Pitman Shorthand transcription collection

[Calm]

I don’t remember this being mentioned on the board before and if I was aware of it, I forgot about it.  Came across it doing some research on LaJean Carruth’s work today and thought others might be interested if they wanted some light reading for long winter nights.  

https://catalog.churchofjesuschrist.org/record/5df3b7da-d0a5-437b-8268-7dde8a87c76e/0?view=browse

Quote

Contains unpublished sermons by early Church leaders that were formerly only available in Pitman shorthand, as originally written by scribe George D. Watt. These sermons were transcribed by Church History Department staff member, LaJean Carruth. The sermons and addresses date from 1851-1874.

Contains sermons from Milo Andrus, J. W. Cummings, Jedediah Grant, Orson Hyde, Heber C. Kimball, Orson Pratt, Parley P. Pratt, Erastus Snow, George A. Smith, Hosea Stout, Lorenzo Snow, Orson Spencer, John Taylor, Daniel H. Wells, Wilford Woodruff, and Brigham Young.

Also includes Mary Fielding Smith funeral sermon, Dedication of the Salt Lake Tabernacle, Brocchus transcript, Dedication of City Hall in Salt Lake City, Deseret Alphabet Entries in the Church Historian's Office journal, Hosea Stout setting apart blessing, Mormon Battalion Party, and Phonographic Magazine Article on the Book of Mormon.

 

 

[The Nehor]

I just clicked on the first one and boy, that was definitely something. Brigham Young laying down the law on the seed of Cain and simultaneously claiming that he is as opposed to slavery as any man alive while also claiming abolitionists are out to destroy society via miscegenation and/or letting a black person hold any kind of public office.

Yikes on Bikes!

Then more humdrum stuff like a cornerstone dedication.

Then Brigham Young talking about some pricing decisions and endorsing them while talking about how much he doesn’t care what people think of him and insisting he never overcharged for anything. Wow, this is a pain to puzzle out. I think there was some kind of price fixing or something and people didn’t like it. Maybe. I dunno.

[Tacenda]

I'm so glad the church was honest in finding BY was a product of times, so to speak. Still, wish he'd just read the Bible correctly and not put words in it.

c/p of a Google AI pop up:

The mark of Cain in the Bible (Genesis 4:15) was a divine sign of protection, not a curse, placed on Cain by God to prevent anyone from killing him after he murdered his brother, Abel; its specific physical form is not described, leading to various interpretations, though it's confirmed to be a symbol of God's mercy ensuring sevenfold vengeance on anyone who harmed him, not a mark of shame like dark skin, which is a false, racist misinterpretation.

[blackstrap]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

divine sign of protection, not a curse,

Interesting. Some years ago , scientists were studying Zebras and , in order to keep tract of a particular individual zebra , they decided to put a mark on it  ( like a red spot ) . Turns out that lions also noticed the spot and soon the individual zebra was eliminated from the herd. So Cain, unable now to blend in with the rest of the population , got a "red flag" . Hmm.

Edited January 29 by blackstrap

[blackstrap]

I also noticed that Cain quickly tried to make himself  the ' victim ' by crying that the punishment was too great. typical villain . 

[The Nehor]

9 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I'm so glad the church was honest in finding BY was a product of times, so to speak. Still, wish he'd just read the Bible correctly and not put words in it.

c/p of a Google AI pop up:

The mark of Cain in the Bible (Genesis 4:15) was a divine sign of protection, not a curse, placed on Cain by God to prevent anyone from killing him after he murdered his brother, Abel; its specific physical form is not described, leading to various interpretations, though it's confirmed to be a symbol of God's mercy ensuring sevenfold vengeance on anyone who harmed him, not a mark of shame like dark skin, which is a false, racist misinterpretation.

The closest interpretations we have to the time of the writing of Genesis are some rabbinic traditions as to what the Mark could mean. One popular one was part of the name of God on Cain’s forehead since marring the name was bad so marring Cain would be bad. Others suggested a dog to protect him or a horn grew out of his forehead or he got leprosy.

I like one of the Midrash takes on Lamech, the guy who boasts of being avenged more than Cain. One story has it that Lamech was out hunting with a bow but he was blind so his son (or a young boy) pointed him at a beast to kill. So Lamech releases the arrow and kills the beast but then discovers it is Cain and he killed his ancestor. Then he wails and claps his hands in despair but, being blind, strikes the boy he is with and kills him too. Hence Lamech saying he killed two people when talking about his curse and, thinking that the killing was inadvertent, that God would give him even greater protection than he gave Cain. The end of the story isn’t great. Really Lamech should have been shot by seven arrows so the curse was fulfilled. C’mon people!

Note these are traditions and midrash and aren’t canon to anyone and are presented as speculations and interpretations.

To know what it was supposed to mean or refer to we would need to talk to whomever recorded the story that was spliced into Genesis.

[The Nehor]

15 hours ago, blackstrap said:

I also noticed that Cain quickly tried to make himself  the ' victim ' by crying that the punishment was too great. typical villain . 

I mean, look at it from Cain’s point of view. Cain offers the fruits of the field and they are rejected. Abel offers part of the flock and is accepted. So logically meat equals better here. Then Cain figures that the more high-value the sacrifice the better. So what is more highly valued than animal life? So he follows through logically and God again rejects the sacrifice.

Seems like God’s instructions were unclear.

[longview]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Seems like God’s instructions were unclear.

No. Cain loved Satan more than God even though Cain still had some degree of loyalty to God. Instead of Satan telling Cain to completely ignore the commandment of tithing or sacrifice, Satan told Cain to use a "modified" version that was NOT in accordance with the revealed word of God. Cain wailed because he could not pull off the deception.

[The Nehor]

8 minutes ago, longview said:

No. Cain loved Satan more than God even though Cain still had some degree of loyalty to God. Instead of Satan telling Cain to completely ignore the commandment of tithing or sacrifice, Satan told Cain to use a "modified" version that was NOT in accordance with the revealed word of God. Cain wailed because he could not pull off the deception.

Satan wasn’t in the original account in Genesis. It would be weird if he was. Judaism didn’t have a concept analogous to Satan as a malevolent anti-God figure until much later during the intertestamental period (possibly adopted in part from Zoroastrianism) and it never really caught on. This is the angel Samael who shows up most prominently in the Enoch literature as both an adversary and instrument of God. Christianity refined the concept of Satan hard and made it much more important in their theology.

The Book of Moses inserts Satan into the early parts of the Book of Genesis. You can argue that there was a concept of Satan in the distant past that was lost but then Zoroastrianism brought it back but that is a bit of a stretch. 

[Kenngo1969]

Wait ...   There's a pornographic magazine article on the Book of Mormon?!    

Oh.  Wait.  Sorry.  My bad.  Never mind![1]

And before you excoriate me too bad for this bit of "blue" humor, I'm reminded of the conversation between a young J. Reuben Clark and a customs agent.  When the agent asked the young Brother Clark if he had any pornography in his luggage, youthful, guileless, innocent Reuben replied earnestly, "Sir, we don't even own a pornograph."  

__________________________

END NOTE

1. I can't see anything about the book ever making it into the pages of a skinmag, but the play?  That's a different story.

[longview]

12 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Satan wasn’t in the original account in Genesis. It would be weird if he was. Judaism didn’t have a concept analogous to Satan as a malevolent anti-God figure until much later during the intertestamental period (possibly adopted in part from Zoroastrianism) and it never really caught on. This is the angel Samael who shows up most prominently in the Enoch literature as both an adversary and instrument of God. Christianity refined the concept of Satan hard and made it much more important in their theology.

The Book of Moses inserts Satan into the early parts of the Book of Genesis. You can argue that there was a concept of Satan in the distant past that was lost but then Zoroastrianism brought it back but that is a bit of a stretch. 

Sounds too convoluted. I will rely on the temple accounts to certify the existence of Lucifer/Satan in much of scriptures.

[The Nehor]

10 minutes ago, longview said:

Sounds too convoluted.

No, it is more convoluted to argue that in the distant past the true religion had the correct current doctrine of Satan, then lost it somehow, and then accidentally rediscovered the correct version from another religion.

10 minutes ago, longview said:

I will rely on the temple accounts to certify the existence of Lucifer/Satan in much of scriptures.

That might solve the theological problem but it creates huge historical problems.

[JVW]

9 hours ago, The Nehor said:

No, it is more convoluted to argue that in the distant past the true religion had the correct current doctrine of Satan, then lost it somehow, and then accidentally rediscovered the correct version from another religion.

That might solve the theological problem but it creates huge historical problems.

Hey Nehor this is a tangent but I'm wondering your thoughts on this since you know a surprising amount about a bunch of random church stuff.

From what I understand, historically, the 5 wounds of Christ were understood and used symbolically in the Christian world. Even as recently as the Nauvoo temple stained glass uses the 5 pointed star, representing the 5 wounds of Christ. However, in the temple the 5 wounds are expanded into 7 wounds with the wounds in the wrist being represented. Is there historical basis for crucifixion with nails through the hands and wrists? Are there any mention of these additional nails by any church history fathers or anything?

This is potentially one of those "solve theological problems but creates historical problems" kind of things you just referred to.

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, JVW said:

Hey Nehor this is a tangent but I'm wondering your thoughts on this since you know a surprising amount about a bunch of random church stuff.

From what I understand, historically, the 5 wounds of Christ were understood and used symbolically in the Christian world. Even as recently as the Nauvoo temple stained glass uses the 5 pointed star, representing the 5 wounds of Christ. However, in the temple the 5 wounds are expanded into 7 wounds with the wounds in the wrist being represented. Is there historical basis for crucifixion with nails through the hands and wrists? Are there any mention of these additional nails by any church history fathers or anything?

This is potentially one of those "solve theological problems but creates historical problems" kind of things you just referred to.

In New Testament Greek the part of the wrist that would be nailed to a cross would be considered to be part of the hand. There are two likely spots used for nails. One between the ulna and radius just above the wrist. The other is “destot’s spot” between the wrist and hand. Both would support a person’s weight. Both would also be incredibly painful which was the point.

You could also drive nails through the wrist and then lash the forearms to the cross with rope and there is some evidence this might have been done but it is sketchy. You could theoretically put nails in both the palms of the hand and in the wrist but I haven’t seen or heard of any evidence that this was done.

There is a big argument about nail placement due to the shroud of Turin but I consider the Shroud to be a pretty obvious forgery (and the church leaders who originally got a hold of it considered it a forgery) so I don’t have an opinion there. You can see the nail placement being a problem for the Catholic stigmata miracles having the blood come from the center of the hand but you can counter that the miracle was done in a way that would be understood by those that experienced it so it is a minor issue.

The even bigger problems with the crucifixion narrative are that they were taken down that same day which was against Roman custom. You left them there until they died and then kept them there until the body rotted. The idea was to do this in public areas so you see these traitors day after day so you know what happens to those that defy Rome. Once they were rotted away you took the bodies and dumped them in a mass grave. The bigger problem is why the Romans agreed to take the bodies down in deference to the Jews and how Jesus was allowed a special burial fit for a king. It would be much harder to create a narrative of the resurrection had the body of Jesus been in a mass grave. There would be no “the body is gone” bit. Many historians suspect the empty tomb and the stories of the guards at the tomb and the like were additions in the oral traditions around Jesus that cropped up before the gospels were written.

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

The bigger problem is why the Romans agreed to take the bodies down in deference to the Jews and how Jesus was allowed a special burial fit for a king.

Bribery…

Edited January 30 by Calm

[JVW]

59 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

In New Testament Greek the part of the wrist that would be nailed to a cross would be considered to be part of the hand. There are two likely spots used for nails. One between the ulna and radius just above the wrist. The other is “destot’s spot” between the wrist and hand. Both would support a person’s weight. Both would also be incredibly painful which was the point.

You could also drive nails through the wrist and then lash the forearms to the cross with rope and there is some evidence this might have been done but it is sketchy. You could theoretically put nails in both the palms of the hand and in the wrist but I haven’t seen or heard of any evidence that this was done.

There is a big argument about nail placement due to the shroud of Turin but I consider the Shroud to be a pretty obvious forgery (and the church leaders who originally got a hold of it considered it a forgery) so I don’t have an opinion there. You can see the nail placement being a problem for the Catholic stigmata miracles having the blood come from the center of the hand but you can counter that the miracle was done in a way that would be understood by those that experienced it so it is a minor issue.

The even bigger problems with the crucifixion narrative are that they were taken down that same day which was against Roman custom. You left them there until they died and then kept them there until the body rotted. The idea was to do this in public areas so you see these traitors day after day so you know what happens to those that defy Rome. Once they were rotted away you took the bodies and dumped them in a mass grave. The bigger problem is why the Romans agreed to take the bodies down in deference to the Jews and how Jesus was allowed a special burial fit for a king. It would be much harder to create a narrative of the resurrection had the body of Jesus been in a mass grave. There would be no “the body is gone” bit. Many historians suspect the empty tomb and the stories of the guards at the tomb and the like were additions in the oral traditions around Jesus that cropped up before the gospels were written.

So by your estimation the 5 wounds of Christ is more accurate and historically defendable than the LDS temple's 7 wounds of Christ. Only you have the caveat that the hand wounds would have been in the wrist, not in the palm. Is that correct?

[The Nehor]

11 minutes ago, JVW said:

So by your estimation the 5 wounds of Christ is more accurate and historically defendable than the LDS temple's 7 wounds of Christ. Only you have the caveat that the hand wounds would have been in the wrist, not in the palm. Is that correct?

That is what I think is most probable.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Bribery…

Possible but the person behind it would have to be very rich. He might have had to bribe everyone up to and including Pilate and Pilate loved clowning on Jewish customs and traditions. Then to afford an unused cave/rock tomb means you are very wealthy.