The meaning of the name Mahonri Moriancumer

[ksfisher]

19 hours ago, LDS Watchman said:

I think it does. If we question what they said about the flood, what will we question next?

Was Christ even a real person? Did he perform the miracles they say he did? It's all connected in my opinion.

This seems like pretty black and white thinking.  If the flood was an essential part of the atonement or of one of the rites and ordinances of the gospel, then yes, maybe we could have some questions.  But the flood isn't.  The flood was a historical event.  Whether it did or did not happen, whether it was literal, metaphorical, allegorical isn't important.  Whether Nephi or Lehi or any prophet had a correct or incorrect understanding of the events surrounding the flood, it's scope and symbolic significance, plays not role in any ones salvation.

You seem to be advocating for a very literal interpretation of scripture.  How do you literally interpret D&C 88:45?

The earth ^arolls upon her wings, and the ^bsun giveth his light by day, and the moon giveth her light by night, and the stars also give their light, as they roll upon their wings in their glory, in the midst of the ^cpower of God.

[rongo]

38 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

This seems like pretty black and white thinking.  If the flood was an essential part of the atonement or of one of the rites and ordinances of the gospel, then yes, maybe we could have some questions.  But the flood isn't.  The flood was a historical event.  Whether it did or did not happen, whether it was literal, metaphorical, allegorical isn't important.  Whether Nephi or Lehi or any prophet had a correct or incorrect understanding of the events surrounding the flood, it's scope and symbolic significance, plays not role in any ones salvation.

You seem to be advocating for a very literal interpretation of scripture.  How do you literally interpret D&C 88:45?

The earth ^arolls upon her wings, and the ^bsun giveth his light by day, and the moon giveth her light by night, and the stars also give their light, as they roll upon their wings in their glory, in the midst of the ^cpower of God.

Literalists don't interpret obviously figurative passages (earth with wings, etc.) as literal; they tend to insist on actual people, events and places. 

In the case of the Flood, there may doctrinally be a need for the earth to be baptized with water and with fire, based on past prophetic exposition. So, I don't know that that can necessarily be dismissed as not having a role in the telestial-terrestrial-celestialization of the earth, as the earth becomes the celestial kingdom. 

I do find it fascinating that, up to this point, the Flood has only been interpreted literally (and global in scope) in official publications of the Church. In fact, I am unaware of any general authorities even anecdotally (off the written record) advocating for a local or mythical flood. That may change in the future, but it's true as of right now. I know that is a source of embarrassment for some, as is President Nelson's lack of "sophistication" in such things as evolution, age of the earth, etc., despite being a medical doctor. 

I think the Tower of Babel also falls into this category, based on how the story is used in the Book of Mormon specifically. It's not just a story that the Nephites could have wrongly literalized, it (the confounding and scattering at the tower) is the literal origin story for Jared, his brother, their families, and friends. If that detail is actually complete myth, then there is no compelling reason the migration, the barges, the shining glass, etc. have to be accepted, either. They can just be fanciful origin myths of pre-pre-Columbian people, or simply made up by Joseph Smith (but still somehow inspiring). I know that you, personally, believe that they really existed and that the stories are true, but I think that explaining away things in 2020 that embarrass some unravels the whole thing. 

I find that usually, when people say "it depends on the story," when pressed on which ones they accept as literal, the answer is some form of "it doesn't really matter, and it doesn't affect our salvation." 

[teddyaware]

21 hours ago, LDS Watchman said:

Yeah, they certainly wouldn't want to offend anyone. 

I never said that it was the "central message of the gospel." However, our church and our scriptures say that these events literally happened. If we take that away, it changes the whole nature of our belief system. 

I think it does. If we question what they said about the flood, what will we question next?

Was Christ even a real person? Did he perform the miracles they say he did? It's all connected in my opinion.

Indeed, but if we question the accuracy of what the Book of Mormon prophets said about historical events, then the literal atonement of an actual historical Jesus who died on the cross is in question, too. 

The problem with the kind of thinking demonstrated by ksfisher is that such members seem to fail to factor into their thinking that God is a God of mighty miracles, a being capable of performing seemingly impossible works that appear to defy the laws of nature. For example, in the doctrine of the resurrection we are taught that literally billions of human bodies are going to be simultaneously raised from dust, and this without any need for the normal processes of human procreation that generate human life. And it will be performed not just by bringing totally decomposed bodies back to life, but human life as we know it will be made immortal and unimaginably powerful and intelligent. This is a miracle that, by comparison, makes the flood look like child’s play. It seems to me it would be quite easy for a being with an omniscient mind and omnipotent power to be easily capable of producing a worldwide flood by the usual meteorological means, and then submerge anything above the naturally produced flood line by changing the earth’s atmosphere into water for a nanosecond.

To the doubters, my thinking may appear quaint, silly and unrealistic. But is it any more unrealistic to change water into wine, or multiplying a a small basket of loaves and fishes into a meal capable of feeding and filling thousands? Or is it any less reasonable and realistic to believe that millions of human beings are going to be instantaneously raised from death to glorious immortality, and immediately thereafter be blessed to dwell on a miraculously transformed earth that has been made into a gigantic Urim and Thummim like unto a sea of glass? No, no it isn’t. And this is why for me and my house we will continue to believe in a God of mighty miracles for whom all things are possible.

I believe it’s likely the reason why there are flood denying believers in the Church is because they don’t take into consideration that probability that the flood could be one of God’s mighty miracles. Another reason could be that they don’t want to seem like gullible fools to the high and mighty scientific types who stand laughing, pointing and mocking at the windows of the large and spacious building.

Edited December 16, 2020 by teddyaware

[teddyaware]

6 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

The problem with the kind of thinking demonstrated by ksfisher is that such members seem to fail to factor into their thinking that God is a God of mighty miracles, a being capable of performing seemingly impossible works that appear to defy the laws of nature. For example, in the doctrine of the resurrection we are taught that literally billions of human bodies are going to be simultaneously raised from dust, and this without any need for the normal processes of human procreation that generate human life. And it will be performed not just by bringing totally decomposed bodies back to life, but human life as we know it will be made immortal and unimaginably powerful and intelligent. This is a miracle that, by comparison, makes the flood look like child’s play. It seems to me it would be quite easy for a being with an omniscient mind and omnipotent power to be easily capable of producing a worldwide flood by the usual meteorological means, and then submerge anything above the naturally produced flood line by changing the earth’s atmosphere into water for a nanosecond.

To the doubters, my thinking may appear quaint, silly and unrealistic. But is it any more unrealistic than believing water can be into wine, or multiplying a small basket of loaves and fishes into a meal capable of feeding and filling thousands? Or is it any less reasonable and realistic to believe that millions of human beings are going to be instantaneously raised from death to glorious immortality, and immediately thereafter be blessed to dwell on a miraculously transformed earth that has been made into a gigantic Urim and Thummim like unto a sea of glass? No, no it isn’t. And this is why for me and my house we will continue to believe in a God of mighty miracles for whom all things are possible.

I believe it’s likely the reason why there are flood denying believers in the Church is because they don’t take into consideration the probability that the flood could be one of God’s mighty miracles. Another reason could be that they don’t want to seem like gullible fools to the high and mighty scientific types who stand laughing, pointing and mocking at the windows of the large and spacious building.

 

Edited December 16, 2020 by teddyaware

[ksfisher]

20 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

The problem with the kind of thinking demonstrated by ksfisher is that such members seem to fail to factor into their thinking that God is a God of mighty miracles, a being capable of performing seemingly impossible works that appear to defy the laws of nature.

Please don't try to explain what I do or do not believe.  Your characterization of my beliefs is wrong, insulting, and seemingly questions my faith. 

[LDS Watchman]

56 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

The problem with the kind of thinking demonstrated by ksfisher is that such members seem to fail to factor into their thinking that God is a God of mighty miracles, a being capable of performing seemingly impossible works that appear to defy the laws of nature. For example, in the doctrine of the resurrection we are taught that literally billions of human bodies are going to be simultaneously raised from dust, and this without any need for the normal processes of human procreation that generate human life. And it will be performed not just by bringing totally decomposed bodies back to life, but human life as we know it will be made immortal and unimaginably powerful and intelligent. This is a miracle that, by comparison, makes the flood look like child’s play. It seems to me it would be quite easy for a being with an omniscient mind and omnipotent power to be easily capable of producing a worldwide flood by the usual meteorological means, and then submerge anything above the naturally produced flood line by changing the earth’s atmosphere into water for a nanosecond.

To the doubters, my thinking may appear quaint, silly and unrealistic. But is it any more unrealistic to change water into wine, or multiplying a a small basket of loaves and fishes into a meal capable of feeding and filling thousands? Or is it any less reasonable and realistic to believe that millions of human beings are going to be instantaneously raised from death to glorious immortality, and immediately thereafter be blessed to dwell on a miraculously transformed earth that has been made into a gigantic Urim and Thummim like unto a sea of glass? No, no it isn’t. And this is why for me and my house we will continue to believe in a God of mighty miracles for whom all things are possible.

I believe it’s likely the reason why there are flood denying believers in the Church is because they don’t take into consideration that probability that the flood could be one of God’s mighty miracles. Another reason could be that they don’t want to seem like gullible fools to the high and mighty scientific types who stand laughing, pointing and mocking at the windows of the large and spacious building.

Amen and hallelujah

[teddyaware]

28 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Please don't try to explain what I do or do not believe.  Your characterization of my beliefs is wrong, insulting, and seemingly questions my faith. 

As long as members believe in the literal resurrection of the dead, as taught in the scriptures (obviously, a much greater miracle than the flood), that provides reason enough for me to not wonder about the status of their faith.

I apologize for using your name and not respectfully speaking in generalities.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, ksfisher said:

Please don't try to explain what I do or do not believe.  Your characterization of my beliefs is wrong, insulting, and seemingly questions my faith. 

What many do not understand is that belief itself creates reality- at least for that individual, in a pragmatic sense.  The belief causes you to act and live in a way that makes what is believed "true for all practical purposes"

I personally believe in a physical resurrection

One's  life would be no different even if what is believed never happens, but for you, the believed event is as real as it can be and changes your life. 

There are many instances in which we live "as if" principles were true.

Consider Human Rights.  I believe that people should have human rights, and therefore for me at least, they DO have such rights because I personally believe they do/should.

People die for "Freedom" without much analysis of what that means, and yet they are willing to die for the principle.

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, teddyaware said:

I believe it’s likely the reason why there are flood denying believers in the Church is because they don’t take into consideration that probability that the flood could be one of God’s mighty miracles. Another reason could be that they don’t want to seem like gullible fools to the high and mighty scientific types who stand laughing, pointing and mocking at the windows of the large and spacious building.

Exactly right.

And then you turn to the elitists and show them that ALL such beliefs that they have are eventually replaced or adjusted by other paradigms that they will believe just as earnestly.

Save the whales- global warming- that people's lives matter and that murder is wrong, that visions are merely caused by brain chemicals - all these are also then only chemicals in one's brain.

Edited December 16, 2020 by mfbukowski

[Calm]

5 hours ago, teddyaware said:

As long as members believe in the literal resurrection of the dead, as taught in the scriptures (obviously, a much greater miracle than the flood), that provides reason enough for me to not wonder about the status of their faith.

I apologize for using your name and not respectfully speaking in generalities.

Then you should be editing it.  As it is the mindreading accusation still stands. 

Edited December 17, 2020 by Calm

[LDS Watchman]

10 hours ago, ksfisher said:

This seems like pretty black and white thinking. 

Some things are black and white. 

According to the words of Christ and his prophets, the universal flood in the days of Noah literally happened. 

Either this is true or it isn't. If it isn't true then what's keeping us from questioning the truthfulness of anything else Christ or his prophets have said?

What's keeping us from questioning whether Christ even exists at all?

10 hours ago, ksfisher said:

The flood was a historical event.  Whether it did or did not happen, whether it was literal, metaphorical, allegorical isn't important.  Whether Nephi or Lehi or any prophet had a correct or incorrect understanding of the events surrounding the flood, it's scope and symbolic significance, plays not role in any ones salvation.

God the Father and his Son Jesus Christ both stated that the flood really happened. 

You really don't see a potential problem with questioning their words?

Edited December 17, 2020 by LDS Watchman

[InCognitus]

This thread has turned into a flood and tower of babel thread. 

10 hours ago, teddyaware said:

The problem with the kind of thinking demonstrated by ksfisher is that such members seem to fail to factor into their thinking that God is a God of mighty miracles, a being capable of performing seemingly impossible works that appear to defy the laws of nature.

This is not a fair characterization at all.  The question is not whether or not God is capable of doing something miraculous, it is about recognizing what scripture is really trying to teach us and the different ways that God conveys such teachings.

The scriptures include many different literary genres and styles:  Legal texts, poetry, allegory, letters, historical narratives, apocalyptic writings, prophetic texts, parables, and wisdom literature, just to name some of them off the top of my head.  And some books of scripture contain mixed genres, like the parables of Jesus within the historical narratives of the gospels, or the letter format combined with apocalyptic writings of the book of Revelation.  We immediately understand poetic writings figuratively because we know it doesn't make sense to take it literal (i.e the earth doesn't have wings, and God is not a hen that gathers chickens).  But the modern reader may not be properly equipped to recognize all the literary genres of ancient scripture, and as a result something that is figurative may be taken as literal, or vice versa.  

The creation story in the book of Genesis is a good example.  Did God create the world in six literal days?  Or is this trying to teach us something different?  Keep in mind that the planning and carrying out of the creation is a fundamental theme in gospel teaching to help us understand God's plan of salvation.  Is it really important to know if the days are literal or figurative?  Or is it more important to focus on what it tells us about God and his relationship to man? 

11 hours ago, rongo said:

In the case of the Flood, there may doctrinally be a need for the earth to be baptized with water and with fire, based on past prophetic exposition. So, I don't know that that can necessarily be dismissed as not having a role in the telestial-terrestrial-celestialization of the earth, as the earth becomes the celestial kingdom. 

I'd like to recommend a few episodes from the LDS Perspectives Podcast.  In making these recommendations I am not taking a stand on any of these issues, but I am offering these as food for thought.

Regarding the flood, see:  Symbolism and the Flood in the Old Testament - Paul Hoskisson, with the transcript found here.  He discusses some of the arguments about the flood raised by rongo above.

Here are some others:

Genesis 1 - Ben Spackman, with the transcript here.  

Misunderstanding the Bible - Benjamin Spackman, with the transcript here.   This episode discusses some of the genres in the Bible and how being aware of a genre shift can make a difference in how you understand the text.

Wisdom Literature with Dan Belnap, with the transcript here.   This episode discusses one particular genre (wisdom literature).

There are probably some other podcasts or articles that I've forgotten in this list, but this is a good start.

Edited December 17, 2020 by InCognitus

[Nevo]

I, for one, will be very surprised if God requires 21st-century people to believe in the literal truth of Genesis 1-11, that the sun stood still for Joshua, that Jonah lived inside a fish for 3 days, etc., as a condition of their salvation.

[LDS Watchman]

5 minutes ago, Nevo said:

I, for one, will be very surprised if God requires 21st-century people to believe in the literal truth of Genesis 1-11, that the sun stood still for Joshua, that Jonah lived inside a fish for 3 days, etc., as a condition of their salvation.

I think it's reasonable for God to expect us to have the faith of a child and believe that he is a God of miracles and that his word in the scriptures is true.

What good can possibly come from not believing that the stories in the scriptures actually happened?

[Nevo]

37 minutes ago, LDS Watchman said:

I think it's reasonable for God to expect us to have the faith of a child and believe that he is a God of miracles and that his word in the scriptures is true.

What good can possibly come from not believing that the stories in the scriptures actually happened?

What did Paul say? "Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men" (1 Cor. 14:20). Also Paul: "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good" (1 Thessalonians 5:21).

There's a place for nursery stories, but I think at some point God expects us to use our minds and "put away childish things" (1 Cor. 13:11).

You ask what good can possibly come from not believing that the stories in the scriptures actually happened. For one thing, I think you can avoid Jeremy Runnells-level disillusionment if you aren't "illusioned" in the first place.

Edited December 17, 2020 by Nevo

[LDS Watchman]

6 hours ago, Nevo said:

There's a place for nursery stories, but I think at some point God expects us to use our minds and "put away childish things" (1 Cor. 13:11).

I agree, only I don't consider the story of the global flood and similar miraculous stories in the scriptures to be "nursery stories."

 

6 hours ago, Nevo said:

You ask what good can possibly come from not believing that the stories in the scriptures actually happened. For one thing, I think you can avoid Jeremy Runnells-level disillusionment if you aren't "illusioned" in the first place.

How exactly does not believing that the stories in the scriptures actually happened prevent you from becoming a moden day Korihor like Jeremy Runnells?

[rongo]

11 hours ago, Nevo said:

What did Paul say? "Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men" (1 Cor. 14:20). Also Paul: "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good" (1 Thessalonians 5:21).

There's a place for nursery stories, but I think at some point God expects us to use our minds and "put away childish things" (1 Cor. 13:11).

You ask what good can possibly come from not believing that the stories in the scriptures actually happened. For one thing, I think you can avoid Jeremy Runnells-level disillusionment if you aren't "illusioned" in the first place.

Where would Paul come down on the literalness of the Flood? Or the sun standing still with Joshua?* I don't think he had that in mind when talking about "childish things." 

As far as not wanting to believe hayseed rube yokel things as a protection against disillusionment --- that's a tragically low bar, isn't it? Best to believe it's all allegorical, then.

* Regarding the Joshua story, when my wife was Relief Society president, several sisters expressed doubt about that story. They actually had never heard it before, and it was referenced in a lesson. I was surprised that they hadn't heard it before, for one thing, but it was surprising to have that many not believe it out of hand. My wife asked them about Hezekiah and the sundial shadow, and they had never heard of that, either. When they turned to that, they didn't believe that, either. My wife was incredulous, and asked what they thought about the miracles in Helaman/3rd Nephi involving noonlight at night after the sun had gone down, three days of total darkness (that can only be partially explained by volcanism). They knew these stories, and wanted to reject them, but because it's the Book of Mormon, they were a lot less comfortable rejecting it out of hand. 

I think rejecting miracles as "baby stories" is a slippery slope that becomes like a thread that keeps unraveling the more you pull on it. The Book of Mormon starts to be jeopardized when people confidently reject Old Testament "baby stories," if people are consistent and follow the logical extensions and ramifications. 

[Robert F. Smith]

On 12/14/2020 at 6:22 AM, LDS Watchman said:

Have you looked any of his work besides his interpretation of Mahonri Moriancumer?

I doubt it.

Btw, here's what I found as I looked into his interpretation of Mahonri Moriancumer.

His interpretation of Mahonri appears to be plausible, while his interpretation of Moriancumer looks like a bit of a stretch. 

Mahonri 

mah

"mah" means "who?"

https://biblehub.com/hebrew/4100.htm

Robert Smith’s interpretation of “mah” is verified, though he doesn’t mention that “who” is in the form of a question. 

on

"on" means "sun city" and was the name of a city in Egypt 

https://biblehub.com/hebrew/204.htm

"On" is part of the word "Zion" or "Tsiyyon'" which is where the Lord's people dwelt.

https://biblehub.com/hebrew/6726.htm

The interpretation of “on” meaning “light” is not explicit, but it is a plausible meaning considering that the sun is the greatest source of light on the earth. Since “on” is also part of the word “Zion” which is where the Lord’s people dwelt and a Holy city, which could also easily represent “light” or something similar. Robert Smith’s interpretation of on as “light” or something similar is at least plausible.

Ri

"ri" means "moisture or water"

https://biblehub.com/hebrew/7377.htm

Robert Smith’s interpretation of “ri” is spot on as “moisture or water.”

Overall his interpretation of Mahori meaning “Who [provides or leads to] light [on the] water” appears to be a plausible interpretation.

Moriancumer 

mor

“mor” means to “keep, watch, or preserve”

I’m not sure why Robert Smith interpreted “mor” as “to change or perform a miracle.” 

"Er" has several different meanings in Hebrew. 

"Er" means "do or make" which does denote "instrumentality"

https://biblehub.com/hebrew/6466.htm

"Er"means "to be high or exalted, rise" and was used in proper names. 

https://biblehub.com/hebrew/4100.htm

Putting these two meanings for “er” together, this does suggest that the brother of Jared was “instrumental” 

An important factor to keep in mind is thst that we don't know precisely what language the Jaredites would have spoken. There's good reason to believe it was very similar to ancient Hebrew, but not identical. Nor do we know the difference between Nephite Hebrew in Moroni's day. 

My conclusion is that Robert J. Smith's interpretation of Mahonri Moriancumer may be correct, but it doesn't look like the slam dunk he presents it as in his Book of Mormon commentary I quoted in the OP.

Yeh, and a stopped clock is bound to be correct a couple of times a day, but purely by accident.  Your J. Smith buddy doesn't know squat.  That's the bottom line.  No Hebraist would say otherwise.  You should listen to Dan McClellan.  He has a PhD and actually knows Hebrew.

[Robert F. Smith]

On 12/14/2020 at 5:52 PM, rongo said:

....................

When the argument is over what could or couldn't have developed in languages, or how languages could or couldn't be related or linked, I think whether one accepts the Tower of Babel story as literal or figurative is relevant, for example. 

 I think LDS Watchman has a point. Most "higher critics" in the Church I've interacted with are usually loathe to admit to very much having literally happened. They often get annoyed and embarrassed at the literalist rubes who believe "this kind of nonsense" that "makes it more difficult for . . . members of the Church to be better students of the scriptures," as you said. 

An LDS higher critic (someone who takes seriously the Documentary Hypothesis) would understand the Book of Mormon as a highly edited and abridged document (or set of documents and translations).  Why? Because that is what the BofM actually says about itself.  Although the Bible is a much larger document than the Bible, it is also a huge anthology of disparate documents (in different genres and from different periods, by different authors).  Do you reject these plain facts?  Do you claim, for example, that the book of Ether was not translated from Jaredite language into Nephite, then edited and redacted by Moroni?  If so, then you are also rejecting plain facts stated in the Book of Mormon.

Do you believe that the Book of Mormon includes the story of the Tower of Babel?  Funny thing:  The BofM never mentions a "tower of Babel."  The Bible does, but not the BofM.  Instead, the BofM tells us of a Great Tower from a much earlier time than the existence of Babylon (Babel).  The confusion stems from reading the Bible carelessly, not realizing that the word "Babel" was inserted into the Bible as an explanatory gloss during the Jewish Exile in Babylon.  Bottom line:  The Jaredites never heard of Babylon/ Babel.  They only knew of the Great Tower and Confusion of Tongues.  This is an example of a higher critical reading of Scripture.

What did Joseph Smith recommend?  He advised us to learn Hebrew, as he did.  Robert J. Smith didn't bother to do that, and has thus fallen on hard times in his nonsensical evaluations of Scripture.

[rongo]

4 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Do you believe that the Book of Mormon includes the story of the Tower of Babel?  Funny thing:  The BofM never mentions a "tower of Babel."  The Bible does, but not the BofM.  Instead, the BofM tells us of a Great Tower from a much earlier time than the existence of Babylon (Babel).  The confusion stems from reading the Bible carelessly, not realizing that the word "Babel" was inserted into the Bible as an explanatory gloss during the Jewish Exile in Babylon.  Bottom line:  The Jaredites never heard of Babylon/ Babel.  They only knew of the Great Tower and Confusion of Tongues.  This is an example of a higher critical reading of Scripture.

I used the moniker "Tower of Babel" to signify that the same tower was being referred to in both books (which I'm sure you know). Of course I know that the Book of Mormon itself doesn't have the anachronistic name "Babel" (it wasn't what the builders themselves called it, either). 

Do you think the Great Tower and Confusion of Tongues story, as related by the Jaredites (or as related by Moroni) really happened, Robert? 

[Stargazer]

On 12/13/2020 at 11:57 PM, Calm said:

PM or report it to mods if you want them to change it. They probably won’t see it just in your post. 

I did, so we'll see.

[Nevo]

2 hours ago, rongo said:

I think rejecting miracles as "baby stories" is a slippery slope that becomes like a thread that keeps unraveling the more you pull on it. The Book of Mormon starts to be jeopardized when people confidently reject Old Testament "baby stories," if people are consistent and follow the logical extensions and ramifications. 

I don't disagree. But unlike you and LDS Watchman, I don't see this "slippery slope" as a bad thing necessarily. I think we absolutely should question the literalness of the scriptures. The truth can withstand investigation.

[rongo]

10 minutes ago, Nevo said:

I don't disagree. But unlike you and LDS Watchman, I don't see this "slippery slope" as a bad thing necessarily. I think we absolutely should question the literalness of the scriptures. The truth can withstand investigation.

I agree. I welcome investigation of the truth as well, and the truth will do just fine regardless of our personal druthers of what others think. We just differ on the outcome of that investigation, when it comes to literal scripture stories, the documentary hypothesis, multiple Isaiah's, and things like that.  

[LDS Watchman]

7 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Your J. Smith buddy doesn't know squat. 

Have you read anything else he had written?

Doubt it.

7 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

What did Joseph Smith recommend?  He advised us to learn Hebrew, as he did.  Robert J. Smith didn't bother to do that, and has thus fallen on hard times in his nonsensical evaluations of Scripture.

Are you judging Robert J. Smith on anything else he has written or are you basing all of this harsh criticism on this one interpretation of Mahonri Moriancumer?

If you are writing him off as a joke without having read anything else he has written, then that is extremely foolish. 

[Robert F. Smith]

On 12/17/2020 at 7:57 PM, LDS Watchman said:

Have you read anything else he had written?

Doubt it.

Are you judging Robert J. Smith on anything else he has written or are you basing all of this harsh criticism on this one interpretation of Mahonri Moriancumer?

If you are writing him off as a joke without having read anything else he has written, then that is extremely foolish. 

I challenge you to show that he knows Hebrew, or that any other examples of his exegesis bear scholarly scrutiny.