• Announcements

    • Nemesis

      Contact Us Broken   09/27/2016

      Users, It has come to our attention that the contact us feature on the site is broken.  Please do not use this feature to contact board admins.  Please go through normal channels.  If you are ignored there then assume your request was denied. Also if you try to email us that email address is pretty much ignored.  Also don't contact us to complain, ask for favors, donations, or any other thing that you may think would annoy us.  Nemesis

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'Moses'.

More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • Welcome & Come On In!
    • General Discussions
    • In The News
    • Social Hall
  • MD&D Archives
    • The Library

Found 3 results

  1. Ordinarily I enjoy presentations by FairLDS, but recently I've been trying to make sense of Darwinian evolution and found this address by Stephen Peck. Entitled Why Evolution and LDS Thought are Fully Compatible, I thought there might be some relation between the title and the content. But if there is, I'm afraid I'm missing it. I'd hoped it might help me in some discussions with some atheists, also my understanding of the topic. On the one hand we LDS have a pronounced view of Adam, the Prince, the Ancient of Days, Michael the Archangel, Eve's Main Squeeze. The first man, who brought sin into the world and head of the first dispensation. On the other, we have man existing supposedly for millions of years. Neanderthals, Lucy and the Taung Child. Completely indisputable, you can't argue with science! Only I didn't find anything useful in his address. Is evolution a cold, hard fact? If so, where does Adam come in? How old is the oldest writing extant? How do we know man has been here for millions of years? And how do we know Lucy and the Taung Child are related to man and not just some unrelated creatures? Can anyone help me out?
  2. After the Lehites boarded the new ship and began their transoceanic journey, this happens: So why was this such an awful thing. Isn't a celebration in order when one has gotten onto a boat nobody thought could be built and is well on his way to his destination? My wife and I were talking after reading in Isaiah last night, looking at the parallels between Cyrus and Moses, and it occurred to us that the parallels between Nephi and Moses are also pretty striking. Moses and the people see the Egyptians [Ex 14:10]. The people cry out and complain to Moses [Ex 14:10-12]. Moses tells them to keep silent and stop complaining and watch how G-d solves their little problem of impending annihilation [Ex 14: 13-14]. G-d then speaks to Moses, giving him instructions on how he is to divide the Red Sea and coax the people across [Ex 14:15-18]. The people cross the Red Sea on dry ground [Ex 14:22]. Their enemies are drowned in the deep [Ex 14: 26-28]. The people believe in G-d and His prophet [Ex 14: 31]. Whereupon the people are led in rejoicing, dancing, spiking the ball, taunting the Egyptians, and engaging in some pretty rude behavior overall [Ex 15: 1-22]. Nephi led his people across the ocean, and the people complained pretty bitterly at his reminder to them of their need to avoid offending G-d, especially in the middle of the crossing of the water, going so far as to tie the prophet up [1 Nephi 18: 10-11]. Thereupon the Liahona ceased working and they could no longer direct their journey across the ocean [1 Nephi 18: 12-13], and the winds turned contrary, and the sea became so rough they feared they would sink [1 Nephi 18: 13-15]. But Nephi spent all this time praying [1 Nephi 18: 16], and both Lehi and Ishmael and the other Lehite brothers tried to work some magic with Laman and Lemuel and the Ishmaelite boys to convince them to respect the prophet and let him go [1 Nephi 18: 17-19]. Only the near-foundering of the ship could work to bring the elder Lehite and Ishmaelite brothers around, and they let Nephi go, he prayed to G-d at their insistence, and G-d calmed the seas, tamed the winds, and the people could then resume their journey [1 Nephi 18: 20-22]. So, both Moses and Nephi saw danger for the people; the people completely misread the situation; they complain to the prophet and don't think to ask G-d for direction in their danger; the Prophet prays on behalf of the people; and the people are spared and permitted to continue on their journey to the new land. The reason, we came to think, that Nephi feared for the little troup is that they were behaving just as the Israelites did at "Pi-hahiroth, between Migdol and the sea, over against Baal-zephon." That behavior nearly cost them their nationhood and their lives. But for the intervention of the prophet in exercizing authority over the waters at G-d's direction, they would be lost, and very nearly were. Of course, the lessons of this authority to tame and manipulate the powers of destruction took with neither the elder Lehite brothers nor the Israelites: The Israelites complained again and challenged Moses at Marah [Ex 15: 22-26] and the boys again threatened Nephi right after the crossing, after Lehi's final words and death [2 Nephi 4: 13-14]. So . . . it is not so much the celebration as its timing that seems to be the problem. The elder Lehites and Ishmaelites spiked the ball before crossing the goal line, which might have lost them the game, but for the prophet's and G-d's intervention. The time for celebration is after you have made it through the trial by water and reached the other side, and your enemies are already vanquished. Moses and Miriam were able to keep the people in line, as the fear of Pharaoh was still a great motivator. The elder Lehites and the Ishmaelites had no such fear, though they should have, as their lives were very much in jeopardy throughout the voyage. Thoughts?
  3. Ingenuous: without guile, frank, straight forward, innocent, trusting, open, ... Real. Was Joseph Smith ingenuous? I want to believe that he was, at least at first, less so as he got into the role of "prophet". When he doubted the depth of that role, as it applied to himself, he was less prone to mistakes of going too far. But later, when he was more accustomed to receiving "revelation" on everything as it suited the occasion, he got into errors - that is, if you accept the contradictory evidence, which is deadlocked upon the "petard" of conflicting, viable, primary sources (e.g. William Marks' quote of JS in the 1853 newspaper article: "We are a ruined people", etc.) Was Joseph Smith ingenuous to the end or did he fall into becoming disingenuous?...