Book of Mormon Reading Group: 30 Oct - 05 Nov 2023 (Alma 13 - Alma 25)

[Jamie123]

34 minutes ago, zil2 said:

I can't be the only person who has sometimes wished not to know the gospel or truth or commandments or whatever

I remember at school listening to a play called (if I remember rightly) The Concrete Serpent. It contained the line "Men seek the truth and then betray". I've never since found any reference to it, but I think it's very true.

It reminds me if another quote. This may be Lessing, but I'm not totally sure: "The eyes of those who seek have often found more than they wished to find".

P.S. I could have sworn that last one was from Nathan the Wise, but I found it on Project Gutenberg and no luck. You know, I bet it was actually Dumbledore who said it.

Edited November 5, 2023 by Jamie123

[zil2]

31 minutes ago, Jamie123 said:

I have known at least four people who have the gift of tongues (though one of them is now dead). I do not have it myself, nor do I particularly want it. Perhaps that's not a bad thing.

FWIW, this is our interpretation of "tongue of angels (2 Nephi 32:2-3):

Quote

2 Do ye not remember that I said unto you that after ye had received the Holy Ghost ye could speak with the tongue of angels? And now, how could ye speak with the tongue of angels save it were by the Holy Ghost?

3 Angels speak by the power of the Holy Ghost; wherefore, they speak the words of Christ. Wherefore, I said unto you, feast upon the words of Christ; for behold, the words of Christ will tell you all things what ye should do.

One does not need the gift of speaking in other tongues (aka languages) (or even unknown tongues / languages) - one needs only speak the words of Christ.

Also, for the record: Bible Dictionary entry for Angels - we don't believe they're a different species or category of beings - just people, either as spirit, translated, or resurrected beings.

Edited November 5, 2023 by zil2

[zil2]

dupe

Edited November 5, 2023 by zil2

[Jamie123]

59 minutes ago, zil2 said:

The Elder can think whatever he wants, but only you and God can know what you do / don't have a testimony of.

Then again, I've just remembered Alma 11:24 😟

Though if Amulek had been wrong, I don't suppose Zeezrom would have paranoided himself into believing otherwise.

Edited November 5, 2023 by Jamie123

[Carborendum]

47 minutes ago, Jamie123 said:

Ahaaa...sorry! I'm just a bit of a thicko 😀

It's like the old joke: How do you make a [insert ethnicity you wish to slander]man laugh on Friday? Tell him a joke on Monday.

I guess, sometimes my jokes aren't as funny as I think they are.

[Jamie123]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

What language was Lisa speaking at the end?  I couldn't make it out.

It just sounds like jabber to me!

[Jamie123]

6 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I guess, sometimes my jokes aren't as funny as I think they are.

I'm sure everyone else enjoyed it 😁

[Jamie123]

38 minutes ago, zil2 said:

Also, for the record: Bible Dictionary entry for Angels - we don't believe they're a different species or category of beings - just people, either as spirit, translated, or resurrected beings.

LDSs are always very emphatic about angels not having wings. The one person I know who claims to have seen angels says that they do, and that they are extremely beautiful. So I wonder who is right...

[zil2]

Alma 24

v1: @Jamie123, just noting that we don't really know anything about the Amalekites beyond this story and what's found in the index - apparently, they're a bunch of Nephite apostates.

v6-16: This is serious conversion.  We could perhaps abstract this into any other principle - have you been converted enough that not only will you not do X, but you will remove from your life everything that could possibly be used to do X, and you will suffer anything and everything at the hands of others rather than do X?  Thankfully (?), most of us are not tried to this extent.  "....and if our brethren destroy us, behold, we shall go to our God and shall be saved."

v9: Are we grateful to God when he shows us that we were wrong?

v11, 15: "all that we could do" ... "it was all we could do"... "as much as we could do" ... See 2 Nephi 25:23 (someone else on these forums discovered this connection, but I forget who.)

v12-13: Do all in your power not to go back to prior sins!

v14: "because he loveth our souls as well as he loveth our children" - remember that God loves all of us, past, present, future, here, there, and everywhere - act accordingly.

v18: @Jamie123 - this commitment not to take up weapons will come up later in our story - just FYI.   (Don't want to spoil it for you.)

v18: This verse alone could solve all the world's problems if we would just live it.

v27: One of umpteen reasons the Lord allows suffering and sin - to convert sinners.

v28: The order of the Nehors is very popular in our day.

Alma 25

I guess when fighting and killing are the only way you know to solve problems, you fight and kill...

v15: In a way, nothing has changed - we now have the gospel of Jesus Christ to point us toward his second coming.

[zil2]

5 minutes ago, Jamie123 said:

LDSs are always very emphatic about angels not having wings. The one person I know who claims to have seen angels says that they do, and that they are extremely beautiful. So I wonder who is right...

There are such descriptions in scripture as well.  And we have some explanation in D&C 77:2-4.  FWIW.  Short answer: When it suits, the Lord uses symbolism.

[Jamie123]

17 minutes ago, zil2 said:

There are such descriptions in scripture as well.  And we have some explanation in D&C 77:2-4.  FWIW.  Short answer: When it suits, the Lord uses symbolism.

Yep mustn't forget "the six winged serephs" (I've sung about them often enough!)

So if angels do sometimes have wings, wonder why it's so important to emphasise that they don't.

Edited November 5, 2023 by Jamie123

[Jamie123]

15 minutes ago, Jamie123 said:

Yep mustn't forget "the six winged serephs" (I've sung about them often enough!)

So if angels do sometimes have wings, wonder why it's so important to emphasise that they don't.

Totally irrelevant of course, but I just found this totally beautiful version of Be Thou My Vision by the same ensemble.

Original words too, not the politically correctified version. (Well not the original original words of course. Those are in medieval Irish.)

Edited November 5, 2023 by Jamie123

[zil2]

37 minutes ago, Jamie123 said:

So if angels do sometimes have wings, wonder why it's so important to emphasise that they don't.

Angels (living beings) don't.  Imagery used in visions (or to describe visions) might.

[askandanswer]

3 hours ago, Carborendum said:

and the cama -  "pause"

I was thinking camule

[Jamie123]

8 minutes ago, zil2 said:

Angels (living beings) don't.  Imagery used in visions (or to describe visions) might.

I may be the worst Philistine when it comes to art, but I think the stupidest winged angel is the Angel of the North

I mean - aeroplane wings? I ask you!

[Carborendum]

2 hours ago, Jamie123 said:

I'm sure everyone else enjoyed it 😁

Well, at least @zil2 did.  Thanks, Zil.

[mordorbund]

3 hours ago, Jamie123 said:

I may be the worst Philistine when it comes to art, but I think the stupidest winged angel is the Angel of the North

I mean - aeroplane wings? I ask you!

With wings like that, I’d cover my face too!

[Vort]

Just now, mordorbund said:

With wings like that, I’d cover my face too!

How about your feet?

[JohnsonJones]

4 hours ago, Jamie123 said:

So if angels do sometimes have wings, wonder why it's so important to emphasise that they don't.

Well, I obviously do not have the answers you are looking for, BUT, I did find an interesting history article pertaining to Angels and how they got their wings (no, it's not when someone rings a bell).

How Angels found their Wings

Quote

The angels of the Bible were not winged. (The winged Cherubim and Seraphim are figures derived from the Near Eastern tradition of winged zoomorphic guardian figures and are not angels since they perform none of the angelic functions.) In fact, in the Old Testament angels are often not clearly distinguished from humans at all. The New Testament letter to the Hebrews recommends: ‘Do not forget to show hospitality to strangers, for by so doing some people have shown hospitality to angels without knowing it.’ When angels are clearly identified in the New Testament, they are distinguished from ordinary humans by markers first found in Old Testament books, such as gleaming white robes, or a countenance like lightning – but no wings.

-------------------------------------------------------

Then, at the end of the third century, the bishop and martyr Methodius of Olympus, who was located in Anatolia and perhaps also the Levant, connected the state of being winged to being celibate. Again, in the late fourth century, in an eastern ascetic text, On Hermits and Desert Dwellers pseudonymously attributed to the Syriac church father St Ephrem, fasting from the attractions of the world was said to give the ascetic wings, which he used to soar to heaven.

There was already a theme of the righteous being identified as angels. In the ascent visions found in the Second Temple Jewish and early Christian writings the ascendees are often clothed in certain garments once they have ascended to heaven. These garments seem to be modelled on those of the angels (without wings). In other early Christian literature, such as the work of the second- and third-century church father Clement of Alexandria, the righteous dead were described as angelic.

 

--------

[Traveler]

On 11/4/2023 at 4:15 PM, zil2 said:

Apparently this was not uncommon in the ancient middle east - at least, that's what @Traveler tells us.

I would point out that the concept of Near Eastern Suzerian Vassel treaties and law is not a concept of mine but rather well established and documented work of scholars on the subject.  Two such scholars that have had impact on my thinking are Ivan Engnell and F.  C. Fensham.  They point out the relationship of an Suzerain (Supreme ruler or king) and their Vassel in kingdoms of Near Eastern societies are based on what was believed to be the rule of heaven of G-d (El) and his appointed rulers.

All the titles of the Suzerain are given to the appointed Vassals.  It is interesting to me that in dealings within the public arena that the appointed Vassel would speak in the first person as though they were the Suzerain.  Historical documents in ancient Near Eastern governments reflect the relationship of the Vassel to the Suzerain the parallel the claims the Jesus made concerning his Father.  This is why within the Gospel of John the Jews accused Jesus of blasphemy and making himself G-d.  A Vassel would claim that they and the Suzerain are one and the same.  That they were “one” with the Suzerain.

There is something else that is recorded in scripture and that is the reference in the prayer of Jesus in Gethsemane that those that believed on Jesus would become one with Jesus and His (our) Father in heaven.  This is a most unique thought that I find expressed only in the LDS theology.

I will give another such example in scripture that took place at the trial of Jesus when the Jews cried out that they had no King but Cesar.  This was called out as a rejection of Jesus and his teaching that he was one with a higher authority, mainly G-d.  But one could ask the question of the Jews claiming they had no King but Cesar – who then was King Herod?  The answer would be the king that was appointed by Cesar the proclaimed Suzerain of the Roman empire.   Thus this declaration was also a rejection by the Jews that G-d was not their king nor was any descendent of David.

 

The Traveler

[Jamie123]

8 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

(no, it's not when someone rings a bell).

Haha - I never thought of that. Clarence is an angel and he doesn't have wings! (Until the end.)

8 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

In fact, in the Old Testament angels are often not clearly distinguished from humans at all.

There is also the apocryphal Book of Tobit. (I was about to mention the relevance, but that's a big spoiler. For the record I don't think Tobit is genuine scripture - it's a novel, and a rollicking good one too!)

[Jamie123]

One positive thing I've found about the Book of Mormon is that the 16th Century language is not nearly so off-putting as I'd expected. You get used to it the more you read, and after a while you stop noticing it.

It's the same with "and it came to pass". I used to find this phrase incredibly irritating, but it's either become a lot less frequent or else its stopped registering.

[Jamie123]

8 hours ago, Traveler said:

But one could ask the question of the Jews claiming they had no King but Cesar – who then was King Herod? 

I don't think Herod Antipas was king in Jerusalem. He ruled the northern area around Galilee. (Although he was in Jerusalem for the Passover.) Judea was under direct Roman rule.

Edited November 6, 2023 by Jamie123

[Carborendum]

1 hour ago, Jamie123 said:

One positive thing I've found about the Book of Mormon is that the 16th Century language is not nearly so off-putting as I'd expected. You get used to it the more you read, and after a while you stop noticing it.

It's the same with "and it came to pass". I used to find this phrase incredibly irritating, but it's either become a lot less frequent or else its stopped registering.

In the French version of the BoM, they replace the "it came to pass" with an asterisk. 

On the first page of 1 Ne, we see the footnote to which it refers.  And it says, "In the English version, the phrase 'it came to pass' is repeated quite often.  So to save space, we've chosen to represent this phrase with the *."  (I'm both paraphrasing and translating, of course).

So, instead of "et il passait que" we see "et * ".  This was the first time I realized that there were other words beside "and" which preceded it.  "Then it came to pass"  or "And then it came to pass", "Wherefore, it came to pass" etc.  (As you say, we tend to just stop registering it.)

The result was that the book was about 1/32" thinner than the English copy.  But that may be more than we realize since English is a slightly more efficient language than French.

Edited November 6, 2023 by Carborendum

[Traveler]

8 hours ago, Jamie123 said:

I don't think Herod Antipas was king in Jerusalem. He ruled the northern area around Galilee. (Although he was in Jerusalem for the Passover.) Judea was under direct Roman rule.

You are correct concerning Jerusalem but there were Jews in northern Israel under Herod.  

 

The Traveler