Just_A_Guy

Senior Moderator
  • Posts

    15548
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    260

Everything posted by Just_A_Guy

  1. How do you see yourself balancing your physical conditioning with future obligations to your career (including educational development), your wife, your children, your community, and your ward? I think it’s normal, in our late teens and early twenties, to be pretty focused on ourselves and our own development. But the point of eternal progression isn’t just that we become (spiritually or physically) powerful; it’s that we use that power for the good of those around us. Heaven knows, the society we live in will put up with us—even indulge and encourage us—even if we aren’t terribly useful to others and instead focus on the glory and aesthetics of our own body and soul. But at a very fundamental level, that sort of focus is in a state of severe tension with the sort of existence that the Church—and, we believe, the Jesus who organized it—invites us to lead. None of us can make you want something you sincerely don’t want—or to make you give up something you truly love and value above everything else you currently have or anticipate ever having. But you’re at a point in life where whichever choices you make are, by their nature, going to close some doors to you—or at least, commit you to paths you may find very unfulfilling and/or difficult to extricate yourself from later. Now may be a good time to put some deep thought into what, and who, you want to be in five years; in ten; in twenty and in fifty.
  2. 1. IIRC, from that particular incident the dude was in a tunnel dozens of feet underground. And I believe you say you’re ex-military; so maybe you can weigh in on what kind of ordinance it would take to make a crater like that and the pros and cons of using that kind of ordinance in a particular tactical situation. Assuming that I’m right and the guy had indeed gone to the tunnels: Are you suggesting that between option a) (destroy the threat even if doing so hurts the civilians that the threat is using to shield himself) and option b) (shrug, say “oh, well, he’s with/underneath civilians so we just have to let him go knowing he’ll kill more of our civilians in the future”), there exists some third option? What, precisely, *is* that option? 2. I’m not sure the proper jus in bellum calculus is dictated by the kill ratio of “enemy combatants to collateral civilians”. The IDF’s main goal isn’t to kill bad guys; it’s to save Israeli civilians. The IDF obviously shouldn’t be going out of its way to kill Palestinian civilians; but nor does it have an especial need to spare their lives at the expense of the Israeli civilians they are sworn to protect (and whose tortures and deaths, it should be noted, the vast majority of Palestinians—Hamas or not—unabashedly applaud). 3. We often self-flagellate over how many terrorists-of-color are created through western-inflicted violence; but it seems no one ever talks much how many terrorists-of-pallor are created through eastern-inflicted violence. Why is that? Is the implication that light-skinned people, or cultural westerners, have a superior ability to control their emotions or to productively redirect their natural desire for revenge? Is “we’re creating more terrorists than we can kill” really a manifestation of racial or cultural paternalism—a polite way of saying “those brown people just can’t help themselves, the poor little dears”? And, these considerations aside—is there anyone left in Gaza who hasn’t been radicalized by the last couple of decades? They sing songs about killing Jews, they listen to sermons about killing Jews, they send their kids to schools that teach the virtues of killing Jews, they vote for politicians who promise to kill Jews, and they take to the streets and celebrate when Jews are burned and baked and raped and ripped. Just where are all these “moderate Palestinians” we’re supposed to be afraid of offending, who were horrified by the October 7 massacres and but for Israel’s response were on the cusp of standing up to Hamas and filling in the tunnels and making the rocket attacks stop?
  3. Is there any record in scripture of Christ eating a vegetable?
  4. That’s why I said I wouldn’t represent you . . .
  5. That last part is objectively false.
  6. He may have. I’ve always told myself that I ought to get around to reading some Churchill one of these days. 🙂
  7. And frankly, Germany had legitimate grievances (not against Jews specifically, but in general they had reason to feel angry and betrayed). The Treaty of Versailles was, in many ways, a monstrosity. But it became a classic scenario of getting mad at the wrong people, and the ends not justifying the means. And we had to kill a whole lot of Germans before the survivors could be persuaded to abandon their agenda of revenge. 😞
  8. I think part of the issue here may be that @JohnsonJones’s terminology of “wipe them out” isn’t really helpful or, in my view, a terribly accurate descriptor of what American military policy was in the various conflicts he mentions. The US has certainly pursued resounding, unambiguous military victories that utterly destroyed an enemy’s capacity to make war; and it has been willing to accept civilian casualties (sometimes massive amounts of them) as collateral damage in pursuing that goal. It has also developed ballistic nuclear capabilities as a retaliatory/deterrent (I don’t think any mainstream American in the Cold War seriously thought that a first-strike nuclear attack was something we would do or that would be in alignment with our values or who we were as a people). These are both very different than a calculated strategy to completely destroy a group of people for mere racial or ethnic or cultural reasons, which I think is what JJ’s verbiage unfortunately connotes. Frankly, I think discussions like this ask the wrong question. The question isn’t whether a critical mass of Palestinians would vote for Hamas due to some aspect or other of their official party platform. The question is whether a critical mass of Palestinians support the 10/7 attacks; whether most of ‘em get their jollies off of the rape of Israeli women or the maiming of Israeli children. Hamas doesn’t have a monopoly on that kind of ideology or sociopathy. A recent poll suggested that a bare majority of Americans between 18 and 24 believes that the 10/7 attacks were justified. If support for Jew-killing is that high among a subset of (largely non-Palestinian) Americans, you’re going to have a hard time convincing me that Palestinians aren’t at least bloody-minded.
  9. Well, most newer LDS meetinghouses (at least here in the US) have (tithing-funded!) organs that are pre-programmed with most of the hymns from our hymnal. I don’t think I’ve ever been in a ward where that feature was used (except for prelude music before/after the meeting)—they’ve always had a live organist or, failing that, a pianist— but the capability for auto-play is definitely there.
  10. Although . . . And I don’t remember where I read this, but it was within the last 2 years . . . I believe that there’s a fairly consequential (I won’t say “prevalent”) theory that many Biblical names, particularly of OT characters, were developed for the sake of the story years or even centuries after the events being related and reflected thematic elements from the stories themselves. In other words: we have a name for the first woman (“Eve”); but we don’t necessarily have her name (the name Adam would have actually known her by). If this is true, it presents an interesting insight: both the BoM and the OT come from intensely patriarchal cultures that didn’t really emphasize preserving the memory/names of females; but in the Old Testament’s case the later editors/scribes were willing to invent new names for the sake of wordplay and a more “literary” narrative; whereas Mormon, as editor, was unwilling to do so (perhaps he didn’t see the point, since he presumed his readers would have no way of understanding/appreciating any Reformed Egyptian puns he might try to make).
  11. IIRC, one of the architects of the collapse of the Nephite system of judges was a guy named Jacob who eventually came to control a city called Jacobugath and proclaimed himself king. The BoM doesn’t go into much detail, as I recall; but one gets the sense that he was well on his way to building a new coalition until he and his followers were destroyed en mass in the natural catastrophes that accompanied Jesus’s crucifixion.
  12. Perhaps. This account is Mormon’s summary of the record of the people of Zeniff, but Mormon is giving the account as a (relatively) omniscient narrator and at times is probably weaving in materiel gleaned from other sources. Exactly where the record of Zeniff ended and at what point he relied on other sources for the denouement of the story, Mormon doesn’t seem to tell us.
  13. Sometime ago, some coworkers and I got so far as to brainstorm about how we could operate a drug cartel from within the ranks of our government jobs. Purely as an academic exercise, naturally.
  14. Mosiah 16:1: Abinadi quotes from Isaiah 52:10 (all shall see the salvation of the Lord) and 52:8 (Lord and His people to see eye to eye), which were quoted in the priests’ initial question to him (chapter 12). The care with which this account was constructed, never ceases to amaze me. It may not be “great literature”, as that term is popularly understood. But it was painstakingly put together by someone who was highly intelligent and, I think, couldn’t resist a bit of literary showing-off now and again. Mosiah 17:7-8: interesting to me now the priests stake out their position with their verdict: they are the devoted followers of God, Abinadi is a blasphemer pure and simple, and his execution has nothing—nothing!—to do with his accusations against their purported misconduct (though his recanting those accusations will spare his life even if his blasphemy is permitted to stand). Also: where could we have gotten the account of Abinadi’s final condemnation, testimony, and execution; since Alma is already on the run? Did someone else from the royal court ultimately defect and join Alma? Mosiah 17:10: Royal Skousen’s work with the earliest manuscripts of the BoM leads him to conclude that this should read “unto death”, not “until death”. Mosiah 17:13: Skousen has this as “scorched”, not “scourged”. The image I conjured up as a kid was being burned at the stake, but that’s not necessarily what happened here. Mosiah 18:4: Joseph Smith once (somewhat facetiously, IMHO) noted that the Egyptian word “mon” meant “good” and “Mormon” could this be interpreted as meaning “more good”. But this verse suggests that maybe the word has to do with wild animals or wild beasts or something like that. (Maybe that’s why President Nelson wants us to lay off on using the word. What if we’ve been using the Nephite word for “wild animals” to describe ourselves for the past two centuries?!?) Mosiah 18:13: Comparing the baptismal ritual/prayer here with the one Christ taught the Nephites after His resurrection and/or the ritual we practice today suggests that liturgy is . . . malleable. Which is interesting considering Isaiah 24:5’s oft-quoted condemnation of those who have altered the ordinances. Mosiah 18:24-26: we often quote this as the basis for our own practice of not having a paid clergy at the congregational level. But of course, in the New Testament Paul defends his priestly prerogative to support from the Church; something the D&C also clarifies that modern church leaders can claim (and which was done by bishops and stake presidents into the Utah territorial period). Our lay clergy is, we presume, divinely ordained for our particular circumstances; it is not an eternal or unchangeable sine qua non through which one identifies The True Church.
  15. I’m currently involved in a high-ish profile case at work that has developed quite a Reddit following, which I’ve been keeping a jaundiced eye on (but not posting to, obviously). As it pertains to our case I’ve seen precisely one Reddit post that was sheer brilliance (and which very slightly affected the trajectory of the case), a couple dozen that were marginally insightful—and the other few hundred posts were nearly all utter nonsense (but still entertaining in their own way).
  16. I figure it’s because Luke is writing to a gentile audience; so he tones things down a notch. Also, Matthew is very interested in making sure his readers know just what the Jewish establishment did to Christ and what their punishment is going to be . . . Luke has no such priorities. With regard to a wedding garment: what I get out of that is that even for the Johnny-come-latelies who are invited from the highways and hedgerows, there *is* a price to be paid. They are expected to show respect for the nature of the event. The invitation may have been to both bad and good (v 10), but the bad are expected to make themselves good (or at least be willing to explain their failure to do so and beg their Lord’s pardon) or else will find themselves being dismissed from the feast.
  17. In reviewing the footnotes to the Maxwell Institute’s BoM study edition, I’m reminded that Mosiah is the only book from Mormon’s abridgment (excluding his autobiographical Book of Mormon) that lacks a prefatory summary—presumably, some scholars think, because it was lost with the 116 pages.
  18. This may be a stretch, but it just occurred to me: —Noah’s priests interrogate Abinadi by quoting Isaiah 52:7-10. —Abinadi, in his reply, skips the rest of Isaiah 52 and starts up with Isaiah 53. But, the part of Isaiah 52 that Abinadi skips is interesting: 11 Depart ye, depart ye, go ye out from thence, touch no unclean thing; go ye out of the midst of her; be ye clean, that bear the vessels of the Lord. 12 For ye shall not go out with haste, nor go by flight: for the Lord will go before you; and the God of Israel will be your rearward. 13 Behold, my servant shall deal prudently, he shall be exalted and extolled, and be very high. 14 As many were astonied at thee; his visage was so marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men: 15 So shall he sprinkle many nations; the kings shall shut their mouths at him: for that which had not been told them shall they see; and that which they had not heard shall they consider. In some ways, the experience of Abinadi and his followers mirrors this section of Isaiah: Abinadi has likely been tortured and is before the priests with marred visage (v 14); he is stunning the king and his priests into silence (v 15); he has dealt prudently (v 11) by coming in disguise; his followers (after his death) will depart the domains of the unclean king (v 11); and those followers will eventually flee again (from Amulon and the land of Helam) through miraculous means of divine intervention (v 12). I don’t mean to suggest that Abinadi is a fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy. But to me it’s an interesting case of parallelism-by-omission (is that even a thing?)—the chronicler whispers for our attention and reinforces his narrative by subtly referencing the scriptural dog that didn’t bark. Also, note v 10 (quoting Isaiah)—“When thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin he shall see his seed”. “Mosiah”, IMHO, can be read as a combination of “Moses”/“Moshe” and “-iah”. The latter, as we know, often shows up in Old Testament names as a reference to YHWH. The former derives, apparently, either from an Egyptian word for “son” [Thutmose = “son of Thoth”] or a Hebrew word for “to draw out of the water” (a euphemism for childbirth). So “Mosiah” may literally mean either “son of Jehovah” or “born of Jehovah”. We see numerous instances of people being “born of God” in this book of Mosiah—the hearers of Benjamin’s sermon, Alma the Elder, the followers he eventually converted in the land of Nephi, the church he organized in Zarahemla, and ultimately the experience of his son Alma the Younger—but it all, to my mind, comes back to this verse: When thou shalt make His soul an offering for sin He shall see his seed.
  19. In Portuguese, “disculpe” means “excuse me”. So I got the gist. 😉 I wonder if the BoM prophets were sort of “over-compensating” at times; or at least knowingly bucking a broader Nephite social trend. There are hints in the BoM text that at times hoi polloi Nephites had quite a bit of animus towards the Lamanites (Jacob 3:9; Mosiah 9:1).
  20. A summary is here. There used to be a more detailed version that at the moment, I can’t find either.
  21. I wish I could remember more of Bradley’s arguments—I lent his book to my FIL a year and a half ago and he still hasn’t returned it . . . IIRC he derives his argument in part from miscellaneous statements JS and Harris made about the contents of the lost pages, thematic elements, allusions in other part of the BoM as we have it today, and nuances in the manuscript itself. My recollection is that Bradley hypothesizes that the Book of Mosiah actually begins with the reign of Benjamin’s father, Mosiah, who lived during a time of massive Nephite apostasy and basically re-enacted Nephi’s journey by taking a small group of followers and the holy Nephite relics and escaping to a new land (Zarahemla).
  22. It may be worth noting here that I believe some linguists/researchers (Skousen, Bradley, maybe Gardner) suspect that the lost 116 pages included one or two chapters of the book of Mosiah; so what we call “Mosiah 1” is actually “Mosiah 3” or “Mosiah 4”.
  23. I hope not to be terribly offensive with this, but . . . When I talk to lay Christians about the LDS notion of the Godhead, I find that most of them don’t really find it that objectionable and aren’t particularly attached to their understanding of the concept of the Trinity. (Internet-warrior Christians, of course, are a different matter entirely.) I think “different Jesus” is, to a significant degree, a scare phrase/crutch used by a subset of mainline Christian clerics and apologists who feel like they can’t defend the notion of the Trinity on its own merits and would prefer their parishioners just quit asking questions. As far as the OP goes: I think the Church over time has gone back and forth about whether, from a theological standpoint, it’s a big deal that outsiders consider/call us “Christians”. At times we’ve felt it’s important in order to reflect glory to our master, Jesus Christ; at others, we’ve felt the “brand” was irretrievably tainted and not worth pursuing (I believe President Young was of the latter opinion.) But from a socio-political standpoint, I think, it has consistently been a very big deal. Because frankly, as Americans, we have a significant national heritage of doing some pretty horrific things to “non-Christians”; and we tend to (rightly or wrongly) view use of that epithet towards us as being a sort of “battlespace prep” by a “Christian” majority that (we fear) is proud of what they did to us in the 19th century and wouldn’t pass up an opportunity to do it all over again.