought were unrepentant. That's the authority they were given. Excommunicating someone who openly rebels and fights against the Church is not an abuse; it is an obvious action taken by any entity that is concerned with preserving its own survival. Neither will. This is not an issue that can be resolved by smart people with smooth speech. Our hope lies only and entirely in Jesus Christ and in the Church and kingdom he has restored. Resolution of these issues will come through prophetic guidance from above through the First Presidency, not merely through individual initiative of random Saints. (Though such individual initiative could potentially prove very profitable, if done in earnest effort and honest humility of heart.)

No, I mean there's some idiot in a lab coat standing between us.

I'm flattered, but there is exactly one scientist between the two of us.

Forgive me if I came across as scolding or lecturing. Wasn't my intent.

Not sure of your point, Jamie. If it's a competition between the Bible and the Book of Mormon, well...it's no competition. The Book of Mormon is not the Bible, and doesn't mirror it in structure or even, to a large degree, in content. The Bible has much more of a literary feel to it, and works well as a historical record due to its tie-ins with a lot of profane histories. The Book of Mormon offers few pretenses of literary finesse, and while it is a marvelous history, there are very few if any profane tie-ins after First Nephi; we simply don't have that kind of history for the Americas, and we don't even know where Zarahemla or Bountiful were. Like, we don't know within ten thousand miles where they were. Nephi's recountings are along family, Priesthood, and leadership lines. When talking of family, he does mention women, including naming his mother. But when talking about familial goings-on and intrigue, he tends to follow leadership activities and those who oppose it, thus focusing on himself, his father, and his older rebellious brothers. After Nephi finishes, Jacob and the rest of the bearers of the small plates also talk about leadership decisions and large trends, both of which are mostly influenced by the men. Mormon appears to continue this pattern. It's not that the women were unimportant, any more than the men as a whole were unimportant. They (women and men) don't get mentioned because they aren't the drivers of the activities under discussion. Had Amalickiah been a woman and still done what Amalickiah did, she would certainly have been mentioned. But it's absurd to think that a woman would have done the spectacular evil Amalickiah did—not because women are incapable of that kind of wickedness (they most certainly are capable), but because a woman would never have been a warrior at the level of Amalickiah and commanded the respect of troops in rebellion. But, for example, Isabel (there's another named woman) is singled out because she, notwithstanding being a woman, was an actor in a recorded action that had a profound effect on the narrative of the story: She seduced Alma's son Corianton in some way. Thus, she gets the great honor of being mentioned. Lucky gal. It seems as though you're suggesting that women get the short shrift in the Book of Mormon, that there is something ignoble or reprehensible or unseemly or at least objectionable in some way about there being so few women named in the Book of Mormon. That theme certainly resounds with those who dislike the Book of Mormon or Latter-day Saints, including many who remain technically within the Church. (For the record, I do not believe and never have believed you to be one of those, and I do not mean to suggest otherwise.) My response is that the Book of Mormon is what it is, and our whining that it doesn't have enough women in it belies what the book itself claims to be. The Book of Mormon is neither a feminist tract nor an example of politically acceptable 21st-century writing. It is, if you believe its own self-testimony, the record of God's dealings with a branch of the house of Israel, preserved specifically for us in our day to warn us of evils before us and to offer examples of what we should and should not do in our dealings with God. When we focus on trivial nonsense like how many women get mentioned in the text, we miss the vital and important points that we should be concentrating on.

Sarah should be in that list, as well as the wife of the Lamanite king murdered by Amalickiah, who then became Amalickiah's wife.

Women in the Book of Mormon (without looking them up). These include only named or uniquely specified women, so not Lehi's or Ishmael's daughters (except for Nephi's wife), the tender-hearted women injured by their husbands' brutish behavior when Jacob was the spiritual leader, etc.: Sariah Eve Nephi's wife The prophetess (presumably Isaiah's wife) Abish Wife of Lamoni Wife of the old king (Lamoni's father) Woman beaten by Morianton

I've always been struck by Mosiah's words to convince the people to replace the monarchy. In addition to arguing that e.g. his sons might try to reclaim power and lead the people to ruin, he adds that they have no right to destroy his son. Indeed, such addiction to power is destructive to the soul. I am reminded when (a generation after this point) Ammon worked so hard to convince the former Lamanites who were called "the people of Ammon" not to break their oath to God to renounce war under all circumstances. As Elder Scott so insightfully explained fifteen or so years ago in General Conference, if those who had repented renounced their repentance and once again found their blood lust, they would not be redeemable. It was far, far better for them to die (which they would die anyway) than to travel down that path. But you note that their sons were under no such dire oath, and had never learned their fathers' blood lust. So they were perfectly free to go fight and kill and suffer grave injury (but not death!) to defend their homes and those of their fellow Nephites, and were miraculously preserved by showing such tremendous faith.

Um... Actually, Mosiah served as king for the remainder of his life (only a couple of years; he was old), and left the system of judges he had set up as the ruling body, with the Chief Judge over all the land acting as the chief executive. So yes, Mosiah was unselfish and set the people up with a free society of (in a sense, at least) self-rule. But he did not actually ever abdicate the throne, preferring to give the people an easing-in period to wean them from monarchy.

Good catch. I forgot about that one.

Jamie, I'm afraid that such issues distract from the central themes of the Book of Mormon. As a result, I'm hesitant to engage on these issues for fear of missing the important point or points and replacing them with a decidedly less important discussion about methodology and rocks and the meaning of phrases. Nevertheless, you have asked the question, and the question is reasonable. I don't know that I or anyone else in this discussion can adequately answer it, but here are some ideas. This goes on for a while, so I hope you can have patience with me as I try to give some background to explain LDS ideas about the seer stones and Joseph Smith's interfacing with these issues. Someone can probably do this better than me, and I welcome any efforts in that regard. My thoughts are somewhat scattered, but I'll do my best to pull them together and try to string together something coherent. ******************************** The word "Gazelem" occurs in Alma 37:23, in the context of Alma explaining to his son, Helaman, about God's dealings with the mysterious people destroyed in the land the Nephites called Desolation—those whom we normally call the people of Jared or the Jaredites: And the Lord said: I will prepare unto my servant Gazelem, a stone, which shall shine forth in darkness unto light, that I may discover unto my people who serve me, that I may discover unto them the works of their brethren, yea, their secret works, their works of darkness, and their wickedness and abominations. (Compare the experience of the mighty prophet Moriancumr, referred to in the Book of Mormon book of Ether as "the brother of Jared", when he went before God to ask that sixteen small, transparent stones be touched by God's finger to shine out in the darkness of the Jaredite barges or enclosed boats that they had built. The result was God revealing himself to Moriancumr, one of the great theophanies ever recorded.) Here, Alma is giving Helaman charge of the extensive records of the Nephites, those records begun by Nephi and continued by the Nephite kings through the centuries. Included in those Nephite records were the 24 gold plates found by Zeniff's people under king Limhi (Zeniff's grandson, wicked king Noah's son) when Limhi sent a search party out to find the land of Zarahemla. You remember that Limhi asked his rescuers under Ammon (the first one, not the later Ammon who was the son of king Mosiah and who cut off the arms of the enemies of the Lamanite king Lamoni) if they had any means to translate ancient records—a curious question from a king whose people were in bondage and who were threatened with destruction. Limhi specifically asked this question in reference to the 24 gold plates his search party had found some time previous. The answer Ammon I gave Limhi (Mosiah 8:13) was that king Mosiah did have such a gift, and that "the things" were called interpreters. No further description is given in the Book of Mormon. It appears that the term Gazelem was in some way a reference to these interpreters. The word Gazelem has been speculated to have been based on the Semitic root gaz, meaning a stone, the word itself meaning something like "stone of God". From this comes the idea of a "seer stone". In this context, it is interesting to note that when many revelations of the Doctrine and Covenants were first published, many of the names of individuals in Church leadership were kept secret by replacing them with other names. The "code name" for Joseph Smith himself was "Gazelem". Joseph appeared to have identified with the word, not unlike how the great apostle Simon was called by the Lord kephas (the KJV renders it "Cephas"), an Aramaic word meaning "stone" and usually translated into English through the invented Greek(ish) term petros or Peter, a masculinized form of the Greek word petra "stone". Similarly, the mortal Christ, talking with Simon Peter, invoked his Christ-given name of kephas and specifically said that he would build his kingdom upon "this rock". Catholics and other Christians have long thought that the Lord was saying that Peter himself would be the foundation of Christ's Church, but Latter-day Saints interpret this as meaning that the Lord's kingdom is built upon the rock-solid foundation of revelation. So the idea of "seer-stone" is inextricably linked with the idea of revelation from God. The description of "the interpreters" that we have is of latter-day provenance, not from ancient records. Martin Harris described them as two (hence the plural "interpreters") round white stones that looked like marble. Joseph Smith himself described the two stones as being set in the rims of a silver bow to make something that resembled glasses or spectacles, though much too widely spaced to be used as such by normally proportioned people. Maybe the silver rim was a storage method for the interpreters, or maybe the Jaredites were ten feet tall. (Half-joking about that latter option, though we have no way to tell; the silver bow was itself attached to a breastplate that Joseph described as being far too large for him to wear, though Joseph himself was a barrel-chested man of about six feet two inches in height. Make of that what you will.) So, with this general background, I'll try to answer your questions directly: "[D]o we know where they came from originally?" No, other than that they came from God. We are given no information (that I know of) about how God circulated such divine items among his people. Maybe he left them outside their tent door one night. "Also are they the same stones that Joseph Smith found in the buried box?" One would presume so. I know of no way to test this idea. "Interesting that the Nephites (or at least the Nephites in Zarahemla) are transitioning from monarchy to rule by judges. This is the opposite of what the Israelites did." Yep. Perhaps it is better to view this as a recreation of Israelite history rather than some sort of back-transformation. Moses led the children of Israel, and after Moses' death (such as it was represented), other prophets such as Joshua led the people in a sort of prophet-king role until the rule of judges was established. Similarly, the father-son-grandson trio of Mosiah I, Benjamin, and Mosiah II led the Nephites and the people of Zarahemla until they (well, Mosiah II) established a new rule of judges for this branch of Israel, just as the ancient Israelites had done. Whereas ancient Israel left the rule of judges because they demanded a king, the Nephites left the rule of judges when they were too wicked to sustain it and the whole society fell apart from internal intrigue and wicked "combinations".

I think there's a great deal of room for private interpretation and private revelation. However, revelation given me to enhance my understanding, even if perfectly true and correct, is to me. I have no authority to preach my personal revelation to anyone else, unless that has already been publicly revealed through a prophet who has been specifically called to reveal the word of God to others. Other than that, my amazing insightful personal revelations about what this or that scripture really mean is just that, personal, not for anyone else. I am, in fact, under covenant to keep such revelations to myself. If I do not, I prove myself an unworthy servant who can't keep a secret, and such revelation will terminate until I repent. (At least until then, maybe longer.)

In Normal Earth, attics are scary spaces. Seeing as how A&A lives not in Normal Earth, but in Australia—home of killer crocs, foot-wide redback spiders, tiger snakes, blue-ringed octopi, and other assorted dainties—he and his hardy fellow survivors have officially banned attics as a hazard to all human life. Thus, ceiling cavities.

Ask 99% of Americans who read the Harry Potter books how they pronounced "Hermione". Ever listen to a comedian named Brian Regan? He did a comedy routine 15 or so years ago called The Epitome of Hyperbole, pronounced "the epitohm of hyperbowl".

Third Hour is the all-time biggest collection of hyperbole in the world.

Interviewer: I'm here with the one and only Michael Jordan! Michael, do you think the 1996 Bulls could beat LeBron's 2023 Lakers in a seven-game series? MJ: Absolutely. We'd sweep them. Interviewer: How about the 2023 champs, the Nuggets? MJ: Yeah, they were a tough team, but we would beat them in a seven-game series. Probably 4-3. Interviewer: What?! Not a sweep or even six or less? Why do you think they'd take you to seven games? Do I detect a lack of confidence? MJ: Well, we're all like 60 years old now.

Congratulations! Very happy news!

You, Jamie, and my younger brother are all within a few months of each other, age-wise. Bust, indeed!

I believe that the Matthew account refers to forgiving those who trespass personally against us, as in being unkind or otherwise abusing our mutual brotherhood, while the Doctrine and Covenants account refers to those who seek our destruction or otherwise seek to do great harm against us. Note that the D&C verses do not say that God will fight our fights, or that if we're sufficiently aggrieved, God's might will be with us as we hunt down those who try to destroy us. Rather, it says that, if we have followed the "law of forgiveness" wherein we give them three chances to repent*, we are then justified if we choose to seek a more permanent solution. Note that "justified" does not mean "guaranteed to win". *Nibley claimed that this ancient "law of threes", I think he called it, or something like that, has been around from the earliest times. He mentioned that it is common in ancient societies and still pops up in both historical and current contexts, such as the Muslim practice of giving a conquered people three chances to convert to Islam before you behead them.

FWIW, I think the whole generational division and naming is absurd beyond words. I'm technically (by the above definition*) a Boomer, and my wife is technically a Gen Xer. She derives great enjoyment telling me and others about how I'm from the generation before her. I wouldn't want to ruin her fun, but it's a good illustration of the ridiculousness of the generational naming that media has given us. Something else to divide us. *When I first heard the "baby boomers" label, it was strictly applied to those born between 1946 and 1962, an 18-year period. Since I managed to avoid birth until just baaaarely after 1962, I was happy to be safe from the ridiculous "boomer" label. Until they relabeled things, that is.

An astute recap. Let me comment. Lehi leads his family from Jerusalem at the command of God. He sends his sons, apparently four very young men (ages are not explicitly mentioned, but I see Nephi as about 13 or 14 at this time), to retrieve brass plates. When they miraculously succeed—remember, Sariah was so terrified that her sons would be massacred (and so sure that they would indeed meet that fate) that she essentially rebelled against her husband—he later sends them back to recruit old Ishmael and his family. The Liahona did not just magically appear. From the narrative, I believe it's clear that it was placed there in front of Lehi's tent by a divine messenger, mortal or otherwise. It was of "curious workmanship", suggesting that it was cleverly made or ornate or otherwise impressive to look at, but apparently its functionality was obvious and not particularly impressive. It seemed actually to function according to one's faith (1 Nephi 16:28-29), which is amazing to me. The "pointers" were apparently large enough that words could be written on them; what form that writing took, whether some kind of ink or more like an engraving, is never made clear. I doubt the voyage was uneventful; we're not really given much information beyond the mutiny of Laman, Lemuel, and the sons of Ishmael. (BTW, it was probably a mercy from God that Ishmael had died before they undertook the sea voyage, in fact years before they had even made the trek across the Arabian Peninsula. An old, frail man would not have fared well in such a sea voyage. It was apparently difficult enough that Lehi didn't do well, and perhaps never fully recovered.) Nephi and his followers, who apparently included children of Laman and Lemuel as well as some from Ishmael, left after being warned of God that they should flee. We have almost no information about their voyage. The best we know is that Lehi came into the southern land and Mulek into the northern land. These have traditionally been interpreted as South America and North America, respectively, but I personally reject that as overly simplistic and geographically unreasonable. Yes. Worth mentioning that the Nephites were almost exterminated before finding Zarahemla. That would not be the last time. Interesting to me how the Nephites and the Mulekites seemed to get on quite well, despite apparently not sharing either a language or a religion. The taxation was levied later on. Under Zeniff, the Nephites prospered to the point that the Lamanites were afraid they would get too strong, and thus attacked them. Didn't go well for the Lamanites. To my mind, Amalickiah is the prototype of the Really Really Evil Guy, the ultimate Book of Mormon villain. The extensive wars between the Nephites and the Lamanites as documented in the second half of the book of Alma took place because of the vile Amalickiah and his brother, Ammoron. But I would argue that king Noah did much greater damage to the Nephites (certainly to Zeniff's southern group) than even the spectacularly wicked Amalickiah and his brother. The people of God can withstand any external attack; defeat and ruin always and inevitably comes from within. At one point, the Book of Mormon says that Abinadi was "scourged with faggots", meaning beaten savagely with bundles of sticks. Royal Skousen, the editor of the Book of Mormon Critical Text project, suggested that the original word here may have been "scorched" rather than "scourged". The horrific picture that emerges to my mind is a method of torturing someone to death by tying dry sticks, perhaps soaked in accelerant, to the victim's limbs and body, and lighting them on fire. Kind of like being burned at the stake, except they aren't tied to a stake; rather, a lot of little burning stakes are tied to them. My reading of this account seems to me to indicate that the main body of the Nephites in Lamanite territories were taken over shortly after this, within a few years, and spent perhaps as much as 20 years in bondage to the Lamanites. Alma and his people, in contrast, escaped and lived more or less idyllically for that entire time, until they were brought into bondage just after the larger group of Nephites escaped and went back to Zarahemla. They appear to have been in bondage quite a short time, I'm thinking less than a year, before the Lord facilitated their escape and return to Zarahemla. I think that coincidence was less coincidental than we might assume. Noah was a terribly irresponsible king, preferring womanizing to, say, national defense. The Lamanites had already shown increasing aggression toward the Nephites, to which threat Noah appeared not really to care very much. Domestic intrigue and navel-gazing blinded the Nephites to open Lamanite hostility, which I'm guessing any half-way competent military leader could have predicted and perhaps even seen developing. Simply climbing on a tower was enough to inform the king and his pursuer of the Lamanite invasion. The level of incompetence boggles the mind, though not hard to believe from a king like Noah. And of course, instead of standing and fighting for his people like his father had done, Noah commands retreat and actually demands that his followers abandon their women and children—which, to their shame and great chagrin, some do. (Well, not among his priests. No shame or chagrin there. Noah and his priests were made for each other, all but Alma.) All correct. I assume some of the original settlers knew Benjamin, perhaps well. But by this time, I doubt there was anyone left alive among the southern Nephites that had any first-hand knowledge of Zarahemla or its inhabitants. Very impressive. I suspect many Latter-day Saints, seminary students and adults alike, would be hard-pressed to offer such a summary. Well done.