Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Brad Wilcox fireside to Alpine youth on Feb 6.


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, rongo said:

Correct. Egyptus is the link to the lineage surviving the flood. 

ETA: This is recognized, outside of the Pearl of Great Price, in discussing it. Two examples:

"There are many instances, from that time forward, of which the scriptures speak of this birthright continuing among the descendants of Seth, until it came to Noah and his sons, of which sons Shem received the blessings pertaining to the priesthood. Abraham came through Shem, and the Savior came through this lineage; and through this blessing of Noah upon Shem, the Priesthood continued through his seed; while the offspring of Ham inherited a curse, and it was because, as a revelation teaches, some of the blood of Cain became mingled with that of Ham's family, and hence they inherited that curse. " (John Taylor, Journal of Discourses 21:370)

"When he destroyed the inhabitants of the antediluvian world, he suffered a descendant of Cain to come through the flood in order that he might be properly represented upon the earth." (John Taylor, Journal of Discourses 23:336)

So, I'm seeing some assumptions, based on the logic of the day, to support the conclusion that Blacks were cursed regarding the right to the Priesthood, which in turn was based on an incorrect reading of the Biblical mark of Cain, along with other culturally-entrenched racial disinformation:

Egyptus is assumed to be a descendant of Cain (one set of cursed antediluvians), and black (Moses 7:22).

Egyptus is assumed to have a lineage to the pre-flood people/children of Canaan (another set of people (a second set of cursed antediluvians), and "cursed with blackness."

Another possible assumption is that the descendants of Cain are the antediluvian people/children of Canaan.

Assumptions that "the mark", "black" and "blackness" refer to skin color, and that the curse is, among everything else that might be involved, the skin color.

These assumptions can create quite the compounding effect.

Edited by CV75
Link to comment
2 hours ago, Calm said:

I really want to know who Pharaoh’s father was and why he is so conspicuously missing from the text.

SPECULATION: All other peoples of the earth were "destroyed" in the Flood, at least as far as Noah's family was concerned. All other peoples were cut off from the covenant. As the righteous family of Noah  converted more people into the covenant, Ham still had the gall to marry another wife from among those who had been cut off from the covenant (or even possibly a daughter of Canaan in true biblical incestual fashion), and she gave birth to Egyptus ("forbidden"). Egyptus in turn married someone from among her mother's people, or others of those who had been cut off from the covenant (and so he is not named), but passed the patriarchal priesthood, as an imitative tradition, along to her sons (Pharaoh being the eldest). This is how the Canaanites of Abraham 1 descended from Egyptus' half-brother, Canaan, and carried his cursing while at the same time the Pharaohs descended from Egyptus with the same cursing.

Edited by CV75
Link to comment
2 hours ago, CV75 said:

SPECULATION: All other peoples of the earth were "destroyed" in the Flood, at least as far as Noah's family was concerned. All other peoples were cut off from the covenant. As the righteous family of Noah  converted more people into the covenant, Ham still had the gall to marry another wife from among those who had been cut off from the covenant (or even possibly a daughter of Canaan in true biblical incestual fashion), and she gave birth to Egyptus ("forbidden"). Egyptus in turn married someone from among her mother's people, or others of those who had been cut off from the covenant (and so he is not named), but passed the patriarchal priesthood, as an imitative tradition, along to her sons (Pharaoh being the eldest). This is how the Canaanites of Abraham 1 descended from Egyptus' half-brother, Canaan, and carried his cursing while at the same time the Pharaohs descended from Egyptus with the same cursing.

So you are assuming not a physical flood, but a spiritual/emotional one (“you are dead to me”)?

And possibly Ham marries his granddaughter and thus Egyptus, the daughter of Ham, is also his great granddaughter?  A great soap opera if I got it right…given the Bible had no issue spilling the alleged dirt on Lot and his daughters and Judah and his daughter in law, any guess why the relationship wasn’t made explicit?

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
On 2/10/2022 at 6:39 PM, ttribe said:

Is what he said wrong? Yes or no?

Yes.

Is it contrary to LDS teaching ? . . that is not for me to opine about! You all can hash that out!

Edited by Navidad
Link to comment
21 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Perhaps you misunderstand the LDS concept of priesthood power. I’m sure you have heard this exposition before, but I’ll share it here for convenience. It is one of the most beautiful scriptures of the Restoration.
 

 

It is a beautiful passage. What I can't figure out is that virtually every LDS Priesthood holder who talks about it needs to remind the listeners that it is the only authorized priesthood in the world. That need to remind everyone is the very opposite of the qualities noted in the passage you quoted. To me, it indicates a certain hubris and pride. Those are not characteristics of people who I want holding power! They remind me too much of 1950's Fundamentalist pastors and leaders, as does Brad Wilcox to bring this back to the subject. Those who truly are comfortable in their power don't need to talk about it with such obvious pride! I think it is not that I misunderstand the concept; I dislike its manifestation. I hope that makes sense even if though you won't agree with me. I enjoy the discourse. Thanks.

Link to comment
On 2/8/2022 at 10:25 AM, Calm said:

Ach…couldn’t resist just to dip in 

I really dislike his characterization of other churches “playing at church” because they lack the authority and how the wedding vow for time and eternity felt wrong to him.

And describing the lack of authority as lack of permission. 
 

Are those who pray without the priesthood authority we believe resides in the keys held by our church just playing at prayer?  Absolutely not. We accept there is great value in actions undertaken through faith even if not done with priesthood authority. The wedding vows may not have been the same as the covenant of sealing performed with priesthood authority, but it was a faithful commitment by two believers in Christ who had faith in God that he would save them from death and hell. How is that playing?  That is a faithful commitment with a spiritual value that should be respected.  

 

An argument could be made that “in my name” refers to priesthood authority, but I interpret it as the same as praying and if we see prayers to God when “in his name” means with faith in Christ, then gathering in his name means to me gathering with faith in Christ.
 

So any gathering together of believers who are seeking God together in community should be respected as such. He makes it sound like no one can gather to worship unless they do so as a member of our faith.   God has asked us to do so and they are fulfilling that commandment imo. I don’t see how they lack permission to be a gathering of his disciples. They may lack the ability to enter into certain priesthood covenants with him and that difference is huge, but the worship and faithful prayer is as real as what happens in the walls of our church and it is very disappointing to hear it treated so disparaging by him. I hope he also apologizes for that remark.

I don’t think he is being unkind or intentionally disrespectful, but I think it is very disrespectful even so.

Not listening to anything else now or I might as well give up on getting back to sleep tonight. 

Lots of good points Calm.

I'd like to add that also limiting respect to co-believers is inappropriate. 

Any belief is immature without the recognition that it is just that--belief--and not fact. Humility in belief indicates respect, not just for others who believe differently, but also respect for the gravity of the beliefs themselves.

In fact, lack of belief in God does not automatically imply lack of respect for a God who might exist. And belief in God can potentially result in disrespect of a God who does exist, or in disrespect of the doctrines such a God would want us to embody.

So it's premature to conclude that people are lost if they detach from religion or theism. Such people can be quite the opposite, and can live spiritually abundant lives.

Link to comment
20 hours ago, smac97 said:

Here's what I also also think: I think the critics and enemies of the Church are really not inclined to acknowledge the above.  Instead, we get vague allusions and allegations.  There will, for these folks, never be a time in which the Church has markedly improved itself and its members.  We are indelibly stained, forever.  No matter what we do and say, our critics will simply move the goalposts and say "Nope, still not good enough."  Forever and ever.

I have carefully read your posts for a number of years now and this is the first statement with which I would strongly disagree. I read into it an element of the "Mormon persecution complex" that I sometimes read in my fellow Mennonites and Amish. I know many who are theological critics of the LDS Church - no doubt about that. I know of no "enemies" of the church, especially if we are talking about people who are still alive.

"Indelibly stained, forever?" "Forever and ever." Aren't those statements a bit hyperbolic? I am old enough to have seen marked changes (improvements in my thinking) in the attitudes toward the LDS Christians, especially of Evangelicals and Mainline non-LDS Christianity since the 50s and early 60s. That is less than one generation. Be of good faith.

Of course I often feel the same way about improvements in the LDS perspective of non-LDS Christians over the same years. You don't mention that. LDS folks are often critics and perceived as enemies of non-LDS Christianity with a force that is equally potent. So too many non-LDS Christians would echo your exact words in the opposite direction. I grieve over that as well. That is why Brad Wilcox's mocking tone and words about non-LDS Christians impacted me in such a hurtful manner. I would have thought we were getting away from that with the Lucifer-related endowment changes and especially from the mouth of a professor with a PhD who teaches religion - I assume beyond only teaching the principles of LDS doctrine.

I once wrote that too much discussion over doctrine, culture and other religious differences is handled with blind spots, bucklers, bulwarks, and bludgeons. The first three are defensive, the last is offensive. This has been true for millennia. Your statement reflects a kind of fatalism that may contribute to its continuation. I hope not. Both LDS and non-LDS Christians might have to mediate their positions a bit. I believe I have seen that in the last few decades of my long life. I rejoice in that. There will also mostly likely remain a small minority of the "faithful" who mount the bulwarks to protect, defend, and occasionally saunter out to attack the other. I believe that minority is getting minoritier. (OK I know it isn't a word - but it fits)! Take care.

 

Edited by Navidad
Link to comment
18 hours ago, Duncan said:

Even the message that Elder Bednar put out this week never mentioned anything about African-Americans, it was just about people of other faith traditions.

I didn't see this. would you mind posting a link or quote? Thanks

Link to comment
17 hours ago, James 1 5 said:

And just think about this for a minute.  Do you really believe our Lord Jesus Christ has no power to rule over others, nor should he have?  He does have power.  More power than most people realize.

Of course I believe "our Lord Jesus Christ" has power and authority. And since I believe He is and was sinless, I believe He used and uses them perfectly. You and I don't. Especially me.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Calm said:

Thanks so much. Quick question given all the discussions on this thread. He is an apostle giving a talk on Facebook. Does this talk now qualify as "church teaching?" I need to know because he is after all, my 13th cousin! 🙂

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Navidad said:
Quote

Here's what I also also think: I think the critics and enemies of the Church are really not inclined to acknowledge the above.  Instead, we get vague allusions and allegations.  There will, for these folks, never be a time in which the Church has markedly improved itself and its members.  We are indelibly stained, forever.  No matter what we do and say, our critics will simply move the goalposts and say "Nope, still not good enough."  Forever and ever.

I have carefully read your posts for a number of years now and this is the first statement with which I would strongly disagree. I read into it an element of the "Mormon persecution complex" that I sometimes read in my fellow Mennonites and Amish.

Well, I'm open to such criticism.  Perhaps I spoke too broadly.  Many of the critics on this board, in my view, fit what I describe above.

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

I know many who are theological critics of the LDS Church - no doubt about that. I know of no "enemies" of the church, especially if we are talking about people who are still alive.

Mike Norton sure seems to fit the bill.  And there are people on this board have compared the Church and its members to Nazis, Jim Crow racists, and so on.  I get that "enemy" is a risible term, but it has its place in our lexicon.

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

"Indelibly stained, forever?" "Forever and ever." Aren't those statements a bit hyperbolic?

The Church has spent decades correcting and speaking against its prior racism, and yet critics on this board casually disparage us in some of the worst ways possible.

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

I am old enough to have seen marked changes (improvements in my thinking) in the attitudes toward the LDS Christians, especially of Evangelicals and Mainline non-LDS Christianity since the 50s and early 60s. That is less than one generation. Be of good faith.

I have not seen you as a critic of the Church.

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

Of course I often feel the same way about improvements in the LDS perspective of non-LDS Christians over the same years. You don't mention that.

You are criticizing me because I did not mention something you think I should have said?

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

LDS folks are often critics and perceived as enemies of non-LDS Christianity with a force that is equally potent.

And if we are doing and saying things that merit such a perception, we need to improve. 

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

So too many non-LDS Christians would echo your exact words in the opposite direction. I grieve over that as well. That is why Brad Wilcox's mocking tone and words about non-LDS Christians impacted me in such a hurtful manner.

I can appreciate that.  I am not defending Bro. Wilcox's comments.

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

I once wrote that too much discussion over doctrine, culture and other religious differences is handled with blind spots, bucklers, bulwarks, and bludgeons. The first three are defensive, the last is offensive. This has been true for millennia. Your statement reflects a kind of fatalism that may contribute to its continuation. I hope not.

I hope not too.  I had in mind the more repellant characterizations of the Church I have read on this board over the years.  

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

Both LDS and non-LDS Christians might have to mediate their positions a bit. I believe I have seen that in the last few decades of my long life. I rejoice in that. There will also mostly likely remain a small minority of the "faithful" who mount the bulwarks to protect, defend, and occasionally saunter out to attack the other.

I will protect and defend, yes.

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

I believe that minority is getting minoritier. (OK I know it isn't a word - but it fits)! Take care.

Thanks.  You too.  I will give your statements some real consideration.

-Smac

Edited by smac97
Link to comment
12 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Apparently?  CFR

Moses 7:8

8 For behold, the Lord shall curse the land with much heat, and the barrenness thereof shall go forth forever; and there was a blackness came upon all the children of Canaan, that they were despised among all people.

Abraham 1:21-26

21 Now this king of Egypt was a descendant from the loins of Ham, and was a partaker of the blood of the Canaanites by birth.
22 From this descent sprang all the Egyptians, and thus the blood of the Canaanites was preserved in the land.
23 The land of Egypt being first discovered by a woman, who was the daughter of Ham, and the daughter of Egyptus, which in the Chaldean signifies Egypt, which signifies that which is forbidden;
24 When this woman discovered the land it was under water, who afterward settled her sons in it; and thus, from Ham, sprang that race which preserved the curse in the land.
25 Now the first government of Egypt was established by Pharaoh, the eldest son of Egyptus, the daughter of Ham, and it was after the manner of the government of Ham, which was patriarchal.
26 Pharaoh, being a righteous man, established his kingdom and judged his people wisely and justly all his days, seeking earnestly to imitate that order established by the fathers in the first generations, in the days of the first patriarchal reign, even in the reign of Adam, and also of Noah, his father, who blessed him with the blessings of the earth, and with the blessings of wisdom, but cursed him as pertaining to the Priesthood.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Navidad said:

I have no opinion or thought on the topic under debate amongst you all. But I have one thought on what I believe is a related subject. The conversation as I read it brings a "blind spot" alert to my mind. I hope you don't mind my sharing it. A number of folks on this forum, including yourself very narrowly define what are the "teachings" of the church in a way that allows much of what is said in sacrament meetings, by individual members, by members in various settings, in books and articles by faithful members (even scholars), etc to be dismissed and not placed at the feet of "the church."

I don't think what you describe here is reasonably characterized as "vary narrowly define."  

The "teachings of the Church" cannot refer to anything said by any member anywhere about any topic.  There need to be some parameters.  This is particularly so given that the Church is a visible entity/organization.  It has a website and materials published by and for it.  So if an individual member, trading on his membership, chooses to write and publish something that was not authorized by the Church, approved by the Church, and is substantively incompatible with the teachings and positions of the Church, I don't think it is reasonable to characterize that individual's writings as the "teachings" of the Church.

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

Yet at the same time the same ones of you seem very comfortable making "broad, unsubstantiated generalizations" about what is said that is negative about the LDS church by individual Evangelicals or other non-LDS Christian speakers, authors, lay folks, zealots, or simply angry folks whether they hold any official positions of leadership in their own respective non-LDS organization or not.

I'm sorry, but I do not understand what you are saying or referencing here.

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

I have never heard you or anyone else say "Hey folks, don't worry about what Walter Martin said because he didn't hold a senior position in his church or denomination, or group - He was just expressing his opinion or beliefs so they don't represent anything official in Evangelicalism, the Baptist church, or the like."

I still don't understand.  Who is telling you "don't worry about..."?

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

No, it is my experience that LDS folks tend to make "broad, unsubstantiated generalizations" about Evangelical or even Fundamentalists because of the acts or words of a few, or some.  The LDS church has carefully built and fostered an identity of persecution, so much so that even those like me who speak out against the talk that generated this whole thread are referred to a number of times within it, (the thread) as a "mob" or the "mob" or even as "enemies."

I am not sure what you are talking about here.

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

Methinks it would be good if you held non-LDS commentary to the same extremely high evidentiary standards that you do related to those that emanate from some or any level of LDSdom. (OK not a word again).   Take care.

Sounds good.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
3 hours ago, Navidad said:

It is a beautiful passage. What I can't figure out is that virtually every LDS Priesthood holder who talks about it needs to remind the listeners that it is the only authorized priesthood in the world. That need to remind everyone is the very opposite of the qualities noted in the passage you quoted. To me, it indicates a certain hubris and pride. Those are not characteristics of people who I want holding power! They remind me too much of 1950's Fundamentalist pastors and leaders, as does Brad Wilcox to bring this back to the subject. Those who truly are comfortable in their power don't need to talk about it with such obvious pride! I think it is not that I misunderstand the concept; I dislike its manifestation. I hope that makes sense even if though you won't agree with me. I enjoy the discourse. Thanks.

This may be why we have Doctrine and Covenants 121:

"36 That the rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and that the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness.
"37 That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.
"38 Behold, ere he is aware, he is left unto himself, to kick against the pricks, to persecute the saints, and to fight against God.
"39 We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion."

I find that most priesthood holders do not go talking about "only".  On some occasion by way of explanation then some may do it, but even then most just talk about needing authority and let it go unless further explanation is needed.

But we are taught in the scriptures that when one attempts to use it in pride or to set themselves up they do not have the backing of heaven  - pride stops one from using the power. 
 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

Moses 7:8

8 For behold, the Lord shall curse the land with much heat, and the barrenness thereof shall go forth forever; and there was a blackness came upon all the children of Canaan, that they were despised among all people.

Abraham 1:21-26

21 Now this king of Egypt was a descendant from the loins of Ham, and was a partaker of the blood of the Canaanites by birth.
22 From this descent sprang all the Egyptians, and thus the blood of the Canaanites was preserved in the land.
23 The land of Egypt being first discovered by a woman, who was the daughter of Ham, and the daughter of Egyptus, which in the Chaldean signifies Egypt, which signifies that which is forbidden;
24 When this woman discovered the land it was under water, who afterward settled her sons in it; and thus, from Ham, sprang that race which preserved the curse in the land.
25 Now the first government of Egypt was established by Pharaoh, the eldest son of Egyptus, the daughter of Ham, and it was after the manner of the government of Ham, which was patriarchal.
26 Pharaoh, being a righteous man, established his kingdom and judged his people wisely and justly all his days, seeking earnestly to imitate that order established by the fathers in the first generations, in the days of the first patriarchal reign, even in the reign of Adam, and also of Noah, his father, who blessed him with the blessings of the earth, and with the blessings of wisdom, but cursed him as pertaining to the Priesthood.

Excellent

Link to comment
22 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

So you are claiming that this is official LDS Church doctrine?   "...time for the church to tell the truth of what it truly believes. That Cain killed Abel and cursed him with dark skin."  CFR, Tacenda.  It is certainly not official Church doctrine.  You keep mentioning "they," but it is unclear who "they" is.  Are you referring to the Brethren generally, or to some specific person?  Bear in mind that in 1978 Elder McConkie told us all to forget whatever he and Brigham had said on the matter because they spoke without light and knowledge.  He and Brigham had spoken for the racist wing of the LDS Church, and had been strongly opposed by Orson Pratt, David O. McKay, and others.  Spencer Kimball and others obviously did not buy that nonsense.  So who is "they"?

On his mission my husband taught that the lineage from Cain was cursed with a dark skin because Cain killed his brother Abel and it was the reason for the PH ban. He served in the Jackson, Mississippi mission in 1979. He was trained to teach this on his mission and it was at a critical point having had the ban lifted in '78 and investigators asked why they couldn't have it before. And was also taught they were less valiant in the pre-existence coming from that lineage but they left that out of course. He is dictating this to me while driving home from the Vegas trip. 

 

Link to comment
53 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

On his mission my husband taught that the lineage from Cain was cursed with a dark skin because Cain killed his brother Abel and it was the reason for the PH ban. He served in the Jackson, Mississippi mission in 1979. He was trained to teach this on his mission and it was at a critical point having had the ban lifted in '78 and investigators asked why they couldn't have it before. And was also taught they were less valiant in the pre-existence coming from that lineage but they left that out of course. He is dictating this to me while driving home from the Vegas trip.

Yes, those were indeed some of the lies which were passed on for generations among Latter-day Saints.  Most LDS missionaries considered McConkie's Mormon Doctrine a kind of "Bible."  I  had a racist roommate at BYU.  Nice guy, but he actually believed those lies.  That was not at all uncommon.  For all I know, Brother Brigham also believed those lies -- even though Orson Pratt wouldn't give him a moment's peace for rejecting the teachings of Joseph Smith on that score.

Link to comment
12 hours ago, Calm said:

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

And possibly Ham marries his granddaughter and thus Egyptus, the daughter of Ham, is also his great granddaughter?  A great soap opera if I got it right…given the Bible had no issue spilling the alleged dirt on Lot and his daughters and Judah and his daughter in law, any guess why the relationship wasn’t made explicit?

Such legends are very ancient.  In Appollodorus (Bibliotheca, 2:1:4-5), it is Aigyptos, the eponym­ous son of Belus & Anchinoe, who first conquers Egypt.  In the Sibylline Oracles (Prologue:33; I:289, III:809,823-827), it is the sybil  Sambethe/ Sambathis, the daughter or daughter-in-law of Noah, who also came to Egypt after the Flood.  H. C. Youtie,        "Sambat­his," Harvard Theological Review, 37:213-217.  In each case, she is the equivalent of the goddess Hathor (Egyptian Ḥt-Ḥr "House-of-Horus [Sky]"), also the daughter of the god Ptah (Zeptah), and on the Palermo Stone, each king is accompanied by his mother's name and by the measured height of the inundation in September.  For, "when this woman discovered the land it was under water" (Abr 1:24).  Hathor is the Eye and Mother of the sun-god Reˁ, the first king of Egypt (Abr 1:25; Book of the Divine Cow), that first king being otherwise known as “Hermes Triplex” in the Corpus Hermeticum, i.e., the first king of Egypt after the Flood (Abr 1:23-25).

Edited by Robert F. Smith
Link to comment
34 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Hathor is the Eye and Mother of the sun-god Reˁ

Then there is Io, who came to Egypt in the form of a cow…lots of women it seems on their own ending up in Egypt and having their sons become kings.

Just read an article that suggested a link between Hathor and the 14 cows of Pharaoh’s dream predicting feast/famine according to Joseph.  Off topic, but I liked the idea.

Link to comment
3 hours ago, Tacenda said:

On his mission my husband taught that the lineage from Cain was cursed with a dark skin because Cain killed his brother Abel and it was the reason for the PH ban. He served in the Jackson, Mississippi mission in 1979. He was trained to teach this on his mission and it was at a critical point having had the ban lifted in '78 and investigators asked why they couldn't have it before. And was also taught they were less valiant in the pre-existence coming from that lineage but they left that out of course. He is dictating this to me while driving home from the Vegas trip. 

 

That has been a common view yet that does not appear to be the part of the story.  God did curse Cain for his actions and he became a son of perdition.  However Cain was worried about being killed by others so God gave Cain a mark at the request of Cain.  The mark, if it was dark skin, was not a curse but more of a protection to Cain.  The priesthood is given according to individual worthiness and not what some ancestor did.    So many theories were presented without any scriptural support for it because people had some need to rationalize why the ban existed.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Yes, those were indeed some of the lies which were passed on for generations among Latter-day Saints.  Most LDS missionaries considered McConkie's Mormon Doctrine a kind of "Bible."  I  had a racist roommate at BYU.  Nice guy, but he actually believed those lies.  That was not at all uncommon.  For all I know, Brother Brigham also believed those lies -- even though Orson Pratt wouldn't give him a moment's peace for rejecting the teachings of Joseph Smith on that score.

THey were not lies. They were the positions and reasons  from those you call apostles and prophets. We even have a FP Statement from George Albert Smith and team codifying these what you call lies. and if they lied then your apostles and prophets are blatant liars and apparently God could not correct their lies.  I imagine I will get kicked out of this thread for saying this but it is pretty obvious this is a huge problem for giving and credence to what the LDS prophets and apostles say.  I mean based on your own words they were liars.

Link to comment
58 minutes ago, Calm said:

Then there is Io, who came to Egypt in the form of a cow…lots of women it seems on their own ending up in Egypt and having their sons become kings.

Just read an article that suggested a link between Hathor and the 14 cows of Pharaoh’s dream predicting feast/famine according to Joseph.  Off topic, but I liked the idea.

Yes, the maternal line was that important.  And Hathor-Isis was the great Mother Goddess.  The Greeks and Romans always defined their gods in relation to Egyptian gods.  Just so, Sybil/ Cybele Was the great Mother Goddess as well, in Anatolia.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...