gdp's Comments

Mormon Coffee : BYU Professor Announces Significant Textual Discovery from the Jordanian Plates

Wed, 13 Apr 2011 22:30:28 +0000

(cont. -- part 3) While the 1st to 3rd centuries AD would at first probably strike many scholars as too late a date to find the paleo-Hebrew reported as the main script of the Jordanian plates, the DSSs prove the script lasted up till the dawn of the Roman period, & given Aramaic Hebrew’s specific use as a ink-based script, it’d be plausible that the paleo-script could’ve lasted even longer for the specialized purpose of engraved media, such as the plates (a task the paleo script is specifically designed for). On a final note, I must also give two reasons for viewing so-called metal plates from antiquity with suspicion: not only would a metal text be a convenient/practical way for believing an ancient text survived from antiquity all the way to the present, but it's also a natural medium of choice for an antiquities forger, as metal is a material that can’t be easily & conveniently overturned by chemical chronology tests. Then, there's of course the loaded issues brought to the table by the Joseph Smith story & the Book of Mormon. As it goes, I won’t be one bit surprised if these Jordanian plates prove fake, but I can also be patient enough for the academic world to produce its official publications before I join in with Thonemann or the BBC’s unequivocal censure. My hopes will hold out at least long enough to hear out an academic consensus on the matter. Anything less is simply unscientific. At this point in time, few if any scholars have unrestrained access to these artifacts. As for your modern play with forgery here, Aaron. Jolly Good show, man! Your Donald Ocha got me pretty good. And your final quote, while cruel, put a smile on my face. mutu.

Mormon Coffee : BYU Professor Announces Significant Textual Discovery from the Jordanian Plates

Wed, 13 Apr 2011 22:30:06 +0000

(cont. -- part 2) Being selected as a scribe in antiquity generally had more to do with one's artistic ability (for penmanship's sake), rather than one's literary potential. But in the case of the Greek-inscribed Jordanian Plate in question, neither the confusion of the alphas & lambdas, nor the incomplete sentence of the text, is enough, I think, to solidly verify the illiteracy of the unknown scribe. At least when we consider the incompleteness & limitations of the media that Thonemann had to work with. On further review, the mixing up of the lambda & alpha is a curious “slight of hand,” IMO. As Greek majuscules, the two letters are obviously close, but not so close that I’d expect them to be confused by someone relying on a modern print-text. If someone were following an ancient, handwritten text there’d be more likelihood for this error. In addition, this is just the sort of error that would force me, if I were a textual scholar, to want something a bit more than mere photographs before I begin making strong censures, & staking my name & credentials on them. Given the limitations of his observable media, how is Thonemann so certain that there is, in fact, no distinction between the lambdas & alphas in the questioned text? Many writers in modern & ancient times have developed idiosyncratic systems for distinguishing between letters. In my mongrelized cursive system (don’t we all mongrelize it to a degree?), there is often little to no distinction between my “a”, “o” & “e”, nor between my “n” & “m” & often my “r”. Yet I can read my own writing just fine -- & as far as male handwriting goes, I’m really not that bad a read for others either. The fact that Thonemann tracked down the unknown scribe’s source-text certainly suggests that he had no problem reading it. Furthermore, if all the letters in question appeared as alphas I’d say that Thonemann’s textual case is strong, but the fact they appear to all be the simpler, one-or-two-stroke lambda suggests to me that we may have nothing more than an efficient scribe on our hand; not necessarily an illiterate or a modern one. Granted, I’m going on just what’s reported in the article here, which itself may be a very incomplete view of Thonemann’s overall analytical argument. Like I said, he may indeed have very good reasons for believing the questioned text is indeed a modern forgery—some of which may be too technical for the press, & beyond my training to comprehend. As a Mormon, I’ll admit I have a bit more cause to be cautious than the average person given my natural reasons for excitement in such a discovery. But besides the literary/historical information it seemed poised to deliver of ancient Christianity, my initial excitement in this specific discovery was that it seemed to my eyes to be unlikely as a plate-forgery produced with Mormonism in mind (like the numerous “metal plate” finds that have been disproven over the years from the States). While it’s true that these Jordanian plates are in the form of a ringed codex like Joseph Smith’s reported golden plates, on the other hand, they are much smaller, & made of lead rather than gold. In contrast, the two other known ringed, metal codices from antiquity (the Etruscan plates & the Golden Achamaenid Book) are of more comparable size to Smith's claimed plate, & like them, are made of gold (the 1st pure, the 2nd an alloy), so I figured smaller lead plates were less likely to come from a forger with the partial objective of either substantiating or ridiculing the Mormon faith (or likely both). Such a forger would have antiquity's license in getting his craft to match Smith's golden plates more closely than these Jordanian plates do. While lead plates for scribal purposes are attested several times over from Classical times, none that we know of formed codices. But I think it’s worth mentioning that the two ancient metal codices that do exist have established a historical platform for these Jordanian plates to be taken seriously, quite independent of Mormonism. If there are forgers involved, it’s very likely that both they & the expert analysts involved had no thought at all to the significance this would hold for the Mormon faith. With the known ancient metal codices coming from different times & regions (6-7th century BC Bulgaria versus 4-5th century BC Iran) & from very different language/cultural groups (Etruscan versus Cuneiform-Persian), there’s solid proof that the use of metal, ringed codices was widely known among elite people in antiquity, & it certainly wouldn’t be an outrageous occurrence, therefore, to find such technology & such a scribal skill in the early Christian Levant. For a taste of these two, ancient metal codices: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2939362.stm ; http://www.cais-soas.com/News/2005/October2005/11...

Mormon Coffee : BYU Professor Announces Significant Textual Discovery from the Jordanian Plates

Wed, 13 Apr 2011 22:28:28 +0000

(part 1) All we have here are a few voices calling for the Jordanian Plates' obvious falsity--& even the one Oxford scholar mentioned (Peter Thonemann) admits that his preemptive denouncement is based off select photographs only. His conclusion: it's so obviously a fake that I need no more evidence to stake my credentials on that conclusion. Now I've seen the picture of the Greek-inscribed plate this scholar refers to, & don't have the technical knowledge or training to even begin to challenge his claims, but I do have enough sense & experience with scientific inquiry to know the academic book on this whole scenario is hardly closed. Dr. Thonemann may indeed have training & senses enough to make so bold a claim as he did despite the limited resources available to him, but I have enough training in textual criticism to know that one of his observations--at least at face value--cannot be ruled as a slamdunk for forgery. As reported by the press, one of Thonemann's criticisms was that the scribe copied a grammatically incomplete line of ancient Greek available from modern publications, and that he also confused the multiple alphas & the lambdas of the text, & therefore obviously didn't know written Greek. First of all, the existence of illiterate scribes in antiquity has not only been well established since the 19th century, it's a phenomenon that's not all too uncommon, particularly in Classical times when literature was being mass-produced at unprecedented levels, yet formal schooling still remained a thing of the elite (& the occasional genius). It's also been argued by some (Ehrman being one) that the documented textual sloppiness of the early Christian community strongly suggests that it didn't have an optimal amount of literate professionals to cover its literary needs (which should not surprise anyone given the New Testament's record that the leadership was often conducted by widely-circulated & copied epistles, but that the general membership was quite poor (& therefore likely illiterate)). It'd therefore be of no surprise for an illiterate scribe to pop up in the early Christian community.

Mormon Coffee : Mormon and Jewish Parallels

Sun, 30 Jan 2011 07:30:52 +0000

(continued -- part 7) But the real kicker is that the two utterly terrible passages that I have just quoted come from an infamous letter, “On the Jews and their Lies,” written by none other than our beloved father of Protestantism, Martin Luther. And if you think such merciless rhetoric played no part in Germany’s 20th century anti-Semitic atrocities, then I think you need to ask yourself why the Jews of today are so gracious in honoring those brave souls specifically within Germany’s Catholic community who put their lives on the line to shelter & hide their people through those dark years of WWII. While the Nazis certainly weren’t Protestant, they followed in an Anti-Semitic tradition that was strongly centered in Germany’s Protestant community. Martin Luther himself being the chief cornerstone of that tradition. And with that sober truth, I make my end. If you're in the business of pointing out religious skeletons in someone elses's closet, I think you'd better 1st check your own closet. Truth is, the Mormon community has not shared in the Antisemitism that's been typical & pervasive in Protestant America's long history. Most notably among America's conservative Protestants. However much you wish to stretch & make it seem otherwise, Sharon, it just is not the case. It's just another in a long line of literary concoctions from your own mind & hand. You may not like that acusation, but this deceptive literary commitment of yours has at its heart an ethnic polemic that belongs to the same spirit of persecution that has haunted ethnic minorities for ages, most noticeably the Jews. And in that vein I agree totally with the statement from Mr. Paredes's Jewish associate. If the shoe fits... mutu.

Mormon Coffee : Mormon and Jewish Parallels

Sun, 30 Jan 2011 07:30:38 +0000

(continued -- part 6) Note the blatantly religious rationale for this pure hatred -- a hatred that relishes in an all-out persecution of the Jews not at all dissimilar to what we find three centuries later by the Nazis. Sharon, just as you find it reprehensible that Mormon persecution be mentioned in the same breath with Jewish persecution, I want you to try this on for size: your claimed “Antisemitic” rhetoric by Brigham Young shouldn’t rightly carry that designation when compared with these above statements; I certainly hope you can agree. Brigham didn’t seek to injure any Jews, & his language never called for his Mormon people to so much as verbally accost Jews. His call was simply for Mormon missionaries to leave them alone as they were entirely hardened against Christianity (& in fairness, Brigham was likely entirely ignorant of why the European Jews had good historic reason to be so abrasive towards Christian proselytizers like the Mormon missionaries).

Mormon Coffee : Mormon and Jewish Parallels

Sun, 30 Jan 2011 07:29:41 +0000

(continued -- part 5) 7th, I recommend putting a flail, an ax, a hoe, a spade, a distaff, or a spindle into the hands of young, strong Jews & Jewesses & letting them earn their bread in the sweat of their brow . . . . For it is not fitting that they should let us accursed Goyim (Gentiles) toil in the sweat of our faces while they, the holy people, idle away their time behind the stove, feasting & farting . . . ." (Michael; Holy Hatred: Christianity, Antisemitism, & the Holocaust; Palgrave: 2006; p. 114) Now let me commend these Jews sincerely to whoever feels the desire to shelter & feed them, to honor them, to be fleeced, robbed, plundered, defamed, vilified by them, & to suffer every evil at their hands—these venomous serpents & the devil’s children, who are the most vehement enemies of Christ our Lord & of us all. & if that is not enough, let him stuff them into his mouth, or crawl into their behind & worship this holy object. . . . Then he will be a perfect Christian, filled with works of mercy—for which Christ will reward him on the day of judgment, together with the Jews—in the eternal fire of hell. (Ibid; p. 113)

Mormon Coffee : Mormon and Jewish Parallels

Sun, 30 Jan 2011 07:26:09 +0000

(continued -- part 4) 3rd, I advise that all their prayer books & Talmudic writings, in which such idolatry, lies, cursing, & blasphemy are to be taught, be taken from them. . . . also the entire Bible. . . . [The Jews] be forbidden on pain of death to praise God, to give thanks, to pray, & to teach publicly among us & in our country. . . . [T]hey be forbidden to utter the name of God within our hearing. . . . We must not consider the mouth of the Jews as worthy of uttering the name of God within our hearing. He who hears this name from a Jew must inform the authorities, or else throw sow dung at him when he sees him & chase him away. & may no one be merciful & kind in this regard. 4th, I advise that their rabbis be forbidden to teach henceforth on pain of loss of life & limb. . . . 5th, I advise that safe-conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews. . . . 6th, I advise that usury be prohibited to them & that all case & treasure . . . be taken from them & put aside for safekeeping. . . .Whenever a Jew is sincerely converted, he should [receive a cash bonus].

Mormon Coffee : Mormon and Jewish Parallels

Sun, 30 Jan 2011 07:23:24 +0000

(continued -- part 3) In closing, Sharon, I’d like to return to your reference of the initial Nazi crackdown on the Jews, the Kristallnacht. While the Nazi death camps were a new kind of ethnic persecution in Germany’s long history, the Kristallnacht represented nothing new for the Jewish people. Throughout the middle ages violent, destructive uprisings were periodically stirred up against Germany’s Jews. About the only thing unique to the Kristallnacht is that the uprising rhetoric wasn’t religious in nature. To illustrate, I point to a 16th century call for a similar destructive uprising against the Jews. A call that was issued in the form of an official pamphlet, not by a government official, but by a very popular clergyman: "1st, . . . set fire to their synagogues or schools & . . . bury & cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them. This is to be done in honor of our Lord & of Christendom, so that God might see that we are Christians. 2nd, I advise that their houses also be razed & destroyed.

Mormon Coffee : Christian Church declines Mormon application for Scouting leadership

Sat, 23 Oct 2010 00:59:21 +0000

The Stokes family needs to be a little less sensitive. While I don't know the details of this case, the Presbyterian Church did nothing outlandish here. It's probably not how I would've acted, but it's hardly "audacious" that the personnel in a church-sponsored scout troop decline leadership to people who they think are ideologically contrary to their faith, yet still welcome their children as scouts within the troop. Maybe someone did something mean-spirited to incite the Stokes in speaking out, but personally I think this sort of stuff in the media is sad, whatever the excuse. It only hardens people all the more in their petty fears & bigotries. mutu.

Mormon Coffee : The House that John Built

Mon, 4 Oct 2010 07:12:36 +0000

Well, Rick, that's because you don't believe that God spoke through Joseph Smith. While I'll admit that the Bible nowhere in which I'm aware commands polygamy -- as it was in the revelations to Joseph & later in the preaching of Brigham -- neither does it proscribe polygamy or treat it in a way that we should categorically denounce as "unchristian" or "unbiblical" post-biblical revelations that claim the Lord to reinstate it. The real issue here has nothing to do with polygamy, but in the sanctity of post-biblical revelation. That the Lord would call and speak through prophets in the modern era as he did in biblical times. As for there being denial of JS's involvement with polygamy, you're simply misinformed. The only ones who denied JS's involvement with polygamy were the RLDS (Missouri based) Church, though nowadays they have "repented" of their century-plus denial. While many Mormons & even some of the LDS leadership show signs of being ashamed of their polygamous history in ways that fairly invite criticism from insiders & outsiders alike, they have never been in denial of JS's polygamy. The general secrecy of polygamy was limited to the Nauvoo period & for several years after (for all except Joseph, the 12 apostles, & their wives & select others), & it became openly acknowledged in 1853, I believe -- & soon after strongly admonished & even commanded of the general church membership (though no more than a third of the eligible male members seemed to have followed it even in its most popular era). Most men in those early western settlements never had the means to afford or reasonably attract more than one wife. Their lives for the most part were very hard & simple. But for those who could establish polygamous households, they proved incredibly self-efficient for the isolated life on the very difficult & infertile frontier. Even many non-LDS historians acknowledge that polygamy played an important role in the Mormon's seemingly impossible task of pioneering the valleys of the Rockies. For many of us believing Mormons, we see the command to practice polygamy as we do all the prophetic commands of the Bible -- it provided a way of blessing to the faithful. Sincerely, mutu.

Mormon Coffee : The House that John Built

Mon, 4 Oct 2010 05:39:48 +0000

f melo: Actually your exegesis is the poor one, if you can call that exegesis at all. Let´s read the verse again(i´ve actually read the entire chapter): Lev 18:18 "And you shall not take a woman as a rival wife to her sister, uncovering her nakedness while her sister is still alive." Actually, melo, what is "poor" here is your ESV translation, which would have us believe that the verb tsarar (to vex, distress, oppress) should be understood as a adjectival element within a prepositional phrase ("as a rival wife"). Not only is tsarar not an adjective here, there is absolutely no justification for "as" or this second occurrence of "wife"/woman. These last two words are provided as filler to make the mis-translated adjective work in the sentence. Like all Bibles that tend to stray from a literal translation of the Hebrew text, the ESV sacrifices textual integrity for what it believes to be literary clarity. In reality, the "clear" reading it's provided amounts to an interpolation which promotes a reading that's not likely what the author had in mind. If the Hebrew text is in some degree ambiguous, then the most honest rendering of the text is to preserve its ambiguity through a literal (word-for-word) translation into English. As I explained, the Leviticus text doesn't forbid a man from taking his wife's sister, but specifically forbids him from taking "his wife's sister to vex [her]." While there is indeed some ambiguity in the text, unlike the ESV, the Strong's enhanced KJV text (which I'm quoting) acknowledges that ambiguity by bracketing the possessive "her." Say what you will about my intentions, melo, but Strong's text & lexicon favors the reading that I provided, as do a good many non-Mormon commentators. The likely issue in Lev 18:18 wasn't regarding the rightness or wrongness of a man marrying his wife's sister, but in marrying his wife's sister against her wishes. As for your parting shot, melo: "The real hypocrisy here is that you take the Bible as true when it serves your agenda - but as soon as it contradicts it, well, the Bible is no longer reliable and it has been translated so many times, how could anyone know what it really says..." What I see here is a group of people rallying around a poor biblical translation that endorses a reading that conveniently "serves (their) agenda" - the clear agenda to denounce Mormons as unbiblical. "You take (a single) Bible (translation) as true when it serves your agenda - but as soon as (someone provides sound biblical reasoning that) contradicts it, well," it's just convenient to fall back on your single translation as if it came straight from the Lord's finger on Sinai. Sorry to inform you, melo, but the ESV is an easy-reading edition that is not literalistic in its translation scheme, & is not widely respected as a critical rendering of the text. If you really respected the word of God as you claim, you would not so easily denounce my arguments. They're arguments that have the Hebrew text in mind, & the ancient Hebrew culture as well. Regardless of Mormon history, Israelite history was far more entrenched in polygamy than most modern Christians are willing to admit. In fact, several of the Reformers (including Luther) weren't against criticizing how thoroughly monogamy had become entrenched in Christian ethics over the centuries. There's no good biblical reason for it. It's a reflection of Classical ethics, plain & simple -- not biblical. Sincerely, mutu.

Mormon Coffee : The House that John Built

Mon, 4 Oct 2010 03:57:03 +0000

To further clarify on my exegesis, the issue of Lev 18:18 wasn't the depravity or uncleaness of a man marrying & bearing children to blood sisters. This was not considered an incestuous affair, as many assume. The Law almost always classifies such infractions as a "depravity"/"abomination." The text doesn't classify wife-sister polygamy as such. Rather, the issue seems to have concerned the wishes of the wife (& thus, applied only "for as long as she lived"). While the Law of Moses did not give her jurisdiction over her husband's marital affairs, she was granted a say over the household of her own rearing (but, as I said, her "say" did not seem to amount to true jurisdiction, & she therefore seems to have had no legal power to stop her husband from marrying a sister against her wishes). Even still, the Law did at least respect & acknowledge her rightful say over her own native household -- & told the husband that he was to respect & acknowledge her right in that regard. There is no good reason to believe that sisters didn't often share the same husband in ancient Israel -- as is typical of most polygamous cultures. But who wants to share a husband with a woman who has proven to be your rival since childhood? As in modern times, siblings in antiquity were sometimes very dear friends, & sometimes, unfortunately, not friends at all. And this calls to question the accuracy of a good many translations of the Bible out there. On a trite matter, perhaps -- for us, anyways. But a legitimate question of literary accuracy all the same. As all translators are well aware, the Bible is chock-full of such literary challenges. Sincerely, mutu.

Mormon Coffee : The House that John Built

Mon, 4 Oct 2010 01:57:00 +0000

Interesting, we have here a group of Evangelicals who not only seem to be unashamedly acknowledging that God sanctioned (and not merely "tolerated") polygamy in the Law of Moses, but they have even gotten out their Bibles & are condemning the specifics of the ways in which Mormons practiced polygamy versus how the Law of Moses ordained for it to be practiced. But before we get overly condemnatory towards the Mormons & their biblical failings, I suggest you read the very next verse (19) & ask yourself when was the last time you failed to so much as touch your wife (never mind, sexually so) during her menstrual cycle? And having said that, I don't intend to end simply by throwing the Law of Moses "back atchas." (After all, Mormons & Protestants have more or less the same theological reasons for rejecting the Law as fully relevant in post-salvation history). No, my quibble isn't just with the hypocrisy, but with the exegesis as well. (Or the assumed exegesis, anyways.) We must be careful when we are dealing with the legalese of the Torah. You will first notice that unlike many of the laws in Leviticus 18, the one forbidding wife-sister polygamy (vs 18) is not classified as either "depraved" or "unclean." This is one indicator that we are not dealing with a statute, but with an admonition. In this spirit, some translations of this verse understand it to read that a man is forbidden to marry his wife's sister "to vex her." In other words, if he is to take a second wife (which was his legal right under the Law of Moses, of course), in the case of taking his wife's sibling, the wife is suppose to have had a say in the matter (otherwise, she apparently did not have a say in his desires to take additional women). Even still, the weakness of the language in vs 18 seems to suggest that ultimately the wife couldn't have legally stopped her husband for taking her sister, even if she didn't approve. But the husband was to know that the LORD did not approve of his actions if that is indeed what he chose to do. Truth be told, Mormon polygamy very typically involved sisters because they often were the ones most comfortable in sharing a man and household with one another. I have a hard time believing that such wasn't also the case in antiquity. I doubt Father Jacob was the last of his namesake tribe to betroth daughters of the same father. Just a thought for my fellow Bible-believers to consider. Sincerely, mutu.

Mormon Coffee : George P. Lee dies

Fri, 6 Aug 2010 12:45:55 +0000

I think you bring up a legit observation & criticism of LDS religion & practice, willy (&, in fairness, to other Christian traditions as well). I take the (increasingly popular) position that for Mormons to do the word of God justice as it's found in the Book of Mormon (or in other scripture), we must be willing to admit tht our precursors in the faith may have oftentimes read the text wrong -- sometimes even terribly wrong. Opposition to such change within the LDS Church typically runs along the lines of just what you've stated -- that the past prophets (whether JS, BY, JFieldingS, etc) read the text along traditional lines, so who are we to say tht they got it wrong (& all the church since has likewise had it wrong)! The problem w/ this line of thought is tht it makes these men into angels rather than prophets. But the claim has never been that JS (or BY, etc) was an angel. Rather, it's always been the position of the LDS Church that it was founded on specific revelations given to JS, not on every opinion tht JS held concerning the Bible, BoM, or what not--much of which is traceable to his own upbringing, not to revelation. Oftentimes JS & his successors participated in traditional understandings of doctrine rather than originating the doctrine--so to use them as a basis for clinging to traditional knowledge & readings is quite absurd. While I think it's certainly in a believing Mormon's interest to respectfully & sensitively study what JS, BY, or any other GA had to say about this scripture or that doctrine, to presume that their every opinion on a variety of matters represented God's mind is simply unwise. Furthermore, it cheapens the reality that God did at very specific points speak (& continues to speak) through such men. Really, the whole notion of invoking the authority of "the prophets" or "the brethren" as a way of closing the scriptures to critical & personal investigation & inquiry is simply an act of conservatism that strikes against what the scriptures demand of us: that is, a broken heart, a contrite spirit, & invariably, an open mind as well. To let tradition scream too loudly in our ears is to deny the Spirit of the Lord a chance to enlighten us. This goes for Mormons, just as it goes for all Christians, of whatever persuasion. mutu.

Mormon Coffee : George P. Lee dies

Thu, 5 Aug 2010 13:18:37 +0000

(continued) But I hope you’re not suggesting that the Hebrews couldn’t mix with the Canaanites because they were innately “too good” for them. How is this any different from the superiority complex you’ve been accusing Mormons of upholding with their so-called racism against Amerindians? You seem pretty casual & convenient in your dismissal of the Canaanites as irrelevant people, melo. As the Bible explains, their segregated/"unclean" status (& even despised status) was because of a “curse” upon Ham’s son, Canaan--the consequence of some act of impropriety by Ham against his righteous father, Noah. Other than the fact that the Nephites are far more respectful of the Lamanites than the Israelites were of the Canaanites, how is this whole scenario of ethnic segregation & favoritism in the BoM any different from the Israelite/Canaanite scenario of the Bible? Are not Laman & his followers likewise segregated from the Lord's people as a result of a historical sin that caused their lineage to abandon the Lord & follow a sinful lifestyle? Again, how is this any different from the Bible's treatment of the Canaanites & their ancestral curse? mutu.

Mormon Coffee : George P. Lee dies

Thu, 5 Aug 2010 13:17:57 +0000

(continued) melo again says: Israelites didn´t mix themselves with uncircumcised people, they considered them unclean. How on earth would they call or consider them brothers? If they did live the law of moses as the BoM points out, they shouldn´t have mixed themselves with the natives ever. melo, you’ve just summarized the logic of why the Nephites didn’t mix with the Lamanites--& why the Lord established the “curse” to discourage them from doing so. However, you’ve also pointed out a justifiable reason why the Nephites didn’t treat the Lamanites like the Israelites treated the Canaanites & Philistines. In the Bible the Canaanites & Philistines are treated wholly as “other”—or, as you said (in good Hebrew terminology) “unclean.” On the other hand, the Israelites were not quite so exclusionary in their treatment of ancestral kin—like the Aramaeans and Moabites. While the Israelites were often warned against inter-mixing with even these kinfolk, the restrictions weren’t nearly so severe as with the Canaanites & Philistines.

Mormon Coffee : George P. Lee dies

Thu, 5 Aug 2010 13:17:09 +0000

As long as I’m continuing to “amaze” somebody, I guess I’ll keep responding. melo says: “according to the BoM the Lamanites originated the indian race…” Actually, it’s according to your interpretation of the BoM that the “Lamanites originated the Indian race.” But worse, you haven’t once presented your literary argument for this belief; in fact, you haven’t even clearly stated what it is that you mean by the above statement. I’m left to assume you’re following the traditional reading that understands the curse of dark skin upon Laman’s group as some kind of miraculous, instantaneous creation of a new kind of racial stock. Unfortunately this is at best a very creative interpretation of the text, & as I explained in my last post, a reading that doesn’t at all fit with the text’s treatment of the Lamanite peoples. The BoM treats the Lamanites as socially depraved (in their wickedness), but it does NOT treat them as innately depraved as the traditional reading of 2 Nephi 5 invariably does.

Mormon Coffee : George P. Lee dies

Wed, 4 Aug 2010 16:03:56 +0000

Not joking you at all, melo. Since you're totally satisfied w/ the traditional Book of Mormon reading of the "cursing" of a "skin of blackness" to come upon Laman & his followers, I will yet again remind you that the BoM nowhere explains that this "curse" was the result of a miraculous event, nor that it represented the origin of the Amerindian "race." Those readings are imposed upon the text every bit as much as my (& others') understanding that the Lamanite curse resulted from inter-mixing with dark-skinned natives. I think we can both agree that the depraved lifestyle of Laman & his followers (the idleness, nudity, & hunting beasts of prey) is explained by the text as the result (not the cause) of their cursing. I think we can also both agree (contrary to some Mormon apologetic claims) that the "cursing" itself was the "skin of blackness" which is said to come upon Laman's group. In the traditional reading (the obvious reading in your estimation -- the mocking delivery wasn't needed to make that point), you are inclined to take this literary position: * that text is saying that such depraved & primitive tendencies are inherent to the Amerindian "race." The problem with this verdict is that it doesn't at all jive with the text's treatment of the Lamanites. Time & again the BoM emphasizes that when Lamanite persons embraced the Lord's commandments, they were every bit as capable of faithfulness & righteousness as the Nephites (& several times, as a people, exceeded the Nephites in this regard). Furthermore, it fails to adequately explain why in classical BoM times even the wicked Lamanites dwelt in "cities," fought with "swords" & "armor," & lived a relatively "civilized" lifestyle. They are definitely not portrayed as the primitive tribal folk dealt with originally by Nephi. In other words, the BoM clearly does not describe the depraved qualities described by Nephi of the Lamanite "cursing" as innate qualities of the Lamanite peoples. But the alternative reading that you laugh at very adequately jives with the BoM's actual & sustained treatment of the Lamanite people. It explains that Nephi wasn't characterizing a racial stock, but was instead describing the physical & social conditions of the very specific, tribal people that he personally observed. Furthermore, it explains that the deprived lifestyles adopted by Nephi's unfaithful relatives were a result of their racial "cursing" because that cursing was itself a metaphoric description of their inter-mixing with a separate people, & the consequent adoption of that people's deprived lifestyle. If you want to believe that Laman & Lemuel suddenly turned black & then went kooky as a consequence, then you're certainly entitled to that reading. But don't pretend that it jives with the rest of the BoM's treatment of people and human transformation. It simply doesn't jive with another single example from the text, never mind the majority of it. Regardless of whether or not it jives with the common Mormon interpretation of the text before 1950, it still represents a very poor & problematic reading of the text. The Mormon people have in large measure repented of their ignorance & presumptuousness, but you refuse, melo. Not because you're intellectually incapable of giving the Book of Mormon text a more thorough evaluation, but because you've concluded that it deserves no such consideration. It's just much easier to sit back & disparage those Mormons who are obviously trying to turn lead to gold in their twisted re-readings of the BoM. Unfortunately, by laughing off my arguments, you have only admitted that you are either unwilling or incapable of matching my understanding of the BoM text. In which case you have indirectly admitted that you are not as qualified as I to dictate what the BoM text is or is not. And contrary to your earlier claim, melo, the traditional reading regarding the Lamanite curse is NOT endorsed (officially or otherwise) by the current leadership of the LDS church. That's simply an out-n-out lie or a severe misunderstanding on your part. mutu.

Mormon Coffee : George P. Lee dies

Tue, 3 Aug 2010 21:10:07 +0000

So what you've established here, melo, is that the Book of Mormon (Nephi) teaches that other "nations" from the Old World were not led to the promised land of the New World--allowing the Nephites the freedom to inherit unclaimed lands for their posterity. This isn't necessarily suggesting that other people weren't already there; rather, it's saying that whatever people were there did not represent the political power & threat that existent in the Old World--that is, the "nations" that didn't allow for the Nephites to freely inherit a blessed land in the general vicinity of their Jerusalem homeland. (Since Nephi was forced to flee w/ his family into the arid Arabian wilderness, he was well aware that all the good stuff in the Middle East was already claimed by other "nations.") What the BoM later teaches us, however, is that Nephi actually spoke in ignorance. The Lord had indeed led another people from the Old World (the Jaredites) who had become a "nation" that might've threatened the inheritance of his children if not for their own wickedness & consequent demise. While your point is noted that the BoM doesn't explicitly identify any known peoples not descended from Old World stock, what you don't allow for is that the text might fairly represent a simplified history that is typical of all ancient lore. The biblical Israelites, for instance, identify themselves originally as Aramaean foreigners in a land of Canaanites, but scholars will tell you that's a simplification. Religiously & linguistically speaking, the "Hebrew" Israelites of the classical biblical era were Canaanite rather than Aramaic. Are we illogical to assume that the Nephites in their simplified history couldn't have identified native "others" in the Promised Land--not simply as utter foreigners, as do the biblical Israelites--but rather, as foreigners identified through their disobedient ancestors who had joined them? When one sets about to create a neat & simplified national or tribal history, there are always multiple literary ways to go about doing it. For instance, in the history of America's Puritan founding we've retained some superficial recollection of the various native tribes involved in the Plymouth & Boston settlements (Wampanog vs Narragansett vs Massachusetts, etc.), but in our traditional history-telling it's simplified to a story about our Christian forefathers vs the depraved, pagan natives (that is, the "Pilgrims" vs the "Indians" -- or some romanticized spin or deconstruction of that). Should we be so shocked that the Nephites in their simplified history preferred to recognize the native "others" as brothers rather than foreigners? Brothers who they owed something to by way of basic love & respect? If our own Puritan forefathers & the biblical Israelites could've done the same for the natives in the countries which they settled, how much better might history have turned out for those native populations? As for there being no proof of native "others" in the BoM, I encourage you to read Alma 50: 25-33 concerning the "Land Northward," & explain to me who the "they" are in vs 32 who are to unite with Morianton & his people? If they aren't Nephites, they aren't Lamanites, & they clearly aren't Morianton's own people, then who are they? It's hazy subtleties like this that convince readers like myself that a real, complex history exists behind the simplified history presented by the Book of Mormon text. As is the case with all literary histories, ancient & modern. The Bible is certainly no exception. Lastly, for your observation, melo, that the BoM describes the Nephites as "cover[ing] the face of the whole earth." In doing so you've simply underscored the limited cosmographical context which the BoM describes (as does the Bible). Obviously, in the verse here "whole earth" isn't intended to mean that the Nephites went back across the ocean to cover the face of the Old World as well. "Earth" in this context, then, means something decidedly less than the entire planet. But if not the whole planet, how much less was actually intended? Traditional readings of the BoM text took this designation of "whole earth" to refer to the whole Western Hemisphere, but if the BoM is to be accepted as a history more or less parallel to the Hebrew Bible, then a much smaller region of "earth" was surely intended. After all, the ancient Hebrew conception of the "whole earth" was a region significantly smaller than the Western Hemisphere. The Hebrews didn't know of the Hindu Indians & northern Europeans till Hellenistic times, & then mainly as far-off people of legend only. And the Chinese & Native Americans were still far removed from their known "earth" even by that late date. As many literary critics have pointed out, the travel times described between lands in the BoM clearly suggest a region of "earth" much, much smaller than the entire hemisphere. mutu.

Mormon Coffee : George P. Lee dies

Tue, 3 Aug 2010 19:32:29 +0000

You could make the same argument, melo, for the Hebrew Bible & the self-righteousness of Israelites/Jews towards those of the uncircumcision. Whether or not such self-favoritism represented racism is rather insignificant. People are people, & I hope you're honest enough to admit that ethnic favoritism is ethnic favoritism, whether or not racism is involved. Does the Hebrew Bible promote self-righteousness because it designates such a superficial marker as circumcision as one of its basic standards for marriage & acceptance into the covenant people? If you don't think the Bible promotes ethnic purity then I think you need to break out the reading lamp & give the good book a major revisit. Of course, as we're all aware, the whole issue of Jewish ethnic purity & self-righteousness becomes a major issue & controversy in the New Testament. Are we to be unduly dismissive of the Nephites because they seem to have done a better job than the Jews at understanding that God's call for ethnic purity was not a call to despise other people? But rather, a call intended to keep their children from mixing with the wicked traditions of others who did not know the Lord, nor the righteousness of His words & laws? For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him (the Lord), that they (Laman & his followers) had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them. And thus saith the Lord God: I will cause that they shall be loathsome unto thy people, save they shall repent of their iniquities. And cursed shall be the seed of him that mixeth with their seed; for they shall be cursed even with the same cursing. And the Lord spake it, and it was done. And because of their cursing which was upon them they did become an idle people, full of mischief and subtlety, and did seek in the wilderness for beasts of prey. And the Lord God said unto me: They shall be a scourge unto thy seed, to stir them up in remembrance of me; and inasmuch as they will not remember me, and hearken unto my words, they shall scourge them even unto destruction. (2 Nephi 5: 21-25) If the Israelites in the land of the Canaanites & Philistines could've distinguished themselves along the neat racial line of the Nephites in the New World realm of the "Lamanites," then perhaps we would hear less in the Bible of circumcision & the ethnic segregation it was designed to encourage. The fact that the above Lamanite curse resulted in such deprived behavior as becoming "an idle people, full of mischief and subtlety...seek[ing] in the wilderness for beasts of prey" certainly suggests to many Mormon readers like myself that the Lamanites' "skin of blackness" was an indication that they had intermarried with native peoples of a different racial type who espoused those depraved lifestyles. That is, depraved in the eyes of the children of Lehi who the Lord had taught better, though quite innocent & natural to those who were born into such traditions. The Book of Mormon is typically much better than the Hebrew Bible in acknowledging sinfulness as the result of unfaithfulness & disobedience rather than ignorance & tradition. For this reason the Lamanites are typically treated in the Book of Mormon much more favorably & honorably then the Bible treats the Canaanites & Philistines. But if you doubt that the Book of Mormon recognized its Nephite/Lamanite racial divide along the lines of a superficial ethnic marker like circumcision, then I think you need to read Alma 3: 4-19, either for the 1st time, or again. The Book of Mormon clearly DOES NOT teach racial superiority. mutu.