The Nehor

Indentured servitude/debt slavery was used as a way of temporarily enslaving fellow Israelites. This existed in parallel with regular lifelong chattel slavery inherited by your children slavery that was (usually) limited to foreigners. Debt slavery is a common feature of the ancient world and is not Israel or its God showing a ‘better way’. Debt slavery predates the Law of Moses. What you shared is an apologetic to try to defend God by trying to make debt slavery a humane institution (it wasn’t). Another common apologetic is to focus on this form of debt slavery and then try to politely ignore the lifelong slavery God tells the Israelites to practice on foreigners. Ignoring the more harsh form of slavery is a much more twisted and unbalanced review of scripture. Debt slavery is still going on: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt_bondage Debt slavery is not a benevolent alternative to slavery. In some cultural contexts it is less harsh but it is still an evil and an offense to human dignity. God prescribes both debt slavery and chattel slavery in the Law of Moses and endorses their use. The Law of Moses is also inconsistent on the seven years thing. One account has seven years be the norm for all debt slaves while in another it only applied to men. Women sold into sex slavery were exempt from being freed after seven years. So you have to specify whether you are using the code from Exodus or the code from Deuteronomy.

So your plan is to assume that all women who believe this are inherently dangerous and avoid them. So you will treat all women as potential threats to your safety because some might be a threat to you? And yet when the threat to women is potentially sexual assault this mitigation strategy is somehow deranged and unhealthy? Are you trying to be ironic and self-deprecating here? I’m going to yoink this and quote it back to you regularly. Thanks in advance. I suspect that last bit was the main reason. So you are already isolating yourself from women. So what changes if you have to treat them all as potential threats as per above? Where a large part of it is about you and protecting yourself. Honestly if the men who are going to take offense at this “Go their own way” and don’t interact with women that might be for the best. Also I don’t take seriously the incel/MGTOW/Red-pill/Nick Fuentes followers and others of that ilk. It is just misogyny and homophobia mixed with a very unhealthy amount of homoeroticism and homosociality. It is probably more self-damaging than women proactively treating men as a potential threat and is much more toxic and unnecessary but somehow the whole thing is the fault of women. If women would just behave and not make any man ever feel bad there would be no misogyny. It is all their fault. You are showing more empathy for these creeps than you are for women who face threats of sexual assault and that should be a cause for serious self-reflection as to why you value the well-being of men over the well-being of women.

Its ardent establishment of slavery as a good and allowed institution?

The Torah has a command for human sacrifice of the firstborn humans but there is an escape clause to get out of it. A lot of biblical scholars see in that a strong possibility that human sacrifice was practiced and then phased out. Then you have Jeremiah speaking on behalf of Adonai and saying that he never ever ordered human sacrifice. Why would Jeremiah be saying this if no one thought God was commanding it. Complicating the problem you can turn to Ezekiel who failed to compare notes with Jeremiah and Ezekiel says that God gave laws that ‘were not good’ to punish Israel and this is while discussing human sacrifice. Sounds like Ezekiel was trying to explain away a history of human sacrifice. And a hearty LOL at the idea that a Jephthah’s daughter could appeal to the priests for mercy. Also, the story of Jephthah does not suggest in any way that what he did was wrong. After he sacrificed his daughter he continues to enjoy success. If the writer wanted to condemn this act he could have. He didn’t and if the story is to be taken as literal God approved of the sacrifice. That is the text. It is an uncomfortable text but insisting that we can yank it out of context and rewrite it to make that act bad is just an attempt to make the text palatable to us and not a genuine desire to understand what the author was saying.

Well, that is all pretty much wrong.

In romantic situations: Ask for consent. In casual group settings: No need to change anything. In one on one: Don’t do anything that could be construed as threatening (physically or verbally) even as a joke. Also, defend women. A few weeks ago I went to an event with a bunch of people I knew well and some I don’t. When I parked saw a woman I know in her car with her window rolled down and a guy talking to her. That had a really bad vibe. Walked over to her and was going to ask her if she needed anything but another mutual guy friend showed up just before I did and gave the guy a death glare and asked if she needed anything. I just stood next to him and watched. The guy blustered a bit and then walked away loudly announcing that he “wasn’t that kind of guy” and that “this is ridiculous”. I was about to text the biggest guy I knew at the event if he could come join us right before the guy retreated. He was a recent ex who knew she was going to the event and planned this ambush to try to force a conversation that would hopefully get them back together again. No doubt he saw this as some kind of romantic gesture but she felt trapped because she in many ways was. Another guy and I stayed outside after she came in to make sure he left while the first guy walked her inside and took her to some of her closest friends and then rejoined us. She gave us both hugs later and said that this group was the first group she has felt safe around in a long time. So treating women as some kind of incomprehensible ‘other’ that you can’t connect with was your strategy? Why? Were you worried they were going to make false claims against you or something? And how would your wife being around help? You need a witness? This seems like it is more about your hurt feelings than any sense of reasonable caution. And then complain about the male loneliness epidemic?

No, it is really difficult because this kind of “I’m personally hurt” response when women or other marginalized groups try to communicate is the norm. It is why many give up on trying to communicate. There are defense mechanisms in place to prevent having to rethink things that come way too close to someone’s identity.

Considering the psychological downsides of sexual assault and rape I am not convinced that this tradeoff is worth it. Also I would suggest that we instead change our culture to mitigate and hopefully remove that threat so women don’t have to live their lives so defensively. This sounds aspirational but really it is telling the potential (and actual) victims that it is just best not to think about it. That sounds nice until you are abused and then a bunch of guys will come up with reasons for why you (at least partially) deserved it or how you could have avoided it. I have seen this advice given in the past by some people who in this very thread have posted that this kind of anxiety isn’t good for women’s mental health. Pick a lane. Also, how about we work to create a society where the whole thing isn’t necessary? I get very tired of the complacency of people who think things can’t be improved or that it is some massive imposition on them personally if someone tries to improve things.

Presumably you just pray for rain and hope for the best at that point.

I didn’t mean to suggest that the stuff I posted was the only take. In theological pronouncements the early LDS tended to be absolute but in practice they interacted with and sometimes liked people of other faiths and there was a lot going on. And, of course, a lot of the other churches were making similar categorical statements about the LDS faith leading to damnation and the like. Some of them still are actually.

There is also nothing in the Garden of Eden story to indicate that they were immortal which is something some Christians added later. I would note that gnosticism isn’t one religion. It is a complicated mixture of beliefs over an extended period. There are some generalities that are usually true but always be wary if someone tells you what ‘the gnostics’ believed. Most gnostics believed the world was evil and corrupted which was a contrast to Judaism and the philosophy of the Greco-Roman world. The latter was that the world was good but necessarily imperfect because of the nature of matter.

Sort of. I mean the Church’s history is long enough that it isn’t consistent but you do have some saying or hinting that Christians aren’t Christian or just outright calling other Christians brute beasts or devil worshippers and profoundly ignorant fools and the like. "The Christian world, so-called, are heathens as to the knowledge of the salvation of God" -Brigham Young The “so called” directly implies that they are wrongly called Christian. "...all the priests who adhere to the sectarian religions of the day with all their followers, without one exception, receive their portion with the devil and his angels." - Joseph Smith in the Elder’s Journal Yikes on bikes! "…the devil could not invent a better engine to spread his work than the Christianity of the nineteenth century." - John Taylor "Brother Taylor has just said that the religions of the day were hatched in hell. The eggs were laid in hell, hatched on its borders, and then kicked on to the earth." -Brigham Young “Believers in the doctrines of modern Christendom will reap damnation to their souls.” - Bruce R. McConkie "After the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was organized, there were only two churches upon the earth. They were known respectively as the Church of the Lamb of God and Babylon. The various organizations which are called churches throughout Christendom, though differing in their creeds and organizations, have one common origin. They all belong to Babylon." - George Q. Cannon "With a regard to true theology, a more ignorant people never lived than the present so-called Christian world." - Brigham Young "This is not just another Church. This is not just one of a family of Christian churches. This is the Church and kingdom of God, the only true Church upon the face of the earth..." - Ezra T. Benson Not as inflammatory but suggests we aren’t Christian like everyone else and that everyone else are either lesser Christians or not really Christians depending on how you read it. And President Hinckley when asked about the statement of Jesus in the First Vision where he talked about the creeds being abominations and everyone being corrupt: “We accept that as a statement which came to him which is printed, of course, and published in his history as a statement. But we go forward with a friendly relationship, with a respect for people everywhere and with an effort to accept them as we meet them and, where opportunity exists, to talk with them and explain to them what we believe.... We don't criticize them for what they believe. We accept the good that comes of that understanding which they have, but we feel we having something to offer beyond what they have.” The times they are a changin.

True, I was paraphrasing Joseph Smith’s account of the First Vision where the resurrected Jesus said that the creeds were an abomination in his sight and that those professors (the other religious leaders Joseph listened to or all the professors of Christianity everywhere depending on how you interpret it) were all corrupt.

We do now. We didn’t so much in the early days. They were all apostate and were going to hell. Plus this is still in D&C 127: “It is an imperative duty that we owe to God, to angels, with whom we shall be brought to stand, and also to ourselves, to our wives and children, who have been made to bow down with grief, sorrow, and care, under the most damning hand of murder, tyranny, and oppression, supported and urged on and upheld by the influence of that spirit which hath so strongly riveted the creeds of the fathers, who have inherited lies, upon the hearts of the children, and filled the world with confusion, and has been growing stronger and stronger, and is now the very mainspring of all corruption, and the whole earth groans under the weight of its iniquity.” “For there are many yet on the earth among all sects, parties, and denominations, who are blinded by the subtle craftiness of men, whereby they lie in wait to deceive, and who are only kept from the truth because they know not where to find it—“ So the view of the rest of Christianity was: And they are the mainspring of all corruption. We acknowledged that others professed to be followers of Christ and that the other Christian churches blind sincere seekers of truth through deception. I know the Church now is focusing much more on camaraderie and a kind of ecumenicalism but that is not how it has always been.

Creeds are an abomination. Those professors are all corrupt.

This was explicitly about defying parental expectations. None of the other kids did that. Except in those homes where it isn’t a respite. You know, the kids that don’t believe the gospel but playact to get along. Or the queer kids who live in perpetual fear of being found out. So defied parental expectations with church support which, again, is the opposite of what I described.

The title “son of man” goes back further than Enoch. It is all over Ezekiel. The title “Son of Man” used in the New Testament is a really awkward Greek grammatical construction that doesn’t map directly to the usage in Ezekiel or Enoch. I don’t know what Jesus or the writers of the New Testament thought of the Book of Enoch. I don’t know what I believe anymore. I have a lot of doubts about scripture in general and many specific parts of scripture. I think the main argument against this being a reference to any kind of premortality is that none of the commentators took it as one in the ancient world. I have a lot of skepticism about the concept of scriptural “easter eggs” being inserted into the text that purportedly teach great hidden truths but no one noticed at the time. Also parts of the Torah are at least as old as Jeremiah and if there were a concept of premortality there were plenty of places to insert that in the text. The general scholarly consensus is that the Book of Daniel was written between 167 and 164 BC and was an ex eventu prophecy which was a pretty common genre where the writer puts words of prophecy into the mouth of someone in the past to add legitimacy. It is also a good way to hide revolutionary though. If the Seleucids got a copy of the Book of Daniel it is old ravings of a local prophet from centuries back unless they were pretty literary and picked up that Babylon in that text was a code for them The reason the dating is so tight in terms of years is that the prophecy of Daniel in the book maps up perfectly with the lead up to and the beginning of the Maccabean revolt. Up to then the prophecy is accurate and then it stops being accurate and the revolt doesn’t bring about the messianic age or the redemption of Israel. So later Jewish and Christian scholars started coming up with much more far reaching interpretations. Assuming all that is true the writer of Daniel probably took the term from the Book of Enoch so bringing in a Watcher more likely means the author had read what we call 1st Enoch. The Book of Revelation is a similar composition.

Because it is clear what the original language was by comparing the two versions. You also have to explain why this Book of Enoch was unknown for at least several centuries previously. Also some of the philosophical and theological concepts in the Books of Enoch weren’t around yet. You also have multiple books of Enoch so were they all lost? Even if it was a lost book (very unlikely just by how it was written) that was somehow rediscovered that doesn’t show that it goes back to Enoch. It could still be something that was purported to be from Enoch or a text with no author and someone slapped the name of Enoch on there. The latter is how most scholars think the gospels got their purported writers.

That it will be testified of “in due time” suggests it is not talking about the already extant Book of Enoch. Also none of the extant Books of Enoch seem to contain what the description in the previous verse says is supposed to be in them. Also a work being pseudipigrapha doesn’t mean it is fake. It just means it wasn’t written by the purported author. The Zohar, one of the key books of Jewish Kabbalah is purported to have been written twelve centuries earlier by another author. It wasn’t and one Jewish scholar tracked down the wife of the ‘translator’ and she said it came entirely from her husband. That scholar (and many others) accepted it as roughly what LDS would call an ‘inspired’ text. It is dangerous to tie your faith to very dubious historical claims. Especially with something like the Book of Enoch which even contemporaries were saying wasn’t written by Enoch.

The kids who are in this situation are sometimes derided for not being strong enough to say no to that kind of pressure but it is not like they were taught any kind of independence at home (or at church) to be able to stand up to that pressure.

I think one big difference between now and then is that Christianity could be used for causes that seemed valiant and praiseworthy. One of my favorite marching songs from the Civil War from the Union Army that was put to the music of what we sign at “Battle Hymn of the Republic” with a similar chorus to what we use now. Old John Brown's body lies a moldering in the grave, While weep the sons of bondage whom he ventured all to save; But though he sleeps his life was lost while struggling for the slave, His soul is marching on. Glory Hallelujah! John Brown was a hero, undaunted, true and brave, And Kansas knew his valor when he fought her rights to save; And now, though the grass grows green above his grave, His soul is marching on. (Chorus) He captured Harper's Ferry, with his nineteen men so few, And frightened "Old Virginny" till she trembled through and through They hung him for a traitor, themselves a traitor crew, But his soul is marching on. (Chorus) John Brown was John the Baptist of the Christ we are to see— Christ who of the bondmen shall the Liberator be, And soon throughout the Sunny South the slaves shall all be free, For his soul is marching on. (Chorus) The conflict that he heralded he looks from heaven to view, On the army of the Union with its flag red, white and blue. And heaven shall ring with anthems o'er the deed they mean to do, For his soul is marching on. (Chorus) Ye soldiers of Freedom, then strike, while strike ye may, The death blow of oppression in a better time and way, For the dawn of old John Brown has brightened into day, And his soul is marching on. (Chorus) That is a song worth singing. Christianity doesn’t seem to stand for that kind of stuff anymore in the US. Is it any wonder that Christianity generates less enthusiasm when it stands for….what? Some economic principles? And that Christianity is the best and needs a special privileged status? And it needs some kind of official government privilege? That is not something that is easy to be devoted to.

For better or worse I think this shows how ‘off the cuff’ everything is being run right now and how often the last person to talk to the President seems to have a lot of influence. I would worry if an enemy of the Church got his ear for too long. I am trying to understand Beck’s point. He is worried that another administration would care more about whether LDS are Christian. I really can’t see the Democratic Party or most “leftists” caring that much about it. The idea that it would be weaponized in that case is kind of silly. I also find it cute that Beck thinks LDS are safe when they are excluded from the in group until they make a special plea.

A lot of Christians think he is a an apologist for Mormons because they don’t understand what the LDS Church (and a lot of other restorationist churches) teach. If they did they would know that a lot of what Dan says is disliked and derided by people of his own church. I have seen people on the web commenting that the LDS church is pro-LGBT because Dan is. Also people claiming that LDS people in general are very skeptical of biblical historicity to a degree I rarely see in the Church because Dan seems to be that way.

Fundamentalism arose at the same time as advances in archaeology and evolutionary science began to provide a solid case for a naturalistic explanation for the universe and threw doubt on the historical claims of the Bible. So some retreat to a very literalist and absolute view of religious historical truth claims as a way of pushing back. When it seems like the ground you are on is eroding you tend to view anything that could potentially erode anything as a threat. Hence fundamentalism. Islamic fundamentalism showed up shortly afterwards.

They had the books of Enoch at the time of Jesus because they were written between the 3rd century BCE through the the 1st century. They are pseudepigrapha. They were written at that time and attributed to Enoch. Even at that time the rabbis knew it didn’t actually come from Enoch. Also most of it was originally written in Aramaic which wouldn’t make sense for a hypothetical pre-flood language or if it was passed down for millenia. If it were passed down for millenia the original language (or the oldest copies we had access to) would be in Hebrew.