rameumptom

One of the things about the "curse" of the Lamanites, is that different LDS scholars read it differently. What does it mean for them to have "dark" skin, when most describe it as reddish? Secondly, it was a temporary curse. It was only acknowledged in accordance to their disobedience. However, when the Ammonites converted, they were praised for their faithfulness decades later, even though their skin was still "cursed." I believe that what happened was the Lamanites absorbed Native American groups already in the area and took on their properties, including the reddish skin. More of the curse seemed to be described as being lazy, and eating the raw meat of wild beasts. Perhaps we are too quick to view the curse as only a skin coloration, and not as a whole package deal?

The problem with racism is that if you really get down to it, the Bible is full of it. Jesus told his disciples to not preach to the Gentiles, only to the house of Israel. When a Canaanite woman asked him to heal her daughter, Jesus replied by saying that dogs do not eat from the Master's table. To this day in the Middle East, calling someone a "dog" is one of the lowest forms of insult. That God only gave the priesthood to the Levites was also a racist issue. Several people tried challenging Moses on it back then, as being unfair (of course, God swallowed them up in the earth - definitely a racist response to a Civil Rights movement). Why was there a priesthood ban in our day? I don't know for certain. I do believe that Brigham Young, based upon his Protestant upbringing that taught the curse of Cain, may have read it into the scriptures and assumed that there was a skin curse that was suppose to continue until God lifted it. Given that there obviously was a priesthood ban in times past on who could hold the Levitical priesthood, or preaching to the Gentiles, this could easily be seen as something that could be misconstrued. Why would God allow it? For the sake of the Church. It was already being beaten up for polygamy and other issues. The Church may not have survived long or been successful in obtaining converts in its first century and a half, had blacks been actively pursued as converts. Why? Because the world was and in many places still is racist. The Church had to expand beyond Utah and become strong enough to open the doors. And the world had to prepare the way, by introducing Civil Rights and arrive at an acceptance of blacks in standard American life. The reality is, the Church would not have grown in the South prior to the ban being lifted. I lived in Montgomery for almost 17 years. When first there, I was called into the stake mission presidency, and we began the first efforts to spread the gospel in that area actively to the blacks (about 1987). Most other churches handled these issues by having two separate congregations: one black church and one white church in separate areas of town. Our Church doesn't do that, and so it was very difficult for many members to accept the integration and changes that occurred. I've seen members go inactive over the introduction of blacks into our wards and branches. But I've also seen people lose their racist attitudes until now wards are well integrated in much of the South, and people see brothers and sisters, not black and white. Other religions still have that issue of segregation throughout our nation. Yet, you won't see or hear anyone calling them racist. The issue is that we are past this. For 30 years, we have not had any policies that discriminate against people according to race. We have actively brought the gospel to the South and to African nations. There are blacks in bishoprics and stake presidencies and as area authorities in many areas of the world. As we move into the 2nd generation of black members holding the priesthood and ensuring those areas with large black populations are strengthened and prepared, we will probably see more become General Authorities. The thing to know is that God did end the ban via revelation. And the Church has quickly sought to embrace all who seek to join the brotherhood of saints.

Nephi sought witnesses for his people. He gave them 3 witnesses of Christ: himself, Jacob and Isaiah. He quoted Isaiah, because immediately afterward, he explained how he understood Isaiah's writings. Without first giving us Isaiah's words for context, we would not have gotten as much from his explanation afterward. Even having Isaiah's writings in the Bible would have been insufficient, because the wording in the Brass Plates' version were different in about 1/2 the verses quoted.

This is always a funny thing to me. Ask a Jew or Muslim what he thinks of the Trinity, and he'll tell you that it is another term for polytheism! The Bible teaches a pantheon of Gods. The earliest portions of the Bible are based upon the Divine Council of Gods, with El Elyon (God Almighty) as the head, and his divine sons, including Yahweh. Isaiah 6 has Isaiah seeing the Divine Council. Job 1 has several sons of El Elyon go to test Yahweh for preeminence over Israel. Where the Lord says he is the only God and there is none before nor after him, refers to the Divine Council. 70 sons of the divine council were given earthly kingdoms. Yahweh was given Israel. Next door in Canaan, the divine son Yam fell and was replaced by Baal. Referencing this, Yahweh was stating to Israel: I am the only God of Israel; there never was a God before me nor after me (or, I wasn't replaced nor usurped power from another god to obtain my place as Israel's god). I do not see anywhere in the Bible that states God is outside of time. In fact, Peter tells us that 1 day to God is the same as 1000 years to man. If we take Peter at his word, we must admit that God IS within time, just not at the same speed as we experience with time. If God dwells by Days, regardless of the length, then he dwells within time. If God rested on the seventh day, then does that not show that he experienced something He called resting during a period of time called a Day?

One more thing, the things I stated were about Shannon Flynn, and not Brent. I had to go back over my past research, and was indeed in error on this. Once again, Brent, I apologize for the mistake.

You'll have to excuse me. I've been sick the last several days, and am only now returning to life and the computer. Brent, where I've been wrong, I apologize. It has been several years since the days of Hoffman, and I admit my memory of all that went on is not as it once was. Still, where my memory doesn't fall short is in issues over the years on Morm-Ant, where you and Louis Midgely brought the email list to an end. Then with Samu-L, you continued to introduce ideas that virtually stalled any discussion, until you were removed from the list. As I mentioned, you aren't quite the harsh person you were back then. You definitely are not in the RFM realm. Yet, I do not pretend for a moment that you are in this solely for the joy of Church history. Jan Shipps studies and writes on Mormonism for that purpose, and shows the weaknesses and strengths of the LDS Church from her viewpoint. Your books and articles have constantly sought to display only the perceived problems and weaknesses. Definitely not a balanced approach, such as Richard Bushman's Joseph Smith Rough Stone Rolling provided. Instead, your approach is as negative toward the Church as Joseph F. Smith's writings glossed things over concerning the Church. Neither approach benefits anyone in the long run. I hope with your KEP books that you report things fairly - pros and cons. If so, we'll all be pleasantly surprised and you should deserve accolades for it. Yet, I'm not certain from your past writings if that is what we'll get.

Actually, it IS the nature of Egyptologists and other archaeology scholars. The environment they are in is filled with big egos. The leading Mayan scholar, Dr Thompson, kept the language from being translated for almost 40 years, simply because he insisted the language was not decipherable. Herschel Shanks, editor of Biblical Archaeological Review magazine, has been sued on many occasions by scholars that took offense for one thing or another. And if you think BoA discussions get heated, you should see some of the heated discussions on the Minimalist/Maximist views on whether Biblical history prior to King Solomon is actually historical or mythical. While I prefer not getting into heated discussions, sometimes they go that direction. And as long as there is an Internet, things like BoA will be as political as Republican/Democrat debates.

I can't speak for Dan Vogel. Besides reading some of his stuff, I haven't known him. As I've stated, Brent has mellowed over the years. He is very different from who he was 20 years ago. And no, I do not place him in the same group as the Recovery from Mormonism. His writings are better than the drivel they spew out at RFM. Still, Brent has admitted his agenda in the past. Given people can change over years, I would allow his interest in Church history to be more important to him than wanting to destroy the Church. Then again, if he were on the whole, balanced, then his writings should seem more balanced, as well. Instead, his articles/books discuss only the problems he sees, and not the evidences that support LDS teachings.

And it is always wonderful for me to see the MorningStar....

No, the Brass Plates were not the temple records. The temple was under control by the Priestly and Deuteronomist factions. The Brass Plates are clearly an "E" version of the scriptures, coming from the Northern Tribes. Had they been temple records, they would have supported the Aaronic priest movement, rather than the E movement of altars in the wilderness, and patriarchal lifestyle. The Deuteronomists caused the Josian Reforms, which included removing all of Yahweh's altars from the high places, removing the Tree of Life from the Temple (note Lehi/Nephi's Vision of the Tree of Life as a Temple endowment), etc.

And your prognosis is probably correct. Of the Mesoamerican civilizations, many were destroyed, but the peoples were absorbed into the new civilizations. The reason we were able to break the Maya language code, is because Mayan continued as a living language throughout the Aztec Empire and into the Spanish Conquest. One Mayan codex from the Spanish conquest period helped scholars translate the language. Nephi stated that there was a temple built within 20 years after arriving in the New World. That being the case, it would have required several hundred or thousand people to build it. Or, they could have taken a temple already in place, and adapted it to a Jewish Temple. Still, this would have required many workers and it would have required a temple that was already built by people here.

RAM: This is a prophecy of the Messiah, Jesus Christ. It discusses the foreordination of his Messiah-ship. His mouth as a sharp-sword means that he will teach the fulness of the gospel, which will cut the wicked to their very heart. Where Father declares him as Messiah, ties in with the Father's annunciation of Christ at Jesus' baptism. RAM: This applies both to Isaiah and the future Messiah. Remember that in Isaiah 6, Isaiah sees the divine council, is purified before the Council, and then sent forth as a messiah to Israel. Isaiah is a symbol of the coming Messiah, and sees both as being foreordained. RAM: Here we see that both Isaiah and the Messiah shall go forth, not only to Israel, but also to the Gentiles. Isaiah fulfills this in his book going to the Christian world. Jesus fulfills this in bringing Gentiles into the House of Israel through the adoption: baptism and reception of the Holy Ghost. RAM: Here we see the spiritual and literal gathering of Israel. The day would come when those that abhorred both Isaiah and Jesus would change, and flock to embrace the gospel and the Messiah. This would include Gentile kings. RAM: God will redeem Israel both physically and spiritually in the day that they feel they have been abandoned. While a mother may eventually forget the loss of a child, God will never forget his children. RAM: reminiscent of Moses asking Pharaoh to leave Egypt, we find that in the last days there will be many forsaken that will be ready to return to God. The land of Israel will embrace those that return, especially since the first children have died, and Israel was thought to be barren. RAM: We find that the lost of Israel will return with the converted Gentiles to worship Jesus Christ. There will both be a physical and a spiritual return. Given the Great Apostasy, this becomes a huge return to a land (spiritual Israel) that was barren for centuries. For the Jews, they have been brought back to Palestine on the shoulders of Gentile kings. RAM: Here we see that the Savior will deliver both physical and spiritual Israel in the long run. The wicked/enemies of Israel will be destroyed. At the 2nd Coming, all people will know who the Savior is, and that He is the Mighty One (Messiah, Great Angel) of Israel.

Actually, my old mind is wavering. It is the story of Esau and Jacob, where Esau is promised he would one day break off the yoke. Still, the stories are extremely similar and suggest the same thing: the older brother loses the birthright, and has the yoke of servitude (being the son without the birthright) foisted upon him.

The Brass Plates were written in Reformed Egyptian. This is a style that has been found in other ancient Middle Eastern documents, where Egyptian hieroglyphics or demotic is used to write another language. The probable reasons are these: First, Israel and Egypt have had a long history. Many of the Israelites leaving Egypt with Moses would have known the Egyptian language. Archeology has shown that King Hezekiah was very pro-Egyptian. His signets often had scarabs and other Egyptian markings on them. The Northern Tribe sought to Egypt to protect them from Assyria. Also, writing on metals was a difficult and slow process. To write in Egyptian letters allowed for less space to be used and fewer scratches to make the characters.

Yes and no, is the answer. There were others on the American continents, but perhaps not in the exact region where they landed. I do know that there's no way that Nephi could have built a temple like Solomon's with only a few dozen people. Clearly, they ran across peoples several times, but these contacts were kept limited because it was not needed for the precious things Nephi wanted kept in the small plates. Interestingly, the one main contact point occurs just before the small plates end and Mormon begins his abridgement of the large plates. And chances are Ether was wrong that all the Jaredites were slain. It is possible that other groups also slipped away in the night, as did the Mulekites.

You have a good question on this. The issue is, does it matter? There are many LDS that believe in evolution and are still well-heeled LDS. Few LDS that I know believe in a 6000 year old earth/universe. In fact, Joseph Smith believed in the Jewish idea that the world was 3.555 billion years old. Brigham Young believed in Pre-Adamites. The official First Presidency statement is that there is not enough info. All they state is that there was an Adam, and he is considered the first man. My personal belief is that God is continually creating and destroying worlds. I can easily see him creating a world with just some plankton in the oceans. Later, after a destruction, he is able to introduce new species, fish and perhaps some land animals (up to him if he chooses to use evolution). Then 250 million years ago there's a huge destruction, wiping out 90% of all animal life, and we get the dinosaurs in a new creation cycle. 60 million years ago, the dinosaurs are wiped out, opening room for mammals in a new cycle. Finally, a destruction about 10,000 years ago (Ice Age) that wiped out mammoths, saber toothed tigers, and many early men. It opens the door for a new creation. Was Adam the ONLY man on earth? Figuratively, yes. Actually, maybe. But he was culturally and spiritually the first man. I see it as the book of Moses sees it. Adam was kicked out of the Garden, and for decades worked without a full knowledge of the gospel. One day while making a sacrifice, an angel comes and asks Adam why he is sacrificing. Adam states, "I know not, save the Lord commanded me." The angel then explains the Plan of Salvation and Christ's atonement in that plan. At this point, both Adam and Eve rejoice in understanding the purpose of their life, and the redemption they can look forward to. They begin to teach this to their grown children and grandchildren. However, when Cain is born AFTER the fulness of the gospel is restored to them, Eve states she has begotten a man after the Lord. IOW, she had a child born that she could raise in the fulness of the gospel, making Cain very different from all the children that came before him: a first-born, if you will. Now, having explained all of this as I understand it, let me suggest a different direction for you. Instead of finding the reasons for all these things and trying to get them to fully correlate, I ask you to consider the test that God has placed before us. In the Book of Mormon, Moroni 10:3-5, God does not ask us to answer all the questions before believing. What he does is ask us to study the Book of Mormon, meditate on it, and then sincerely ask God if it is not true. The answer will come via the Holy Ghost. Spiritual answers can only come in spiritual ways, and this is God's main method and pattern. Man's logic can only take us so far. Beyond that, especially when considering the super-natural, we must seek our answers from God himself. This is what I've done. while I see many evidences of the truthfulness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, it is the spiritual witness that I've received that fully ties me to this work.

And yes, in that last post, I was being snitty.

BTW, here's some info on the word, "snitty" and its usage in newspapers, etc. Dictionary Evangelist: I don't want to be snitty about this So, I guess your publishing days were a little less valuable to you than you thought!

Elphaba, I note that you admitted being guilty of reneging on your promise. But something you also said is that you are proud of that admission. Most admissions seem a little more sincere when not done insincerely. I agree that all of us act petulantly on occasion. However, "Metcalfe is Butthead" really was a classic learning event. Metcalfe had claimed back then that some things, like chiasmus in the Book of Mormon, were all coincidental. Having the first letter of every paragraph in a draft rebuttal spell out "Metcalfe is Butthead" was done intentionally by Bill Hamblin to demonstrate a point. Brent was trying to wave off evidence of the Book of Mormon as nonsense, and Hamblin was trying to make Brent see that not all things that occur are coincidental. Your attack on Hamblin missed his main point, and that was to show that Brent's statement on chiasmus was ridiculous, just as supposing "Metcalfe is Butthead" being coincidental was ridiculous. Knowing the entire event helps to understand what Hamblin was doing. BTW, back then Brent WAS a butthead. As I said, he was very involved in destroying Morm-ANT and in trying to do the same with SAMU-L. In the last 10 years, he's actually been friendly towards many LDS scholars and had some decent dialogue with them on the FAIR site, etc. And unless he has recanted sometime along the way, Brent has told me in the past that he would be happy to have a hand in destroying the LDS Church, by proving it wrong. Since he hasn't quite achieved that goal, I suppose he has to be content with leading occasional disgruntled or confused ex-members away. And for someone who has been in publishing, you should realize how English is a constantly changing target. In the past 30 years, it has added hundreds of thousands of terms, both official and slang. You may not accept slang, but if it is used long enough, it often finds itself in regular dictionaries, accepted as standard language. And I've read many great literary works that have used slang, and used it quite appropriately, btw. For example, the word "irregardless" was slang for many years, but is now found in many dictionaries, though still considered non-standard.

In many cultures, there is an aristocratic language, and then the language of the people. The Nephites leaders that wrote what we have as the Book of Mormon would have been part of the erudite group: kings, priests, chief judges, generals. It is interesting that some of the peoples Alma taught disregarded him as chief priest, stating that he no longer had any control over them now that he no longer was chief judge. We often have an unreal idea when it comes to Nephites absorbing other cultures. When King Mosiah I discovered the people of Zarahemla, he had to teach them the language, and then the Nephites settled there. Well, it isn't as exact as that. Mosiah probably taught the language to Zarahemla, the king of the Mulekite group; but the majority of them would have continued speaking their own language(s). The Nephites did not move into every other house, but would have built a Nephite section of the town of Zarahemla, or perhaps move into other areas nearby. We see this even today, with little Chinatowns and latin sections of most cities. Even after several generations, many of the people prefer speaking their "native" tongue and living their own culture, even though they are now Americans. Decades later, we see Capt Moroni building sister-cities that seem to separate the Mulekites and Nephites. The towns of Lehi and Morianton are very typical of this, one being a Nephite name and the other a Mulekite/Jaredite name. How does a Jaredite name become a Mulekite name? Cultural contamination. The Mulekites landed north of the narrow neck of land and later migrated south to create Zarahemla. The man Zarahemla was still alive when Mosiah arrived, so the town of Zarahemla was created no later than 250BC. Since King Coriantumr dwelt with them for 9 moons, we can determine that the Jaredite destruction actually occurred about that timeframe. This fits in with the description of the Mulekites, who had lost their original language and culture, and had picked up Jaredite names that suddenly come into the Nephite lexicon. We also see Jaredite-like actions being done by Mulekites (insurrections, king-men, anti-Christ preachers, Gadianton robbers). The Mulekites dwelt with the Jaredites for about 350 years, when things got very violent and ugly, so the Mulekites left. In Mesoamerica, it was very common for an area to become over-crowded, and wars to begin for land conquest. Mosiah's move was forced by Lamanites south of him, but allowed him to conquer another group (Mulekites) to the north. King Zarahemla probably became a vassal king under the sovereign Mosiah I, as that was the common manner anciently in Mesoamerica. Whether the Mulekites were actually happy about being taken over or not, depends on the individual. We have many that attempt insurrections, or sneak off to the Lamanites (Amalickiah) or robbers. They seem to have caused the descendants of Zoram to also become upset with the domineering Nephite theocracy and to start their own fiefdom/vassal-ship. So, in reading these things, it is often important for us to see how cultural contamination and differences created the struggles and strifes they had.

We have a very different culture than Abraham, so such events as we see in the Old Testament can often seem strange and harsh. But in a desert culture, the leader must look at the survival of the group, and not just one or two individuals. When a slave rises up against a mistress/master, as Hagar was teaching Ishmael to do (look at what the angel later tells Hagar about Ishmael eventually breaking the yoke on his neck), one has more than just a bit of heckling. It is an issue of sedition that could have destroyed all that Abraham had worked for. The true bad guy in this event is Hagar, as the instigator that was trying to usurp Sarah's position as head wife. Today, we don't see such things in Bedouin-like survival, nor from a point of slave/master, nor as an insurrection. But that's exactly what was occurring, and in the fragile balance between man and desert, any imbalance could destroy the entire group. We actually see this occur with Jacob, as he ends up appropriating the larger herd from Laban. Then, his departure into the desert was a serious danger to Laban, who saw a major part of his income, livelihood and survival disappearing with Jacob. It also didn't help that his gods/idols were stolen, either. This left Laban entirely without protection from the harsh environment (no large and strong flocks, no gods to help him through tough times, etc). We do not understand the incident in Judges, where a priest's concubine is raped and killed by a town in Benjamin, and so the priest chops her body up and sends the body parts to the 12 Tribes as a witness against Benjamin. But it made sense back then. Most people today also do not understand some of the representative terminology of the ancients. For example, when Ruth uncovers Boaz' feet, it really does not mean his feet, but his loins. The seraphim that are seen with wings covering the feet, are actually covering their loins. It is another case of not easily understanding ancient things, because the way of thinking and living and speaking was and is very different than ours today.

FYI, The LDS Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research (FAIR) has begun putting videos on YouTube explaining several archaeological and indepth issues of the Church. They include videos of several LDS scholars, including John Sorensen, Dan Peterson, et al. Excellent footage of both Nahom and the Arabian Bountiful on a couple videos. These will make a great visual to help explain some of our beliefs and the evidences of the Book of Mormon, etc. FAIR YouTube Site

I think we sometimes view things in the scriptures as black and white, good vs evil, etc. In the case of Ishmael and Hagar, I think we can see it in a shade of gray. Ishmael also was a child of the covenant, being born of Abraham. He was, however, not the child with the birthright, being the child of a slave. First born and birthright issues were very important anciently in the Middle East, as they helped determine which of the children would have seniority over the others when the parents passed away. It also determined inheritance issues, with the first born receiving a double portion. Hagar and Ishmael, as in many of the Biblical stories, were fighting for what they felt was their "right" to the inheritance and respect of a first born. Hagar made a power play, and lost. In such times, in a place as harsh as the Middle Eastern deserts, in a period of time fraught with severe droughts, there had to be discipline and a formal family structure. For Abraham, he had little recourse but to choose one of his wives: the wife of God's promises, or the slave of his wife. The harsh terrain forced difficult decisions. Abraham was forced to part with his nephew (who in those days would have been treated and considered a son), because their flocks were to great to remain together. Later, for those who study the scriptures, one sees that Ishmael was not fully forsaken by Abraham. Ishmael and Isaac have contact as adults, and both are in attendance at the funeral of Abraham.

Good article. Mike always provides an excellent talk for FAIR, and his books are good quality scholarship, as well.

I'll leave my rebuttal primarily to Snow, as he did an admirable job. No, he didn't "kick my butt", but actually supported several of my statements. Rather, I think Snow was kicking your (Elphaba's) butt. Opinions are okay for self-expression, IMO. But if someone begins to establish their opinions as self-evident proofs, then there is need for evidence to back up those statements. Snow was attempting to have you back up some of your statements, which you refused to do. Herein lies the rub: you are still welcome to your opinion, but please do not pretend it is proof, nor necessarily scholarly. As for name-dropping, I've also known many LDS scholars for many years. It doesn't mean anything to me, except insofar as I can say something about the person's character and scholarship. Richard Bushman's book IS excellent, and I have no problem in recommending it to anyone. I do have a problem with Brent's writings. Bushman sought a balanced and scholarly work, and for the most part succeeded. Brent has never attempted to bring forth a balanced work, but has always sought to shoot holes in the Church, with the desire to help others find their way out of the Church, as he did. How do I know this? Because he's told it to me various times over the years. Do I have an agenda? Of course I do. It is to do quality research and find quality scholarship and report them as best as I see fit. I also believe in doing quality defense of the LDS Church, which I've done online for 20 years. As it is, I do see the weaknesses in the man, Joseph Smith, as does Richard Bushman. Neither Richard nor I see it as precluding Joseph from being a prophet of God, however. As for my being "vapid and lacking substance", I suppose you are welcome to your opinion. I don't suppose it would do any good to ask you for evidence supporting this opinion, would it? BTW, the word "snitty" comes from the word "snit", which means: a state of agitation or irritation. And I believe that I used the word properly, as you seem to have been irritated enough to call me "vapid and lacking substance."