Monolatry - Existence of other gods

[volgadon]

"learned man of God" = Simeon ben Yochai

It seems to be "learned man of God" = Joseph Smith.

The whole focus of the discourse is that Joseph smith knows things learned men don't, because he is learned of God.

But Zucker (along with Mormon historians generally) ignored another exegesis of this verse--an exegesis which was a basic precept of Jewish Kabbalah from the thirteenth century on and which agrees, word for word, with Joseph's reading.

The bolded part is patently false. There are significant differences between the Zohar's views of Gen 1:1 and Joseph Smith's.

There is already a thread on the topic, I'd love to carry on the debate over there.

[volgadon]

Indeed, I always enjoy reading what Mortal Man has to say and hope he will provide a substantial response.

I am hoping he will engage in debate about the differences between the KFD and the Zohar on Gen 1:1.

[Ron Beron]

Indeed, I always enjoy reading what Mortal Man has to say and hope he will provide a substantial response.

I would be interested in hearing what he has to say about Alexander Neibaur since he is a direct ancestor to my wife and therefore my kids.

[volgadon]

Oh, then I knew a cousin of sorts of yours, sadly she passed away not too long ago.

[Ron Beron]

Oh, then I knew a cousin of sorts of yours, sadly she passed away not too long ago.

Was this posted to me? Contact off-line...thanks.

[zerinus]

Zenrius, if you don't think a point of view is valid, you have to present a decent reason as to why, not just redundant questions. Clean it up or you don't get to post.

Mortal Man, you are more than welcome to respond to anyone, we just step in when it gets disrespectful. If you have valid arguments to present that are not full of slander (not accusing you in particular, experience has taught I just have to say it every time), then they are welcome here.

~Chronos

Thank you. What if I ignored him altogether? Would that be acceptable? or do I have to reply to him?

It is maklelan that I am referring to, of course.

[David Bokovoy]

Thank you. What if I ignored him altogether? Would that be acceptable? or do I have to reply to him?

It is maklelan that I am referring to, of course.

We believe in agency here, Zerinus. You're free to continue ignoring whatever you choose. It's a wonderful thing! I'm sorry if these discussions have hurt your feelings.

Warm wishes,

--DB

[zerinus]

We believe in agency here, Zerinus. You're free to continue ignoring whatever you choose. It's a wonderful thing! I'm sorry if these discussions have hurt your feelings.

Warm wishes,

--DB

If he has that many complaints to make about me, that seems to be a good solution for both of us, don't you think? Mods don't usually give warnings unless somebody complains.

[Ron Beron]

If he has that many complaints to make about me, that seems to be a good solution for both of us, don't you think? Mods don't usually give warnings unless somebody complains.

Mak doesn't need help from the mods who are very capable of reading individual threads and coming to their own conclusions.

[zerinus]

I

[LeSellers]

No; I didn

[zerinus]

How unutterably parochial, chronocentric of you.

It is obvious that you do not have the least concept of communication via language.

You will have noticed, no doubt, that Joseph and his peers understood the word "translate" in several ways (just as we do today, btw) and that it is not until the sixth of these that we find anything at all to do with language.

In contrast, the word "walk" is very much (but not entirely) like what it was two centuries ago.

If you spoke French, with English as a second language last visited in high school, and you refused to understand how Joseph used a word, insisting that your XXI French understanding has precedence over what he actually meant when he dictated the words, you'd be insane. It is only slightly less obtuse to demand that Joseph used a word exactly as you do two hundred years later.

Now, it is also wrong to assume that, even in the XXI, the word "translate" means "to render ideas expressed in one language into another". It does not. We still use the word in various ways that relate to the prophet and his work.

In short, yo fail to acknowledge the differences between XIX and XXI English is to rob yourself of the ability to understand what you read. Don't make that mistake.

Lehi

So do you think that when Joseph Smith says in his Teachings (p.323):

[volgadon]

Zerinus, if you were to listen to this folksong, the Dark Eyed Sailor, with a 21st century mindset, what would you think?

As I roved out one evening fair

It bein' the summertime to take the air

I spied a sailor and a lady gay

And I stood to listen

And I stood to listen to hear what they would say.

Another example comes from the Mexican Adventure of the 1860s.

damaged Springfields from the Rio Grande supplied by some cute Yankee, who in turn was probably cheated out of his money...

[LeSellers]

So do you think that when Joseph Smith says in his Teachings (p.323):

[volgadon]

We might validly say, "The XXI and the XIX are two centuries separated by a common language."

See my previous post for two examples.