My take on the BoM so far

[DigitalShadow]

So lately I've been reading the Book of Mormon and attempting to read a chapter each night before I go to bed (not just skimming over and zoning out, really reading and analyzing). I'm to chapter 6 of Second Nephi so far and I have some questions. Please don't take these as criticisms and get defensive, they are questions I honestly asked myself and would like input on. I will continue reading in the meantime but I was curious what other people thought.

1. Why wouldn't God just have Nephi to slay Laman and Lemuel or smite them himself after they tried to kill Nephi for the whateverth time? He seemed to have no qualms ordering Nephi to kill Laban with his own sword to get the record of the Jews.

2. I had heard of contraversy over the use of "swords" in the Book of Mormon before, but since I hadn't really seen the context so I witheld judgements. From the context I've seen so far though, it sounds like they are talking about swords how usually think of them. Nephi has Laban's sword which was described in great detail when he aquired it, and it was said they fashioned many swords after it to defend themselves. That does not sound like the wood with razor sharp obsidian attached that I have seen LDS apologists propose as the "swords" referred to in the Book of Mormon. In general it sounds like Nephi and in turn the Nephites had metallurgical knowledge far beyond anything we've found evidence of in the Americas at that time frame. I'm not saying that proves anything, but it just does not sit well with me personally. So do you think that "sword" is just a vague term and we've already found evidence for the weapons of the BoM or that we simply haven't discovered the real weapons of the people in the BoM, or something else entirely?

3. Why does God seem to use skin color to denote how "good" or "bad" a people are? Being of a brown skin color (not that I've ever remotely felt racially oppressed in my life), the references to "white and delightsome" people and "cursing" with dark skin is a bit unsettling to me. Just to be clear, I don't think that the church is racist and I've never felt uncomfortable in church, but to me that particular symbolism seems to be indicative of men of the time period the book was "translated" in rather than of divine origin.

In any case, I will continue reading but so far my thoughts and feelings lead me to think that it is a product of man, rather than divine truth. But then again I'm only a fraction of the way through, so I'll keep you guys posted :)

P.S. Yes, I'm back, and I'll try to use this site for the original purpose I came here for and not get tangled up in politics.

[HiJolly]

1. Why wouldn't God just have Nephi to slay Laman and Lemuel or smite them himself after they tried to kill Nephi for the whateverth time? He seemed to have no qualms ordering Nephi to kill Laban with his own sword to get the record of the Jews.

Different issues. If we killed everyone who caused trouble, we'd be in direct opposition to how God has chosen to act. Obviously, God allows the rain to fall upon both the just and the unjust, so there is more to life than just eliminating the irritants. Therefore, the elimination of Laban served another purpose.

You know the story of the Flood? ...maybe God learned something?...or His followers did...

2. I had heard of contraversy over the use of "swords" in the Book of Mormon before, but since I hadn't really seen the context so I witheld judgements. From the context I've seen so far though, it sounds like they are talking about swords how usually think of them. Nephi has Laban's sword which was described in great detail when he aquired it, and it was said they fashioned many swords after it to defend themselves. That does not sound like the wood with razor sharp obsidian attached that I have seen LDS apologists propose as the "swords" referred to in the Book of Mormon. In general it sounds like Nephi and in turn the Nephites had metallurgical knowledge far beyond anything we've found evidence of in the Americas at that time frame. I'm not saying that proves anything, but it just does not sit well with me personally. So do you think that "sword" is just a vague term and we've already found evidence for the weapons of the BoM or that we simply haven't discovered the real weapons of the people in the BoM, or something else entirely?

Good question. I think that Joseph used "sword" as a 'close-enough' term, and that ultimately he was referring to the wood paddle with the pointy rocks. I agree that the text appears to be saying, at that one point, something else. I chalk it up to Joseph's limits, both cultural and personal.

I don't think that understanding Joseph's 'translation' of the Book of Mormon is a simple thing for people to understand. There were many elements involved, and some weren't observable.

3. Why does God seem to use skin color to denote how "good" or "bad" a people are? Being of a brown skin color (not that I've ever remotely felt racially oppressed in my life), the references to "white and delightsome" people and "cursing" with dark skin is a bit unsettling to me. Just to be clear, I don't think that the church is racist and I've never felt uncomfortable in church, but to me that particular symbolism seems to be indicative of men of the time period the book was "translated" in rather than of divine origin.

Absolutely agree. Where we take the conclusions and implications from there, is the key. See my previous comment --- I think the 'translation' is a blend of divine, human, historical, spiritual, practical and contemporary factors. And not always in the same proportions.

In any case, I will continue reading but so far my thoughts and feelings lead me to think that it is a product of man, rather than divine truth. But then again I'm only a fraction of the way through, so I'll keep you guys posted :)

I honestly think it is both divine and man that produced it. But then, as LDS we see 'man' and 'God' as being of the same substance. There is real power in that concept! But I diverge...

P.S. Yes, I'm back, and I'll try to use this site for the original purpose I came here for and not get tangled up in politics.

Welcome back!

HiJolly

[livy111us]

In regards to a few of your points, swords can be seen as both a Macuahuitl, or a wooden club with obsedian in it (just as sharp, if not sharper than a sword), or an actual sword (http://www.precolumbianwood.com/images/mayan.2.jpg). I think it can be argued that that when the BOM mentions swords being "Stained with blood", can only apply to something made of porous material such as wood. A metal sword could not be stained with blood.

But I think that there are many passages which cannot be explained saying they are all Macuahuitls. But then again, there is some evidence of something closer to what we call a sword in Mesoamerica.

This is a good example

Board Message

This is a Mayan holding something that looks very similar to a sword, with a handle and a curved blade.

Here is some interesting information on the subject:

farms.byu.edu/display/pdf.php?table=jbms&id=387

As for the white skin, I'd recommend reading this:

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/pdf.php?filename=MTAxMjI3NjA4LTE1LTIucGRm&type=cmV2aWV3

Or watch the 5 part series of the same talk here

I do find it interesting that in Daniel 11:35 it says something very similar:

"And some of them of understanding shall fall, to try them, and to purge, and to make them white, even to the time of the end: because it is yet for a time appointed."

Edited October 8, 2008 by livy111us

[DigitalShadow]

Different issues. If we killed everyone who caused trouble, we'd be in direct opposition to how God has chosen to act. Obviously, God allows the rain to fall upon both the just and the unjust, so there is more to life than just eliminating the irritants. Therefore, the elimination of Laban served another purpose.

You know the story of the Flood? ...maybe God learned something?...or His followers did...

Good question. I think that Joseph used "sword" as a 'close-enough' term, and that ultimately he was referring to the wood paddle with the pointy rocks. I agree that the text appears to be saying, at that one point, something else. I chalk it up to Joseph's limits, both cultural and personal.

I don't think that understanding Joseph's 'translation' of the Book of Mormon is a simple thing for people to understand. There were many elements involved, and some weren't observable.

Absolutely agree. Where we take the conclusions and implications from there, is the key. See my previous comment --- I think the 'translation' is a blend of divine, human, historical, spiritual, practical and contemporary factors. And not always in the same proportions.

I honestly think it is both divine and man that produced it. But then, as LDS we see 'man' and 'God' as being of the same substance. There is real power in that concept! But I diverge...

Welcome back!

HiJolly

Interesting. I hadn't thought of it that way before since I have often heard it presented to me (from both sides) as Joseph Smith being either a complete fraud or absolutely right. I suppose that is a false dichotomy though and it could be a divinely inspired account colored with culture bias rather than a more direct sort of translation. Thank you for the insight :)

[Misshalfway]

Just wanted to peep into this thread and say, YAY! You are back! :)

[DigitalShadow]

In regards to a few of your points, swords can be seen as both a Macuahuitl, or a wooden club with obsedian in it (just as sharp, if not sharper than a sword), or an actual sword (http://www.precolumbianwood.com/images/mayan.2.jpg). I think it can be argued that that when the BOM mentions swords being "Stained with blood", can only apply to something made of porous material such as wood. A metal sword could not be stained with blood.

But I think that there are many passages which cannot be explained saying they are all Macuahuitls. But then again, there is some evidence of something closer to what we call a sword in Mesoamerica.

This is a good example

Board Message

Here is some interesting information on the subject:

farms.byu.edu/display/pdf.php?table=jbms&id=387

I've heard that point made before but I think "stained with blood" is often meant in a figurative sense. Like if someone were to say that something is "stained with the blood of the innocent" would you immediately assume that it is now literally stained red? It doesn't seem at all strange for that to be taken figuratively, but to me it does seem strange to refer to a club with obsidian as fashioned after a finely crafted steel sword.

As for the white skin, I'd recommend reading this:

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/pdf.php?filename=MTAxMjI3NjA4LTE1LTIucGRm&type=cmV2aWV3

Or watch the 5 part series of the same talk here

I do find it interesting that in Daniel 11:35 it says something very similar:

"And some of them of understanding shall fall, to try them, and to purge, and to make them white, even to the time of the end: because it is yet for a time appointed."

I'm not too concerned about the skin color issue, mostly just wanted to see what other people thought.

[Vanhin]

I think it's quite clear from the text that Laban's sword was of "precious steel" (1 Nephi 4), and that Nephi fashioned swords based on the sword of Laban to prepare for the defence of his people (2 Nephi 5).

I think they had metal swords, like what we think of when we think of swords, but I don't think that what was translated as "sword" is necessarily a metal sword in every case. I believe the same character used to write "sword" in reformed Egytian was used to write other similar weapons. The same I think is true for other words like "horse", "elephant", and so forth.

I also don't believe that the use of metal swords was widespread among the people beyond the time of Nephi. However, the Anti-Nephi-Lehies did say that their swords (metaphorically) had become "bright", and they wished not to stain them with blood. Which to me lends support to the idea that they had at least a knowledge of metal swords.

I think they had metal swords, as well as other swordlike weapons.

Vanhin

[Vanhin]

DS,

While folks are answering your questions I wanted to ask what you thought about the messages found in the Book of Mormon. For instance, when Lehi asked his sons to go back to Jerusalem to obtain the brass plates, what did you think about the contrast between the way Laman and Lemuel reacted and the way Nephi reacted to the request?

Regards,

Vanhin

[livy111us]

The term "stained with blood" could very well be allegorical, or it could be literal, we don't know. But, as you mention, I think that there were metal swords as well that were patterned after Labans sword, but that doesn't mean that they didn't make other weapons as well, such as the Macuahuitl.

Please take a look at the ancient Mayan artwork of a man who is holding something that looks like a sword.

[DigitalShadow]

I think it's quite clear from the text that Laban's sword was of "precious steel" (1 Nephi 4), and that Nephi fashioned swords based on the sword of Laban to prepare for the defence of his people (2 Nephi 5).

I think they had metal swords, like what we think of when we think of swords, but I don't think that what was translated as "sword" is necessarily a metal sword in every case. I believe the same character used to write "sword" in reformed Egytian was used to write other similar weapons. The same I think is true for other words like "horse", "elephant", and so forth.

I also don't believe that the use of metal swords was widespread among the people beyond the time of Nephi. However, the Anti-Nephi-Lehies did say that their swords (metaphorically) had become "bright", and they wished not to stain them with blood. Which to me lends support to the idea that they had at least a knowledge of metal swords.

I think they had metal swords, as well as other swordlike weapons.

Vanhin

I've heard the basic story of how the Book of Mormon was translated and bits and peices of the details from various sources, so I would like to ask a few questions to clarify things for me.

Do you believe there are other places where reformed Eyptian is used and if modern scholars were able to somehow learn reformed Egyptian and somehow find the plates the Book of Mormon, they would be able to see a very similar translation?

Do you believe there are other instances of reformed Egyptian that are preserved and maybe in a museum somewhere?

I've heard that the translation was mostly done looking through a seer stone rather than directly looking at the plates? If so, do you think it is possible that they translation may be influenced by Joseph Smith's personal and cultural biases?

[DigitalShadow]

DS,

While folks are answering your questions I wanted to ask what you thought about the messages found in the Book of Mormon. For instance, when Lehi asked his sons to go back to Jerusalem to obtain the brass plates, what did you think about the contrast between the way Laman and Lemuel reacted and the way Nephi reacted to the request?

Regards,

Vanhin

I think I get the moral story it is conveying about faith and obedience, but to me it seems like the contrast between Nephi and his brothers is almost unbelievable and they strike me more as exaggerated characters to make a point than real people who lived.

[DigitalShadow]

The term "stained with blood" could very well be allegorical, or it could be literal, we don't know. But, as you mention, I think that there were metal swords as well that were patterned after Labans sword, but that doesn't mean that they didn't make other weapons as well, such as the Macuahuitl.

Please take a look at the ancient Mayan artwork of a man who is holding something that looks like a sword.

I didn't see ancient Mayan artwork of a man with a sword in any of the links you gave, but one of them required being a member of forum to see so I didn't get to see the content.

[Vanhin]

I've heard the basic story of how the Book of Mormon was translated and bits and peices of the details from various sources, so I would like to ask a few questions to clarify things for me.

No problem.

Do you believe there are other places where reformed Eyptian is used and if modern scholars were able to somehow learn reformed Egyptian and somehow find the plates the Book of Mormon, they would be able to see a very similar translation?

Reformed Eqyptian appears to have been in very limited use only among the prophets and historians who kept the sacred record of the Nephites. This conclusion is drawn from the text itself. I think you will find the words of Moroni, the last prophet to write in the plates and the one who delivered them to Joseph Smith, very revealing. Towards the end of the record he wrote:

Behold, I speak unto you as though I spake from the dead; for I know that ye shall have my words.

Condemn me not because of mine imperfection, neither my father (Mormon), because of his imperfection, neither them who have written before him; but rather give thanks unto God that he hath made manifest unto you our imperfections, that ye may learn to be more wise than we have been.

And now, behold, we have written this record according to our knowledge, in the characters which are called among us the reformed Egyptian, being handed down and altered by us, according to our manner of speech. And if our plates had been sufficiently large we should have written in Hebrew; but the Hebrew hath been altered by us also; and if we could have written in Hebrew, behold, ye would have had no imperfection in our record.

But the Lord knoweth the things which we have written, and also that none other people knoweth our language; and because that none other people knoweth our language, therefore he hath prepared means for the interpretation thereof. (Mormon 9:30-34)

It appears that we are more likely to find a form of Hebrew, which appears to be their common tongue, than reformed Egyptian. But even the Hebrew will have been altered.

I think if we had the plates and were able to translate them perfectly, the result would be pretty close. As convenient as it seems, it also appears from the text that no other people would know the language.

Do you believe there are other instances of reformed Egyptian that are preserved and maybe in a museum somewhere?

I don't think that is very likely, but I guess it's possible.

I've heard that the translation was mostly done looking through a seer stone rather than directly looking at the plates? If so, do you think it is possible that they translation may be influenced by Joseph Smith's personal and cultural biases?

I believe Joseph Smith translated the record exactly the way God intended for him to translate it, and that the translation was given to him by divine means. He did not become an expert at ancient things or even reformed Egyptian, and he did not need to constantly check and recheck his translation. It was given to him, and he dictated it to whoever was his scribe at any give time. He would correct the scribe with the proper spelling and so forth, as it was received.

The following article is great on this topic. LDS.org - Ensign Article - “By the Gift and Power of Godâ€

Regards,

Vanhin

[livy111us]

I've attached it. Hopefully it will work.

[Justice]

1. Why wouldn't God just have Nephi to slay Laman and Lemuel or smite them himself after they tried to kill Nephi for the whateverth time? He seemed to have no qualms ordering Nephi to kill Laban with his own sword to get the record of the Jews.

At a point in their future, the decendants of Laman and Lemuel become more righteous than the decendants of Nephi. In fact, the entire story of the 2,000 stripling warriors would have to be erased from history had Nephi killed Laman and Lemuel.

3. Why does God seem to use skin color to denote how "good" or "bad" a people are? Being of a brown skin color (not that I've ever remotely felt racially oppressed in my life), the references to "white and delightsome" people and "cursing" with dark skin is a bit unsettling to me. Just to be clear, I don't think that the church is racist and I've never felt uncomfortable in church, but to me that particular symbolism seems to be indicative of men of the time period the book was "translated" in rather than of divine origin.

I've had the same kind of feelings before. But, this isn't only a Book of Mormon question because the same thing happened in the Bible in regards to Cain and those who followed him. In fact, the Book of Mormon offers more perspective on why the Lord caused it. He said He wanted to prevent the mixing of those who would be His followers with those who reject Him so as much of man can be saved as possible.

And, BTW, it's a pleasure to meet you.

Edited October 8, 2008 by Justice

[DigitalShadow]

I've attached it. Hopefully it will work.

Yep, that seems to work now, thanks :)

[Vanhin]

I think I get the moral story it is conveying about faith and obedience, but to me it seems like the contrast between Nephi and his brothers is almost unbelievable and they strike me more as exaggerated characters to make a point than real people who lived.

DS,

Well that's an interesting take on it. I have seen this kind of contrast many times, so seems pretty plausible to me. These forums should be enough evidence that people have different levels of faith, for example. Even within my own family I have seen siblings, who all have been raised the same way, deal differently with challenges in life, or questions of faith. To me the contrast seem to be in harmony with what I have experienced in life.

However, the author of those passages was Nephi, and his stated purpose was to include things in the story that were of worth to the reader. And, there is definetly the possibility that he exaggerated or at least told the story in a way that focused on the point of the story more than the details.

This was not his personal journal, but a sacred record he was commanded of God to write, and it was for the purpose of persuading men to come unto God. This is evident from what he wrote in 1 Ne. 6:

And it mattereth not to me that I am particular to give a full account of all the things of my father, for they cannot be written upon these plates, for I desire the room that I may write of the things of God.

For the fulness of mine intent is that I may persuade men to come unto the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, and be saved.

Wherefore, the things which are pleasing unto the world I do not write, but the things which are pleasing unto God and unto those who are not of the world. Wherefore, I shall give commandment unto my seed, that they shall not occupy these plates with things which are not of worth unto the children of men. (1 Ne. 6)

Regards,

Vanhin

Edited October 8, 2008 by Vanhin
Weird spelling error.

[HiJolly]

DS said:

I've heard that the translation was mostly done looking through a seer stone rather than directly looking at the plates? If so, do you think it is possible that they translation may be influenced by Joseph Smith's personal and cultural biases?

That's right.

Absolutely. I support the "simultaneously tight and loose" translation theory of the BoM. There is no other explanation I know of for the word "adieu" in Jacob 7:27:

And I, Jacob, saw that I must soon go down to my grave; wherefore, I said unto my son Enos: Take these plates. And I told him the things which my brother Nephi had commanded me, and he promised obedience unto the commands. And I make an end of my writing upon these plates, which writing has been small; and to the reader I bid farewell, hoping that many of my brethren may read my words. Brethren, adieu.

Adieu was a commonly used word in the early 19th century USA.

HiJolly

[Guest ceeboo]

Hello HiJolly,

I am not trying to start a fire, I am very curious how you and Vanhin ( 2 LDS ) seem to be so contradictory on the " JS Translation " of the very BofM:confused:

Is there a latitude in the LDS Church to have options on this, or is it a testimony thing or is it simply personal preference??

God bless,

Carl

[DigitalShadow]

DS,

Well that's an interesting take on it. I have seen this kind of contrast many times, so seems pretty plausible to me. These forums should be enough evidence that people have different levels of faith, for example. Even within my own family I have seen siblings, who all have been raised the same way, deal differently with challenges in life, or questions of faith. To me the contrast seem to be in harmony with what I have experienced in life.

However, the author of those passages was Nephi, and his stated purpose was to include things in the story that were of worth to the reader. And, there is definetly the possibility that he exaggerated or at least told the story in a way that focused on the point of the story more than the details.

This was not his personal journal, but a sacred record he was commanded of God to write, and it was for the purpose of persuading men to come unto God. This is evident from what he wrote in 1 Ne. 6:

And it mattereth not to me that I am particular to give a full account of all the things of my father, for they cannot be written upon these plates, for I desire the room that I may write of the things of God.

For the fulness of mine intent is that I may persuade men to come unto the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, and be saved.

Wherefore, the things which are pleasing unto the world I do not write, but the things which are pleasing unto God and unto those who are not of the world. Wherefore, I shall give commandment unto my seed, that they shall not occupy these plates with things which are not of worth unto the children of men. (1 Ne. 6)

Regards,

Vanhin

Do your siblings attempt to take your life and deny the will of God even after it has been directly told to them by angels? I'm not saying that those sort of contrasts don't happen in real life, but rather the extent to which Nephi is a paragon of values that are considered good by religion and Laman and Lemuel are the embodiment of values that are considered bad, seems purposely exaggerated to me for the purpose of a parable.

[HiJolly]

Hello HiJolly,

I am not trying to start a fire,

Never, my brother! (The fact that you are Hemi's cousin is frosting on the cake!)

I am very curious how you and Vanhin ( 2 LDS ) seem to be so contradictory on the " JS Translation " of the very BofM:confused:

Uhnm.... I don't see the contradiction, can you help me out? For example, he said:

VANHIN: "I believe Joseph Smith translated the record exactly the way God intended for him to translate it, and that the translation was given to him by divine means. He did not become an expert at ancient things or even reformed Egyptian, and he did not need to constantly check and recheck his translation. It was given to him, and he dictated it to whoever was his scribe at any give time. He would correct the scribe with the proper spelling and so forth, as it was received."

...and I agree with that!

Is there a latitude in the LDS Church to have options on this, or is it a testimony thing or is it simply personal preference??

Yes, yes, and yes. :)

HiJolly

[HiJolly]

Ok, thinking about the apparent differences that might exist:

"tight" translation: Joseph simply spoke whatever appeared before him in the hat (courtesy of the seer stone & the Gift of God). No thought, no choice, just parroted it out. --- there is some evidence against this ("adieu")

"loose" translation: Joseph was given concepts and visions and ineffible things from God, and he figured out the best he could what the words in English would be to reflect was God was trying to say, through Mormon, the Holy Ghost and whomever else was involved. ----- there is some evidence against this (chiasimus)

I'm between the two, plus the input of Joseph's subconscious mind as led by the spirit.

Having had revelation myself, it kind of influences my view. Feel free to ignore that last comment.

HiJolly

[Vanhin]

Do your siblings attempt to take your life and deny the will of God even after it has been directly told to them by angels? I'm not saying that those sort of contrasts don't happen in real life, but rather the extent to which Nephi is a paragon of values that are considered good by religion and Laman and Lemuel are the embodiment of values that are considered bad, seems purposely exaggerated to me for the purpose of a parable.

DS,

No, thankfully my siblings have not tried to take my life (not that I represent Nephi in my family anyway), but there is enough contrast that I easily see the story as plausible. Dispite the blessings of the Lord in my life, many times over, I still sometimes make wrong choices... knowingly. Not to the extent that Laman and Lemuel did, but it doesn't seem out of place when you look to other scriptures for precedent.

Despite any possible exaggerations, I certainly don't believe he exaggerated the actual events. An angel did appear to them, yet Laman and Lemuel continued in their disbelief. This only goes to show, that tangible/physical evidence, such as an angel appearing to someone, is not really the proof that we need about spiritual things.

Judas Iscariot was an Apostle of the Lord - one of his Chosen - and walked and talked with Jesus Christ, and was a witness to his power. Yet he betrayed him to his death.

Under the direction of Moses, Aaron caused all the water in the land of Egypt to turn to blood, and many other plagues, yet Pharaoh would not let the children of Israel go.

Sincerely,

Vanhin

[DigitalShadow]

DS,

No, thankfully my siblings have not tried to take my life (not that I represent Nephi in my family anyway), but there is enough contrast that I easily see the story as plausible. Dispite the blessings of the Lord in my life, many times over, I still sometimes make wrong choices... knowingly. Not to the extent that Laman and Lemuel did, but it doesn't seem out of place when you look to other scriptures for precedent.

Despite any possible exaggerations, I certainly don't believe he exaggerated the actual events. An angel did appear to them, yet Laman and Lemuel continued in their disbelief. This only goes to show, that tangible/physical evidence, such as an angel appearing to someone, is not really the proof that we need about spiritual things.

Judas Iscariot was an Apostle of the Lord - one of his Chosen - and walked and talked with Jesus Christ, and was a witness to his power. Yet he betrayed him to his death.

Under the direction of Moses, Aaron caused all the water in the land of Egypt to turn to blood, and many other plagues, yet Pharaoh would not let the children of Israel go.

Sincerely,

Vanhin

I think that may be part of what keeps me from accepting the scriptures (in general, not just the Book of Mormon) as actual events. To me they feel like parables or fairy tales with exaggerations that specifically demonstrate what you should and shouldn't do, rather than actual events. I know the scriptures are meant to teach, so I guess it is no surprise, but that is just my impression for what it's worth.

[Guest ceeboo]

Never, my brother! (The fact that you are Hemi's cousin is frosting on the cake!)

Uhnm.... I don't see the contradiction, can you help me out? For example, he said:

...and I agree with that!

Yes, yes, and yes. :)

HiJolly

Hi again, HiJolly,

First and most importantly, Hemi is a great cousin :) Thanks for the " Shout ":)

Secondly, If you don't think there was a contradiction, well, I think we might need Hemi here on this thread:)

Thanks for the input

Peace,

Carl