American Moses

[Snow]

Many people, LDS and non-LDS, draw the connection between Moses and the exodus and Brigham Young and the excile from Nauvoo and the trek to the Salt Lake basin.

I wonder if any analogy to Abraham might be more appropriate. Abraham was a pastoralist living in land of UR. Pastoralists didn't get along with farmers. Likely there was a conflict and Abraham and his people were given the boot. In the end, Abraham and his people were given, by God, the land of Canaan, or Palestine, or Israel. As it so happens, the land was kind of a pit that nobody else wanted.

Mormons were given the boot from Nauvoo and God gave to them the land of the Salt Lake Valley, which as it so happens was another piece of ground that nobody else wanted.

Don't know what the point is - just an observation. Besides, Abraham was a polygamist.

[Guest Starsky]

Interesting observation. Thanks for sharing..

I have often wondered about the Moses comparison myself...after all we weren't in slavery....And we didn't all go at once...didn't have the waters parted.....or nothin'.

[srm]

Originally posted by Snow@Mar 26 2004, 12:24 PM

Many people, LDS and non-LDS, draw the connection between Moses and the exodus and Brigham Young and the excile from Nauvoo and the trek to the Salt Lake basin.

I wonder if any analogy to Abraham might be more appropriate. Abraham was a pastoralist living in land of UR. Pastoralists didn't get along with farmers. Likely there was a conflict and Abraham and his people were given the boot. In the end, Abraham and his people were given, by God, the land of Canaan, or Palestine, or Israel. As it so happens, the land was kind of a pit that nobody else wanted.

Mormons were given the boot from Nauvoo and God gave to them the land of the Salt Lake Valley, which as it so happens was another piece of ground that nobody else wanted.

Don't know what the point is - just an observation. Besides, Abraham was a polygamist.

Moses was a polygamist too

[Guest Starsky]

Originally posted by srm+Mar 26 2004, 12:55 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (srm @ Mar 26 2004, 12:55 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Snow@Mar 26 2004, 12:24 PM

Many people, LDS and non-LDS, draw the connection between Moses and the exodus and Brigham Young and the excile from Nauvoo and the trek to the Salt Lake basin.

I wonder if any analogy to Abraham might be more appropriate. Abraham was a pastoralist living in land of UR. Pastoralists didn't get along with farmers. Likely there was a conflict and Abraham and his people were given the boot. In the end, Abraham and his people were given, by God, the land of Canaan, or Palestine, or Israel. As it so happens, the land was kind of a pit that nobody else wanted.

Mormons were given the boot from Nauvoo and God gave to them the land of the Salt Lake Valley, which as it so happens was another piece of ground that nobody else wanted.

Don't know what the point is - just an observation. Besides, Abraham was a polygamist.

Moses was a polygamist too

Well that seems to be the only common ground if you ask me...

[serapha]

Abraham was a pastoralist living in land of UR. Pastoralists didn't get along with farmers.

source please.

Likely there was a conflict and Abraham and his people were given the boot.

Then why did Abraham's father stay in mesopotamia? Abraham was not the head of his household, his father was. His father was also polytheistic and very wealthy. Also, you seem to have forgotten that Abraham sent Eleazer 450 miles back to his home to find a wife for Isaac, and she was the daughter of Abraham's brother... so it appears that the family was doing well in mesopotamia. Abraham left mesopotamia because God called him out.

In the end, Abraham and his people were given, by God, the land of Canaan, or Palestine, or Israel. As it so happens, the land was kind of a pit that nobody else wanted.

For the claim that it was a land that no one else wanted, it sure has generated a lot of wars over the centuries.

Dan is beautiful as is Banias, and the fertile valleys will grow anything when it has water. Ancient Galilee had wildernesses that were forested with great oaks and hardwoods. Is that the usual description of a "pit that nobody else wanted" People were living on the land and large cities were established at Hebron, Meggido, Bethshe'an, Jericho and dozens of other placed.... and the Hebrew children had to fight to gain the "pit that no one wanted".

but, you are entitied to your thoughts.

~serapha~

[Snow]

Serapha,

I swear, you are going to drive me to drinking if you don't stop driving that hot rod lincoln of alternately talking to me and ignoring me.

I am not trying to prove a point but relating something that I thought of while listening to a college lecture on Foundations of Western Civilation. The point about Abraham being a pastoralist was brought up by the professor but he takes it from the OT:

[i just googled it: The early history of the Hebrew people is recounted in the Bible in the form of patriarchal legends about Abraham, his son Isaac, and his son Jacob. The entire Hebrew nation is depicted as descending from these patriarchs: Jacob's 12 sons are seen as the eponymous ancestors of the 12 tribes of Israel (see Genesis 29:31-30:24 and 35:16-18 and Exodus 1:1-7). Abraham himself is a direct, if distant, descendant of Noah's son Shem, the eponymous ancestor to all the Semitic peoples (Gen. 11:10-27). According to Genesis 11:27-31, Abraham's home town was "Ur of the Chaldeans," the ancient Sumerian city of the moon god Nanna. From Ur, Abraham moved up the Fertile Crescent to Haran (still a town today in southernTurkey), and later down into Canaan. Abraham also went to Egypt briefly, during a time of famine (Gen. 12:10-20). Throughout the book of Genesis, Abraham is depicted as a herder or pastoralist, which may help account for his frequent movements. http://faculty.gvsu.edu/websterm/Genesis.htm ]

Neither Utah nor Israel is the worst place in the world but neither are they garden resorts renown for their fertility. In both cases you would be tempted to think - hey if God were giving his chosen people some real estate, don't ya think that you could given them the good stuff...

[Tr2]

Many people, LDS and non-LDS, draw the connection between Moses and the exodus and Brigham Young and the excile from Nauvoo and the trek to the Salt Lake basin

Really? What non-LDS?

There is a problem. Moses was most likely a dark skinned man and Brigham Young hated dark skinned people.

Moses was a polygamist too

But he didn't live in a time where men of God were expected to be faithful to ONE wife.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Tr2@Mar 26 2004, 06:38 PM

Really? What non-LDS?

I was with of Dr. Shipps when I wrote it. Why, do you think she is misinformed?

There is a problem. Moses was most likely a dark skinned man and Brigham Young hated dark skinned people.

Okay, I follow the part about BY being prejudiced. In what way is that a problem for the analogy?

Moses was a polygamist too

But he didn't live in a time where men of God were expected to be faithful to ONE wife.

Okay, I get that you think that polygamy is ok if it happens in a time where society expect you to be unfaithful to one wife, but again, what does that have to do with the analogy.

[serapha]

Serapha,

I swear, you are going to drive me to drinking if you don't stop driving that hot rod lincoln of alternately talking to me and ignoring me.

(personal comments ignored)

I am not trying to prove a point but relating something that I thought of while listening to a college lecture on Foundations of Western Civilation. The point about Abraham being a pastoralist was brought up by the professor but he takes it from the OT:

[i just googled it: The early history of the Hebrew people is recounted in the Bible in the form of patriarchal legends about Abraham, his son Isaac, and his son Jacob. The entire Hebrew nation is depicted as descending from these patriarchs: Jacob's 12 sons are seen as the eponymous ancestors of the 12 tribes of Israel (see Genesis 29:31-30:24 and 35:16-18 and Exodus 1:1-7). Abraham himself is a direct, if distant, descendant of Noah's son Shem, the eponymous ancestor to all the Semitic peoples (Gen. 11:10-27). According to Genesis 11:27-31, Abraham's home town was "Ur of the Chaldeans," the ancient Sumerian city of the moon god Nanna. From Ur, Abraham moved up the Fertile Crescent to Haran (still a town today in southernTurkey), and later down into Canaan. Abraham also went to Egypt briefly, during a time of famine (Gen. 12:10-20). Throughout the book of Genesis, Abraham is depicted as a herder or pastoralist, which may help account for his frequent movements.  http://faculty.gvsu.edu/websterm/Genesis.htm ]

And... so, where's the part where the pastoralists were in conflict with the farmers indicating the "boot" out of mesopatomia... and why wasn't Abraham's father and brother "booted" out also.

Perhaps, the difference is the significance of polytheism versus monotheism and that it has nothing to do with the physical geographics of the area.

Neither Utah nor Israel is the worst place in the world but neither are they garden resorts renown for their fertility. In both cases you would be tempted to think - hey if God were giving his chosen people some real estate, don't ya think that you could given them the good stuff...

That is where you and I differ. God did give them the good stuff.... ever taste the dirt in Israel? It's beautiful to view the valleys in Israel. The valley of armegeddon.... it's beautifully green all year round... and for 25 miles across the valley.... continuous green carpet. God gave them water... not still waters, but living waters... and that's a big difference in Judaic teachings. And you have to remember that the "wilderness" was not always meaning "desolation" as is described when Lehi left Jerusalem and traveled to Yemen and Saudi.

~serapha~

[Snow]

Originally posted by serapha@Mar 26 2004, 09:11 PM

And... so, where's the part where the pastoralists were in conflict with the farmers indicating the "boot" out of mesopatomia... and why wasn't Abraham's father and brother "booted" out also.

Perhaps, the difference is the significance of polytheism versus monotheism and that it has nothing to do with the physical geographics of the area.

I told you that is was a lecture (on tape). The professor was Thomas F.X. Noble, Professor of Hx at Notre Dame. You probably don't want his CV but he is quite an accomplished fellow. The bit about pastoralists and farmers was an inference of his, not a point of historical and verified fact.

By the way, according to him, and I think a good argument for it is found in the Bible, the ancestors of the Jews were monolatrists or henotheists up until Isaiah.

That is where you and I differ.  God did give them the good stuff.... ever taste the dirt in Israel? 

I think you are making a lot out of not so much but if you insist... I don't know all that much about the land back then but today only one fifth of Israel is suitable for farming and about 1/2 half of that requires extensive irrigation. Forests are virtually non-existent and there is no lumber industry, although there are some reforestation projects and remnants of native forests in limited regions - for example the higher parts of Galilee. A significant portion of Israel is the land south of Beersheba and it is desolate and barren. Minerals that occur in any commercial quantity are very limited, small about of copper, some potash,bromine and magnesium chloride. The fishing industry is small.

Even back then, it was no Florida, or fertile crescent or even, say, Arkansas.

[serapha]

snow,

I know that you don't mind learning, so let me toss this tidbid to you....

Forests are virtually non-existent and there is no  lumber industry, although there are some reforestation projects and remnants of native forests in limited regions

There are two reasons why the trees were harvested....

1) glass blowing (in the Galilee area) ....which required tremendous sources of fuel.

2) At one time Israel used the number of tree on one's property as the tax base.... and surprise, the trees disappeared.

duh.

God gave mankind a good earth... and Israel was rich... while God gave out of need... man is destroying out of greed...

I have to go out of state today, back tomorrow.

~serapha~

[Tr2]

I was with of Dr. Shipps when I wrote it. Why, do you think she is misinformed?

Oh well if Dr Shipps says so then it must be true. Who is Dr Shipps? Anybody else or just a rogue Dr Shipps?

Okay, I follow the part about BY being prejudiced. In what way is that a problem for the analogy?

That was just the only way I could tie Brigham Young and Moses together. They don't have lot in common huh?

Okay, I get that you think that polygamy is ok if it happens in a time where society expect you to be unfaithful to one wife, but again, what does that have to do with the analogy.

There was a hint that because Moses may have practiced polygamy then that justified LDS leaders for doing so. I was just clarifying that idea. And it is not a society-expected thing. God expects a man to be faithful to his wife.

[srm]

Oh well if Dr Shipps says so then it must be true. Who is Dr Shipps? Anybody else or just a rogue Dr Shipps?

Dr Shipps is the foremost non-mormon authority on Mormons & mormonism.

That was just the only way I could tie Brigham Young and Moses together. They don't have lot in common huh?

Come on Trident. You must know that the comparison is based on his leadership and the successful exodus of the saints.

There was a hint that because Moses may have practiced polygamy then that justified LDS leaders for doing so. I was just clarifying that idea. And it is not a society-expected thing. God expects a man to be faithful to his wife.

So God bases his doctrine on 'society-expected thing'? So you think that society expected things such as sexual relationships outside of marriage are aproved by god be cause it is a 'society-expected thing'? How about Homosexual relationships...are that allowed by God because it ia a 'society-expected thing'?

[Snow]

Trident doesn't know Jan Shipps, not that she should be expected to but Dr. Shipps has truly impeccable credentials . She said:

With the abilities and powers inherring in the various positions he assumed, Smith filled the Old Testament roles of deliever (Moses), military commander (Joshua). prophet (Isaiah), high priest (Eli), king (Solomon) and the New Testament positions of church founder (Peter) and apostle to the gentiles (Paul).

[Tr2]

Trident doesn't know Jan Shipps, not that she should be expected to but Dr. Shipps has truly impeccable credentials

She may have impeccable credentials, but if it is only her then who cares? There are a lot of people with "DR" in front of their name. Every day I see numerous doctors disagree with each other and each one of them have valid points for their arguments. Now I do favor a Dr's opinions than more that just their opinions but you favor this doctor because she is saying something that you agree with.

Let's say that Smith does indeed have a lot in common with Moses. Smith also has a lot in common with criminals as well. But you just choose to ignore that.

Dr Shipps is the foremost non-mormon authority on Mormons & mormonism

I didn't disagree with this point, I just asked for others.

Come on Trident. You must know that the comparison is based on his leadership and the successful exodus of the saints.

Never said it wasn't but I don't think it is a very accurate comparrison.

So God bases his doctrine on 'society-expected thing'? So you think that society expected things such as sexual relationships outside of marriage are aproved by god be cause it is a 'society-expected thing'? How about Homosexual relationships...are that allowed by God because it ia a 'society-expected thing'?

I didn't say that, I didn't suggest that, nor did I even hint at that. I don't know where you came up with this idea. if you don't know what I am talking about, ask and don't assume.

[Cal]

Some of the factual disputes on this thread are interesting, but the issue of the comparisons is really trivial. Pick any two historical figures and you can probably come up with a list of similarities and differences to discuss. In the end, so what?

I'm not saying that the topic isn't of ANY value, but is there really a point to be made, or a question to be answered? What if there are some similarities between Moses and BY or Abraham and BY? What does it prove that similarities between other historical figures DON'T prove? Is there supposed to be some hidden meaning to these similarities or are they simply coincidences that are statistically bound to occur if you look closely at any two people.

For example, the quy living across the street from me turns out to be a former student of mine from about 20 years ago--I didn't even recognize him until we talked about a year ago. What a coincidence? What does it mean? NADA--coincidences happen---no causation analysis required, just a statistical fact. I have taught thousands of students who live in the same city I do. Statistically it is not so unlikely that I will run into them here and there, and even have some of them living next door.

In this thread----People are known to migrate. People are prone to follow leaders. Leaders tend to be charismatic and sometimes narcissisitic enough to feel entitled to lots of wives. Migrating people settle down where they happen to find some place suitable; may not be ideal, but humans are very adaptable and they survive. Things like that happen. Wasn't the first time, won't be the last. What does it mean? Is there some hidden meaning?

[Guest Starsky]

By comparison, we come to know and appreciate those we would otherwise not really take note of..

[Cal]

Originally posted by Peace@Mar 28 2004, 11:06 AM

By comparison, we come to know and appreciate those we would otherwise not really take note of..

How? By drawing meaningless parallels? Are the parallels supposed to have some mystical connection? They are just coincidences. They don't mean anything. Moses crossed the desert. Abraham crossed the desert. BY crossed the plains. All totally unrelated facts. Where is this HIDDEN meaning?

[Guest Starsky]

Originally posted by Cal+Mar 28 2004, 11:17 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cal @ Mar 28 2004, 11:17 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Peace@Mar 28 2004, 11:06 AM

By comparison, we come to know and appreciate those we would otherwise not really take note of..

How? By drawing meaningless parallels? Are the parallels supposed to have some mystical connection? They are just coincidences. They don't mean anything. Moses crossed the desert. Abraham crossed the desert. BY crossed the plains. All totally unrelated facts. Where is this HIDDEN meaning?

Meaningless to who?

Why mystical?

Why coincidences?

No hidden meaning...but better insights to the human condition.

[Cal]

Originally posted by Peace+Mar 28 2004, 11:26 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Peace @ Mar 28 2004, 11:26 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Cal@Mar 28 2004, 11:17 AM

<!--QuoteBegin--Peace@Mar 28 2004, 11:06 AM

By comparison, we come to know and appreciate those we would otherwise not really take note of..

How? By drawing meaningless parallels? Are the parallels supposed to have some mystical connection? They are just coincidences. They don't mean anything. Moses crossed the desert. Abraham crossed the desert. BY crossed the plains. All totally unrelated facts. Where is this HIDDEN meaning?

Meaningless to who?

Why mystical?

Why coincidences?

No hidden meaning...but better insights to the human condition.

Give me one concrete insight............that isn't trivial.

[Guest Starsky]

Answer my questions first.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Tr2@Mar 28 2004, 07:32 AM

Come on Trident. You must know that the comparison is based on his leadership and the successful exodus of the saints.

Never said it wasn't but I don't think it is a very accurate comparrison.

Trident might be right. It might be a faulty comparison.

Brigham Young : a kingdom builder with dreams as grandiose as those of Sam Houston or John C. Fremont, only BY was sucessful at it. He was a brillant social planner, a towering and fully human figure, captain of people and religion.

Moses: no evidence that he actually ever existed. No surviving known writings

[serapha]

Originally posted by Snow@Mar 28 2004, 09:02 PM

Moses: no evidence that he actually ever existed. No surviving known writings

Just curious,

De 10:3

And I made an ark of shittim wood, and hewed two tables of stone like unto the first, and went up into the mount, having the two tables in mine hand.

who is "I".

~serapha~

[Snow]

Originally posted by serapha+Mar 28 2004, 09:34 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (serapha @ Mar 28 2004, 09:34 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Snow@Mar 28 2004, 09:02 PM

Moses: no evidence that he actually ever existed. No surviving known writings

Just curious,

De 10:3

And I made an ark of shittim wood, and hewed two tables of stone like unto the first, and went up into the mount, having the two tables in mine hand.

who is "I".

~serapha~

Serapha,

Of course it applies to Moses. The text speaking in the 1st person does nothing to prove authorship. The authorship of first five books of the Bible is assigned to Moses by tradition, and he may have written parts of it but obviously he could not have written all of it and the issue is hotly disputed.

So, I am correct when I say no known writing, all we have is supposed writings.

[serapha]

Serapha,

Of course it applies to Moses. The text speaking in the 1st person does nothing to prove authorship. The authorship of first five books of the Bible is assigned to Moses by tradition, and he may have written parts of it but obviously he could not have written all of it and the issue is hotly disputed.

So, I am correct when I say no known writing, all we have is supposed writings.

You may say whatever you please.... since you have "dismissed" Moses from the Bible because there is no proof of his existence.

May I ask a question in return? When the bom speaks in first person, then obviously, that is no indication that the person authored the book, correct? Or, since there is no proof of the existence of Lehi, or any other bom personage, that they, too, are to be dismissed?

Thus, the bom is just "supposed writings"??

Now, before you reply, take a step back and read what you wrote, applying the same rules that you administer to the Bible as authenticity to the bom.

~serapha~