Are cureloms imaginary?

[bcuzbcuz]

On 2017-07-14 at 11:42 PM, hagoth7 said:

Cure-lom

llam-a? 

Hmm. The Emperor's New Groove in this thread?

And the Emperor's New Clothes in the Garments thread?

So rulers and priests and professors who opt to teach that  curelom are imaginary get a newly tailored set of clothes delivered to their door, pretending to be made of curelom wool and snipe feathers, and an invitation to a curelom feast to see who shows up appropriately attired? A fun day already. :0)  (Seriously, I have no interest in embarassing people who choose not to believe.) Repenting to tell the whole truth: Well, a wee bit of interest. Gonna blame it on the elvish in me. 

If I may riff a bit on your fun suggestion.

 

Cum-om? Cam-elids, and Elephants?

If so, the alpaca, another  cam-elid, and cam-el is of Semitic origin. In Semitic, would the plural of camel be generally be camum or camelum?

Any suggestions from the likes of Robert, etc. what Jaredite languages (fx. Akkadian) their word(s) might have been for camel before leaving the Old World? (Or has that already been offered by someone here much earlier in the thread?)

And the etymology for camel also says that in Olde English the camel was "olfend" which moderns assume to be confusion for elephant. Hmm. Elephants and camelids in OE, in the same breath...

That does it. Joseph was a hack....or had an OE dictionary stashed under his quilt.   :::fleeing the building and converting to the local YMCA:::  

 

Interesting thought. But if cureloms are actually alpacas, llamas or vicunas (and yes they are different from each other) wouldn't the translation have stated those names, even if JS didn't know the differences?

[RevTestament]

24 minutes ago, bcuzbcuz said:

Interesting thought. But if cureloms are actually alpacas, llamas or vicunas (and yes they are different from each other) wouldn't the translation have stated those names, even if JS didn't know the differences?

Interesting. You seem to be assuming then that a modern translation was not made because the animal went extinct, so that perhaps no name was even assigned yet?? That seems tentative, but not necessarily conclusive. Nevertheless, it does seem like a viable option which may point to mammoths and gomphotheres.

[hagoth7]

John the Baptist wore a camel-hair shirt.

Alpacas, vicunas, guanaca, and llamas are cameloids. One of them appears today in Peru's "coat" of arms.

And the First People's handiwork from that hair/wool in making tunics is something tourists still seek to bring home.

Why a camel-hair shirt? Why do the Gospels even mention it? Where did it come from? What did it mean to him? Simply an itchy shirt generated locally? Or..

Or did it testify to John of another soon-to-be testament of Christ, an heir-loom mantle handed down to his parents? From an earlier visit by a wise retinue? Someone literally giving the shirt off their back to John's parents, until he was old enough to don it? If so, whose mantle might it have been? Samuel? Nephi? Lehi? Acco?

A footprint/palmprint left behind by a handpicked retinue of Wise Men, Women, and child(ren), representing Nephite, Lamanite(Samuel), Elven, and likely 10-tribe heritage?

Edited July 20, 2017 by hagoth7

[bcuzbcuz]

5 hours ago, hagoth7 said:

John the Baptist wore a camel-hair shirt.

Alpacas, vicunas, guanaca, and llamas are cameloids. One of them appears today in Peru's "coat" of arms.

And the First People's handiwork from that hair/wool in making tunics is something tourists still seek to bring home.

Why a camel-hair shirt? Why do the Gospels even mention it? Where did it come from? What did it mean to him? Simply an itchy shirt generated locally? Or..

Or did it testify to John of another soon-to-be testament of Christ, an heir-loom mantle handed down to his parents? From an earlier visit by a wise retinue? Someone literally giving the shirt off their back to John's parents, until he was old enough to don it? If so, whose mantle might it have been? Samuel? Nephi? Lehi? Acco?

A footprint/palmprint left behind by a handpicked retinue of Wise Men, Women, and child(ren), representing Nephite, Lamanite(Samuel), Elven, and likely 10-tribe heritage?

camel hair is coarse and probably itchy (I've tried one on but didn't like it) It was probably a sign of a poor person. Much like llama wool, it is decidedly  coarser than alpaca or vicuna wool. llama wool was also considered wool for the poor. 

 

And you're right. I forgot the guanaca.

Edited July 20, 2017 by bcuzbcuz

[hagoth7]

55 minutes ago, bcuzbcuz said:

camel hair is coarse and probably itchy (I've tried one on but didn't like it) It was probably a sign of a poor person. ...

Some tourists to Peru don't consider cameloid clothing a sign of poverty. At all.

Neither do Peruvians, as far as I know.

Yet it's standard spin on the NT that it's worn as a badge of poverty *and* discomfort. Why people prefer to belive that, I'm not sure. Perhaps haven't been offered choice or reason to consider otherwise. People are free to believe that prophets prefer to be uncomfortable and distractedly itchy, if they wish. But no latter-day prophet, apostle, or 70 has made such a choice...that I know of. Are you suggesting that they (and we) have overlooked something important?  (Not sure how useful such a belief in discomfort is, other than wealthier people trying to keep poorer people resigned to their supposed lot, hoping that such dare not realize that if they lift their heads and simplly believe and partner with a person or three, that they could eventually launch products and servces that run circles around the competition.) Some people prefer unjust barriers to entry like that. 

I'm suggesting instead that the Wise retinue that found the Christ child also brought to his cousin, John, a tunic...as a gift.  And that it wasn't as a badge of poverty or discomfort, but was more likely handing a prophetic baton/mantle over to John's parents, for John to have/use when he had come into his own. Last I checked, rather than gifts of poverty and discomfort, that retinue instead brought gifts like Gold, Frankicense, and Myrrh. But hey, what do I know.

Shrugging and saddling up the curelom.

Edited July 20, 2017 by hagoth7

[mfbukowski]

8 hours ago, hagoth7 said:

John the Baptist wore a camel-hair shirt.

Alpacas, vicunas, guanaca, and llamas are cameloids. One of them appears today in Peru's "coat" of arms.

And the First People's handiwork from that hair/wool in making tunics is something tourists still seek to bring home.

Why a camel-hair shirt? Why do the Gospels even mention it? Where did it come from? What did it mean to him? Simply an itchy shirt generated locally? Or..

Or did it testify to John of another soon-to-be testament of Christ, an heir-loom mantle handed down to his parents? From an earlier visit by a wise retinue? Someone literally giving the shirt off their back to John's parents, until he was old enough to don it? If so, whose mantle might it have been? Samuel? Nephi? Lehi? Acco?

A footprint/palmprint left behind by a handpicked retinue of Wise Men, Women, and child(ren), representing Nephite, Lamanite(Samuel), Elven, and likely 10-tribe heritage?

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07113b.htm

[hagoth7]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07113b.htm

K. You're showing examples of medieval tradition.

Cue Fiddler on the Roof.   Or a roast with the ends cut off before cooking.

 

And assertions that the medieval Roman/Latin tradition of being uncomfrotable *must* somehow be an accurate rendering/continuation of a similarly-named ancient tradition? Not buying it. Any more than I buy the idea of the medieval need to harm oneself with a whip being necessary. Any mor than I would believe that by having a practice *called* baptism, that it is smilar in form or purpose than an earlier, simlarly-named ritual.

Who would benefit from John being uncomfortable and distracted by itching? John? Others? If no one benefits, what's the point? The day that the only garments available at the distribution center are the ones made of itchy camel hair, I might acknwledge you have the beginning of a point.

If you prefer to believe that John preferred to go around itching, and that Jesus of Nazareth was AOK with that, so be it, and that the shirt otherwise had zero meaning...so be it.

I instead believe he got his divine priesthood authority to baptize from a certain Wise retinue. And that his cameloid clothing was from their land, a literal passing of a physicle mantle, akin to the transfer from Elijah to Elisha.

If you don't find that helpful or workable for you, fine.

Edited July 21, 2017 by hagoth7

[deli_llama]

1 hour ago, hagoth7 said:

Who would benefit from John being uncomfortable and distracted by itching? John?

The hair shirt is more akin to fasting and other mortifications than it is to flagellation as suggested by your whipping comment.  Read another way it could be: Who would benefit from John suffering the pains of fasting and being distracted by the pressing need of hunger? John? The same could be rephased concerning the Lord and his fast. 

This isn't a dismissal of your other theories (mantles and all) around this, believe as you will. In a effort to make the stories fit your narrative though, you are kinda dismissing the understanding of the hair shirt within the local culture and the importance of his (John's) personal path of sanctification.  John was pretty ascetic and a bit of a wild man.

I would also think you would want to connect that practice with something more firm than modern day llama wool shirts.  Did the indegenous people of say Peru from the same time period as John have wild ascethic holy men that wore woolen shirts used as religious garments?  Even if they did, the cultural understandings of both the camel hair shirt and the llama hair shirt would likely be different. Oh sure, there might be some similarities, but the difference in understandings would mitigate that. Sometimes you really remind me of Eliade. grin. 

 

Edited July 21, 2017 by deli_llama

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, hagoth7 said:

K. You're showing examples of medieval tradition.

Cue Fiddler on the Roof.   Or a roast with the ends cut off before cooking.

 

And assertions that the medieval Roman/Latin tradition of being uncomfrotable *must* somehow be an accurate rendering/continuation of a similarly-named ancient tradition? Not buying it. Any more than I buy the idea of the medieval need to harm oneself with a whip being necessary. Any mor than I would believe that by having a practice *called* baptism, that it is smilar in form or purpose than an earlier, simlarly-named ritual.

Who would benefit from John being uncomfortable and distracted by itching? John? Others? If no one benefits, what's the point? The day that the only garments available at the distribution center are the ones made of itchy camel hair, I might acknwledge you have the beginning of a point.

If you prefer to believe that John preferred to go around itching, and that Jesus of Nazareth was AOK with that, so be it, and that the shirt otherwise had zero meaning...so be it.

I instead believe he got his divine priesthood authority to baptize from a certain Wise retinue. And that his cameloid clothing was from their land, a literal passing of a physicle mantle, akin to the transfer from Elijah to Elisha.

If you don't find that helpful or workable for you, fine.

My my.

A little tightly wound tonight I see.  I just thought it was interesting.

[clarkgoble]

On 7/19/2017 at 2:47 PM, Honorentheos said:

Faith is the act of planting the seed. "It's not desire to believe as faith but desire to believe as a ground to conduct the test" could be rendered, "It's not the desire to believe as planting the seed but desire to believe as grounds to plant the seed."

Faith can't only be planting the seed or else the rest doesn't make sense. Exercising faith is planting the seed. The seed growing strengthens faith (30) but of course that stronger faith doesn't lead to planting the same seed again. Again faith isn't the volitional act.

The whole idea is faith is not to have perfect knowledge. So the "not seen" is the grown plant. The faith is the belief due to evidence with the strength of faith due to how much evidence you have that the thing is what it purports to be. I plant the seed either because I want to know or because I believe it is a seed that will grow. As it grows the faith increases until we have complete evidence.

Again like I said, this fits pretty clearly in the Old Testament use of faith and truth. I referenced in the original post Hazony's The Philosophy of Hebrew Scripture.  This says nothing about Joseph Smith I should note since this is in the Old Testament and so his reading the Bible could lead him to pick it up. Plus as I said it's also older English use that's simply rarer in the late 20th century. 

The Hebrew use, unlike the later Hellenistic Christian use, is caught up with the word "ne'eman" usually translated as "faithful." That's the adjective form with the verb form being 'emet.' So the famous allegory of "I will fasten him as a tent-peg in sure (ne'eman) ground" (Is 22:23) gets at this. So the word in the Old Testament has a meaning of reliable, steadfast, or faithful. Signs are treated the same way. So a true sign is "to emet."

All of these then relate to the notion of seed, very relevant to Alma 32.  There's of course Jesus' famous parable in Mark but more interesting is Isaiah 17:11 where you have something that flourishes initially but comes to nothing. (Closer to what I think you want to discuss) This gets at the distinction, important to emet of appearance versus reliability. It is only in the end that we know what something is. The same idea is in Mark. Jeremiah has an image very close to Alma 32. "And I had planted you a noble vine, an entirely true seed (zera emet). (Is 22:23)

Note that all these (and many more in scripture) get at the idea of a seed going bad. Now that usage simply isn't present in Alma 32 which as I said is something we can criticize Alma for. But the part he does discuss is pretty much the same as standard OT usage. 

A really good parallel to Alma's use in Alma 32 is 1 Kings 10:1-2;6-7. "And when the queen of Sheva heard of the fame of Solomon … she came to Jerusalem with a very great train…. And she said to the king, “It was a true [emet] report I heard in my own land of your acts and your wisdom. But I believed not the words until I came and my eyes had seen it. And behold, the half of it was not told to me; your wisdom and prosperity exceed the fame of which I heard.” (Hazony's translation)

Deuteronomy 17:2-6 is an other one pretty similar. "If there be found among you, within any of your gates which the Lord your God has given you, a man or woman who has … gone and served other gods, and worshiped them, either the sun or the moon or any of the host of heaven … and it be told to you, and you have heard of it, and have investigated thoroughly, and behold it is the truth [emet] and the thing is certain, that this abomination has been done in Israel; then shall you bring forth that man or that woman…. On the testimony of two witnesses or three witnesses shall he be put to death."

Both take reports (words), and investigate them to find the truth. Linguistically for the Hebrew truth and faith are intrinsically related whereas they really aren't in the more Hellenistic way we think of beliefs in non-Hebrew traditions. Further due to the Hellenistic Christian tradition we assume faith and reason are opposed whereas for the Old Testament and Hebrew language reason strengthens faith which is bound up with truth. (To the point the words are closely related) So in the Old Testament faith in God isn't belief in the propositions about God but trusting God. (See for instance Gen 15:1-6; Ex 14:30-31) The word for faith in this sense of trust is he'emin which is just a variation of emit or truth. So faith just means to trust. (In all this I'm just following Hazony -- I'm not a Hebrew speaker myself)

So there's word play going on here (or if you prefer Joseph mimicking word play that goes on in the OT). You have truth (emet), faith (he'emin), and the base of reliable.

To quote from Hazony again:

Quote

As has been said, the truth of objects is in the Bible a kind of reliability, steadfastness, or faithfulness. To be able to rely on something, to be able to count on it – this seems to be the heart of the truth of the Bible. But this is rather vague. Let us see whether we cannot be more precise as to what is meant when we say that something can be “relied upon.”

Consider the tent-peg again. When one takes it in one’s hand before driving it into the ground, there is no way to know whether it can be relied upon or not. All one has is an expectation, or better yet, a hope of what this object will be able to do. One hopes that it will hold firm in the face of the stresses of the coming storm. Only after the fact, once the storm has passed, can one really say that the tent-peg was reliable, that it was true. The same can be said of Abraham’s servant setting out on the road to Mesopotamia. When he first sets foot upon this road, there is no way for him to know that the road is true. All he has is a hope as to what this road can do: He hopes that it will bear him safely through the wilderness, and that it will bring him to the successful completion of his mission. But it is only after these things have come to pass that he actually comes to know that the road was true. In the same way, we know the seed is true only after it has grown into the vine we had hoped it would become; that a man is true only after he has withstood the temptation to corrupt judgment; and so forth. In every case, we find that the truth or falsity of the object is something that cannot be determined when first one comes across it, but only once it has “stood the test of time.”35 To say of an object that it is reliable, or that it is true, then, is to say that the object in question has done what we had hoped it would do despite the hardships thrown up by changing circumstance.

But this is not quite right. For what does the tent-peg really do? To speak of what the tent-peg does is an anthropomorphism, a metaphor. In fact, a tent-peg is completely inert. It doesn’t do anything. It just is what it is – whether at the height of the storm, or when one holds it in one’s hand. What we really expect of the tent-peg, our highest hope for it, is not that it will do anything, but that it will be something. One is tempted to say that what we hope it will simply remain what it is – a whole tent-peg, unbroken – in the face of great stress. But this isn’t right either. We actually have no interest in the tent-peg remaining what it is, for what it is may be a peg that will break under pressure because it contains an invisible crack in it, which is presently obscured from our view. What we really hope for when we drive this peg into the ground is something normative: We want it to be what a tent-peg ought to be (in our estimation) in the face of the stresses and strains of the storm.

And the same can be said for all other objects. Jeremiah does not present God as hoping the seed will remain what it is in the face of time and circumstance. He hopes that it will be what he thinks a seed ought to be, which is to say, something that grows into a desirable vine and not into a noxious weed. Similarly, Abraham’s servant hopes that the road will be what he thinks a road ought to be, which is to say, one that will bear him safely through the wilderness, and that will bring him to the successful completion of his mission. And Yitro hopes Moses can appoint as judges over Israel men who will be what he thinks a man ought to be, namely, someone capable of withstanding the temptation to corrupt judgment. In these and all other cases, an object is found to be reliable when it proves, through changing time and circumstance, to be what we think it ought to be.

I have said that in the Hebrew Bible, that which is true is that which proves, in the face of time and circumstance, to be what it ought; whereas that which is false is that which fails, in the face of time and circumstance, to be what it ought. Is this biblical conception of truth one that can be applied across the board to objects of the understanding in general, including those that are not explicitly called true in the biblical text? I think we can. Suppose, for example, that I see what I take to be a bird in a tree. What would it mean to apply the biblical understanding of truth to this bird? First, we would have to say that whether this bird is true or false cannot be known when first we come across it, just as one cannot know whether a road, a tent-peg, or a seed is true or false when first we come across it. Second, we would know whether the bird was true or false only if it proves to be what we think a bird ought to be through time and circumstance. By this I mean that, for instance, if I walk up to it and push on it, only to find that it falls to the ground and shatters, I can then say that it was a false bird because under pressure from my hand, it failed to be what a bird ought to be. Whereas if I walk up to it, and in doing so, cause it to start and fly away, I can say that it was a true bird, because under pressure of my approach, it nevertheless proved to be what a bird ought to be.

 

Notice how similar Hazony's language is to Alma's.

Edited July 21, 2017 by clarkgoble

[hagoth7]

2 hours ago, deli_llama said:

The hair shirt is more akin to fasting...Who would benefit from John suffering the pains of fasting and being distracted by the pressing need of hunger? John? 

I don't find fasting painful or distracting. On the contrary.

This isn't a dismissal of your other theories (mantles and all) around this, believe as you will. In a effort to make the stories fit your narrative though, you are kinda dismissing the understanding of the hair shirt within the local culture and the importance of his (John's) personal path of sanctification.  John was pretty ascetic and a bit of a wild man. 

My read of the local culture, from a source more important to me than learned assumption, says John was the greatest prophet who had lived. 

As scripture doesn't say *what* the significance of the camel-hair shirt was, I'll gladly grant you your belief on that, and will keep mine. 

In theory, could both be true? Yep. But although grateful for the interp offered, I'll politely decline it.

I would also think you would want to connect that practice with something more firm than modern day llama wool shirts.  Did the indegenous people of say Peru ... 

I didn't need/want more connections. 

The modern shirts thing simply offered for your benefit. If it doesn't suit you, I'll gladly return it to Amazon.

That the curelom were especially useful for man, more than some of the other beasts of burden mentioned, left an odd-shaped empty space in that corner of the puzzle. But when MaidServant kindly suggested cure-lom, I took it for a test spin.

1) An animal that had once lived far beyond just Peru. 

2) Can carry/pull, things/people,[without fear of them being trampled by a larger animal (elephant)]

3) Coul be used for cumon-spiced steak in times of famine

4) Was a source of clothing.  

5) And wasn't just a one-time source of clothing ,where you'd have kill the poor thing, but a renewable source of clothing. Very few work animals offer that.  

Highly useful.

In an instant after studying that out,  it resonated for me. A reliable brick from the kiln. DIdn't need to waste time examining all six sides of it under a microscope. Overkill. 

If that doesn't work for some, that neither surprises nor concerns me. In the non-essentials, liberty.

If this was just about animals, iI wouldn't even bother replyng. But it's not.

...Even if they did, the cultural understandings of both the camel hair shirt...

John didn't say what significance the shirt had for him. If what I offered didn't suit you, fine. In the non-essentials...

...Sometimes you really remind me of Eliade. grin. 

Hadn't heard of him before your mention. I can see a few parallels, and assume it was meant as a compliment. If so, thank you.

Dunno where his anti-semiticism came from. Kinda sad.  Would have preferred to actually discuss that with him...and see what might drive someone to feel that way.

[hagoth7]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

My my.

A little tightly wound tonight I see.  I just thought it was interesting.

I'm at peace. Not sure what you're talking about.

Added:

I've gone back trying to figure out what you saw that I hadn't intended.

I'm guesing you assume that when I say "so be it", I mean something  rude, with top spin. Not at all.

I literally *mean*, OK, we disagree, let's shut the door on this and move on to other/better things, rather than dweell on camel-hair splitting 

 

Likewise, when I said "fine" I'm guessing you thought I was being arcastical, hand on hips, valley-girl sass. I literally meant fine. OK. Let's leave this disagreement behind us. Nonessential.

What was odd for me in this, was that I found MaidServant's insight a very cool key in and of itself. Which I would have simply said, super, and have moved on and let the thread dow its own thing.. But better than just putting one unresolved issue to bed for me, what she offered us rapidly unlocked several things in rapid succession, relative to Wise people from four corners of the earth united under that star, and drummers and Welsh testimony (the origin of MoTab)...to welcome their hope for peace in the here and now, and in the life to come. If others don't value what she brought to the table..a small fulcrum...and the doors something that seemingly trivial opened, I genuinely wish you well with your learning journey.  But I simply can't bog down any further in a llama/camel hair discussion.

Getting through the eye of a needle is more important to me than the camel/cure-lom/llama/olfand issue. Trying to offload other, more important things as rapidly as possible. 

So what you perhaps interpreted to be impatience with a fellowr board participant isn't at all accurate. When/whether someone else agrees on something that non-essential is a non-issue for me. I simply have a sense of urgency to move on to other, much-more important things. Fair 'nuf?

Hoping that resolves any needlessly ruffled feathers. 

<---exiting thread. Although your opinions matter, you won't get a reply here.

Edited July 21, 2017 by hagoth7

[Honorentheos]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

Faith can't only be planting the seed or else the rest doesn't make sense. Exercising faith is planting the seed. The seed growing strengthens faith (30) but of course that stronger faith doesn't lead to planting the same seed again. Again faith isn't the volitional act.

The whole idea is faith is not to have perfect knowledge. So the "not seen" is the grown plant. The faith is the belief due to evidence with the strength of faith due to how much evidence you have that the thing is what it purports to be. I plant the seed either because I want to know or because I believe it is a seed that will grow. As it grows the faith increases until we have complete evidence.

I really feel you are playing loose with language. The text doesn't say one has complete evidence. It says one has knowledge. The result of planting the seed (exercising faith) is that it swells in one's heart and becomes knowledge, after which there is quite a bit about maintaining this rather than letting it decline.

I don't see the text saying faith is more than planting the seed. Perhaps you can be more explicit?

[Honorentheos]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

Again like I said, this fits pretty clearly in the Old Testament use of faith and truth. I referenced in the original post Hazony's The Philosophy of Hebrew Scripture.  This says nothing about Joseph Smith I should note since this is in the Old Testament and so his reading the Bible could lead him to pick it up. Plus as I said it's also older English use that's simply rarer in the late 20th century. 

The Hebrew use, unlike the later Hellenistic Christian use, is caught up with the word "ne'eman" usually translated as "faithful." That's the adjective form with the verb form being 'emet.' So the famous allegory of "I will fasten him as a tent-peg in sure (ne'eman) ground" (Is 22:23) gets at this. So the word in the Old Testament has a meaning of reliable, steadfast, or faithful. Signs are treated the same way. So a true sign is "to emet."

All of these then relate to the notion of seed, very relevant to Alma 32.  There's of course Jesus' famous parable in Mark but more interesting is Isaiah 17:11 where you have something that flourishes initially but comes to nothing. (Closer to what I think you want to discuss) This gets at the distinction, important to emet of appearance versus reliability. It is only in the end that we know what something is. The same idea is in Mark. Jeremiah has an image very close to Alma 32. "And I had planted you a noble vine, an entirely true seed (zera emet). (Is 22:23)

Note that all these (and many more in scripture) get at the idea of a seed going bad. Now that usage simply isn't present in Alma 32 which as I said is something we can criticize Alma for. But the part he does discuss is pretty much the same as standard OT usage. 

A really good parallel to Alma's use in Alma 32 is 1 Kings 10:1-2;6-7. "And when the queen of Sheva heard of the fame of Solomon … she came to Jerusalem with a very great train…. And she said to the king, “It was a true [emet] report I heard in my own land of your acts and your wisdom. But I believed not the words until I came and my eyes had seen it. And behold, the half of it was not told to me; your wisdom and prosperity exceed the fame of which I heard.” (Hazony's translation)

Deuteronomy 17:2-6 is an other one pretty similar. "If there be found among you, within any of your gates which the Lord your God has given you, a man or woman who has … gone and served other gods, and worshiped them, either the sun or the moon or any of the host of heaven … and it be told to you, and you have heard of it, and have investigated thoroughly, and behold it is the truth [emet] and the thing is certain, that this abomination has been done in Israel; then shall you bring forth that man or that woman…. On the testimony of two witnesses or three witnesses shall he be put to death."

Both take reports (words), and investigate them to find the truth. Linguistically for the Hebrew truth and faith are intrinsically related whereas they really aren't in the more Hellenistic way we think of beliefs in non-Hebrew traditions. Further due to the Hellenistic Christian tradition we assume faith and reason are opposed whereas for the Old Testament and Hebrew language reason strengthens faith which is bound up with truth. (To the point the words are closely related) So in the Old Testament faith in God isn't belief in the propositions about God but trusting God. (See for instance Gen 15:1-6; Ex 14:30-31) The word for faith in this sense of trust is he'emin which is just a variation of emit or truth. So faith just means to trust. (In all this I'm just following Hazony -- I'm not a Hebrew speaker myself)

So there's word play going on here (or if you prefer Joseph mimicking word play that goes on in the OT). You have truth (emet), faith (he'emin), and the base of reliable.

To quote from Hazony again:

Notice how similar Hazony's language is to Alma's.

To be fair, your own views are interesting and perhaps as a side topic might be fun to explore. I do think they are not keeping close with the original argument, though, which was about Alma 32 and the LoF. Even if one argues that "true" is refering to usage closely paralleling the examples you provide and had previously referenced in your online paper for Sunstone I believe, it moves too quickly into something that is purely your own perogative and away from the two texts being cited. If the question regarding faith is if Alma 32 and the LoF equate it to choice and motivational force, doesn't moving away from those two texts to find other meanings a way of acknowledging one can't do so by using them?

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, hagoth7 said:

I'm at peace. Not sure what you're talking about.

Added:

I've gone back trying to figure out what you saw that I hadn't intended.

I'm guesing you assume that when I say "so be it", I mean something  rude, with top spin. Not at all.

I literally *mean*, OK, we disagree, let's shut the door on this and move on to other/better things, rather than dweell on camel-hair splitting 

 

Likewise, when I said "fine" I'm guessing you thought I was being arcastical, hand on hips, valley-girl sass. I literally meant fine. OK. Let's leave this disagreement behind us. Nonessential.

What was odd for me in this, was that I found MaidServant's insight a very cool key in and of itself. Which I would have simply said, super, and have moved on and let the thread dow its own thing.. But better than just putting one unresolved issue to bed for me, what she offered us rapidly unlocked several things in rapid succession, relative to Wise people from four corners of the earth united under that star, and drummers and Welsh testimony (the origin of MoTab)...to welcome their hope for peace in the here and now, and in the life to come. If others don't value what she brought to the table..a small fulcrum...and the doors something that seemingly trivial opened, I genuinely wish you well with your learning journey.  But I simply can't bog down any further in a llama/camel hair discussion.

Getting through the eye of a needle is more important to me than the camel/cure-lom/llama/olfand issue. Trying to offload other, more important things as rapidly as possible. 

So what you perhaps interpreted to be impatience with a fellowr board participant isn't at all accurate. When/whether someone else agrees on something that non-essential is a non-issue for me. I simply have a sense of urgency to move on to other, much-more important things. Fair 'nuf?

Hoping that resolves any needlessly ruffled feathers. 

<---exiting thread. Although your opinions matter, you won't get a reply here.

I never had a disagreement with you, no replies we even necessary.

You wear talking about hair shirts and I posted a story about hair shirts I thought would be interesting.  No comments, disagreements, no ruffled feathers. Remain calm, I don't even know what all these supposed nuances mean. 

[deli_llama]

2 hours ago, hagoth7 said:

don't find fasting painful or distracting. On the contrary.

I would be interested in your opinion on, say, day 39. I suspect there would be a whole new and broader spectrum of opinions you could offer. Likewise, maybe he didn't find it all that uncomfortable, definitely nothing like the lash you mentioned. Then again, what do I know of your personal fasting habits? What I am suggesting though is self denial and discomfort is not the same as self injury.  The way you described it seemed to me that you misunderstand those two concepts, and might therefore misunderstand John.

2 hours ago, hagoth7 said:

As scripture doesn't say *what* the significance of the camel-hair shirt was, I'll gladly grant you your belief on that, and will keep mine

But it can be understood within a specific cultural context located at a specific place and withinin a specific time frame. I honestly feel that if you are willing understand it also in this context it will only help. I read what you have to say because I enjoy fresh perspectives and new ways of considering things. (Even pulled out my copy of an Old Norse Religion in long-term perspective conference and wasted a bunch of time last week reading because some of your posts reminded me I never finished it the last time...anyways). I have noticed that you take a lot of liberties with some of your cross-cultural ideas though, and also try to make connections that might not be as strong if you place them back into their specific cultural contexts. 

You should keep what ever belief you want, but wouldn't it also be satisfying to have a better handle on what, within his specific culture, would have him wearing that hair shirt? Might even improve your arguement. shrug.

2 hours ago, hagoth7 said:

John didn't say what significance the shirt had for him. If what I offered didn't suit you, fine. In the non-essentials..

Beyond any personal meaning and sentiment he might ascribe it, John doesn't have to tell us what significance it held for him, it comes complete with a specific understanding and function within a culture, and should be seen within this context. Its functions within that culture might not suit you. But who knows, it just might and you don't know. 

2 hours ago, hagoth7 said:

Hadn't heard of him before your mention. I can see a few parallels, and assume it was meant as a compliment. If so, thank you.

It isn't compliment or insult, though it is said with good humor. He also took liberties and used broad strokes. He also had the habit of lifting things out of their cultural context so he could make (tenuous) connections. We can thank him (mostly) for the complete misunderstanding and misuse of the word shaman. You can take it how you like.

i hope this is coherent, I just noticed the time. 

[bcuzbcuz]

On ‎2017‎-‎07‎-‎03 at 3:45 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

The only animal referred to by Sumerian kur is "dragon," which might possibly indicate the iguana, which is excellent for eating.  It is true that Sumerian eli, e3-li, e3-li-um is descriptive of "ewes or lambs," but anyone translating the BofM into English would presumably already know about sheep, including mountain sheep and mountain goats -- present in both Old and New Worlds.

The Reynolds & Sjodahl suggestion that cumoms are bears is unlikely simply because Joseph Smith certainly knew the English word for the animal.[1]

Aside from the extraordinary megafauna in America, which rapidly became extinct after the last ice age ended, useful animals in the New World included the alpaca, vicuña, chinchilla, guinea pig, llama (domesticated guanaco), tapir, agouti,  capybara, etc.

---

[1] George Reynolds and Janne M. Sjodahl, Commentary on the Book of Mormon, ed. P. C. Reynolds (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1955), 6:145, citing Hebrew qum “rise up, stand up.”

useful animals in the New World included the alpaca, vicuña, chinchilla, guinea pig, llama (domesticated guanaco), tapir, agouti,  capybara

None of which are named in the BofM.

[bcuzbcuz]

oops.

Edited July 21, 2017 by bcuzbcuz

[clarkgoble]

11 hours ago, Honorentheos said:

I really feel you are playing loose with language. The text doesn't say one has complete evidence. It says one has knowledge. The result of planting the seed (exercising faith) is that it swells in one's heart and becomes knowledge, after which there is quite a bit about maintaining this rather than letting it decline.

I don't see the text saying faith is more than planting the seed. Perhaps you can be more explicit?

It talks of nourishing the plant in 37-38 which is tied to exercising faith in 36 & 40-42. So you can still nourish or neglect the plant. So the later part of the discussion is much closer to the traditional allegory in Hebrew thought particularly in Jeremiah and Isaiah. You can also see vs 38-39 as similar to the Mark allegory. 

Regarding knowledge, that's not playing loose. The whole point of knowledge is that you have enough evidence that the seed is a true seed. So you have sufficient evidence to know that. While the text uses "perfect" for that the Hebrew word (tam or tamim) translated as "perfect" by the KJV also means "complete" or "mature." So there word play going on in the allegory comparing the mature or complete plant to mature or complete faith.

Again you don't have to think Joseph came up with all this. The base allegory is found in many places in the OT. It's just that if you are a non-believer who thinks Joseph was just reworking the Bible then you still have to deal with the meaning of the OT.

Edited July 21, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Honorentheos]

59 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

It talks of nourishing the plant in 37-38 which is tied to exercising faith in 36 & 40-42. So you can still nourish or neglect the plant. So the later part of the discussion is much closer to the traditional allegory in Hebrew thought particularly in Jeremiah and Isaiah. You can also see vs 38-39 as similar to the Mark allegory. 

Regarding knowledge, that's not playing loose. The whole point of knowledge is that you have enough evidence that the seed is a true seed. So you have sufficient evidence to know that. While the text uses "perfect" for that the Hebrew word (tam or tamim) translated as "perfect" by the KJV also means "complete" or "mature." So there word play going on in the allegory comparing the mature or complete plant to mature or complete faith.

Again you don't have to think Joseph came up with all this. The base allegory is found in many places in the OT. It's just that if you are a non-believer who thinks Joseph was just reworking the Bible then you still have to deal with the meaning of the OT.

But v34 is when the seed has bloomed from faith into knowledge. By v37 we are no longer talking about faith which v34 tells us is now dormant.

[clarkgoble]

37 minutes ago, Honorentheos said:

But v34 is when the seed has bloomed from faith into knowledge. By v37 we are no longer talking about faith which v34 tells us is now dormant.

Right, but he's now reverted to discussing the reasons the seed might fail while still being good. It's explicitly about faith 

"And thus, if ye will not nourish the word, looking forward with an eye of faith to the fruit thereof, ye can never pluck of the fruit of the tree of life. But if ye will nourish the word, yea, nourish the tree as it beginneth to grow, by your faith with great diligence, and with patience, looking forward to the fruit thereof, it shall take root; and behold it shall be a tree springing upunto everlasting life." (40-41)

That's why back when you were talking about doubt and a kind of faith of preventing testing (which I think is acontextual) I thought you'd turn to that section.

Anyway, 37 starts again with "as the tree beginneth to grow." So it's returned to the point of verse 33. So there's two things going on. First do we know if it's a true seed? The point reached in 31, 33, and 34 is just about whether the seed is true. That's why he qualifies knowledge in 34. "your knowledge is perfect in that thing." But it doesn't mean there isn't still faithfulness going on. Again this makes total sense if you assume the Hebrew wordplay.

All of this is explained explicitly in 36. "Nay; neither must ye lay aside your faith, for ye have only exercised your faith to plant the seed that ye might try the experiment to know if the seed was good."

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, bcuzbcuz said:

useful animals in the New World included the alpaca, vicuña, chinchilla, guinea pig, llama (domesticated guanaco), tapir, agouti,  capybara

None of which are named in the BofM.

You may have missed the point of our discussion in this thread, which is that strange names in the BofM are not likely to have been applied to animals known to Joseph Smith, but may be designations of animals not known to Joseph.  Anyone doing a translation of an ancient text must try to put ancient terms into modern context, except where that modern context is unknown to the translator.  Does that  make any sense?

[Honorentheos]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

Right, but he's now reverted to discussing the reasons the seed might fail while still being good. It's explicitly about faith 

"And thus, if ye will not nourish the word, looking forward with an eye of faith to the fruit thereof, ye can never pluck of the fruit of the tree of life. But if ye will nourish the word, yea, nourish the tree as it beginneth to grow, by your faith with great diligence, and with patience, looking forward to the fruit thereof, it shall take root; and behold it shall be a tree springing upunto everlasting life." (40-41)

That's why back when you were talking about doubt and a kind of faith of preventing testing (which I think is acontextual) I thought you'd turn to that section.

Anyway, 37 starts again with "as the tree beginneth to grow." So it's returned to the point of verse 33. So there's two things going on. First do we know if it's a true seed? The point reached in 31, 33, and 34 is just about whether the seed is true. That's why he qualifies knowledge in 34. "your knowledge is perfect in that thing." But it doesn't mean there isn't still faithfulness going on. Again this makes total sense if you assume the Hebrew wordplay.

All of this is explained explicitly in 36. "Nay; neither must ye lay aside your faith, for ye have only exercised your faith to plant the seed that ye might try the experiment to know if the seed was good."

But this is in relation to what the narrator has called knowledge. What could cause one's "knowledge" to fail? The description of Alma 32 is how to develop a bias. This use of faith following v34 is still about protecting the product of the seed blooming which is now knowledge.

In any other venue this would make no sense. Becoming informed on a subject leaves one open to learning their past understanding was off and seeing this as positive.

So we're planting the seed to plant the seed. We're asked to protect the fruits of the seed by continuing to nourish this belief/knowledge. How is this not about creating and sustaining a bias?

[bcuzbcuz]

4 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You may have missed the point of our discussion in this thread, which is that strange names in the BofM are not likely to have been applied to animals known to Joseph Smith, but may be designations of animals not known to Joseph.  Anyone doing a translation of an ancient text must try to put ancient terms into modern context, except where that modern context is unknown to the translator.  Does that  make any sense?

it makes sense for anyone who has done translation work. I did it professionally for a number of years. I translated letters written in English by people who spoke Portugese as their native language, into Swedish. I also worked in the reverse, translating Swedish documents into English to be read by people who spoke Portugese. Since we were communicating regarding technical hardware for trucks (lorries) misunderstandings were rather common. We had a delay in production because a silencer for a lorry was translated as a muffler. The fault was mine because I used an North American term "muffler" (in England a hand warmer  for ladies) instead of the British english term, "silencer", which to anyone with an American background envisions a gangster film. Furthermore Portugese is a language where formal and polite correspondence must follow certain forms,such as "Dear Sir", but even more floral, such as, "It is with the greatest honour that I address this issue regarding transmissions differentials,and I correspond this humbly for your perusal". While Swedish would simply say, without any inleading phrasology, "Regarding transmissions differentials communication 5:" 

But Joseph Smith didn't work with standard translations. Most of the time the golden plates were not even in the same room as him and he was guided by the seer stone(s) to interpret symbols, with God as a mediary. Joseph Smith translate horses when horses didn't fill the bill and he translated elephants when elephants would not have existed. So cureloms were créatures he didn't recognize.But god would have recognized them and give them a word that would later fit in place. Just show me a curelom and I'll be satisfied

[clarkgoble]

7 hours ago, Honorentheos said:

But this is in relation to what the narrator has called knowledge. What could cause one's "knowledge" to fail? The description of Alma 32 is how to develop a bias. This use of faith following v34 is still about protecting the product of the seed blooming which is now knowledge.

Well again we have to distinguish between the philosophical critique and what Alma presents. So Alma is asking once we know it was a true seed, how do we get the fruit? If we don't continue to nourish it (act on faith) then it can dry up.  So the knowledge is whether it's a good seed. The second point is continuing to exercise faith to get fruit with the obvious tree of life imagery.

Quote

So we're planting the seed to plant the seed. We're asked to protect the fruits of the seed by continuing to nourish this belief/knowledge. How is this not about creating and sustaining a bias?

No again we're not protecting the fruit but growing the fruit. Again we have to distinguish between a critique of Alma and what he is asserting. He says once you know it's true, you have to continue to nourish it which is acting on faith. I agree this makes no sense if the knowledge is of the plant entirely. But if the knowledge is just for part of the plant -- whether it is a good seed - with faith still functioning with other aspects then the the problem goes away.