New BYU President

[Carborendum]

13 minutes ago, mikbone said:

https://www.templestudy.com/2008/03/24/josephs-coat-of-many-marks/

https://www.academia.edu/647209/Garment_of_Joseph_An_Update_Occasional_Papers_FARMS_no_4_2003_25_29

These are not the Nibley references you indicated earlier.

And I echo Vort's sentiments above.

[mikbone]

49 minutes ago, Vort said:

I have no objection to Joseph's coat being a garment of the holy Priesthood. I own those myself. They are not the actual coat of skins given Adam by the Lord. It's the idea that the selfsame garment Adam himself physically wore being passed down and worn through scores of generations over thousands of years that I find hard to swallow.

Really?

“I wonder how many other things in our lives are like the ark of the covenant, plain as day for those who have eyes to see and ears to hear, but mysterious and arcane to everyone else.”  - Vort Feb 28

The stuff in the ark didn’t perish.

Hebrews 9:4 Which had the golden censer, and the ark of the covenant overlaid round about with gold, wherein was the golden pot that had manna, and Aaron’s rod that budded, and the tables of the covenant;

How about the stuff in the stone box in the Hill Cumorah?

D&C 17: 1 Behold, I say unto you, that you must rely upon my word, which if you do with full purpose of heart, you shall have a view of the plates, and also of the breastplate, the sword of Laban, the Urim and Thummim, which were given to the brother of Jared upon the mount, when he talked with the Lord face to face, and the miraculous directors which were given to Lehi while in the wilderness, on the borders of the Red Sea.

And Adam’s garment was made in the Garden of Eden by God just prior to their being cast out.

Genesis 3 21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the Lord God make coats of skins, and clothed them.
22 And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
23 Therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.
24 So he drove out the man;

Edited March 22, 2023 by mikbone

[mikbone]

46 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

These are not the Nibley references you indicated earlier.

And I echo Vort's sentiments above.

I'll do the hard work, All found in the first link I posted above...

The idea of a garment of many colors is an invention. If you look in your Bible every time it mentions many colors the word colors (even in the commentary) is in italics [the word in italics is actually many] because it is put in there by modern editors. It’s found in no ancient source. It’s not a garment of many colors at all. A garment of certain marks is the term that’s used here. We’ll see what it is in a second. “This garment had belonged to Abraham, and it already had a long history.” It’s history was lengthy because it went back to the Garden of Eden, you see. That’s the garment; it’s the only one. Just as we treat the story of Cain and Abel, we trivialize this. We say, “Joseph was the youngest kid, so his father favored him and gave him a pretty garment of many colors.” There is no mention in any ancient source of a garment of many colors. That’s an invention of modern editors trying to explain it. But here it was the garment he gave him. It was the garment of the priesthood. No wonder they were jealous of him, they being the elder brothers and he the younger in the patriarchal line coming down from Abraham. This garment had belonged to Abraham and had come down to Joseph instead of to the other brethren. ((Hugh Nibley, Teachings of the Book of Mormon, vol. 3, 51-52))

Here we have “I detect, I perceive, I note.” (He’s blind, you see.) “the odor, the spirit, the smell of Joseph, if you do not think me out of my head from old age and a bit barmy.” It talks about the spirit that is in it, the east wind that has brought it, etc. And this is a very important thing: “When they placed it upon the face of Jacob, he smelled also the smell of the Garden of Eden. For behold there is not in all the earth another garment that has that smell in it.” This is a unique thing; this is the garment. “For there is not in any other garment on earth of the winds of the garden of Eden, unless it is in this one garment.” So you can see why the brethren were so jealous; it was the garment of the priesthood. The commentator says he recognized that it was Joseph’s garment by feeling it first because it had three marks in it.

What they translate as “coat of many colors” is first ketonet. Our word cotton is related to that. Ketonet is a cotton shirt. The Hebrew is ketonet passim. That means it reached down to his wrists and his ankles. The Hebrew actually tells us that it was of adequate length. A garment which is passim means a long garment which reaches down to the wrists and to the ankles. It’s quite different [from the other story]; there’s no mention of color there of any kind. The Vulgate says it was tunicam polymitam, which means it was worked very subtly with extra threads. Polymitan means “extra thread work, special embroidery, special technique.” The Greek is chitona poikila. Poikilos means “tatooed, embroidered, elaborate work.” A derived term of poikila is “of various colors, with spots or dots.” But it means with marks on something. Here it says he knew it because it had three marks on it. He recognized it from the marks. Of course, they couldn’t have been colored marks because he was blind when he felt the marks. He recognized it as belonging to his son Joseph. ((ibid.))

In the tenth century of our era the greatest antiquarian of the Moslem world, Muhammad ibn-Ibrahim ath-Tha’labi, collected in Persia a great many old tales and legends about the prophets of Israel. ((Hugh Nibley, Approach to the Book of Mormon, 218))

“and there were in the garment of Joseph three marks or tokens when they brought it to his father.” ((ibid.))

 

 

Also from Carboendum on Feb 28

• Tablets
• Manna
• Aaron's rod

Vis-à-vis: 

• Plates
• Liahona
• Breastplate & Urim & Thummim
• Sword of Laban

The plates and tablets seem to be analogs.  I can see that.

The Rod and the Sword seem to be analogs.  They are both sacred relics that represented rulership.  Kind of weak, but could be.

Edited March 22, 2023 by mikbone

[mikbone]

Also

Alma 37: 4 Behold, it has been prophesied by our fathers, that they should be kept and handed down from one generation to another, and be kept and preserved by the hand of the Lord until they should go forth unto every nation, kindred, tongue, and people, that they shall know of the mysteries contained thereon.

5 And now behold, if they are kept they must retain their brightness; yea, and they will retain their brightness; yea, and also shall all the plates which do contain that which is holy writ.

6 Now ye may suppose that this is foolishness in me; but behold I say unto you, that by small and simple things are great things brought to pass; and small means in many instances doth confound the wise.

[Carborendum]

2 hours ago, mikbone said:

I'll do the hard work, All found in the first link I posted above...

Sorry.  I followed the link and found that it was written by another party, not Nibley.  So, I thought you were using a scatter gun approach rather than adressing my questions.  I see that he offered quotes interspersed with commentary.

First, I need to indicate that there are many statements made that I absolutely agree with.  I'm going to skip over those because we already agree.  I'm going to ask you to understand that many of the statements made can easily refer to our garments today which are not "THE" garments given to Adam.  Ours are merely following a similar pattern.  So I'll skip over those comments as well and address the remaining items.

2 hours ago, mikbone said:

Here we have “I detect, I perceive, I note.” (He’s blind, you see.) “the odor, the spirit, the smell of Joseph, if you do not think me out of my head from old age and a bit barmy.”

...he smelled also the smell of the Garden of Eden

This is a reference to Gen 27:27.  But it ignores verse 15.  Now, if this is the very garment which aided Nimrod to be a hunter, why would Esau leave it behind when he went to hunt food for his father?  (He didn't want to abuse it like Nimrod.) Reasonable.  But who says it would be abusing it to simply wear the garment both day and night as we are instructed to do, and only go hunting when you needed some food?

This garment was what had the "scent of the garden of Eden"? ... and yet Isaac called it the "smell of the field."

2 hours ago, mikbone said:

For behold there is not in all the earth another garment that has that smell in it.

I don't see that anywhere in scriptures.

2 hours ago, mikbone said:

The commentator says he recognized that it was Joseph’s garment...

No he doesn't.  He recognized that his hands were hairy.  Not from the garment, but of goats (v. 16).

2 hours ago, mikbone said:

In the tenth century of our era the greatest antiquarian of the Moslem world, Muhammad ibn-Ibrahim ath-Tha’labi, collected in Persia a great many old tales and legends about the prophets of Israel. ((Hugh Nibley, Approach to the Book of Mormon, 218))

I really don't care what Muslims teach or claim about Abraham.  They may be interesting.  But that's it.  If they support revealed word, great.  If not, I don't see why we need to pay heed to them.  I certainly wouldn't base my doctrinal understanding on that source.

Please note that it is difficult in this format (the page you quoted from) to determine what was actually written by Nibley vs what he was quoting from others vs what Haymond was commenting on.  But regardless, the rebuttals I made above stand on their own regardless of whom I'm refuting.

Edited March 22, 2023 by Carborendum

[mikbone]

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

But regardless, the rebuttals I made above stand on their own regardless of whom I'm refuting.

I’m not saying the Nibley is right.  I do like that the ideas can also be found in Jewish Mysticism.  And I like the idea that the Lord’s handiwork would be a cherished sacred relic.  

Anyways, a way better story than…

 

But when Gandalf came to him for help, he was wearing a rainbow colored robe.  Saruman declared, "I am now Saruman of many colors."  He explained that we cannot be held to a single standard, but welcome all sources.

Compare that with Joseph's "coat of many colors" and with the symbol of the rainbow as a covenant with the Lord.

And I'll link the text from the book of Jasher. 

 

Hugh Nibley based his commentary on the following Jasher verses.  I know that they are not canon, but.  Joshua 10:13 & 2 Samuel 1:18

 

Jasher 7:25 For after the death of Adam and his wife, the garments were given to Enoch, the son of Jared, and when Enoch was taken up to God, he gave them to Methuselah, his son.

26 And at the death of Methuselah, Noah took them and brought them to the ark, and they were with him until he went out of the ark.

27 And in their going out, Ham stole those garments from Noah his father, and he took them and hid them from his brothers.

28 And when Ham begat his first born Cush, he gave him the garments in secret, and they were with Cush many days.

29 And Cush also concealed them from his sons and brothers, and when Cush had begotten Nimrod, he gave him those garments through his love for him, and Nimrod grew up, and when he was twenty years old he put on those garments.

30 And Nimrod became strong when he put on the garments, and God gave him might and strength, and he was a mighty hunter in the earth, yea, he was a mighty hunter in the field, and he hunted the animals and he built altars, and he offered upon them the animals before the Lord.

 

Jasher 27: 4 And on a certain day Esau went in the field to hunt, and he found Nimrod walking in the wilderness with his two men.

5 And all his mighty men and his people were with him in the wilderness, but they removed at a distance from him, and they went from him in different directions to hunt, and Esau concealed himself for Nimrod, and he lurked for him in the wilderness.

6 And Nimrod and his men that were with him did not know him, and Nimrod and his men frequently walked about in the field at the cool of the day, and to know where his men were hunting in the field.

7 And Nimrod and two of his men that were with him came to the place where they were, when Esau started suddenly from his lurking place, and drew his sword, and hastened and ran to Nimrod and cut off his head.

8 And Esau fought a desperate fight with the two men that were with Nimrod, and when they called out to him, Esau turned to them and smote them to death with his sword.

9 And all the mighty men of Nimrod, who had left him to go to the wilderness, heard the cry at a distance, and they knew the voices of those two men, and they ran to know the cause of it, when they found their king and the two men that were with him lying dead in the wilderness.

10 And when Esau saw the mighty men of Nimrod coming at a distance, he fled, and thereby escaped; and Esau took the valuable garments of Nimrod, which Nimrod's father had bequeathed to Nimrod, and with which Nimrod prevailed over the whole land, and he ran and concealed them in his house.

11 And Esau took those garments and ran into the city on account of Nimrod's men, and he came unto his father's house wearied and exhausted from fight, and he was ready to die through grief when he approached his brother Jacob and sat before him.

12 And he said unto his brother Jacob, Behold I shall die this day, and wherefore then do I want the birthright? And Jacob acted wisely with Esau in this matter, and Esau sold his birthright to Jacob, for it was so brought about by the Lord.

Edited March 22, 2023 by mikbone

[Carborendum]

On 3/22/2023 at 10:58 AM, mikbone said:

Is posting this racist?

And now...

https://support.nationalgeographic.org/s/article/National-Geographic-GeoBee

Quote

After many conversations and reflections with students, educators, and community members, we’ve made the decision to permanently discontinue the National Geographic GeoBee to make way for new, transformative, and innovative geography education opportunities in which students around the globe can more equitably participate.

The story behind the story is that, apparently, Asians (specifically, South Asians) dominated the competition for the past decade or more.

One comment noted: Disney bought out NG and they didn't like what they saw.  So, they ended the competition.

In the name of racial equality.  I guess Asians don't count as "minorities" anymore?

You know what?  I'm ok with that as long as you give me a multi-million dollar salary for playing (or rather warming the bench) in the NBA.

Edited March 27, 2023 by Carborendum

[mikbone]

22 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Asians

Dude, I see the token whitie.

[Vort]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

And now...

https://support.nationalgeographic.org/s/article/National-Geographic-GeoBee

The story behind the story is that, apparently, Asians (specifically, South Asians) dominated the competition for the past decade or more.

 

No problem. Let India, Japan, and other east Asian countries—heck, China—produce the international competitions.

[Carborendum]

8 minutes ago, Vort said:

No problem. Let India, Japan, and other east Asian countries—heck, China—produce the international competitions.

You know that we'd fall dead last in that competition.

[Vort]

3 hours ago, Carborendum said:

You know that we'd fall dead last in that competition.

Americans are not natively stupider than any other nation. We learn the things that we consider important. Today, that means equity for transsexuals and how to entertain children by taking them to see transvestites. A good world war or two and some general mass destruction, suffering, misery, and widespread death would do wonders for the American lack of focus on important things.

[Carborendum]

2 hours ago, Vort said:

Americans are not natively stupider than any other nation. 

I would disagree with that.  Not that our DNA is prone to such, but that our education system sucks, and our societal emphasis on education sucks.

As far as our education system sucks... well, you kinda touched on exactly why that is.

As far as our emphasis, not only does the same ideology affect "what we consider good education" but the overall value that society puts on good old fashioned education is also weak.

A particular sociologist went to third world countries and discovered that virtually all the students there learned the materials much faster than American students because they valued ANY education much more than Americans did.  That is to say that a greater percentage excelled simply because they all considered it an extremely high priority. 

In America, the biological affinity for learning may be just as high or higher than those in third world countries.  But the lack of enthusiasm, the lack of treasuring that wondrous gift called "education" severely hampered many US student's learning. Part of it is that we take it for granted.  Even lower income families take it for granted nowadays.

While exceptional US students still excelled, the percentage of high performers were much less simply because much of the population didn't care.  I'll have to look up when that was.  It couldn't have been all that long ago.  The person who did the study only wrote the book about it this last year or two.

Back in my high school days, my math teacher told the story:  In many international competitions, a large sampling showed that America was about as average as possible.  Nearly all the first world countries were above us.  Many developing countries were also above us.  When the top 10% from each nation were pitted against each other, we were dead last.  I have no way of verifying this since he didn't mention any names of competitions, or sponsors, or locations in which they took place.  But he really was an exceptional teacher.  So, I'll trust him.

The one place where we still tend to come out on top is when the top 1% are pitted against each other.  The American system still has the tendency to expose the top 1% of ability in all areas.  That is why we are quite often the top contenders for any international competition.  While we may not win every year, we come really close nearly every year.  World Cup excepted.

Edited March 28, 2023 by Carborendum

[mikbone]