Jamie123

Did you know she's afraid of sea urchins too?

I did it Anatess' way myself. After about two years flailing around, half-in, half-out of LDSism, getting frustrated and annoying the heck out of Missionaries and the Gospel Principles teachers, I took a step back and returned to what I knew - the Anglican Church. That was in 1993, so for 26 years and counting I've been on Anatess' Step 1 - annoying the heck out of the Vicar and Curate* instead! * Not the same vicar and curate: I've moved parish twice in that time, and in each parish the clergy have changed several times while I was there! (Not down to me of course (I hope).)

Welcome Drew! I am based in England - although I'm married to an American. I am not a member of the LDS Church, but I've been coming to this forum for over a decade! Good to see you!

Having thought about it a bit more, I think what I first liked about the story was the way James initially thinks he is alone in his sufferings, but suddenly finds he is one of a community who have suffered the same way. Discovering you are not alone can have a transforming effect: it's like the kid who is tormented by a maladjusted "bigger-boy", finding that he is only one several victims of the same bully. "Me lost and alone" becomes "we few", or even "we happy few". James and all his companions have all in one way or another been mistreated by the two horrible aunts. And they are all so different: we have the cultured, musical grasshopper, the motherly ladybird, the kind spinsterish spider, the flamboyant devil-may-care centipede and the straight-laced, sardonic earthworm. They have found all not only each other, but also (and beyond hope) a means to escape... I agree though that arthropods on such a scale would be creepy beyond measure. This was one reason I think why it didn't translate well into a movie. I do remember seeing a TV play of it as a kid (Bernard Cribbins played the centipede and Pat Coombs the spider) which I did enjoy - but I think because the characters were obviously really people in pantomime getup. But the 1996 movie was completely horrible, I agree! (Robotic sharks? And Miss Spider as a sexy Parisian? I mean, I ask you!)

I read it off Project Gutenberg here http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/225 - though I do have a battered paperback of it somewhere. My wife liked it so much I'm going to try to find a nice hardback edition to give her for Christmas.

I've been reading this to my wife for a bedtime story, and we finished it last night. In case you haven't read it, it's the story of a young boy who is befriended by a goddess-like personification of the North Wind, who takes him on various adventures, culminating in a visit to Hyperboria (the mythical land of the far north that Herodotus wrote about) which eventually infects him with the "...highest wisdom [which] must ever appear folly to those who do not possess it". Yet the North Wind seems to be cruel too: at one point she has to sink a ship. It makes me think of what we were discussing earlier in the "Joseph was a Jerk" thread - not about Joseph himself, but about how the "terrible" God of the Old Testament can be the same as the merciful God of the New. Vort had a lot to say on this, which I am still turning over in my mind. This does kind of tie in with that... Some other wonderful moments in the story: The last one particularly hits home with me. That is me to a T! There's also a chapter - the story of "Princess Daylight" - which I think must have been part of the inspiration for J.R.R. Tolkien's story of Beren and Luthien. (In The Silmarillion, and told as a story by Aragorn in Lord of the Rings). Tolkien always claimed the pivotal scene - where Beren first sees Luthien dancing among the hemlocks came to him when watching his wife Edith dancing, but I still think George MacDonald must have snuck in there somewhere!

Good point.

I wonder though - the Midianites were an Abrahamic people for sure, but not part of the main line of descent to Israel. Also this was a few hundred years after Abraham's time (though in light of what Traveller said I wonder how literally to take the numbers). Perhaps the practice of circumcision had fallen into disuse and Zipporah had never actually seen it done.

Thanks very much for that Vort. You're right - it makes as little sense to accuse God of murder as to accuse Shakespeare of murdering Romeo and Juliet. I think if we're completely honest about it we do tend to see our lives as our own, and if we make a profession of Christianity, we have to continually remind ourselves otherwise. (This is one reason I think that Christianity must be more than just wish fulfilment.)

I had forgotten when I wrote this that later in Exodus we read about the firstborn of all the Egyptians being killed - and it specifically states that this would include the king's son - so this does kind-of fit. What puzzles me though are the words "sought to kill him". It suggests that God intended to kill him but didn't actually kill him. But if he (the prince) was amongst those destined to die on the passover, he would surely definitely have been killed.

Hunting by its nature has an element of risk to it. (If you want a risk-free way of getting meat then you can buy it at the supermarket.) If hunting were risk-free then it wouldn't be seen as such a manly thing to do; something more akin to pond fishing. The man went out to pit his skill against the deer's and on this occasion the deer won. How many times has the result gone the other way?

Indeed it is! The problem is that you feel a definite sense of betrayal when the "meat" eventually comes. I struggle to understand the real difference between Joshua and Bin Laden. My faith is in the Bible for sure but I don't always find that faith easy to justify. I try, but I do struggle.

Perhaps I worded that badly. I'm not saying he was a spoiled brat - only that that's a charge often brought against him - but that wasn't what I wanted to focus on.

Oddly enough encountered Dahl exactly the same way, with the teacher reading us James and the Giant Peach. I was 8 or 9 at the time so I guess that's forth grade too. The difference was I loved it - though I don't suppose I'd have been quite so keen on giant spiders and centipedes if I'd encountered them in real life. I always loved dialogue between the centipede and the earth worm - and the earth worm's laconic remarks. I hated the 1990s movie though - they totally murdered it.

You've gotta like Roald Dahl (who was quite the gambler himself!) The whole poem is online here: https://www.monologues.co.uk/Childrens_Favourites/Snow_White.htm.

Let's just say I find them challenging.

In the UK, everyone is terrified of upsetting Muslims. You can poke fun at Christians (including LDS) all you like, but say anything remotely bad about Muslims and it's "religious tolerance", "diversity"...etc. etc. (It's surely no coincidence that there's a "Book of Mormon" musical but no "Koran the Musical".) Even the Christmas decorations in the shopping malls are a pale shadow of what they used to be, because they are so terrified of upsetting anyone who's not a Christian. And this is officially a Christian country - in which bishops sit in parliament! It's our history - our heritage...yet we're not allowed to celebrate it because it's not "inclusive" to Muslims. And the biggest joke of all is that most Muslims are fine with Christmas decorations - they don't mind them at all. It's just a few trouble-makers, and an establishment determined to appease them. I'm not surprised you had to argue that your Christian beliefs were "the same sort of thing" as the protected rights of Muslims - because that wouldn't immediately occur to your average politically-correct person.

England London South. Perhaps he'll be one of the missionaries who sometimes lurk outside Kingston University (or sometimes inside in the foyer) trying to strike up conversations with students. I'll keep an eye out for anyone who looks half-Filipino and ask if his mum posts on Third Hour! or Tacloban Mission

I'm sure you know the passage I'm talking about: Exodus 4:24-26. Just three verses, which seem to say that God, having sent Moses to confront Pharaoh, unexpectedly tries to kill him along the way. Moses' wife comes to the rescue: with admirable presence of mind she realizes this must be because they had not yet circumcised their son Gershom, and performs the act then and there with a flint knife. God, satisfied that things are now as they should be, desists from killing Moses who then continues his journey. This is certainly what the NIV leads you to believe happened. The KJV (written by Puritans, determined to preserve as much as possible of the original Hebrew grammar) is more vague. And yesterday I discovered this alternative interpretation: http://www.kjvtoday.com/home/is-the-kjv-confusing-in-exodus-424-26. TLDR? OK, this is my attempt to rewrite the story according to their interpretation (with a wee bit of speculation and embellishment): (21) God said to Moses: "When you're in Egypt, show Pharaoh the signs I have given you. But to make it a bit more of a challenge for you, I'll cause him to be a jerk and not let the Israelites go. (22) Then say that God says 'Israel is my firtborn son (23) and I've told you to let him go so he can worship me. But since you've refused, I'll kill your firstborn son'." (24) And it seems that's exactly what did happen. While the prince was at his favourite inn carousing with his mates, he got blind drunk and choked on his own vomit. No one knows whether he actually died then or not (they carried him back to the palace before anyone could tell) but it certainly looked like God had sought to kill him! (25) In the meantime, some nasty goings-on were...well...going-on in Moses and Zipporah's tent: Moses: Now that we're going back to the Israelites, it's time Gershom was circumcised. Zipporah: Well I hope you're not expecting me to do it! Moses: Well I can't! I've got to hold the kid down. I can't do that and circumcise him, now can I? How many arms do you think I've got? I'm not Ganesha! Zipporah: Who? Moses: It doesn't matter. What does matter is the kid needs to be kept still, and that'll take every bit of my strength. So you just go and get that flint knife from over there... Gershom: What are you two talking about? Moses: Er...nothing son. Your mother and I were just discussing...er...how to cook the potatoes. Gershom: Don't give me that! The only potatoes are in America, and that's not even been discovered yet! Moses: I meant leaks. Gershom: You're talking about me, aren't you? Moses: Not at all. Just you lie down on the blanket over there. You've had a long day riding on that bumpy donkey, and you deserve a rest... Gershom: I can tell you're up to something...hey! Let go of me Dad! Moses: Just lie still, son. You're mother's just going to... Zipporah: You really are going to make me go through with this, aren't you Moses? Moses: Yes I am! And get a move on, before the kid breaks free! Gershom: Owwww! Stop it Mum!!! That hurts!!! Zipporah: Well don't blame me! This was your father's idea, not mine! (She cuts off Gershom's you-know-what and throws it on the floor at Moses' feet.) Gershom: OWWWWWWWW!!!! Zipporah: (to Moses) There! I hope you're happy now, you gross disgusting body-chopping blood-spilling Israilite! It's just my luck to get that sort of man for a husband! Moses: Well it had to be done, Zip! Zipporah: And don't call me 'Zip'! It's Zipporah! ZIPP-OR-AH! OK??? Moses: (sigh) OK... (26) Zipporah: Well are you going to let the poor kid go now it's all over? Moses: Oops! I forgot! (He lets go of Gershom, who runs out of the tent to sulk and nurse his wound.) Zipporah: Well, I... (she is interrupted by Gershom, sticking his head back into the tent and shouting.) Gershom: [ROUGH APPROXIMATION: EXACT WORDS INCOMPATIBLE WITH THIRD HOUR POSTING RULES] You're a pair of not-very-nice people! Your mothers were not married to your fathers! Furthermore you are NOT my parents - I was adopted! (He storms off into the night, muttering imprecautions and occasionally whimpering with pain.) Zipporah: ...I hope you're not expecting me to clean up the mess! Just my luck to have an Israelite for a husband. You're never happy unless you're chopping off body-bits and making an unholy salmagundi all over my nice clean floor! Moses: (Going to fetch the mop and bucket) Yes, dear...

That's very interesting indeed - thank you. I found this website about numbers in Judaism: https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/judaism-numbers/. It says that: However, I'm still a bit bothered by the fact that Luke was a Greek and not a Jew. Would 40 have had the same significance to him? Maybe it did - as Midwest says, he would have been in close contact with Jewish-born believers. Also he was quoting Stephen's speech to the Sanhedrin (telling the story for rhetorical purposes of course - it's not like the most learned Jews of the time would not have known this stuff). You know, I don't believe I've ever (knowingly) spoken to a Rabbi - though I have known a few Jews. One of my best friends from schooldays - whom I'm still in occasional correspondence with now - was a Jew. (Though as Jews go, the family was not especially "Jewish": they ate pork and celebrated Christmas, and even had a Christmas tree!) But maybe I'll do this. Thanks.

I was a bit sloppy there - I should have checked the context of the Luke quote: he is actually quoting Stephen who according to the Wikipedia page probably was Jewish. However, I don't suppose the quote is 100% verbatim, so we may still be getting Luke's interpretation of the story.

Moving from Genesis into Exodus, I find there's a distinct change of flavour. (Has anyone else noticed this?) I find sequels are so often like this - it's the same characters (in this case Israelites, Egyptians and God) but the atmosphere surrounding them doesn't seem the same. But the first thing that really struck me was 2:11-12, when Moses killed the Egyptian. This episode gets discussed so often - sometimes in regard to whether or not Moses was a murderer. Some say that he was not a murderer, because he only did what was necessary to protect the Israelite. But I've always found it hard to believe that Moses - the son of a princess - could have had no other option. Why didn't he just say "Hey Mr. Slave-Driver-Sticky-Beaty-type-person! My mum's a princess, so would you please, if only out of respect for her, stop hitting that man?" It seems far more likely that Moses simply "lost it". However, if he did just "lose it", it seems strange that he checked first to make sure no one else was looking. And maybe - just maybe - his position wasn't as elevated as Charlton Heston gave us to believe. Perhaps the interview went something like this: Moses: Hey, stop beating that man! I'll tell my mum on you if you don't! Egyptian: What, the princess? Everyone knows she's not really your mum! You're just that oiky-poiky Hebrew kid she adopted 'cos she felt sorry for you, so go away and mind your own business! Moses: Not till you stop hitting that man! Egyptian: Whacha gonna do if I don't? Kill me? Moses: If I have to, yes! (Looks around to check no one is watching.) Egyptian: I'd like to see you try! Come on buster - kill me! It's the only way you're going to stop me beating these horrible Hebrews! Come on - I'll wipe the floor with you! (They fight, and Moses kills him.) The problem with this, though is that if everyone knew Moses was an "oiky-poiky Hebrew kid" then very likely the king would have known too and Moses' life wouldn't have been worth thruppence. (Unless of course it was a different king, who had relaxed the "kill all Hebrew boys" policy.) Another possibility is that this particular princess had many "sons", most of whom were Egyptian, and most people thought that Moses was just one of these. However, consider this, from Acts 7: What really bugs me here is that if Moses intended for the Hebrews to support him, why was he so anxious that no one was looking? If he had intended this to be a flashpoint of rebellion, wouldn't he have wanted spectators? Of course this was written by Luke - a Greek, not a Jew - who may not have got his facts quite right. (I wonder also where Luke got the "40 years old" from, as Exodus only says "when Moses was grown" - though doubtless someone better scriptured than me will clear that up.)

If you're referring to the "she's in the next room" thing, I'm not surprised. They'd said already they wouldn't meet her unless she committed to returning to the UK, and old Trump pulls a reality TV style ambush like this. Of course they were cross - wouldn't you have been?

OK it does say "wife" in those parts in the niv too, though they obviously weren't "wives" in quite the same way Rachel and Leah were. Interestingly they were both servants of the "main" two wives, and also Hagar was a servant of Sarah. Was it, I wonder, one the duties of a lady's maid to be a kind of "substitute wife" to her mistress' husband when required?

This calls for a visit to Professor Internet. According to Merriam-Webster... ...and "mistress sense 4a" is So it must be quite correct to refer to a mistress as a concubine. But what you're saying of course is that in Bible-speak a "concubine" cannot be called a "mistress". So where does "concubine" even originate? According to this same Merriam Webster page, the English word "concubine" comes from... ...so it's obviously not Biblical, and must be an inexact translation of a quite different Hebrew word. So if you're right, in those days there must have been two grades of wife, one of which we (confusingly) translate as "wife" and the other as "concubine" - so when we see the word "concubine" in the Bible we must always interpret in the second sense. So thanks Vort! It's all worth knowing!