Doctor Steuss

I have found that the more I learn, the more there is for me to forget.*shrugs*

Fantastic!!!! Thank you, thank you, thank you... and thank you.-Stu

Hi CK, Sorry, by DH I was referring to the Documentary Hypothesis. Potter's essay (I believe the version in his book "Ten More Amazing Discoveries" is a bit more in-depth) can be found here: Biblical Scholarship Supports Kevin Barney has also written a bit about this (although not in the way Potter has), in the Spring 2000 issue of Dialogue.

Unfortunately there's no text. The link they have for online text takes it to the UofB site that has it removed.Looks like this one might be something I have to buy. Thanks though, Stu

rameumptom, That's intersting regarding a David/Goliath motif. Especially given the seemingly high importance of the Davidic covenent within the BoM. I’m wondering about your comment regarding Joseph changing it to “books” though. Did he also insert the word “five"?

I love that site (and its sister site). Speaking of the sister site, do you know of any online translations of Joseph and Aseneth? University of Birmingham has removed it, and I'd really like to read it (as Structurecop [from MA&D] suggested I do, and he rarely suggests reading material for me if it isn't worth it). I've read quite a lot of stuff thus far (mostly in snippets though), but I'm far from being in the dozens range yet. One of these days I'll catch up with you cats that have been doing this for so long.BTW, I dont' know if you're familiar with this site, but I've made use of it quite a few times: pseudepigrapha, apocrypha, apocrapha, dead sea scrolls, gnostic, complete book archives, lost books of the Bible, Extra Biblical writings, Church Fathers.

Ah shucks... I don't know if you want people knowing that you think it's good seeing the devil though. Technically, I imagine Nephi may have been justified in killing Laban for the simple fact that Laban attempted to kill him. I’m not sure what tradition Exodus 21 follows in regards to the DH (since the Brass Plates [at least according to Potter] mainly followed the E tradition), but I think that since they did have the “five books of Moses” (1 Nephi 5:11) that they probably had at least a semblance of the lex talionis and felt a need to adhere to it to some extent while still tied to Israel. Just some initial heretical thoughts based on your potential theory. Good stuff.

Hi CK,Glad to see you here (I believe we haven't "crossed paths" since my other hiatus from ldsforums). This is an interesting theory, and one that I've never considered. It has added merit (IMO) when one considers that Nephi was essentially living under the Law of Moses at the time.

One of these days I hope to trade in my current jealousy for commonality. -Stu

No need to go to Holy Places. Brigham Young taught openly:You believe Adam was made of the dust of this earth. This I do not believe, though it s supposed that it is so written in the Bible; but it is not, to my understanding. You can write that information to the States, if you please-that I have publicly declared that I do not believe that portion of the Bible as the Christian world do. I never did, and I never want to. What is the reason I do not? Because I have come to understanding, and banished from my mind all the baby stories my mother taught me when I was a child. (Journal of Discourses, vol.2, p.6) Here’s a poem my grandfather used to recite that I think is pretty cool.Ever since the world began Woman has tried to rule the man She comitted the first offence And she’s been after him ever since G-d created the earth and He rested then G-d created man and He rested again Then G-d created woman for man’s defense And neither G-d nor man have rested since

As a “former” smoker that often slips up and returns to the nicotine, I wish you the best of luck on the road to quitting. -Stu

Thank you. And you're welcome.

According to Marvin, they are still trying to figure out the best way to mass produce the film. Originally they were thinking about having it in movie theaters. Unfortunately, money is an issue. So, if you have any extra little change sitting around (I imagine even $5-$10 could potentially make a difference, especially if a lot of people made such donations), please help them out. http://www.untoldstoryofblackmormons.com/downloads/ifp-donor-form.pdf Thanks, Stuart

There are actually two messengers being referenced in the verse. The first messenger is John the Baptist (or the "first Elias"). From an LDS perspective, this can also potentially be a reference to Joseph Smith as some believe him to be a "second Elias." This potential latter-day parallel can also be seen in Christ's return to the Kirtland Temple (April of 1836).The second messenger ("the messenger of the covenant") is Christ.

Brilliant.

I'm still waiting to hear back from Marvin Perkins. From the film's website and donation forms, it looks like it might never make it to DVD.Here's the website where you can see the trailer: Nobody Knows: The Untold Story of Black Mormons

FYI, the new film (which just had its deput at the LDS Film Festival) will be shown at the following events. Just wanted to pass on the info in case anyone is in these areas: San Diego Black Film Festival Friday or Feb. 1 or 2 (see site below after Jan 26 for exact date and time and tickets) http://www.sdbff.com/2008_films.htm Texas Black Film Festival Friday Feb. 1 at 2:00 p.m. (see site below to obtain tickets) http://www.texasblackfilmfestival.com/

Hi Gwen, The poem is by Edgar A. Guest titled "To All Parents." There's actually a bit more to it too: I fancied that I heard them say: "Dear Lord, Thy will be done!" "For the joy Thy child shall bring, the risk of grief we'll run. "We'll shelter her with tenderness, we'll love her while we may, "And for the happiness we've known forever grateful stay; "But shall the angels call for her much sooner than we've planned, "We'll brave the bitter grief that comes and try to understand." Other poems by him can be found here: Sofine's Collection Of Edgar Guest's Poetry

I especially notice it when I attend the singles ward. I know that it isn’t intentional, but when every single guy opens his testimony, or his sacrament talk with where he went on his mission, it can leave those of us who were denied due to reasons beyond our control feeling inferior. Tack on top of that the fact that when you say you didn’t go on a mission (or that you weren’t allowed to go) people tend to assume the reason had to be some hardcore sinning action. I hope your brother is doing well in regards to his health. The few LDS women I’ve dated have been converts. For the most part I date non-LDS girls. I’m more-so to blame though, as I’m a bit rough around the edges. -Stu

I soooo want a T-shirt with this on it.

I love Pharisaical dogmatism. <--- (Hopes that no one here owns mutual funds).

The inevitable, "Where did you go on your mission" question followed by the long pause and discomfort of how to answer (especially when it's asked by their parents). Option #1: Keep it simple ("I didn't go on one"). Option #2: Keep it simple, but give a reason why I didn't go ("The First Presidency sent a letter to my Stake President saying I wasn't to go"). Option #3: Go into detail and pretty much ruin any chance of a second date.

Three of my uncles married divorced women who had children. I have dated a few gals who have kids (although none of them were LDS).There's hope.

Princess3dward, I’m wondering if you are aware of the fact that this is how one is to know whether or not a prophet (note, not necessarily a “false prophet”) is giving utterance in behalf of G-d. The key to understanding this is the nuance of the language in verse 20. There are two interesting implications brought by these verses from those kooky Deuteronomists. 1) A prophet (note, not necessarily a “false prophet”) can indeed give utterance that is not from G-d. 2) A punishment is given for someone (i.e. death) in such an instance. So, we are then left to wonder (if we force your interpretation upon it) since the fact that there are (and have been) false prophets running around alive, if the individual who wrote the Deuteronomist passage was not a prophet and therefore not speaking on behalf of G-d thus nulifying it. Also, why is it people are so quick to throw out aspects of the Deuteronomist law (usually claiming that Christ fulfilled all of it), yet so readily cling to other aspects when it serves their beliefs? Do you happen to similarly believe that Deuteronomy 23:1 is valid?

There's too much UMW on this site, and not enough SSCE.