Vort

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.

I think I agree with this guy. https://www.instagram.com/p/CyjGDRfuiqm/?igshid=MmU2YjMzNjRlOQ== (Please note that this person's quote is primarily from Harold B. Lee in 1970. He includes President Nelson's photograph, but this is not President Nelson. It's just some guy who goes by "gogogoff0" and who coined a new term that he thinks is fitting. As I wrote above, I think I agree with him.) gogogoff0 There is a growing schism (division) within the Church fueled by Social Media Influencers. It is not a left vs. right, nor is it an American vs non-American. It is those who follow the prophet vs those who I've dubbed as Protestant Mormons. They claim to believe *most* doctrines of the Church, but protest against the prophet and seek to set up their "personal authority" that they derive from their own "personal revelation" as an alternative to prophetic teachings. As I am prepping to write about this, I found this mic drop quote: "We have some tight places to go before the Lord is through with this church and the world in this dispensation, which is the last dispensation, which shall usher in the coming of the Lord. The gospel was restored to prepare a people ready to receive him. The power of Satan will increase; we see it in evidence on every hand. There will be inroads within the Church. There will be, as President Tanner has said, "Hypocrites, those professing, but secretly are full of dead men's bones." Matt. 23:27 We will see those who profess membership but secretly are plotting and trying to lead people not to follow the leadership that the Lord has set up to preside in this church. Now the only safety we have as members of this church is to do exactly what the Lord said to the Church in that day when the Church was organized. We must learn to give heed to the words and commandments that the Lord shall give through his prophet, "as he receiveth them, walking in all holiness before me—as if from mine own mouth, in all patience and faith." D&C 21:4-5 There will be some things that take patience and faith. You may not like what comes from the authority of the Church. It may contradict your political views. It may contradict your social views. It may interfere with some of your social life. But if you listen to these things, as if from the mouth of the Lord himself, with patience and faith, the promise is that "the gates of hell shall not prevail against you; yea, and the Lord God will disperse the powers of darkness from before you, and cause the heavens to shake for your good, and his name's glory." D&C 21:6" Harold B. Lee Conference, Oct. 1970

From Page 1 in the leftist playbook: If you ever get into a situation where you simply cannot deny the overwhelming bias from the Left, admit it only by insisting that both sides are guilty. Never, ever, ever admit unilaterally that your side is wrong. Remember the brave actions of famous Lefist columnist Ellen Goodman, who, when confronted with undeniable proof that the feminist icon Lorena Bobbitt had inarguably attacked and maimed a helpless man (her husband), danced gracefully around the issue by stating, "A pox on both their houses." (Bobbitt, you will recall, actually dodged all responsibility for her act by way of an insanity plea, a brilliant tactical maneuver.)

From my extremely limited interaction with mormondialogue.org, it seems they don't care too much about enforcing their site rules.

This is exactly the kind of human reasoning, engaged in extensively by almost everyone (definitely including the Saints), that leads us away from God. I remember many years ago, a woman in Pasco, WA, threw her two sons off the cable bridge into the Columbia River. The boys drowned in the river. Horrific. Her excuse to police was that she was ensuring that they would go to heaven. There is no royal road to heaven. There is no loophole that allows people to "get in" that otherwise wouldn't "qualify". That is not the way God works. That is not the nature of heaven. There is one gate to heaven, one, not several, not many, not two. One. All who enter that heavenly rest do so through that gate. No exceptions. And the gatekeeper is Jesus Christ; he employs no servant there. Anyway, the cable bridge is a beautiful bridge:

that one of our younger sisters sent him.

Public service announcement: Pumpkin pie does not taste like pumpkin. It tastes like pumpkin pie spice.