Jamie123
-
Posts
2982 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
28
Posts posted by Jamie123
-
-
2 hours ago, zil2 said:
Short and to the point.
I'm tempted to say I don't "get the point" of that message, but it wouldn't be quite true.
And speaking of "The Point" that reminds me of... On second thoughts I'll make a different thread of that. It would be getting away from the point of this one.
-
(Just to be clear, that is not Captain Scarlet. That is Captain Black - his main nemesis.)
(A rant about Captain Scarlet: Every episode began with the "Mysterons" delivering a message beginning "This is the voice of the Mysterons! We know you can hear us, Earth Men! This week we are going to..." after which the ghostly voice would outline this week's strategy against humankind. And thanks to this timely warning, Colonel White and boys and girls of Spectrum would figure out a way to thwart the plan. Always. You'd think that after a few episodes, the Mysterons would have cottoned on that by sending a warning they were giving away the advantage of surprise: but no. The ghostly warnings kept coming. When will these spooky aliens learn?)
-
Now I'm a wee bit confused.
In Mosiah 8:5, Limhi shows Ammon the plates containing the record of his people since they left Zarahemla. This record begins in the next chapter, where the intro calls it the "Record of Zeniff" and says that it comprises chapters 9 to 22.
However, 21:22 brings the story up to date with the arrival of Ammon at Limhi's court. So is this still part of the "Record of Zeniff"? Did the scribes quickly write out an account of Ammon's arrival and add it to the plates before giving it to Ammon himself to read?
-
-
1 hour ago, NeuroTypical said:
BTW @Jamie123, your posts are even more fun when I read them in my head voiced by what I imagine your avatar sounds like.
Irene Inspiration! ("Will they ever catch her?")
She appeared in the opening titles of "The Do-It-Yourself Film Animation Show", which was often shown on Saturday mornings in the 1970s and 80s.
I almost posted a YouTube link, but sadly the only episode I could find features drawn upper-body nudity. That wouldn't be allowed on kids' TV today! The 1970s were a more tolerant age (at least in the UK).
-
19 minutes ago, LDSGator said:
Dude, I couldn’t agree more. Jaws is a classic and that scene is a gem
The book is quite a lot different. Dreyfuss' character gets ***SPOILER ALERT*** eaten by the shark, and he has a liaison with Brody's wife. (Dreyfuss, I mean, not the shark.)
The first time I read it at age 9 or 10, I was forbidden to read that chapter. (The one where Ellen and Hooper/Dreyfuss do the unmentionable.) Believe it or not I obeyed! I was that innocent age when people getting their heads ripped off by sharks was a LOT more interesting than whatever grown-ups did in bed.
- NeuroTypical and LDSGator
-
2
-
2 hours ago, LDSGator said:
One of the scariest scene in horror movies
The scariest movie scene I remember is in Jaws where Richard Dreyfuss gets a head in the face under the boat (and drops the shark tooth, leading to him being pooh-pooh'd by all the leading citizens: "Shark-schmark!" "But I had the tooth!" "Where is it then?" "I...I dropped it!" "Pooh-pooh to you, Mr. Dreyfuss-Schmayfuss-silly-person! We'll keep the beaches open till sharkey's funished his din-dins!")
When I first saw this at the cinema, the kid sitting next to me (who'd already seen the movie once) gave me a count-down. "The scary bit's coming! It's nearly here! It's almost time for the scary bit! Here comes the scary bit..."
It still scared the bejeebers out of me.
-
One lyric I puzzled over for years was from the theme song to Top Cat. It sounded to me like:
"Presentelactual (?) close friends get to call him TC, providing it's waiting for tea."
Years layer I found out it was:
"Whose intellectual close friends get to call him TC, providing it's with dignity."
By the way, when I was a kid, the show was renamed Boss Cat in the UK, because of a name clash with a brand of cat food. An additional "Boss Cat" title card was added, and it was written "Boss Cat" in the TV listing, but it was still sung "Top Cat" in the theme song, and the character was called "Top Cat" (or TC) in the show, and us kids always referred to the show "Top Cat" so it was a bit pointless really.
-
17 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:
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”.
I once started reading a book called The Bloodline of the Holy Grail by Lawrence Gardener, which argued that Moses was the same historical character as the Pharaoh Akhenaten - the father of King Tut - who preached monotheism. According to Gardener, he was overthrown and fled into the desert accompanied by his followers who called him "The Mose" - which (so Gardener claimed) means "the heir". Forty years later their descendants re-entered history as the Israelites. I got about 1/3 of the way through before I realized it was trash* and stopped reading - though from the blurb on the back, his main thesis is that the surviving Jacobites (descendants of the Catholic James II of England (VII or Scotland)) are not only the rightful heirs of the British throne, but are also the descendants (and heirs) of Jesus. I still have the book somewhere.
*Just to give you an idea, he'd make some totally unsubstantiated statement in chapter x. Then in chapter x+1 he'd refer to the same "fact" and give it a nice scholarly-looking reference. When you looked up the reference, it would point you back to the same statement in chapter x.
- Just_A_Guy and Vort
-
1
-
1
-
27 minutes ago, Vort said:
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.
I think James White meant it as a kind of reductio ad absurdum (he is as anti-abortion as any LDS). His alternative idea was that God has his Elect (and presumably also his Reprobate) amongst unborn children. I find this idea almost as disturbing as the alternative...
P.S. Although now I think about it, I have heard other evangelical preachers (not James White) explain away the massacres of large numbers of people, including many children, at the hands of the Israelites, as God sending the children to heaven (rather than letting them grow up with their reprobate parents and go to hell). I was never very convinced by that argument either.
- Carborendum and Vort
-
2
-
22 hours ago, EH12NG said:
Got me wondering if thirdhour would be interested in hearing my experience with an apparition back in 2012?
I'd be interested in hearing your ghostly tale! Here's my own ghostly tale as upfront payment: (I turn off the lights and shine a torch up at my face.)
We were staying at my grandparents' house on the Isle of Wight. The Island is a ghostly place to start with, and though I've been there more times than I can count (the most recent being this past summer) this is the only ghostly experience I can remember having there. Anyway my brother and I (we were kids at the time) had been picking apples for our grandparents from the tree in the garden. We loved doing this (it was a very tall and exciting tree) but we had the added incentive that our grandfather paid us. After one one day's climbing and picking he gave us 50p (which must have been the equivalent of about $10 in modern US money).
A lovely bright shiny fifty pence piece:
As we were getting ready for bed (we shared a double bed - and my brother always kept me awake half the night complaining about my snoring) I asked my brother if he had the 50p piece safe. He went through all his pockets and couldn't find it. I went through all my pockets and couldn't find it either. We stood side by side by the bed, totally perplexed. Then I felt something brush past my shoulder. The 50p coin shot between us plopped onto the bed. No one else but us was in the room.
So that's the ghostly tale of the fifty pence piece. Over to you now...
- NeuroTypical and mirkwood
-
1
-
1
-
37 minutes ago, zil2 said:
Mosiah 14
Well, I don't think this one really needs any comments beyond: follow Christ, repent, be grateful for the unspeakable gift he is.
Mosiah 15
v5: We, too, must learn to subject our flesh to our spirit and to God.
v9+: heed the prophets.
v14-17: We too, upon conversion, are called to "publish peace".
v26: Do not willfully rebel!
And of course all little children go to heaven (assuming they die before they reach a certain age). I think most Christians would agree with this, though I do remember watching a video by James White (that notorious Calvinist!) arguing that if that were true, abortion clinics were doing the greatest service for the Kingdom of God!
-
1 hour ago, mirkwood said:
How cute!
-
19 hours ago, mirkwood said:
Reminds me of The Pit and The Pendulum.
(Spoiler: he gets away!)
-
Scary pumpkins frighten the whillies out of me...
-
16 hours ago, zil2 said:
Klaw was lying here between me and the keyboard, facing toward the monitors. The window is behind me. From some angles, you can clearly see outside via the reflection in the monitors. Someone jogged past my house. Klaw saw it in the monitor and immediately got up and looked over my shoulder out the window!
I'm a proud Meowmy.
Cats, generally speaking, do understand about reflections. If you place a mirror in front of a cat, tap on it and say "who's that in there?" the cat will take no notice. I have seen youtube videos where a cat mistakes its own reflection for another cat, but I've never known a cat to do it in real life.
-
8 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:
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.
I was in two minds whether to mention this, but most scholars think Isaiah 52 ought to end at verse 12. Isaiah 52:13-15 and the whole of 53 are collectively called the "fourth servant song" or "the song of the suffering servant".
The chapter/verse system we use today was devised in 1227 by Stephen Langton, Archbishop of Canterbury. Something, I suppose, must have prompted Langton to put the chapter division where he did, and "modern scholars" are not necessarily right.
- Just_A_Guy and zil2
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, zil2 said:
As I recall, E. Bednar is suggesting this was a cultural norm - that even the original (presumably wealthy) invitees would have been given such attire.
Yes indeed - I got that point. What I'm saying is that perhaps the custom was so well understood by Jesus' listeners that he didn't need to explain it. We on the other hand do need an explanation as we usually bring our own party clothes. (I'm being my own interlocutor here - the poor man's Paul!)
-
I've been thinking about this on and off all afternoon, and I think I could offer another insight: that Jesus deliberately made this story ridiculous in order to give it shock and surprise value. It is not something that would ever actually happen in the real world.
We have a king - not just a rich man, but an actual king. Kings, in those days, were not people you trifled with. You certainly did not kill a king's servants - just for fun - just because they came to summon you to a feast. It was an idiotic thing to do and the result was inevitable. Yet it was exactly what the Israelites had done. Could they really be surprised by how God had dealt with them?
It's the same with the parable of the vinyard (Matthew 21:33-41). Would you send your son to reason with a bunch of cut throats who'd already murdered half your servants? I don't think you would! Yet God loved the Israelites so much that he'd done exactly that!
And the Prodigal Son (Luke 15:11-32). For a son to ask for his inheritance while his father was still alive was a supreme insult. And for the father to welcome his son back with joy after he had squandered it all on prostitutes - that was just plain ridiculous! Yet that is the extent of God's love for his children.
We accept the oddness of these stories with a shrug because we're so used to them. There could be value in recognising their silliness as part of their intended effect!
- zil2 and mordorbund
-
1
-
1
-
49 minutes ago, zil2 said:
This recent General Conference talk may interest you:
Put On Thy Strength, O Zion by Elder Bednar.
Very interesting - he glosses over the first two "nasty bits" - though of course they weren't relevant to his message.
The speaker seems to read a lot into the story that's not there in the text. I've always thought it odd that the king should expect people grabbed at random off the streets to have their wedding clothes to hand, so it does seem reasonable that he should have provided them himself. But Jesus does not say this. The Calvinists* will say that God chooses some for salvation and others for damnation for reasons inscrutable for us: that whatever the man's reason was for not having a robe, he was simply not one of the Elect.
On the other hand, perhaps the custom of a host providing robes for his guest was something the original listeners would have assumed. Also, it's interesting to hear "and he was speechless" considered. (Those words are usually brushed over.) Maybe this really is Jesus telling us that the man really didn't have an excuse - like "my robe is at home" or "I'm too poor to afford a robe" etc. Sometimes words which seem insignificant, or mere embroidery, do have a meaning we easily miss.
*I use the word "Calvinist" in its modern sense. I'm well aware that John Calvin was not overly big on the idea of predestination.
-
37 minutes ago, zil2 said: (I was teasing - laboratory in US English (LABruhtory), but laboratory in British English (luhBORatree.)
It's fine I know you are teasing! 😁 To be honest I find it hard to differentiate between US accents. I can usually recognize a Southern accent from a Northern one - though I find it harder to tell Northern USA from Canadian. There are differences like ou>oo ( though I have met Canadians who say "ou" the same as me). Even when the "oo" is there, I rarely notice unless I'm listening out for it. The overall North American "twang" drowns it out. I suppose I recognize Brooklyn/Queens/Bronx etc. - though mostly thanks to Bugs Bunny. I have always found the accents of southern England (well to the west of London) somewhat similar to American. Some of my cousins grew up in Hampshire, and as a kid I always thought they sounded American. I have never confused any American accent with Australian though.
-
22 minutes ago, zil2 said:
Brits are always stressing the wrong things......
Or it could be just me... It's not a word I hear spoken very often so don't assume my way is the British way.
By the way, Britain has as many regional dialects as the USA. A lot of Americans will, on meeting a Brit who doesn't sound like either the Queen* or Paul McCartney, assume he's from Australia. I grew up in Leicester, and though I never quite mastered the accent, I can usually recognize it:
Leicestonian: "Ey up! Av come frum Ow-be an stopped at the Shew station on me way te Lest-oh." (The syllables "be" and "oh" are hard - like in "better" and "hotter".)
Translation: "Hey up! (Hello). I've come from Oadby and stopped at the Shell** station on my way to Leicester."
My sister in law has a very strong Leicestonian accent, and she was always being mistaken for an Australian.
*I should say "the King" now, but I'm still not used to having a king.
**The "L" sound nearly always changes to a "W" when it's in the middle or at the end of a word. I acquired this somewhat - for example I'd sometimes catch myself saying "uncuw" instead of "uncle".
-
At church today we had the "Parable of the Wedding Feast": Matthew 22:1-14, which is what I call "the nasty version". These are the "nasty parts":
- The wedding guests (or those who would have been the wedding guests) beat up and kill the king's servants.
- The king sends his soldiers to kill the murderers and burn down their city. (Isn't it a bit odd that they all lived in the same city? And what about the people living in that city who were not murderers?)
- When the king notices one of his guests not wearing a "wedding robe" he doesn't just have him ejected: he has him "bound hand and foot" and thrown out "into the darkness" with "weeping and gnashing of teeth" (*shudder*)
The "nice version", Luke 14:15-23, is the same story (almost) but with the nasty bits removed. So what's going on? Did Luke base his account on Matthew's, but edit out the nasty parts? Or did Jesus tell the same story more than once, changing some of the details?
Let's go with the nasty version...
This mirrors Jewish history - God sent his prophets to the Jews, but they persecuted and murdered them. So God sent the Babylonians to destroy their nation and burn down their city. (Exactly what we've been talking about in the BoM reading group - what Lehi was running away from.) Then God opens his invitation instead to the Gentiles - but some Gentiles are no more worthy than the Jews, and are rejected in exactly the same kind of way.
Perhaps I'm stretching the analogy a bit far, but there's a difference between murdering someone's servants and merely disregarding their dress code. There's no specific mention that the king had the improperly dressed guessed killed, though the disturbing words at the end might offer a clue. I've often wondered: does the "gnashing teeth" refer to some sort of hellish torment (the sort of thing Hieronymus Bosch might have painted)...
...or is it merely the frustrated teeth-gnashing of souls unable to get into heaven?
I'm a proud Meowmy. 
Hello October
in General Discussion
Posted · Edited by Jamie123
Puts me in mind a bit of Fusili's "nachtmahr".