1 Nephi 1:1

[David Bokovoy]

Sadly, many critics of the Book of Mormon fail to realize the amazing literary and spiritual depth to the work. In light of this unfortunate fact, I thought it would be fun to simply take the first verse of the Book of Mormon and point out a few reasons why from my perspective the verse is really quite impressive. There are a lot more reasons and insights (these are all I had time to type up today), so anyone else who would like to add onto or critique these suggestions is more than welcome to have a go.

best,

--DB

I, Nephi, having been born of goodly parents, (therefore) I was taught somewhat in all the learning of my father; and having seen many afflictions in the course of my days; yea, having had a great knowledge of the goodness and the mysteries of God, (therefore) I make a record of my proceedings in my days (1 Nephi 1:1)

The opening verse of the Book of Mormon contains two transitional â??thereforesâ? that establish a cause and effect relationship. In English, the term â??thereforeâ? functions as a conjunctive adverbial. The word indicates that as a consequence of â??Xâ? , â??Yâ? must be true.

Assuming an original Hebraic connection with the Book of Mormon, there exist two primary candidates in Hebrew that could appear translated by the English word â??thereforeâ?: lck and â??l-kn

As explained by grammarians Waltke and Oâ??Connor, â?? the first of these usually introduces a proposed or anticipated response after a statement of certain conditions (â??the foregoing being the case, thereforeâ??â?¦ In contrast, â??l-kn usually introduces a statement of later effectsâ? (An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, 666).

Two well-known illustrations of the complex adverbial conjunction â??l-kn in the Old Testament include the following from the book of Genesis:

â??[As a result of these events] shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleaveâ? (Gen. 2:24)

â??[As a result of these events] the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.

In other words, Nephiâ??s introductory comments state that as a result of the fact that he was born of goodly parents, he was taught in all the learning of his father and since he had been taught by his father, had witnessed many afflictions, and had known the goodness and mysteries of God, Nephi will make a record of â??his days.â?

Hence, with repetition of the two conjunctive adverbials in his opening statement, Nephi immediately emphasizes to his readers the precise reasons that he is qualified to produced the text: his father had taught him, he had suffered many afflictions, and most importantly, Nephi possessed a â??great knowledgeâ? of the â??goodness and mysteries of God.â?

Based upon these specific qualifications, readers should be prepared to take Nephiâ??s account quite seriously.

An interesting point to consider concerning this information is that Nephiâ??s initial qualification only makes sense for readers who are already familiar with the Prophet Lehi. In other words, Nephiâ??s first statement regarding his qualifications to produce a spiritual record that readers should take seriously is the fact that Nephi had been taught â??in all the learningâ? of Lehi.

This statement would only prove effective for readers who had had some previous familiarity with the Prophet Lehi. The observation may point to a connection with the lost original manuscript which contained the Book of Lehi.

Another point of interest includes the fact that through literary emphasis, Nephi gives emphasis to the expression â??my days.â? Placing a time period into the context of oneâ??s â??daysâ? appears as a traditional historiographic device in the Bible:

And all the days of Seth wereâ?¦

And all the days of Enos wereâ?¦

And all the days of Cainan wereâ?¦

And all the days of Mahalaleel wereâ?¦

And all the days of Jared were â?¦

And all the days of Enoch wereâ?¦

And all the days of Methuselah wereâ?¦

And all the days of Lamech wereâ?¦ (Gen. 5:8-11).

For the Bible as it know stands, the initial attestation of this literary tradition appears in Genesis 3 in the depiction of man and serpent history:

"And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life"(Gen 3:17)

In the opening words of his record, Nephi uses the biblical historiographic term "my days" three times:

"having seen many afflictions in my days"

"having been highly favored of the Lord in all my days"

"I make a record of my proceedings in my days"

The repetition creates a direct link between afflictions, the Lord's favor, and Nephi's record, letting careful readers know the two basic themes that lie in store.

Yet when connected with his opening testimony honoring his goodly parents, Nephiâ??s dual emphasis given to the term â??my daysâ? reminds readers familiar with Israelite tradition of the great Mosaic commandment:

â??Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth theeâ? (Exodus 20:12)

And finally, as I have pointed out elsewhere, Nephiâ??s immediate reference to Lehi by the expression â??my fatherâ? carries significant meaning. As biblical scholar James G. Williams has explained, throughout the Old Testament, â??there are certain well-known passages in which the prophetic leader is called abi, â??my fatherâ?:

â??And Elisha saw it,â? reports the author of 2 Kings concerning the chief prophet Elijahâ??s ascent into heaven, â??and he cried, My father, my father . . .â? (2 Kings 2:12).; see â??The Prophetic â??Fatherâ??: A Brief Explanation of the Term â??Sons of the Prophets,â?? â? Journal of Biblical Literature 85 (1966): 3-5.

In fact, the descriptive element â??my fatherâ? appears a total of twelve times in the initial twenty-two verses of the Book of Mormon. From a literary perspective, this type of repetition in an ancient text proves incredibly significant.

Biblical authors, for instance, did not take the time to employ descriptive elements that they deemed unnecessary. We as readers of the Bible may on occasion ask the questions,

â??well, what did Eve look like?â?

â??Was she pretty?â?

â??What color was/were her hair, eyes, skinâ??

And yet, the author fails to provide any information concerning these details. Significantly, in contrast to nearly every other form of world literature where women appear as the victim of the male eye, the biblical author does not worry about these unnecessary literary elements. This general trend, however, stands in stark contrast with the story provided in Genesis 22, where the author of the text never allows his readers to forget the relationship between Abraham and Isaac:

â??laid it upon Isaac his sonâ? (v. 6)

â??Abraham his fatherâ? (v. 7)

â??bound Isaac his sonâ? (v. 8 )

Of course, readers of the tale already know that Isaac is Abrahamsâ?? son and that Abraham is Isaacâ??s father. Clearly this unnecessary literary emphasis stands out in a record that typically provides a scarcity of descriptive details regarding people, places, and things.

Thus in a comparable way to which the author of Genesis 22 gave emphasis to the relationship between Abraham and Isaac, so Nephi, in his introduction to his narrative, appears to stress the significant fact that Lehi was â??his father,â? a leading prophetic figure.

So these are just a few of the reasons why the first verse of the Book of Mormon is impressive from my perspective.

[SilverKnight]

From another Book of Mormon thread...

Mormons, don't need the book of Mormon for their church to exist and never have. In fact they would probably be better off without it and it's controversy...e.g. DNA....

So despite your analysis David, I think you're supposed to concede the Book of Mormon is an embarrassing liability that the church would be better off without.

[kryoung1983]

From another Book of Mormon thread...

So despite your analysis David, I think you're supposed to concede the Book of Mormon is an embarrassing liability that the church would be better off without.

Your completey right at that. I mean, we might as well throw out the Bible as well. We don't NEED the bible to be good christians. I mean scholarship has truly proved its established historicity into question. I mean all those mesopotamian elements in the Bible and all. Lets just throw the good old book out the window. It truly is a stain on everyones intellectual credibibity to believe such non sense.

[Dr. Sandwich]

You have made some interesting points Daniel but do you think that that is really comparable to the incredible depth of the first verse of the old testament (Gen 1:1) or the opening to John where he references it, or the opening to Luke where he demonstrates his credibility, or the even opening to Herman Melville's Novel, Moby Di*k ?

[ebeddoulos]

David,

Thank you.

[firepatch36]

I think David and Consiglieri should get together and write a book of all the insights like this that they post.

[consiglieri]

I think David and Consiglieri should get together and write a book of all the insights like this that they post.

Putting my name together with that of David is enough to make this entire thread burst into flames.

The first verse of John's gospel is pretty good. It has the unfortunate effect, however, of having caused untold confusion amongst Christians for 2,000 years. A little more clarity wouldn't have hurt.

The first verse of Genesis is okay; but honestly, it's not like it's any better than the first verse of the Book of Mormon. In fact, I think it suffers by comparison.

The first verse of Luke sounds the most similar to that of the Book of Mormon, in that the author is trying to establish some credibility with the reader.

But all in all, I would say the first verse of the Book of Mormon is better than any of these examples.

Is that the best you got?

--Consiglieri

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

If you can write this much about verse 1 chapter 1, it is a good thing you are not writing an entire book noting each scripture in the BoM, your fingers would fall off...Good job though.

[Dr. Sandwich]

The first verse of John's gospel is pretty good. It has the unfortunate effect, however, of having caused untold confusion amongst Christians for 2,000 years. A little more clarity wouldn't have hurt.

I want to respect that point from your perspective, but it's difficult from me for two reasons.

The first is that my interpretation of it matches with the interpretation of most Christians for the past 2,000 years, so from where Iâ??m standing there is no problem to speak of.

The second is that, Iâ??m not sure more clarity is necessarily always a good thing. I believe there is something to be said for subtlety and poetry and implication. This is very consistent with a Hebrew mindset.

Luke and Mark on the other hand write more like westerners.

Nephi seems to write like a westerner. If we are talking about how Nephi harkens back to the Hebrew language and culture, and counting the similarities as virtues, it seems like we may have to count itâ??s clarity as a vice!

Of course thatâ??s not my position, just the logical termination point of this kind of thinking.

The first verse of Genesis is okay; but honestly, it's not like it's any better than the first verse of the Book of Mormon. In fact, I think it suffers by comparison.

Okay, Thatâ??s fair. We now have a one to one comparison where you have stated your opinion and I have stated mineâ?¦(or maybe I didnâ??t) I think the opening of Genesis rocks Nephiâ??s socks.

How about we set up an organized discussion to discuss these two from a literary perspective?

The first verse of Luke sounds the most similar to that of the Book of Mormon, in that the author is trying to establish some credibility with the reader.

But all in all, I would say the first verse of the Book of Mormon is better than any of these examples.

Yeah I mentioned it because of itâ??s similarity. Itâ??s generally not considered to be a great opening of a book as openings of books go (the way John is) but I thought itâ??s virtues might be more readily recognized on this board.

What is it that you feel is inferior about the Luke passage? Is it the Theophilus? He does drop a random Theophilus reference in there, I guess that could be counted against himâ?¦

Is that the best you got?

Well personally my favorite bible book opening is Ecclesiastes 1:1-2 But I thought better than including it!

[David Bokovoy]

Hello Dr. Sandwich,

You have made some interesting points Daniel but do you think that that is really comparable to the incredible depth of the first verse of the old testament (Gen 1:1) or the opening to John where he references it, or the opening to Luke where he demonstrates his credibility, or the even opening to Herman Melville's Novel, Moby Di*k ?

I'm going to agree with my friend Consig. that 1 Nephi 1:1 surpasses in quality the other sources you've referrenced. And I happen to not only love the Bible (even as literature), but am a huge Herman Melville fan. In fact, I've spent quite a bit of time in New Bedford and the whaling musuem as a result of that love.

I'll also admit that when teaching the book of Genesis, it usually takes me a couple weeks to get beyond the first three verses, but that in part is because I like to establish the foundational notion of a council of deities that first appears in the opening chapter of Genesis and then continues on as the fundamental biblical symbol for the way in which the universe and man are governed.

[consiglieri]

Luke and Mark on the other hand write more like westerners.

Thanks for your response, Dr. Sandwich!

I think that Mark writes like a Jew, and his gospel is pretty clear and straightforward.

Luke is a little more removed from Judaism and is more gentile in flavor, to my mind; but that makes sense inasmuch as he is setting the stage for Luke II (i.e., Acts) with Paul as the hero; so we can see his gospel as paving the way for the taking of the gospel by Paul to the Gentiles.

John, on the other hand, seems to me to be steeped in Greek philosphy, with Gnostic associations. I mean, he starts off right away proclaiming Jesus is "the Word," which is kind of strange, don't you think? By this, I take John to mean that Jesus came into existence by being spoken by God. Jesus really is God's Word. Jesus did not exist before God spoke him into existence. Sort of like a lot of Christians and Jews (and the author of John, apparently) think the universe did not exist until God spoke it into existence.

Except John says that God spoke Jesus into existence before God spoke the universe into existence; thus giving Jesus chronological primacy over the universe, but still retaining a subordinate and dependent position to God, who created him.

Anyway, just some thoughts. I would be happy to look at a thread on the subject, if you wished to start one.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Dr. Sandwich]

I think David and Consiglieri should get together and write a book of all the insights like this that they post.

Putting my name together with that of David is enough to make this entire thread burst into flames.

This is my second week on the board... Why do I get the feeling I'm in for it?

::deep breath:: oh well. Daniel first:

I'm going to agree with my friend Consig. that 1 Nephi 1:1 surpasses in quality the other sources you've referrenced. And I happen to not only love the Bible (even as literature), but am a huge Herman Melville fan. In fact, I've spent quite a bit of time in New Bedford and the whaling musuem as a result of that love.

Iâ??m glad I was able to use an analogy that resonates with you. All credit goes to the holy sprit of course.

Can you give me some reasons why you feel these are inferior?

I'll also admit that when teaching the book of Genesis, it usually takes me a couple weeks to get beyond the first three verses, but that in part is because I like to establish the foundational notion of a council of deities that first appears in the opening chapter of Genesis and then continues on as the fundamental biblical symbol for the way in which the universe and man are governed.

Yeah man! Gen 1 is rocking.

Do you think you could spend that long on the opening to Nephi?

â?¦That sounds sarcasticâ?¦

I mean that seriously. Is it actually your opinion that there is as much juice to be squeezed in I Nephi 1 as there is in Gen 1, or do you think Nephi is better for another reason?

.. and now to Consig (great nick btw):

I think that Mark writes like a Jew, and his gospel is pretty clear and straightforward.

In a sense both are true. Mark WAS a Jew so of course there was a certain jewishness to his writing. As a matter of fact if you read mark in the original Greek it becomes apparent that he has a.. can we say.. less than perfectâ?¦ grasp of the language?

Nonetheless much about the style and content of what mark writes is very western, very Greek. Heâ??s not as interested in Jesusâ?? Messiahship or the old testament as say, Matthew is. Instead he focuses on Christ as Savior and servant and less on what was promised.

One element, which we miss in every English translation because we are too kind to Mark is his love affair with the word â??eutheosâ? he uses it 40 times compared with Lukeâ??s 8, and thatâ??s just that one conjugation of the word

It means â??immediatelyâ? and it seems like every verse in mark begins with it â??Immediately Jesus went to the Decapolis and immediately he say a demon possessed man! And immediately Jesus healed him! And immedi--â?¦Iâ??m exaggerating of course. But you get the point.

Itâ??s like a guy movie and not a chick flick. Very action packed, very uncharacteristic of Hebrew writing. Strong evidence of a western audience.

Luke is a little more removed from Judaism and is more gentile in flavor, to my mind; but that makes sense inasmuch as he is setting the stage for Luke II (i.e., Acts) with Paul as the hero; so we can see his gospel as paving the way for the taking of the gospel by Paul to the Gentiles.

Yeah exactly, That plus he wants gentile Christians to be able to read it without getting lost not understanding a Hebrew mindset.

John, on the other hand, seems to me to be steeped in Greek philosphy, with Gnostic associations. I mean, he starts off right away proclaiming Jesus is "the Word," which is kind of strange, don't you think?

â??Strangeâ?â?¦ Yeah I guess.

I certainly wouldnâ??t have thought of it!

I also think itâ??s kind of awesome!

Iâ??m not sure where you got Gnosticism from in Johnâ??s Gospel. Especially considering how strongly John testifies to Christâ??s divinity. (The main problem was Gnosticism was their denial of that because of their belief that the body and soul were at odds,)

But I do see the Greek Philosophy. Plato talked about truth being not in â??Mythosâ?, or false religion, but in â??Logosâ? which is the word from which we get the English word â??logicâ? and in John 1, Thatâ??s the same Greek word that getâ??s translated to â??wordâ?. So in the beginning was the â??logosâ? and it turns out the logos is Jesus.

Which is absolutely scrumtrulecent, as an idea.

There can be debate about weather John knew about Platoâ??s Logos or whether the holy sprit clued him in, or whether he just lucked out, but regardless that is there, and that does point to something trueâ?¦ that Jesus is the basis for a new kind of religion that is absolutely true.

But despite that kind of literary reference that calls to mind a true implication, there is also itâ??s literal meaning. Which I agree with you on:

By this, I take John to mean that Jesus came into existence by being spoken by God. Jesus really is God's Word. Jesus did not exist before God spoke him into existence. Sort of like a lot of Christians and Jews (and the author of John, apparently) think the universe did not exist until God spoke it into existence.

Yeah pretty muchâ?¦ I might split hairs with you a little bit about the term â??spoke him into existenceâ? I would argue instead that itâ??s more like the speaking WAS him.

That there was nothing, â??and then God said-â?? Stop right there! Now one thing exists, itâ??s a word, and John calls that Jesus.

And then through those words (that word) things are spoken into existence. Hence â??All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.â?

Except John says that God spoke Jesus into existence before God spoke the universe into existence; thus giving Jesus chronological primacy over the universe, but still retaining a subordinate and dependent position to God, who created him.

I donâ??t know about subordinate exactly but I like the term dependant. In Creedal Christianity we use the term â??begottenâ? to refer to the relationship between Jesus and the father and â??comes fourthâ? for the Holy Sprit

Itâ??s just arbitrary vocabulary but I find it helpful

Anyway, just some thoughts. I would be happy to look at a thread on the subject, if you wished to start one.

Iâ??m new here and didnâ??t want to go over anybodyâ??s head, but if weâ??re going to compare verses one to one, Isnâ??t that the kind of thing that should go on a school of the pundits board? How do we get on that?

[e=mc2]

Consiglieri:

The first verse of Genesis is okay; but honestly, it's not like it's any better than the first verse of the Book of Mormon. In fact, I think it suffers by comparison.

Kery:

GASP! *DOUBLE GASP*!!!!!!! While 1 Nephi 1:1 is truly magnificent, there is simply ***no comparison*** with Genesis 1:1 for absolutely phenomenal ideas and interpretations. I see I will have to do a video about this eh?

The Zohar treatment of Genesis 1:1 alone demonstrates its invincibility. When we add Sacred Geometry Genesis 1:1 leaves all else in the dust.

[LDSMusic483]

Putting my name together with that of David is enough to make this entire thread burst into flames.

This is my second week on the board... Why do I get the feeling I'm in for it?

::deep breath:: oh well. Daniel first:

Did I miss something, or why do you keep calling David Daniel?

[Dr. Sandwich]

Did I miss something, or why do you keep calling David Daniel?

Because I'm a N00B that needs to learn to read

[LDSMusic483]

Because I'm a N00B that needs to learn to read

Oh good good!

[kamenraider]

GASP! *DOUBLE GASP*!!!!!!! While 1 Nephi 1:1 is truly magnificent, there is simply ***no comparison*** with Genesis 1:1 for absolutely phenomenal ideas and interpretations. I see I will have to do a video about this eh?

The Zohar treatment of Genesis 1:1 alone demonstrates its invincibility. When we add Sacred Geometry Genesis 1:1 leaves all else in the dust.

Yeah, putting the "baith" in there obscured some meaning, but it added some as well.

[e=mc2]

Yeah, putting the "baith" in there obscured some meaning, but it added some as well.

That is merely but the beginning.... the Zohar alone has over 76 different meanings and connections with Genesis 1:1! (almost 400 ***pages***) The triangular numbers one finds in conjunction to the gematria is simply unbelievable. Talk about complexity yet connection all over the place! WOWIE!

[Smith]

And finally, as I have pointed out elsewhere, Nephiâ??s immediate reference to Lehi by the expression â??my fatherâ? carries significant meaning. As biblical scholar James G. Williams has explained, throughout the Old Testament, â??there are certain well-known passages in which the prophetic leader is called abi, â??my fatherâ?:

â??And Elisha saw it,â? reports the author of 2 Kings concerning the chief prophet Elijahâ??s ascent into heaven, â??and he cried, My father, my father . . .â? (2 Kings 2:12).; see â??The Prophetic â??Fatherâ??: A Brief Explanation of the Term â??Sons of the Prophets,â?? â? Journal of Biblical Literature 85 (1966): 3-5.

.......................<snip>........................

â??laid it upon Isaac his sonâ? (v. 6)

â??Abraham his fatherâ? (v. 7)

â??bound Isaac his sonâ? (v. 8 )

Of course, readers of the tale already know that Isaac is Abrahamsâ?? son and that Abraham is Isaacâ??s father. Clearly this unnecessary literary emphasis stands out in a record that typically provides a scarcity of descriptive details regarding people, places, and things.

Thus in a comparable way to which the author of Genesis 22 gave emphasis to the relationship between Abraham and Isaac, so Nephi, in his introduction to his narrative, appears to stress the significant fact that Lehi was â??his father,â? a leading prophetic figure.

So these are just a few of the reasons why the first verse of the Book of Mormon is impressive from my perspective.

Hi David,

After having read this very interesting insight of yours, it primed me to notice this in Moroni 9

11 O my beloved son, how can a people like this, that are without civilizationâ??

12 (And only a few years have passed away, and they were a civil and a delightsome people)

13 But O my son, how can a people like this, whose delight is in so much abominationâ??

14 How can we expect that God will stay his hand in judgment against us?

15 Behold, my heart cries: Wo unto this people. Come out in judgment, O God, and hide their sins, and wickedness, and abominations from before thy face!

16 And again, my son, there are many widows and their daughters who remain in Sherrizah; and that part of the provisions which the Lamanites did not carry away, behold, the army of Zenephi has carried away, and left them to wander whithersoever they can for food; and many old women do faint by the way and die.

17 And the army which is with me is weak; and the armies of the Lamanites are betwixt Sherrizah and me; and as many as have fled to the army of Aaron have fallen victims to their awful brutality.

18 O the depravity of my people! They are without order and without mercy. Behold, I am but a man, and I have but the strength of a man, and I cannot any longer enforce my commands.

19 And they have become strong in their perversion; and they are alike brutal, sparing none, neither old nor young; and they delight in everything save that which is good; and the suffering of our women and our children upon all the face of this land doth exceed everything; yea, tongue cannot tell, neither can it be written.

20 And now, my son, I dwell no longer upon this horrible scene. Behold, thou knowest the wickedness of this people; thou knowest that they are without principle, and past feeling; and their wickedness doth exceed that of the Lamanites.

21 Behold, my son, I cannot recommend them unto God lest he should smite me.

22 But behold, my son, I recommend thee unto God, and I trust in Christ that thou wilt be saved; and I pray unto God that he will spare thy life, to witness the return of his people unto him, or their utter destruction; for I know that they must perish except they repent and return unto him.

23 And if they perish it will be like unto the Jaredites, because of the wilfulness of their hearts, seeking for blood and revenge.

24 And if it so be that they perish, we know that many of our brethren have deserted over unto the Lamanites, and many more will also desert over unto them; wherefore, write somewhat a few things, if thou art spared and I shall perish and not see thee; but I trust that I may see thee soon; for I have sacred records that I would deliver up unto thee.

25 My son, be faithful in Christ; and may not the things which I have written grieve thee, to weigh thee down unto death; but may Christ lift thee up, and may his sufferings and death, and the showing his body unto our fathers, and his mercy and long-suffering, and the hope of his glory and of eternal life, rest in your mind forever.

Actually it starts from the beginning of the chapter but I didn't want to quote such a large chunk.

Given how Mormon is using "my son" prior to vs 25 I would say that vs 24 should have ended thus:

"for I have sacred records that I would deliver up unto thee, my son."

And then vs 25 start:

" be faithful in Christ; and may not the things"

In other words, with your observation in mind I would have punctuated the lines a bit differently than what was done by whomever did it.

What do you think?

[consiglieri]

That is merely but the beginning.... the Zohar alone has over 76 different meanings and connections with Genesis 1:1! (almost 400 ***pages***) The triangular numbers one finds in conjunction to the gematria is simply unbelievable. Talk about complexity yet connection all over the place! WOWIE!

Wait till David gets done with 1 Nephi 1:1.

400-pages will be a pittance by comparison.

[e=mc2]

Wait till David gets done with 1 Nephi 1:1.

400-pages will be a pittance by comparison.

I have no doubt. David always amazes me with his electrifying insights. I look *very forward* to reading his analysis! I am truly serious. However, once I get the vids done on Genesis 1:1 we will see there is a seriously close running for grandness........ what a GREAT way to study the scriptures! See who can outdo others on how great the scriptures are! This sounds like an assignment for Seminary students.....

[Rommelator]

This sounds like an assignment for Seminary students.....

Bring it on, Shirts!

[e=mc2]

Bring it on, Shirts!

HOWLING LAUGHTER!!!! It figures that comment would catch *your* attention as you are a seminary student. Oh my what have I done for my free time here? Well, I shall do so. It will take a bit of doing and a wee bit of time to assemble (say a couple weeks), but vids on the utter transcendant magnificence and greatness, power, and intelligent spirit of Genesis 1:1 in the pipeworks......

[Rommelator]

HOWLING LAUGHTER!!!! It figures that comment would catch *your* attention as you are a seminary student. Oh my what have I done for my free time here? Well, I shall do so. It will take a bit of doing and a wee bit of time to assemble (say a couple weeks), but vids on the utter transcendant magnificence and greatness, power, and intelligent spirit of Genesis 1:1 in the pipeworks......

Alright! You got your videos and I have my blog! Now lets see who wins! I will cover the Book of Mormon and you can tackle the Bible. Sounds fair?

Okay...3..2..1..GO!

[e=mc2]

Alright! You got your videos and I have my blog! Now lets see who wins! I will cover the Book of Mormon and you can tackle the Bible. Sounds fair?

Okay...3..2..1..GO!

YEEHAW!!!!!!!!!! (Runnin and a huffin and a puffin....) hey wait a sec. I haven't told my wife yet.