Rajah Manchou Posted June 8, 2018 Posted June 8, 2018 6 minutes ago, RevTestament said: I would invite you to show how, but I think that would be derailing the thread. You could start a new thread This would be an interesting thread.
Paiute Posted June 8, 2018 Posted June 8, 2018 Well, I enjoy all the private interpretations happening here. Very interesting everyone's points of view. But again, Pres. Hinckley stated in General Conference in 1992 on the 500th Anniversary of Columbus discovering America that 1 Ne 13:12 is interpreted to refer to Columbus. One would think the matter then settled. If you hate Columbus, for whatever reason, as the guy was merely trying to acquire some riches to help the Monarchy of Spain overthrow the invading Muslims in the Iberian peninsula - and was inspired by the Lord to travel west, to poorly summarize the article I previously posted - then I suppose you can embrace verse 11 and still be in agreement with President Hinckley. 1 Ne 13:11 And it came to pass that the angel said unto me: Behold the wrath of God is upon the seed of thy brethren. But I believe Columbus was generally a good guy. After all, he was ordained a High Priest by or by the approval of Pres. Wilford Woodruff in the St, George Temple. https://www.dailywire.com/news/21968/historical-record-shows-christopher-columbus-michael-j-knowles 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.
RevTestament Posted June 8, 2018 Posted June 8, 2018 13 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said: If there is no praise for Columbus in 1 Nephi, then it feels like we've been overstating his role in the restoration for a very long time. But my reasons for believing Columbus was not the gentile in Nephi's vision are more related to: (1) Columbus being a captor not a captive, the gentiles Nephi saw in vision were in captivity. By jove I think you are getting it. If Christopher Columbus was the man the spirit rested upon, how did he lead the Gentiles out of captivity? One of the ways the Spanish first raised money was by capturing Natives and hauling them back to Europe to be sold as slaves into captivity. The Natives that remained were mostly forcibly converted to Catholicism while the Spanish took anything of value they could find, and rode about armor on their horses conquering Natives. Now maybe Columbus was leading a bunch of rag tag thugs and criminals out of legal troubles back home, but somehow, I don't think this is what the scriptures mean. Quote (2) Nephi said the gentiles he saw in vision were white like the Nephites. If the Nephites were Semites, this wouldn't be a likely comparison. i don't take the whiteness to be skin color but a countenance color - a pureness of countenance. So the Gentiles being referred to were followers, who were trying to follow Yeshua like the Nephites, and had a white countenance like the Nephites who became white as Yeshua when He came. I think another way of saying this is their sins were forgiven.
Josh Khinder Posted June 8, 2018 Posted June 8, 2018 12 hours ago, RevTestament said: I would invite you to show how, but I think that would be derailing the thread. You could start a new thread, and I would be happy to show the ways the Book of Mormon does not teach the creeds. Saying the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one God is really the only semblance. That can easily be scriptural addressed since the plural word Elohim can incorporate all three - which is actually further than the Bible goes without the Johanine Coma. I read the word Elohim as "the family of immovable power/force." However, in a few places the Hebrew also refers to Elim, which is a true plural ie it is not used singularly. It's the real challenge to the doctrine of the trinity. Moreso than the Book of Mormon, it's the Bible which destroys these creeds doctrinally - although the Book of Mormon has a surprise in store. The Creeds teach The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are Co-Eternal like the Book of Mormon teaches for starters
cinepro Posted June 8, 2018 Posted June 8, 2018 (edited) 13 hours ago, Paiute said: But again, Pres. Hinckley stated in General Conference in 1992 on the 500th Anniversary of Columbus discovering America that 1 Ne 13:12 is interpreted to refer to Columbus. One would think the matter then settled. Saying "We interpret that to refer to Columbus" is hardly a declarative statement that the interpretation is divinely confirmed as being correct. Quote 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. https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1992/10/building-your-tabernacle?lang=eng Sometimes "men of faith" do terrible things, even in the name of god. I'm not arguing that Columbus didn't think he was inspired (or didn't seek inspiration), or that the author of the Book of Mormon didn't think Columbus was inspired. I'm just saying that the evidence of whether or not he was inspired also includes his actions, and based on what he did and the effects of his actions and decisions in the New World, I'm saying that the evil off-sets any claims to "inspiration" he might make. I could similarly find any number of southern plantation owners who were cruel to slaves but considered themselves fine, upstanding Christians. But I would similarly argue that their cruelty identifies them as evil, regardless of what might have been accepted among their fellow southern gentlemen. Edited June 8, 2018 by cinepro 3
Stargazer Posted June 8, 2018 Posted June 8, 2018 1 hour ago, Josh Khinder said: You might like to start your own thread on this. But I don't see what the point is, since you've hashed and rehashed the exact same thing over and over again here. 1
Paiute Posted June 9, 2018 Posted June 9, 2018 7 hours ago, cinepro said: Saying "We interpret that to refer to Columbus" is hardly a declarative statement that the interpretation is divinely confirmed as being correct. Sometimes "men of faith" do terrible things, even in the name of god. I'm not arguing that Columbus didn't think he was inspired (or didn't seek inspiration), or that the author of the Book of Mormon didn't think Columbus was inspired. I'm just saying that the evidence of whether or not he was inspired also includes his actions, and based on what he did and the effects of his actions and decisions in the New World, I'm saying that the evil off-sets any claims to "inspiration" he might make. I could similarly find any number of southern plantation owners who were cruel to slaves but considered themselves fine, upstanding Christians. But I would similarly argue that their cruelty identifies them as evil, regardless of what might have been accepted among their fellow southern gentlemen. Since you believe Christopher Columbus was cruel and evil, then why doesn't he fulfill 1 Ne 13:11? as well as 12?
Rajah Manchou Posted June 9, 2018 Posted June 9, 2018 10 hours ago, RevTestament said: If Christopher Columbus was the man the spirit rested upon, how did he lead the Gentiles out of captivity? The reason I consider an earlier time period for the events in Nephi's vision is because he also mentions that the gentiles in captivity were the saints of God: Quote 5 And the angel said unto me: Behold the formation of a church which is most abominable above all other churches, which slayeth the saints of God, yea, and tortureth them and bindeth them down, and yoketh them with a yoke of iron, and bringeth them down into captivity. 6 And it came to pass that I beheld this great and abominable church; and I saw the devil that he was the founder of it. 7 And I also saw gold, and silver, and silks, and scarlets, and fine-twined linen, and all manner of precious clothing; and I saw many harlots. 8 And the angel spake unto me, saying: Behold the gold, and the silver, and the silks, and the scarlets, and the fine-twined linen, and the precious clothing, and the harlots, are the desires of this great and abominable church. 9 And also for the praise of the world do they destroy the saints of God, and bring them down into captivity. 10 And it came to pass that I looked and beheld many waters; and they divided the Gentiles from the seed of my brethren. 11 And it came to pass that the angel said unto me: Behold the wrath of God is upon the seed of thy brethren. 12 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. 13 And it came to pass that I beheld the Spirit of God, that it wrought upon other Gentiles; and they went forth out of captivity, upon the many waters. If Columbus and the Puritans in the 15th and 16th centuries were the gentiles, who were the captive saints of God? The persecution of the early church seems to fit this narrative better. I interpret the gentiles as being those Christian saints of the Roman and Persian Empires who were severely persecuted. The gentile who crossed the waters was Saint Zosimus who, according to Christian texts, was carried by God across the great waters to the promised land of the Rechabites. Only problem is, we don't know where.
Rajah Manchou Posted June 9, 2018 Posted June 9, 2018 25 minutes ago, Paiute said: Since you believe Christopher Columbus was cruel and evil, then why doesn't he fulfill 1 Ne 13:11? as well as 12? By interpreting the gentile as Columbus, you are then forced to define the terms scattered and smitten as something approaching genocide. I believe what Nephi saw in his vision was much less atrocious, a scattering of a smitten people is not necessarily equal to the European conquest of the Americas.
Paiute Posted June 9, 2018 Posted June 9, 2018 Just now, Rajah Manchou said: By interpreting the gentile as Columbus, you are then forced to define the terms scattered and smitten as something approaching genocide. I believe what Nephi saw in his vision was much less atrocious, a scattering of a smitten people is not necessarily equal to the European conquest of the Americas. The whole point of the vision given to Nephi and which he was allowed to share by writing it down to eventually be revealed through the Prophet Joseph Smith is to confirm to the reader of the Book of Mormon the destiny of the Land of Promise. The events described are to help the reader - us in the Latter Days - know what land is being identified by the Lord. By interpreting that the person referred to is Saint Zosimus or St Whoever and you don't know where the land was he was sent to, then the Book of Mormon is pointless. This is what antis - I mean no offense to you - do, demean the interpretation of the Book of Mormon until one believes the Book has no credibility. The history of the discovery of this continent and the founding of the United Stars of America with its heavenly-inspired Constitution which outlines our God-given freedoms and which allowed the restoration of the gospel and the Lord's church is well known to most of us. The Book of Mormon is confirming this through the writings of Nephi. To get hung up over Columbus ignores the overall scope of the vision given to Nephi and to us. Of course it was Columbus. The Lord is confirming through an ancient Prophet that the history of America was overseen by the Lord. To do so He wouldn't refer to some unknown historical characters or events which would only confuse, as He is not the author of confusion.
Rajah Manchou Posted June 9, 2018 Posted June 9, 2018 1 minute ago, Paiute said: I mean no offense to you No offense taken. My point of view is that long before America was even discovered, there was a very old and well established tradition of a promised land inhabited by Israelites. You call them "unknown historical characters and events" but these traditions and texts are well over 1500 years old. I have no problem with LDS who want to shift the Garden of Eden to Jackson County or the concept of a promised land to Mesoamerica, but the weight of history, and numerous anachronisms in the text, makes it a very heavy and difficult task. And I don't feel that the two interpretations are mutually exclusive, unless you start saying things like "of course it was Columbus."
Paiute Posted June 9, 2018 Posted June 9, 2018 16 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said: No offense taken. My point of view is that long before America was even discovered, there was a very old and well established tradition of a promised land inhabited by Israelites. You call them "unknown historical characters and events" but these traditions and texts are well over 1500 years old. I have no problem with LDS who want to shift the Garden of Eden to Jackson County or the concept of a promised land to Mesoamerica, but the weight of history, and numerous anachronisms in the text, makes it a very heavy and difficult task. And I don't feel that the two interpretations are mutually exclusive, unless you start saying things like "of course it was Columbus." "Of course" - Well, I believe in absolutes. God, to name one. And His word. And I'm sure Columbus would have known of a promised land tradition. He was well versed in scripture. Of what I've read of Columbus, he believed he was inspired to do the very thing he did. Dr. Nibley: https://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1112&index=4 A blog with quotes on Columbus by early and recent church leaders: https://jimmysinsights.com/mormonism/christopher-columbus/ As an aside, I don't believe shifting the promised land to Mesoamerica. That issue was solved in 1835.
Rajah Manchou Posted June 9, 2018 Posted June 9, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, Paiute said: And I'm sure Columbus would have known of a promised land tradition. Yes, and it was called the "Indies". “I could sense [God’s] hand upon me, so that it became clear to me that it was feasible to navigate from here to the Indies, and he gave me the will to do it” (Raccolta, pt. I, vol. ii, p. 79.). My definition of the "Indies" is the same as Columbus' and according to him the Spirit of God supposedly only spoke of the Indies. Like you said, God is not an author of confusion, so I think it is less confusing if we also stick with the term Indies, and not get too hung up on where. From the Hugh Nibley article you linked to above: "[Columbus] claimed that his discovery of the Indies was the result of revelation: “I have said,” he wrote to Ferdinand and Isabella, “that in the carrying out of this enterprise of the Indies neither reason nor mathematics nor maps were any use to me: fully accomplished were the words of Isaiah.” So lets just say the Book of Mormon took place in the Indies, problems solved. No more confusion. Anyway falling off topic, so I'll leave it there. Edited June 9, 2018 by Rajah Manchou
cdowis Posted June 9, 2018 Posted June 9, 2018 (edited) On 5/31/2018 at 11:18 AM, cinepro said: If the question is "Is there a way to honestly frame this aspect of the B.O.M in a more positive light that makes more sense than the obvious reading?", the answer is, sadly, "no." Let the BOM speak for itself To me this is how I "frame " it==>> 1. 2 Nephi 5 [21] And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them. 2. "curse" We ALL carry a curse -- mortality, disability, we all have weaknesses. Why is that a problem if you have a "nice" curse and the Lamanites have a curse that some find objectionable? NO BIG DEAL Edited June 9, 2018 by cdowis
cdowis Posted June 9, 2018 Posted June 9, 2018 (edited) 13 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said: anachronisms in the text, makes it a very heavy and difficult task. I invite you to open a thread where you justify this statement. To save bandwidth, 1."not find, not exist" is a logical fallacy 2. if you use a chronology prior to Adam, then we have no common ground for a discussion. Edited June 9, 2018 by cdowis
theplains Posted June 9, 2018 Posted June 9, 2018 5 minutes ago, cdowis said: 2. "curse" We ALL carry a curse -- mortality, disability, we all have weaknesses. Why is that a problem if you have a "nice" curse and the Lamanites have a curse that some find objectionable? NO BIG DEAL I would also mention that mankind inherited a fallen nature since Adam and Eve's disobedience in the Garden of Eden. Jim
cdowis Posted June 9, 2018 Posted June 9, 2018 On 5/31/2018 at 3:28 PM, RevTestament said: This is where I believe the LDS Church has not seen far enough. If God is not a respecter of persons, how come the Jews were His "chosen people?" How come prophets are foreordained? I believe what the Church currently refers to as valiance in the pre-existence are those who received promises, yes, in the preexistence, but on a prior world. The Parable of the Talents extends to the pre-existence.
Storm Rider Posted June 9, 2018 Posted June 9, 2018 On 5/31/2018 at 3:30 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? 3 Gads, this goes back a ways in my research from years ago and I may have fuddled up the facts by now. It is my understanding that Joseph's last edition of the Book of Mormon (1840) was not adopted by the Church - it stayed with the group that later became the RLDS. In that corrected edition it was not skin color but purity that was intended and written. The skin color was minimized if not eliminated. Does anyone else have facts on this to either correct me or support this position?
Calm Posted June 10, 2018 Posted June 10, 2018 2 hours ago, Storm Rider said: Gads, this goes back a ways in my research from years ago and I may have fuddled up the facts by now. It is my understanding that Joseph's last edition of the Book of Mormon (1840) was not adopted by the Church - it stayed with the group that later became the RLDS. In that corrected edition it was not skin color but purity that was intended and written. The skin color was minimized if not eliminated. Does anyone else have facts on this to either correct me or support this position? https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Book_of_Mormon/Textual_changes/"white"_changed_to_"pure"#Question:_Why_was_the_phrase_.22white_and_delightsome.22_changed_to_.22pure_and_delightsome.22_in_the_1840_edition_of_the_Book_of_Mormon.3F Quote This change was originally made in the 1840 edition but because subsequent editions were based off the European editions (which followed the 1837 edition), the change did not get perpetuated until the preparation of the 1981 edition. The change is not (as the critics want to portray it) a "recent" change designed to remove a "racist" original. The idea that the Church has somehow "hidden" the original text or manuscripts of the Book of Mormon in order to hide this is simply unbelievable. Replicas of the 1830 Book of Mormon are easily obtained on Amazon.com, and the text is freely available online. In addition, Royal Skousen has extensively studied the original Book of Mormon manuscripts and published a critical text edition of the Book of Mormon. The claim by the critics that the Church has somehow hidden these items is seriously outdated.
JarMan Posted June 10, 2018 Posted June 10, 2018 (edited) 1 Nephi 13 actually makes a lot of sense from an early modern perspective. The man in verse 12 refers to Columbus. A common early modern perception of Columbus was that God had led him to America in order that the gospel could be taken to all nations of the earth. The other gentiles in captivity in verse 13 are the Protestant English and Dutch, who were in the process of freeing themselves from Catholic monarchs. At one point the Netherlands were ruled by Spanish King, Phillip II and the English by King Phillip II's wife, Mary I, both of whom were Catholics and treated Protestants exceedingly cruelly. The Dutch fought an 80-year war of independence from Spain and the English struggled against the Catholic church from the time of Henry VIII through Elizabeth I (and beyond). The "mother Gentiles" of verse 17, then, are the Spanish (and Portuguese) and Catholics, in general. The battle on the waters referred to in verse 17 refers to the maritime warfare between the Spanish/Portuguese and the Dutch/English including the famous defeat of the Spanish Armada. (Notice that the land battles in verse 17 are only of secondary importance.) In verse 19 the English and Dutch were finally freed from their Spanish/Portuguese/Catholic oppressors and established an independent foothold in America where they prospered in the land (verse 20). This series of early modern events is a perfect fit for the events of 1 Nephi 13. Edited June 10, 2018 by JarMan
cdowis Posted June 10, 2018 Posted June 10, 2018 (edited) 22 hours ago, Storm Rider said: In that corrected edition it was not skin color but purity that was intended and written. The skin color was minimized if not eliminated. Does anyone else have facts on this to either correct me or support this position? Just look in the dictionary Webster 1828 White == 5. Pure; unblemished. 6. In a scriptural sense, purified from sin; sanctified. Psalms 51:7. Edited June 10, 2018 by cdowis
Storm Rider Posted June 10, 2018 Posted June 10, 2018 21 minutes ago, cdowis said: Just look in the dictionary Webster 1828 White == 5. Pure; unblemished. 6. In a scriptural sense, purified from sin; sanctified. Psalms 51:7. If a critic is looking for problems she will find them; however, they have to be narrow in their approach and ignore everything to the contrary.
Rajah Manchou Posted June 11, 2018 Posted June 11, 2018 On 6/9/2018 at 10:33 PM, cdowis said: 1."not find, not exist" is a logical fallacy That would mean anachronisms are a logical fallacy.
Recommended Posts