Book of Mormon Reading Group: 16 Oct - 22 Oct 2023 (Mosiah 14 - Mosiah 29)

[askandanswer]

Surely this small righteous, church-growing group of people were far more righteous than the Lamanites. I would have thought that it was the Lamanites who needed chastening far more than this group. The Lord loves those whom He chastens. Were the Lamanites being chastened in any way?

Mosiah 23

The Lord chastens His people, and the Lamanites conquer the land of Helam

 

Thu, Oct 19, 2023

And some time later, his son stepped down from being chief judge so that he would have more time to devote to the ministry.

Alma refuses to be king

 

 

This reminds me of when the brother of Jared and all of his sons and most of Jared's sons turned down the invitation to be king.

This seems to run so counter to what seemed to be a constant, and very strong interest of the people - to have someone rule over them. So similar to the desires of the ancient Israelites. Did they do this in the belief that having a king make their decisions would thereby make them less accountable for their actions? Did they want a mediator between them and God? Who knows?

Mosiah 23:7

 Behold, it is not expedient that we should have a king; for thus saith the Lord: 

 

 

This becomes more interesting when contrasted with what happened with the israelites. They wanted a king and God told His prophet to tell them that that was a bad idea. Nevertheless, the people persisted in their desire for a king so God found the most suitable candidate and arranged for him to become King. On this occasions here in Mosiah 23, the word of the prophet prevails and the people seemingly give up on their desire to have a king. With the Israelites, God showed a willingness to get involved in facilitating what He had previously advised was a bad idea. Perhaps this could be an example of how we should deal with ungodly things - not walk away from them but try to make the best of a bad situation.
 

7 But he said unto them: Behold, it is not expedient that we should have a king; for thus saith the Lord: Ye shall not esteem one flesh above another, or one man shall not think himself above another; therefore I say unto you it is not expedient that ye should have a king.

 

 

This reminds me of the Puritans fleeing England, seeking to escape from a king who was persecuting them on religious grounds. When they arrived in their new land, based on their experience in their previous land, they were firmly against the idea of having a king.

Mosiah 23:9

9 But remember the iniquity of king Noah and his priests; and I myself was caught in a snare, and did many things which were abominable in the sight of the Lord,

 

 

Does repentance always have to be painful to be effective, and if so, why? I'm reminded of that fact that we are sometimes invited/encouraged/exhorted to engage in daily repentance and that to do so promotes growth. So growth through pain. Is there no other way?

Mosiah 23:9

which caused me sore repentance;

 

This reminds me of Alma 36: 16 - 19.

His son, who possibly engaged in far more serious rebelliong against God, only had three days of suffering, although it does seem to have been quite intense.

Mosiah 23:10

10 Nevertheless, after much tribulation, the Lord did hear my cries, and did answer my prayers,

 

 

The two Almas were similar in so many important ways - both started their religious vocation in positions opposed to the true church, both experienced great tribulation as a result, both became powerful church leaders, both had opportunities for powerful political positions which they walked away from and both were great missionaries, playing important roles in building and leading the church.

 

Mosiah 23:10

10 Nevertheless, after much tribulation, the Lord did hear my cries, and did answer my prayers, and has made me an instrument in his hands in bringing so many of you to a knowledge of his truth.

 

 

[Jamie123]

10 hours ago, askandanswer said:

Surely this small righteous, church-growing group of people were far more righteous than the Lamanites. I would have thought that it was the Lamanites who needed chastening far more than this group. The Lord loves those whom He chastens. Were the Lamanites being chastened in any way?

Mosiah 23

The Lord chastens His people, and the Lamanites conquer the land of Helam

 

Thu, Oct 19, 2023

And some time later, his son stepped down from being chief judge so that he would have more time to devote to the ministry.

Alma refuses to be king

 

 

This reminds me of when the brother of Jared and all of his sons and most of Jared's sons turned down the invitation to be king.

This seems to run so counter to what seemed to be a constant, and very strong interest of the people - to have someone rule over them. So similar to the desires of the ancient Israelites. Did they do this in the belief that having a king make their decisions would thereby make them less accountable for their actions? Did they want a mediator between them and God? Who knows?

Mosiah 23:7

 Behold, it is not expedient that we should have a king; for thus saith the Lord: 

 

 

This becomes more interesting when contrasted with what happened with the israelites. They wanted a king and God told His prophet to tell them that that was a bad idea. Nevertheless, the people persisted in their desire for a king so God found the most suitable candidate and arranged for him to become King. On this occasions here in Mosiah 23, the word of the prophet prevails and the people seemingly give up on their desire to have a king. With the Israelites, God showed a willingness to get involved in facilitating what He had previously advised was a bad idea. Perhaps this could be an example of how we should deal with ungodly things - not walk away from them but try to make the best of a bad situation.
 

7 But he said unto them: Behold, it is not expedient that we should have a king; for thus saith the Lord: Ye shall not esteem one flesh above another, or one man shall not think himself above another; therefore I say unto you it is not expedient that ye should have a king.

 

 

This reminds me of the Puritans fleeing England, seeking to escape from a king who was persecuting them on religious grounds. When they arrived in their new land, based on their experience in their previous land, they were firmly against the idea of having a king.

Mosiah 23:9

9 But remember the iniquity of king Noah and his priests; and I myself was caught in a snare, and did many things which were abominable in the sight of the Lord,

 

 

Does repentance always have to be painful to be effective, and if so, why? I'm reminded of that fact that we are sometimes invited/encouraged/exhorted to engage in daily repentance and that to do so promotes growth. So growth through pain. Is there no other way?

Mosiah 23:9

which caused me sore repentance;

 

This reminds me of Alma 36: 16 - 19.

His son, who possibly engaged in far more serious rebelliong against God, only had three days of suffering, although it does seem to have been quite intense.

Mosiah 23:10

10 Nevertheless, after much tribulation, the Lord did hear my cries, and did answer my prayers,

 

 

The two Almas were similar in so many important ways - both started their religious vocation in positions opposed to the true church, both experienced great tribulation as a result, both became powerful church leaders, both had opportunities for powerful political positions which they walked away from and both were great missionaries, playing important roles in building and leading the church.

 

Mosiah 23:10

10 Nevertheless, after much tribulation, the Lord did hear my cries, and did answer my prayers, and has made me an instrument in his hands in bringing so many of you to a knowledge of his truth.

 

 

I wondered why you were doing chap 23 already and then I realised you're an Aussie!

Which means of course you can't see the Great Bear and Orion is upside down. (That must look well weird!) But of course you look towards the centre of the galaxy so your Milky Way is much brighter than ours. And you can see the Coal Sack and all the other dark nebulae that make up the giant emu.

[Jamie123]

10 hours ago, askandanswer said:

They wanted a king and God told His prophet to tell them that that was a bad idea.

This was 1 Samuel 8. The main reason they wanted a king was because the sons of Samuel (whom he had appointed judges) were taking bribes, and they thought if only they had a king, he would put a stop to that sort of thing. Samuel points out that a king might be even worse, but they don't listen. They've seen other nations with their kings, and they want one too! It's a classic example of people thinking they know better than God.

I think though it was always God's intention that Israel should eventually have a king. Deuteronomy 17 lays out how a king should be chosen and what qualifications he should have and how he should behave.

Edited October 19, 2023 by Jamie123

[Carborendum]

15 hours ago, Jamie123 said:

I was sure you had a good point!

too bad it was at the top of my head.

[askandanswer]

4 hours ago, Jamie123 said:

This was 1 Samuel 8. The main reason they wanted a king was because the sons of Samuel (whom he had appointed judges) were taking bribes, and they thought if only they had a king, he would put a stop to that sort of thing. Samuel points out that a king might be even worse, but they don't listen. They've seen other nations with their kings, and they want one too! It's a classic example of people thinking they know better than God.

I think though it was always God's intention that Israel should eventually have a king. Deuteronomy 17 lays out how a king should be chosen and what qualifications he should have and how he should behave.

I was just about to go to bed when I read this, but after reading it, of course, I had to stay up a little longer to glance through Deuteronomy 17

[Carborendum]

4 hours ago, Jamie123 said:

This was 1 Samuel 8. The main reason they wanted a king was because the sons of Samuel (whom he had appointed judges) were taking bribes, and they thought if only they had a king, he would put a stop to that sort of thing.

The people were only using Samuel's sons' behavior as an excuse.  Yes, the sons were guilty.  Yes, it was bad.  But the solution was not to replace a prophet with a monarch.  It was to appeal to Samuel and to the Lord to change what the sons were doing.

Instead, God said, "They haven't rejected you.  They've rejected me."

Despite the fact that the people had a genuine grievance, that wasn't the real problem in their minds.  They wanted a king so they could "be like other nations."  They had already wanted to reject God.  But they couldn't allow themselves to admit that.  They finally found a bona fide complaint and then used that as an excuse to reject "the system" that God had established.

But oh-no... they totally weren't rejecting God.  They certainly wouldn't want to do that.

Edited October 19, 2023 by Carborendum

[Jamie123]

The end of Chapter 22 might be a good place to recapitulate, to see how far we've come. Of course I'm the newbe here, so I've probably misunderstood a few things, and left out lots of important stuff out. But here goes...

• Lehi and his family leave Jerusalem. His sons return to get the plates, and then a second time to get Ishmael. The Liahona appears and guides them through the wilderness. They build a ship and sail to America.
• The voyage is uneventful, except that the Liahona stops working whenever Laman and Lemuel misbehave. In America they establish a community, but Nephi is resented by his elder brothers. They plan to kill him but he and his followers escape and start a second community.
• Meanwhile the Babylonians sack Jerusalem, but a prince called Mulek escapes with a band of followers. Somehow they acquire a ship, and also sail to America. Here they settle in a region which is later called Zarahemla.
• Communities of the Nehites and the Lamanites grow and frequently quarrel and fight with each other.
• Eventually the Nephite king Mosiah leads his people away to Zarahemla, where the people are friendly to them. The two communities unite with Mosiah as their overall ruler.
• Some of the Nephites in Zarahemla become curious about their old lands. Zeniff leads them back, where they form a Nephite enclave within Lamanite territory. The Lamanites make them pay heavy taxes for this privilege.
• Zeniff dies, and his son Noah becomes king. Noah is a total and utter jerk, and a terrible example his his subjects. Abinadi preaches against him but is captured and brought to the king.
• Abinadi gives King Noah a major "telling off". He says that even if his priests really were teaching the Law of Moses correctly (which they are not) this will not by itself bring salvation. They need Jesus Christ. Noah is almost convinced, but not quite. He threatens to burn Abinadi to death if he does not recant his words. Abinadi refuses to recant, and before he dies, predicts that one day Noah will himself suffer the same fate.
• Alma, one of Noah's priests, is persuaded by Abinadi and starts to preach about Jesus Christ. He escapes into the wilderness with whoever will follow him, where he starts to baptize people. Noah sends an army against them but they escape. (I'm not sure what happened to them - I think that's in Chapter 23 which I haven't got to yet.)
• Gideon, the captain of the king's guards, leads a rebellion against Noah. By sheer coincidence the Lamanites choose this same moment to attack the city. In the confusion, Noah and his priests escape (as usual into the wilderness). The priests decide they've had their fill of King Noah and burn him to death (fulfilling Abinadi's prophecy). Noah's son Limhi becomes king.
• Limhi is a much better king than his father. He sends a party into the wilderness to try to find Zarahemla. They fail to find it, but do instead find some plates which they return to King Limhi.
• Meanwhile in Zarahemla, King Benjamin gives his people a valedictory address and dies. Hi son Mosiah becomes king. He sends a party of men led by Ammon, to find out what happened to Zeniff and his people. They arrive at Limhi's city, where Limhi shows him the mysterious plates from the wilderness. Ammon cannot read them, but thinks that his own king Mosiah might be able to.
• Limhi and his people abandon their colony and go back to Zarahemla with Ammon and his men.

That's mostly from memory, with a bit of looking-up of spellings, so I've probably got a lot of details wrong. But basically right? 

Edited October 19, 2023 by Jamie123

[zil2]

Mosiah 22

Better to escape captivity by peaceful means than by violence.

Mosiah 23

Now we go back in time to when Alma fled from King Noah (flashback in the Limhi flashback).

v1: The Lord leads Alma and his people away from King Noah (my guess is because Noah would have killed them).  But (v25+) not from the Lamanites (my guess is because the Lamanites only wanted to enslave them, and the Lord wished to try the faith of Alma and his people - v21).

v9+: Repentance, even if "sore", is worth it.  As soon as you become aware of sin, repent.

v9-13: A wicked leader causes a great deal of harm. Choose leaders wisely.

v13: "...trust no man to be a king over you."  Perhaps another reason to allow the Lamanite bondage - to hammer home the fact that they don't want a king / dictator.

v14-19: It seems that a righteous people need only spiritual leadership.

v21-22: Yes, sometimes the Lord will cause or allow trials specifically to test your patience and faith (and perhaps other virtues).  So do as v22 counsels whenever you find yourself tested. (also v27+)

v23-24: Trials can also increase faith.

v36+: Never trust the word of someone who says they're going to do the opposite of what they've always done...

v39: Traitors make good (by which I mean awful) dictators.

[zil2]

27 minutes ago, Jamie123 said:

But basically right? 

Perfect!  (Except I don't know whether Gideon was a captain of the guard or just some dude sick of the king - the text never said - to my recollection.)

[Jamie123]

8 minutes ago, zil2 said:

Perfect!  (Except I don't know whether Gideon was a captain of the guard or just some dude sick of the king - the text never said - to my recollection.)

You're right - it doesn't say. It just says he was a very strong man and an enemy of the king. I must have got that idea from some video or other. (Not everything on YouTube is very accurate.)

[zil2]

5 minutes ago, Jamie123 said:

You're right - it doesn't say. It just says he was a very strong man and an enemy of the king. I must have got that idea from some video or other. (Not everything on YouTube is very accurate.)

Later, it does seem like maybe he's the captain of Limhi's army, so that could also be the source of the idea.

[Vort]

An astute recap. Let me comment.

50 minutes ago, Jamie123 said:

The end of Chapter 22 might be a good place to recapitulate, to see how far we've come. Of course I'm the newbe here, so I've probably misunderstood a few things, and left out lots of important stuff out. But here goes...

• Lehi and his family leave Jerusalem. His sons return to get the plates, and then a second time to get Ishmael. The Liahona appears and guides them through the wilderness. They build a ship and sail to America.

Lehi leads his family from Jerusalem at the command of God. He sends his sons, apparently four very young men (ages are not explicitly mentioned, but I see Nephi as about 13 or 14 at this time), to retrieve brass plates. When they miraculously succeed—remember, Sariah was so terrified that her sons would be massacred (and so sure that they would indeed meet that fate) that she essentially rebelled against her husband—he later sends them back to recruit old Ishmael and his family.

The Liahona did not just magically appear. From the narrative, I believe it's clear that it was placed there in front of Lehi's tent by a divine messenger, mortal or otherwise. It was of "curious workmanship", suggesting that it was cleverly made or ornate or otherwise impressive to look at, but apparently its functionality was obvious and not particularly impressive. It seemed actually to function according to one's faith (1 Nephi 16:28-29), which is amazing to me. The "pointers" were apparently large enough that words could be written on them; what form that writing took, whether some kind of ink or more like an engraving, is never made clear.

50 minutes ago, Jamie123 said:

• The voyage is uneventful, except that the Liahona stops working whenever Laman and Lemuel misbehave. In America they establish a community, but Nephi is resented by his elder brothers. They plan to kill him but he and his followers escape and start a second community.

I doubt the voyage was uneventful; we're not really given much information beyond the mutiny of Laman, Lemuel, and the sons of Ishmael. (BTW, it was probably a mercy from God that Ishmael had died before they undertook the sea voyage, in fact years before they had even made the trek across the Arabian Peninsula. An old, frail man would not have fared well in such a sea voyage. It was apparently difficult enough that Lehi didn't do well, and perhaps never fully recovered.) Nephi and his followers, who apparently included children of Laman and Lemuel as well as some from Ishmael, left after being warned of God that they should flee.

50 minutes ago, Jamie123 said:

• Meanwhile the Babylonians sack Jerusalem, but a prince called Mulek escapes with a band of followers. Somehow they acquire a ship, and also sail to America. Here they settle in a region which is later called Zarahemla.

We have almost no information about their voyage. The best we know is that Lehi came into the southern land and Mulek into the northern land. These have traditionally been interpreted as South America and North America, respectively, but I personally reject that as overly simplistic and geographically unreasonable.

50 minutes ago, Jamie123 said:

• Communities of the Nehites and the Lamanites grow and frequently quarrel and fight with each other.
• Eventually the Nephite king Mosiah leads his people away to Zarahemla, where the people are friendly to them. The two communities unite with Mosiah as their overall ruler.

Yes. Worth  mentioning that the Nephites were almost exterminated before finding Zarahemla. That would not be the last time. Interesting to me how the Nephites and the Mulekites seemed to get on quite well, despite apparently not sharing either a language or a religion.

50 minutes ago, Jamie123 said:

• Some of the Nephites in Zarahemla become curious about their old lands. Zeniff leads them back, where they form a Nephite enclave within Lamanite territory. The Lamanites make them pay heavy taxes for this privilege.

The taxation was levied later on. Under Zeniff, the Nephites prospered to the point that the Lamanites were afraid they would get too strong, and thus attacked them. Didn't go well for the Lamanites.

50 minutes ago, Jamie123 said:

• Zeniff dies, and his son Noah becomes king. Noah is a total and utter jerk, and a terrible example his his subjects. Abinadi preaches against him but is captured and brought to the king.

To my mind, Amalickiah is the prototype of the Really Really Evil Guy, the ultimate Book of Mormon villain. The extensive wars between the Nephites and the Lamanites as documented in the second half of the book of Alma took place because of the vile Amalickiah and his brother, Ammoron. But I would argue that king Noah did much greater damage to the Nephites (certainly to Zeniff's southern group) than even the spectacularly wicked Amalickiah and his brother. The people of God can withstand any external attack; defeat and ruin always and inevitably comes from within.

50 minutes ago, Jamie123 said:

• Abinadi gives King Noah a major "telling off". He says that even if his priests really were teaching the Law of Moses correctly (which they are not) this will not by itself bring salvation. They need Jesus Christ. Noah is almost convinced, but not quite. He threatens to burn Abinadi to death if he does not recant his words. Abinadi refuses to recant, and before he dies, predicts that one day Noah will himself suffer the same fate.

At one point, the Book of Mormon says that Abinadi was "scourged with faggots", meaning beaten savagely with bundles of sticks. Royal Skousen, the editor of the Book of Mormon Critical Text project, suggested that the original word here may have been "scorched" rather than "scourged". The horrific picture that emerges to my mind is a method of torturing someone to death by tying dry sticks, perhaps soaked in accelerant, to the victim's limbs and body, and lighting them on fire. Kind of like being burned at the stake, except they aren't tied to a stake; rather, a lot of little burning stakes are tied to them.

50 minutes ago, Jamie123 said:

• Alma, one of Noah's priests, is persuaded by Abinadi and starts to preach about Jesus Christ. He escapes into the wilderness with whoever will follow him, where he starts to baptize people. Noah sends an army against them but they escape. (I'm not sure what happened to them - I think that's in Chapter 23 which I haven't got to yet.)

My reading of this account seems to me to indicate that the main body of the Nephites in Lamanite territories were taken over shortly after this, within a few years, and spent perhaps as much as 20 years in bondage to the Lamanites. Alma and his people, in contrast, escaped and lived more or less idyllically for that entire time, until they were brought into bondage just after the larger group of Nephites escaped and went back to Zarahemla. They appear to have been in bondage quite a short time, I'm thinking less than a year, before the Lord facilitated their escape and return to Zarahemla.

50 minutes ago, Jamie123 said:

• Gideon, the captain of the king's guards, leads a rebellion against Noah. By sheer coincidence the Lamanites choose this same moment to attack the city. In the confusion, Noah and his priests escape (as usual into the wilderness). The priests decide they've had their fill of King Noah and burn him to death (fulfilling Abinadi's prophecy). Noah's son Limhi becomes king.

I think that coincidence was less coincidental than we might assume. Noah was a terribly irresponsible king, preferring womanizing to, say, national defense. The Lamanites had already shown increasing aggression toward the Nephites, to which threat Noah appeared not really to care very much. Domestic intrigue and navel-gazing blinded the Nephites to open Lamanite hostility, which I'm guessing any half-way competent military leader could have predicted and perhaps even seen developing. Simply climbing on a tower was enough to inform the king and his pursuer of the Lamanite invasion. The level of incompetence boggles the mind, though not hard to believe from a king like Noah. And of course, instead of standing and fighting for his people like his father had done, Noah commands retreat and actually demands that his followers abandon their women and children—which, to their shame and great chagrin, some do. (Well, not among his priests. No shame or chagrin there. Noah and his priests were made for each other, all but Alma.)

50 minutes ago, Jamie123 said:

• Limhi is a much better king than his father. He sends a party into the wilderness to try to find Zarahemla. They fail to find it, but do instead find some plates which they return to King Limhi.
• Meanwhile in Zarahemla, King Benjamin gives his people a valedictory address and dies. Hi son Mosiah becomes king. He sends a party of men led by Ammon, to find out what happened to Zeniff and his people. They arrive at Limhi's city, where Limhi shows him the mysterious plates from the wilderness. Ammon cannot read them, but thinks that his own king Mosiah might be able to.

All correct. I assume some of the original settlers knew Benjamin, perhaps well. But by this time, I doubt there was anyone left alive among the southern Nephites that had any first-hand knowledge of Zarahemla or its inhabitants.

50 minutes ago, Jamie123 said:

• Limhi and his people abandon their colony and go back to Zarahemla with Ammon and his men.

That's mostly from memory, with a bit of looking-up of spellings, so I've probably got a lot of details wrong. But basically right? 

Very impressive. I suspect many Latter-day Saints, seminary students and adults alike, would be hard-pressed to offer such a summary. Well done.

[Jamie123]

2 hours ago, Vort said:

At one point, the Book of Mormon says that Abinadi was "scourged with faggots", meaning beaten savagely with bundles of sticks.

We all know what "faggot" means in (now severely politically-incorrect and potentially career-ending) slang, but the first thing I think of is Brain's Faggots...

...which are apparently still a thing (though I don't remember seeing them in the shops for donkeys' years). As a kid I thought "Brains" meant they were made out of actual brains - which I suspect is why they added the "Mr".

P.S. And the picture of the guy himself.

Edited October 19, 2023 by Jamie123

[zil2]

1 hour ago, Jamie123 said:

As a kid I thought "Brains" meant they were made out of actual brains - which I suspect is why they added the "Mr".

P.S. And the picture of the guy himself.

Because his brains seem more appetizing to you than pork brains? 

[Carborendum]

2 hours ago, Jamie123 said:

donkeys' years

Ppffbbt. 

Freaking Brit.

2 hours ago, Jamie123 said:

We all know what "faggot" means in (now severely politically-incorrect and potentially career-ending) slang, but the first thing I think of is Brain's Faggots...

I knew a Brit who was a convert to the LDS faith.  He said that he had to "give up faggots" before he was baptized.  At the time, he was unaware of the slang usage.  He described it as a type of chocolate rich dessert that happened to be made with coffee (and alcohol?).  And they were so delicious he wanted one nearly every week.

I've never since been able to find anyone who knew what that was (including other Brits).

Edited October 19, 2023 by Carborendum

[Jamie123]

4 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

And they were so delicious he wanted one nearly every week.

Only once a week? That's restraint!

[Carborendum]

4 minutes ago, Jamie123 said:

Only once a week? That's restraint!

So, do you know what it was he was talking about?

[Jamie123]

1 minute ago, Carborendum said:

So, do you know what it was he was talking about?

I'm sorry to say I don't, though it does sound good.

The closest thing I can think of is chocolate truffles, though I have never heard of them containing alcohol or coffee.

There are coffee creams, and chocolates which contain shots of alcohol - but I've never heard them called "faggots".

[Carborendum]

1 minute ago, Jamie123 said:

I'm sorry to say I don't, though it does sound good.

The closest thing I can think of is chocolate truffles, though I have never heard of them containing alcohol or coffee.

There are coffee creams, and chocolates which contain shots of alcohol - but I've never heard them called "faggots".

I was hoping you'd know since you said you just qualify as a boomer.  You'd be old enough to know.  This guy would be in his late 50s today.

[Jamie123]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

I was hoping you'd know since you said you just qualify as a boomer.  You'd be old enough to know.  This guy would be in his late 50s today.

Hmmm... I've trawled for info on "chocolate faggots" but nothing yet.

We do have a dessert called "Death by Chocolate". Ever heard of that?

Edited October 19, 2023 by Jamie123

[Carborendum]

9 minutes ago, Jamie123 said:

Hmmm... I've trawled for info on "chocolate faggots" but nothing yet.

We do have a dessert called "Death by Chocolate". Ever heard of that?

We have a million varieties of confections that have earned that moniker.  But none that seemed to follow the description I heard. 

It is just occurring to me that he may have just made up the story for shock effect.

[Jamie123]

17 hours ago, Carborendum said:

We have a million varieties of confections that have earned that moniker.

For the millionth time, stop exaggerating!

[Vort]

29 minutes ago, Jamie123 said:

For the millionth time, stop exaggerating!

Third Hour is the all-time biggest collection of hyperbole in the world.

[Jamie123]

21 minutes ago, Vort said:

hyperbole

I know it's HY-PER-BO-LEE, but I still have to force myself not to say HYPER-BOLE (which was how I pronounced it for years before I learned any better). I was the same with "Thermopyle". I wish I could say I learned the truth from reading Byron's "Of that three hundred grant but three, to make a new Thermopyle" but I'd be lying. It was when I read Stephen R. Donaldson's The Real Story (the first in The Gap series) where Angus Thermopyle angrily tells Nick Succorso how to pronounce his name correctly, and Succorso continues to call him THERMO-PILE just to annoy him. (Up to that point in the book, I'd been mentally calling him Angus Thermo-pile myself.)

Edited October 20, 2023 by Jamie123
Split infinitive

[Vort]

9 minutes ago, Jamie123 said:

I know it's HY-PER-BO-LEE, but I still have to force myself not to say HYPER-BOLE (which was how I pronounced it for years before I learned any better). I was the same with "Thermopyle". I wish I could say I learned the truth from reading Byron's "Of that three hundred grant but three, to make a new Thermopyle" but I'd be lying. It was when I read Stephen R. Donaldson's The Real Story (the first in The Gap series) where Angus Thermopyle angrily tells Nick Succorso how to pronounce his name correctly, and Succorso continues to call him THERMO-PILE just to annoy him. (Up to that point in the book, I'd been mentally calling him Angus Thermo-pile myself.)

Ask 99% of Americans who read the Harry Potter books how they pronounced "Hermione".

Ever listen to a comedian named Brian Regan? He did a comedy routine 15 or so years ago called The Epitome of Hyperbole, pronounced "the epitohm of hyperbowl".