The strangest part of The Book of Mormon

[california boy]

31 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I fully expect non-scholars to take the POV which you have about the use of such terms.  As a trained anthropologist and biblical scholar I simply know better.  I don't really expect you to accept something about which you know so little.

This has nothing whatever to do with any policy which has now been disavowed, nor is it a matter of spin.  I realize that people have been speaking in that fashion for many years now, so it is nothing new at all, and you know that.  You really do have a choice:  You can continue to use the "white" and "black, dark" terminology they way yokels use it, or you can actually read the biblical and BofM text and discover that your surface assumptions are simply false.  That is completely up to you.

You were not even born yet when my Mormon friends and I were directly involved in the civil rights movement in the early 1960s, and you are likely unaware of the strongly worded essays later written by Dr Lester Bush and others.  Many of us inveighed against racism, and so did our ancestors.  You appear to falsely believe that there was only one monomaniacal POV among Mormons in those days.  That simply isn't so, nor was it the case in Brother Brigham's day -- I have pointed out many times that Joseph Smith and Orson Pratt did not share Brigham's POV.  It is a travesty to suggest otherwise.

I always knew that Elder McConkie was wrong in his comments on race, priesthood, etc., and finally heard him publicly admit as much in 1978.  I knew that he was wrong just as surely as I know that you are wrong today.  I have not always been on the right side of history, CalBoy, but I have a pretty good average.  How do you imagine I managed that?

Ok.  I have to admit I laughed out loud when I read this post.  For all of your "learned" insights I loved the part where you labeled me a yokel.  But most of all, I loved your prophetic knowing of when I was born.  At my age, I am not sure if I should take you knowing my birth date as a compliment because I don't think like someone my age should think or if I should be insulted by. your pronounced judgements on what I DON'T KNOW.  I was born in 1950 and am VERY aware of how Mormons thought of blacks growing up.  I lived during the time of the civil rights movement. And yes, I have read Dr Lester Bush's essay.  

Calling me names and making false assumptions about when I was born and what I lived through seems just as desperate as your explanations Not very scholarly if you.  This post just makes you look even worse in defending your position  

 

Edited June 2, 2018 by california boy

[Robert F. Smith]

26 minutes ago, california boy said:

Ok.  I have to admit I laughed out loud when I read this post.  For all of your "learned" insights I loved the part where you labeled me a yokel.  But most of all, I loved your prophetic knowing of when I was born.  At my age, I am not sure if I should take you knowing my birth date as a compliment because I don't think like someone my age should think or if I should be insulted by. your pronounced judgements on what I DON'T KNOW.  I was born in 1950 and am VERY aware of how Mormons thought of blacks growing up.  I lived during the time of the civil rights movement. And yes, I have read Dr Lester Bush's essay.  

Calling me names and making false assumptions about when I was born and what I lived through seems just as desperate as your explanations Not very scholarly if you.  This post just makes you look even worse in defending your position  

I figured you'd laugh when you read my conceited comments.  Sorry I was wrong about your age, but am glad to find that you in fact are aware of the work which many of us did back in those days (some of it published  in Dialogue).  I have a good ten years on you (was born in Oakland), and perhaps we even crossed paths back in the day, in San Francisco.  Still, at your age I would have expected you to be better informed about the race issue in general, even if you don't understand Scripture -- don't feel to badly, very few people do.

I have no position to defend.  I am simply letting you know what the real world is like.  Please don't take it so hard.

[Robert F. Smith]

On 5/31/2018 at 6:43 PM, Rajah Manchou said:

If the gentiles in 1 Nephi were Europeans, then Nephi certainly believed his people were as white as the Puritans:

"And I beheld the Spirit of the Lord, that it was upon the Gentiles, and they did prosper and obtain the land for their inheritance; and I beheld that they were white, and exceedingly fair and beautiful, like unto my people before they were slain." - 1 Nephi 13:15

This is a pretty good indicator that terms like "white" can't possibly be taken literally in the BofM.  That is, since the Manassite and Jewish people in the BofM are dark brown skinned, and the Europeans you refer to are very light-skinned, the disjuncture should be obvious.  That is also why "pure" can be exchanged for "white" in the BofM.

[Calm]

On 5/31/2018 at 1:30 AM, Rivers said:

I’ve been reading through the Book of Mormon lately.  There’s much to love in the book.  It lifts me up and brings me closer to God.  

But I fail to wrap my head around the parts that talk about people receiving darker skin for wickedness and turning white when they become righteous.  I’m familiar with the theory that it’s all metaphorical but I’m not sold on it.

 

I wouldn’t even necessarily call it racist.  I just think the whole thing is weird. It’s a big distraction in an otherwise great book.  Its like watching a really good movie but having one particular annoying character or bad subplot diminish the experience.  Or like walking around in comfortable shoes but with a pebble inside.

Is there a way to frame this aspect of the B.O.M. in a more positive light?  

Maybe it and other such  things like it are there so humanity don’t get too comfortable, discomfort may mean more growth

We have to come face-to-face with our Heritage of ideas, correct or incorrect.

[california boy]

43 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I figured you'd laugh when you read my conceited comments.  Sorry I was wrong about your age, but am glad to find that you in fact are aware of the work which many of us did back in those days (some of it published  in Dialogue).  I have a good ten years on you (was born in Oakland), and perhaps we even crossed paths back in the day, in San Francisco.  Still, at your age I would have expected you to be better informed about the race issue in general, even if you don't understand Scripture -- don't feel to badly, very few people do.

I have no position to defend.  I am simply letting you know what the real world is like.  Please don't take it so hard.

Of course I am aware not everyone supported the church's view on blacks.  And maybe we are talking about two different things.  You seem to be talking about a counter position in the curse of a dark skin.  I am talking about the church’s interpretation of those scriptures which was always about skin color. 

Badically you are going against church leaders belief on what these scriptures meant. Some scholars share your view. Others do not. 

No I don’t take it hard.  I am pretty confident in my educational strengths.  Calling me a yokel isn’t going to offend me. Hence the laugh. You do have an arrogant streak don’t you. Lol

[Robert F. Smith]

21 hours ago, california boy said:

Of course I am aware not everyone supported the church's view on blacks.  And maybe we are talking about two different things.  You seem to be talking about a counter position in the curse of a dark skin.  I am talking about the church’s interpretation of those scriptures which was always about skin color. 

Badically you are going against church leaders belief on what these scriptures meant.

At the beginning of that wonderful celebration at the Conference Center Friday nite, I took careful note of Pres Oaks' comment that he had studied the reasons generally given for the restrictions on priesthood, and could not find confirmation of the truth of any of them (1:11:00).  Then came the 1978 revelation, Pres Oaks saying:

Quote

"Institutionally, the Church reacted swiftly to the revelation on the priesthood. . . .  The reasons that had been given to try to explain the prior restrictions on members of African ancestry, even those previously voiced by revered Church leaders, were promptly and publicly disavowed." (1:12:00)  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7I43VRudhMw .

The Church as an institution never had an opinion on the meaning of skin color.  Some leaders had stated beliefs at variance with one another, Brigham and Orson Pratt foremost among them, and yet we should also include Joseph Smith.  Doctrinal and policy oscillations within Mormonism were quite noticeable over time, some principles being reversed 180 degrees.  Yokels are unable to see that or even consider it.  Moreover, they have no idea that the anthropomorphizing of an institution is a fallacy.

21 hours ago, california boy said:

Some scholars share your view. Others do not. 

No I don’t take it hard.  I am pretty confident in my educational strengths.  Calling me a yokel isn’t going to offend me. Hence the laugh. You do have an arrogant streak don’t you. Lol

Yeh.  It comes with age and decreasing patience with people who would argue with their English Lit professor over the meaning of "metaphor" -- if they even bothered to take the class . . .   😎

[Stargazer]

On 5/31/2018 at 8:48 AM, Hamba Tuhan said:

I did my PhD research using 16th-century documents created by Europeans in 'India'. These documents often talk about skin colour in a way that only makes sense if it's related to perceived states of 'civilisation'. The closer to Europeans in behaviour, the whiter the people were, and vice-versa. This allowed Jesuits writing about the island of New Guinea to claim that the people living in the interior were black whilst those living along the coasts were whiter, with some being almost as white as Europeans. In other cases, clerics noted how white a particular local ruler was in contrast to his people ... i.e., how understandable/approachable the Europeans found him. It was a wish for many Jesuits to serve in Japan so that they could be amongst white people like themselves.

With this background, I just don't get tripped up by these passages in the Book of Mormon.

And this is before even dealing with the fact that the text completely deconstructs any notions of 'race' after seemingly introducing them.

This oddly corresponds with an couple of experiences I had in Canada when I was living in Toronto. I was in a fraternity in high school, and one of my frat brothers occasionally liked to unconsciously use the expression "be a white guy and..." when asking for a favor. The odd part was him using it on me, who am already a "white guy", and our our chapter's black member (from South Africa) -- who was puzzled at this but not offended. 

[Stargazer]

On 5/31/2018 at 4:17 PM, hope_for_things said:

Simplest answer is usually the right one.  Joseph Smith is the author of the book, and the words reflect his ideas about race.  

Occams Razor can mislead. The simplest answer is absolutely not usually the right one. For example, the ancient Greeks believed that earthquakes were caused by underground winds, since wind frequently issued from and entered cave mouths. Simple, logical, and utterly wrong. Is it simpler that the sun is a very hot rock, or a ball of gas so massive that the pressure in its center causes hydrogen to transmute to helium, giving off energy? Hot rock Is simplest, but also totally wrong. I could provide counterexamples all the livelong day.

Besides that, you're misstating the principle. It isn't "simplest is usually correct". It's "when presented with competing hypothetical answers to a problem, one should select the answer that makes the fewest assumptions."

[Stargazer]

On 5/31/2018 at 8:48 AM, Hamba Tuhan said:

I did my PhD research using 16th-century documents created by Europeans in 'India'. These documents often talk about skin colour in a way that only makes sense if it's related to perceived states of 'civilisation'. The closer to Europeans in behaviour, the whiter the people were, and vice-versa. This allowed Jesuits writing about the island of New Guinea to claim that the people living in the interior were black whilst those living along the coasts were whiter, with some being almost as white as Europeans. In other cases, clerics noted how white a particular local ruler was in contrast to his people ... i.e., how understandable/approachable the Europeans found him. It was a wish for many Jesuits to serve in Japan so that they could be amongst white people like themselves.

With this background, I just don't get tripped up by these passages in the Book of Mormon.

And this is before even dealing with the fact that the text completely deconstructs any notions of 'race' after seemingly introducing them.

Very interesting! Is your dissertation available? I'd love to read it!

[Bernard Gui]

On 5/31/2018 at 12:36 PM, clarkgoble said:

One thing I truly wish we could do is move away from the art of the 20th century and portray Nephites as having curly black hair and dark skin, Lamanites as looking more mayan, and perhaps moving away from swords as Roman gladius. We're halfway there with some art but most art from the Church is deeply problematic as those excepts from the Book of Mormon Stories for Children show.

Amen. The Nephites and Lamanites were Semites -  Lehites. They were not of different races. There is some speculation that the Lamanites mingled with indigenous peoples, but the record is clear that shortly before and immediately after the coming of Christ, the curse (being cut off from God because of wickedness) and the sign of the curse (the skin of blackness, whatever form that took) were removed The people reunited and inter-married as Lehites under the name of a Nephi. The curse was reinstated as their culture collapsed and degenerated into barbarism and idolatry. There is no record that the sign of the curse was reinstated.

All the above mitigates against imputing Joseph’s supposed racism being inserted into the Book of Mormon. 

Edited June 3, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[mfbukowski]

On 6/1/2018 at 12:18 PM, clarkgoble said:

Underneath all this is the question of God's foreknowledge. There are four main positions.

1. God has absolute foreknowledge
2. God has limited foreknowledge
3. God has no foreknowledge but knowledge of all possibilities in depth
4. God knows just like us. He may know a lot more but is still limited.

Typical Open Theists favor (4) - these are people like Blake Ostler or others. I think there are some issues with that but it can't be rejected out of hand. I tend towards a variant of (2) of some kind but have little confidence in such a view. Typically people's other commitments push them to pick a particular conception of God's knowledge. So most Open Theists seem to go that route because they think a robust ontological type of free will is necessary to make God's judgements just. (Blake is an example of that) I don't really buy that reasoning. To my eyes while there's some scriptural indications that push one towards (1) there are also reasons to be skeptical. Most GAs assume (1) but it's not clear there's any unambiguous revelation on it but just arises from how they read scripture.

The point is that without knowing the nature of God's knowledge, it's almost impossible to answer these other questions people are raising.

Exactly and therefore the questions are a waste of time.

Leave it to me to get to the bottom line.  👺

It's even questionable to USE the word "knowledge" for a being who is postulated to have created (or organized) "all things"

How could you make something and not "know" it- and why would it even be relevant to try to slice and dice those meanings?  Having some sort of "full knowledge" - whatever that could mean - is one of the defining characteristics of a being we would call "God", or else he would be just another smart guy without a last name. 

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Amen. The Nephites and Lamanites were Semites -  Lehites. They were not of different races. There is some speculation that the Lamanites mingled with indigenous peoples, but the record is clear that shortly before and immediately after the coming of Christ, the curse (being cut off from God because of wickedness) and the sign of the curse (the skin of blackness, whatever form that took) were removed The people reunited and inter-married as Lehites under the name of a Nephi. The curse was reinstated as their culture collapsed and degenerated into barbarism and idolatry. There is no record that the sign of the curse was reinstated.

All the above mitigates against imputing Joseph’s supposed racism being inserted into the Book of Mormon. 

We visited Yosemite last weekend and my daughter said that from now on she would say "hi" to her Jewish friends by saying "YO!  SEMITE!  What's happening?"

[Lagrange]

On 5/31/2018 at 10:56 PM, Rajah Manchou said:

This is why I don't read the gentiles of the vision as being European Puritans. Nephi had never seen a European before. If he saw Columbus and the Puritans in vision he would have been seeing something he was unfamiliar with. It seems unlikely his response to seeing Master Christopher Jones at the helm of the Mayflower would have been, "wow, he looks just like me". 

The more reasonable reading, in my opinion, is that the gentiles Nephi saw in his vision were Christians of his complexion fleeing captivity in the Middle East, not Puritans in England seeking economic opportunities in America.

As for the character often thought of as Columbus, do you have any other particular person in mind?  And what time period?

[Rajah Manchou]

3 hours ago, Lagrange said:

As for the character often thought of as Columbus, do you have any other particular person in mind?  And what time period?

The Narrative of Zosimus tells of a group in the 6th century BC being led by God from Jerusalem to a land promised to them. We learn from the text that a Christian hermit named Zosimus visited these people in their promised land.

“According to the Narrative of Zosimus, a righteous man named Zosimus, dwelling in a cave in a desert, prays to the Lord and obtains spiritual passage to a land of blessedness. In order to arrive at this land of promise, Zosimus must wander in the wilderness without knowing where he is being led. He is pushed to the point of exhaustion but attains his destination by constant prayer and divine intervention. Zosimus eventually arrives at the bank of an unfathomable river of water covered by an impenetrable cloud of darkness. Catching the branches of a tree, Zosimus is transported across the water where he sits beneath a beautiful tree, eating its fruit and drinking of the life-sustaining water which flows from its root. Zosimus is then met by an angelic escort, who asks him what he wants, shows him a vision in which he thinks he beholds the Son of God, and ultimately introduces him to a group of righteous sons of God. These elders tell Zosimus of their history and instruct him in their ways of righteousness. Their history is engraved upon soft stone plates. It explains how the group, led by their father, escaped the destruction of Jerusalem at the time of Jeremiah and how as a nation they survived the scattering of Israel.” (source)

In my opinion, the gentile who went forth upon the many waters, even unto those who were in the promised land was Zosimus. Based on datings of the text, I believe the text refers to Zosimus of Palestine, who lived in the 5th century AD.

Edited June 4, 2018 by Rajah Manchou

[Rajah Manchou]

On 6/2/2018 at 4:31 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

This is a pretty good indicator that terms like "white" can't possibly be taken literally in the BofM.  That is, since the Manassite and Jewish people in the BofM are dark brown skinned, and the Europeans you refer to are very light-skinned, the disjuncture should be obvious.  That is also why "pure" can be exchanged for "white" in the BofM.

Stumbled on this today while reading about Thomas, and though it apropos:

It was to a land of dark people [Thomas] was sent, to clothe them by Baptism in white robes. His grateful dawn dispelled India's painful darkness. It was his mission to espouse India to the One-Begotten. The merchant is blessed for having so great a treasure. Edessa thus became the blessed city by possessing the greatest pearl India could yield. Thomas works miracles in India, and at Edessa Thomas is destined to baptize peoples perverse and steeped in darkness, and that in the land of India.

— Hymns of Saint Ephrem, edited by Lamy (Ephr. Hymni et Sermones, IV).

[Robert F. Smith]

Trent Toone, “Young refugees from Myanmar taking part in Book of Mormon pageant,” Deseret News, May 25, 2018, online at https://www.deseretnews.com/article/900019718/young-refugees-from-myanmar-taking-part-in-book-of-mormon-pageant.html ,

Youth and young adults from Myanmar's Karen and Karenni tribes will act out dramatic scenes in "Mormon Speaks," at the Murray High School auditorium in Salt Lake City, June 7-9, at 7:30 p.m.  It will be performed in English.

[Paiute]

On 6/3/2018 at 7:37 PM, Rajah Manchou said:

The Narrative of Zosimus tells of a group in the 6th century BC being led by God from Jerusalem to a land promised to them. We learn from the text that a Christian hermit named Zosimus visited these people in their promised land.

“According to the Narrative of Zosimus, a righteous man named Zosimus, dwelling in a cave in a desert, prays to the Lord and obtains spiritual passage to a land of blessedness. In order to arrive at this land of promise, Zosimus must wander in the wilderness without knowing where he is being led. He is pushed to the point of exhaustion but attains his destination by constant prayer and divine intervention. Zosimus eventually arrives at the bank of an unfathomable river of water covered by an impenetrable cloud of darkness. Catching the branches of a tree, Zosimus is transported across the water where he sits beneath a beautiful tree, eating its fruit and drinking of the life-sustaining water which flows from its root. Zosimus is then met by an angelic escort, who asks him what he wants, shows him a vision in which he thinks he beholds the Son of God, and ultimately introduces him to a group of righteous sons of God. These elders tell Zosimus of their history and instruct him in their ways of righteousness. Their history is engraved upon soft stone plates. It explains how the group, led by their father, escaped the destruction of Jerusalem at the time of Jeremiah and how as a nation they survived the scattering of Israel.” (source)

In my opinion, the gentile who went forth upon the many waters, even unto those who were in the promised land was Zosimus. Based on datings of the text, I believe the text refers to Zosimus of Palestine, who lived in the 5th century AD.

President Hinckley speaking in General Conference would disagree with you:

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1992/10/building-your-tabernacle?lang=eng

In my private commemoration of this event, I have read and reread one important and prophetic verse from the Book of Mormon, and also a very long biography of Christopher Columbus.

That verse from Nephi’s vision states: “And I looked and beheld a man among the Gentiles, who was separated from the seed of my brethren by the many waters; and I beheld the Spirit of God, that it came down and wrought upon the man; and he went forth upon the many waters, even unto the seed of my brethren, who were in the promised land.” (1 Ne. 13:12.)

We interpret that to refer to Columbus. It is interesting to note that the Spirit of God wrought upon him. After reading that long biography, a Pulitzer winner of forty years ago, titled Admiral of the Ocean Sea—I have no doubt that Christopher Columbus was a man of faith, as well as a man of indomitable determination.

 

[Rajah Manchou]

44 minutes ago, Paiute said:

President Hinckley speaking in General Conference would disagree with you:

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1992/10/building-your-tabernacle?lang=eng

In my private commemoration of this event, I have read and reread one important and prophetic verse from the Book of Mormon, and also a very long biography of Christopher Columbus.

That verse from Nephi’s vision states: “And I looked and beheld a man among the Gentiles, who was separated from the seed of my brethren by the many waters; and I beheld the Spirit of God, that it came down and wrought upon the man; and he went forth upon the many waters, even unto the seed of my brethren, who were in the promised land.” (1 Ne. 13:12.)

We interpret that to refer to Columbus. It is interesting to note that the Spirit of God wrought upon him. After reading that long biography, a Pulitzer winner of forty years ago, titled Admiral of the Ocean Sea—I have no doubt that Christopher Columbus was a man of faith, as well as a man of indomitable determination.

I have no doubt that Christopher Columbus was a man of indomitable determination. I doubt that 5th century Nephites looked anything like Columbus and the Puritans. Nephi also says the gentiles in his vision were in captivity. Columbus and the Puritans were not in captivity.

So I have a different interpretation.

[Rajah Manchou]

6 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Trent Toone, “Young refugees from Myanmar taking part in Book of Mormon pageant,” Deseret News, May 25, 2018, online at https://www.deseretnews.com/article/900019718/young-refugees-from-myanmar-taking-part-in-book-of-mormon-pageant.html ,

Youth and young adults from Myanmar's Karen and Karenni tribes will act out dramatic scenes in "Mormon Speaks," at the Murray High School auditorium in Salt Lake City, June 7-9, at 7:30 p.m.  It will be performed in English.

I am hoping there will be opportunities to see the recording that Book of Mormon Central is making.

Perhaps the most interesting thing about the Karen is that they no doubt were in contact with the Jewish communities of Cochin from a very early date. I see these communities as a window into what our missing Book of Mormon civilization might have looked like. The timeline is practically the same and the folklore is strikingly similar.

Even the concept of black and white skin representing different layers of Israelite communities has a parallel in the Malabar Jewish communities, and there is not always a clear distinction in terms of skin color between the "black" Jews who are said to have arrived in the 6th century BC and "white" Jews and gentiles who came later (source):

The Book of Mormon fits the historical narrative, without anachronisms.

Edited June 5, 2018 by Rajah Manchou

[Paiute]

On 6/4/2018 at 10:32 PM, Rajah Manchou said:

I have no doubt that Christopher Columbus was a man of indomitable determination. I doubt that 5th century Nephites looked anything like Columbus and the Puritans. Nephi also says the gentiles in his vision were in captivity. Columbus and the Puritans were not in captivity.

So I have a different interpretation.

The scriptures are not subject to private interpretations.

[Rajah Manchou]

14 minutes ago, Paiute said:

The scriptures are not subject to private interpretations.

My scriptures are. 

[JAHS]

On 6/4/2018 at 9:39 PM, Paiute said:

President Hinckley speaking in General Conference would disagree with you:

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1992/10/building-your-tabernacle?lang=eng

In my private commemoration of this event, I have read and reread one important and prophetic verse from the Book of Mormon, and also a very long biography of Christopher Columbus.

That verse from Nephi’s vision states: “And I looked and beheld a man among the Gentiles, who was separated from the seed of my brethren by the many waters; and I beheld the Spirit of God, that it came down and wrought upon the man; and he went forth upon the many waters, even unto the seed of my brethren, who were in the promised land.” (1 Ne. 13:12.)

We interpret that to refer to Columbus. It is interesting to note that the Spirit of God wrought upon him. After reading that long biography, a Pulitzer winner of forty years ago, titled Admiral of the Ocean Sea—I have no doubt that Christopher Columbus was a man of faith, as well as a man of indomitable determination.

 

Despite some human weaknesses and character flaws, Columbus was convinced that he possessed gifts from God that were the key to his success. Here are some interesting quotes from him:

"He(God) bestowed the arts of seamanship upon me in abundance, and has given me what was necessary from [astronomy], geometry, and arithmetic; and has given me adequate inventiveness in my soul ... encouraging me to go forward, and without ceasing they inflame me with a sense of great urgency."
(Columbus to Doña Juana de la Torre, Raccolta di documenti e studi pubblicati della R. Commissione Colombiana, pt. I, vol. ii; I Scriti di Cristoforo Colombo, ed. Cesare de Lollis (Rome: 1894), p. 82.)

He also gave God the glory for what he or anyone can accomplish:

"The eternal God our Lord gives to all those who walk in his path victory over things that seem impossible. And this is notably one; for, although men have talked or written of these lands, all has been conjecture. All Christendom ought to feel delight and make great feasts and give solemn thanks to the Holy Trinity with many solemn prayers for the great exaltation they shall have in the turning of so many people to our holy faith."
(Cristóbal Colón, Textos y documentos completos: Relacionesde viajes, cartas y memoriales, ed. Consuelo Varela (Madrid: Alianza Editorial, 1989), pp. 137-38.)

Columbus believed he was an instrument in God's hands to carry out his project:

"the Lord opened my mind to the fact that it would be possible to sail from here to the Indies, and he opened my will to desire to accomplish the project. Who can doubt that this fire was not merely mine, but also the Holy Spirit who encouraged me with a radiance of marvelous illumination from his sacred Scriptures."
(Libro de las profecias, p. 105. Raccolta, pt. I, vol. ii, p. 79.)

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, JAHS said:

Despite some human weaknesses and character flaws, Columbus was convinced that he possessed gifts from God that were the key to his success. Here are some interesting quotes from him:

Those were pretty mighty flaws. 

[cinepro]

13 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Those were pretty mighty flaws. 

At some point, we need to stop calling them "flaws" and just say he was a terribly cruel and evil person.

[Paiute]

2 hours ago, cinepro said:

At some point, we need to stop calling them "flaws" and just say he was a terribly cruel and evil person.

I thought Lehi’s and Ishmael’s children and Zoram had smallpox and killed all those Maya with it.

Now there's a private interpretation 😏