quote:Could the "horse" of the Book of Mormon be Mesoamerican deer?
I doubt it. The problem with this explanation (the etymological one) is in remembering how Joseph Smith translated the Book Of Mormon. He wasn't a scholar. He wasn't comparing usages of Hebrew (never mind that the BoM wasn't even WRITTEN in Hebrew. . .). The translation was done by the gift of God, and so what we got was what God wanted down on the page. When Joseph says 'horse' that's what God wants there. Ditto with elephant.
Apologists, find another explanation, 'cause this one don't work.
[ August 11, 2003, 09:16 AM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, Maccabeus, Stradling was trying to let you know what a total Physics geek he is. We Physicists tend to use our secret vocabulary all the time because we can't help ourselves. As long as he didn't teach you the handshake...
Don
P.S. Stradling, have you run into Peter Hyland at UW? He's a new grad student in Peter Trimble's group. He used to work with my group here at CWRU in Cleveland.
Posts: 108 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Golly, Scott - that's quite a leap. Either you're privy to more info about revelatory translation than most, or you've got hold of the wrong end of the stick.
What Joseph Smith saw and how he wrote it is the topic for many a good (informed) discussion. There is neither the information nor the experience in this present group to broach the topic. It is Not unlikely that when confronted with a "schmeerp" that acts as a pack/personal transport animal, the word horse would spring to mind. He doesn't have time or inclination to give a detailed breakdown of the the animal at hand, listing leg lengths and nose shapes and appendages. It's EXTREMELY peripheral to the account, which centers explicitly on the spiritual history of an exiled people. Not even their secular history. Certainly not the taxonomy of their pack animals.
As I said before, the minutiae and the apologist answers to them miss the point. No need to beat any more of these dead... umm... horses. Or whatever.
As a general comment - the background noise level in this conversation looks like it's on the rise. I might suggest that other threads be created for hacking at minutiae and hearing from apologists, and that there be a serious examination here of the doctrinal and philosophical merits of Mormonism and the Book of Mormon. I feel that the vagueness of the available evidence on the more peripheral points has already been well-demonstrated.
posted
BTW - schmeerp is a reference to Card's essay called "The Book of Mormon -- Artifact or Artifice?", which in turn refers to ideas from James Blish.
Don-
Yeah, I know Pete. He's a good character. Our interaction was limited in duration, though - he was only around for a year before I came out here. He seems to be doing quite well.
Handshake? You know you're not even supposed to let on that it exists. When that gets out, everyone will be able to pass for a physicist, and then where will we be?
posted
Sorry to <insert appropriate Hatrack euphemism> this thread. To get moderately back on track, I have a LDS question as someone whose exposure to Mormonism is almost exclusively through OSC. Is it LDS doctrine that when people die, their "heaven" is to populate another planet with their children/ancestors much in the way that was literally done in Homecoming?
Posts: 108 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
Ah, good! Another in the physics grads with kids category. I get lonely in here . Cute kids.
Not really, but kind of. It's not really well defined, probably for the good reason that we wouldn't really get it, and would misinterpret it beyond all reason. (That's my take on it). What we know is that we are children of God, and that the relationship is literal. As a very sharp cookie (Hugh B. Brown) put it, 'The difference is, of course, indescribably great, but it is one of degree rather than of kind.' God asserts that we will have as an inheritance all that He has, if we qualify. I assume that we then do what He does, which is have children and teach them like we're being taught. Little things like creating planets, by the way, seem to be peripheral to that more central purpose.
As a general aside, I think that's the great and central reason that Mormons believe in a rather strict version of Being Good, not just being nice. We're being trained for a pretty serious job. While those who don't qualify will be happy enough, those who DO have to be no-foolin' up to the task.
posted
Yes, it is hard being a grad student with kids. My wife was also a physics grad student when we had our first. One of us would hold the baby and the other one would take notes in class. The kids (and my wife, who already graduated) are really suffering now while I'm trying to write my thesis. I treasure each of OSC's books a little more when I remember that he has to hide away from his family for weeks to write a book. I don't begrudge him his slim output of work (slim compare to how fast I can read, that is).
As a physicist, the parallel behind that worldview and the theory that a new universe is created inside each black hole is compelling. I have always been struck with awe how precisely the Bible describes certain scientific theories (the Big Bang, evolution (!!)) when looked at in the right light. I'm sure that the key to my Nobel Prize is in Ecclesiastes somewhere...
Posts: 108 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Don, a rather contentious thread here might explain it better for you. However, I will quote Jon Boy from page three for a quick answer.
quote: I'll try to explain as well as I can. After this life, there are two options: "paradise" and "prison." Basically, if you have kept the commandments, you go to paradise. If not, you wait it out in prison until you change or until the judgment. There are three degrees of "heaven" and one "hell." Outer darkness is reserved for Satan, his angels, and his followers in this life (as in those who know for sure that Jesus is the Christ and then choose to follow Satan anyway). I'm guessing a relatively small number from this life end up in outer darkness.
Moving along to the degrees of heaven. The "top" level (celestial kingdom) is for those who have kept the commandments and entered into the necessary (and properly administered) covenants. In the celestial kingdom, there are (I believe) three levels. The top is for those who have been married in the temple and sealed for time and all eternity. The bottom is for those who remain single. I believe it has not been revealed what the middle level of the celestial kingdom is.
The middle (terrestrial) degree is for good people who didn't accept the gospel (and I mean here the "LDS" gospel, not Christianity in general).
The lower (telestial) degree is for those who don't accept the gospel of Christ at all.
posted
Thanks for the info. I think I'll wait until I'm done with my thesis before I try to absorb it all. I'm spending too much time lurking on Hatrack and working on my fantasy baseball team (also with Hatrack folk) as it is. Thesis writing does make one introspective, particularly when it comes to questioning the meaning of existence
It is curious though that the vision from D&C passage you linked to was given to Joseph Smith right down the road from where I am sitting (in Cleveland). So much of early Mormon history occured right here. I've been through the "real" town Hatrack River (at least my guess of what it is) but never stopped to look around.
Posts: 108 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Stradling & Don> Surprisingly, I am familiar with the concept of symmetry, though not wonderfully knowledgeable about it. I'm a biologist (sort of--Masters degree currently incomplete and working at Cracker Barrel to get money). It had never occurred to me to apply it to theological situations, nor did I think of it as directly related to the Copernican principle (likewise for application). I try to keep somewhat in touch with other sciences like theoretical physics, but I'm only one guy.
Posts: 1041 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
One of my favorite uses of the word "symmetry" is the joke:
...like the ski resort full of young girls looking for husbands and husbands looking for young girls, the situation was not as symmetrical as it would seem.
Posts: 108 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The links to other previous threads were great - I should have searched Hatrack for LDS info long ago.
The discussions going on in this thread, and in previous threads I am now reading, make me even more interested in the religion - pretty interesting stuff.
Someone reassure me that there isn't some hidden text for the top level people revealing it is all spacemen like in Scientology. .. Just a bad joke.
Posts: 19 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow. Now Kayla's quoting me along with all of her other research.
Here's a few random thoughts of my own:
First off, there is no mention of actual lions in the Book of Mormon (every instance of the word "lion" in the Book of Mormon is used metaphorically—they "fought like lions" and stuff like that).
Second, no one really knows about the elephants and horses and stuff. We're talking about searching two entire continents for fossils or other remains, and most dead animals do not become fossilized.
My view on the origin of Native Americans: I believe that the inhabitants of the Book of Mormon made up a small portion of the population of the Americas. I don't think they arrived in an empty continent and then populated the whole thing. I believe that many groups of people migrated to the Americas, and the Nephites and Lamanites probably mixed in with existing populations.
In addition to evidence of the Ten Tribes in America, there is also evidence of Phoenician, African, Chinese, and Celtic explorers and settlers. I don't have the references on hand, so I'll have to look it up later. And interestingly, there is one Greek name in the Book of Mormon—an apostle named Timothy around the time of Christ. Were there Greek settlers, too? I don't know. But what I do know is that the prophet Mormon says that the Book of Mormon that we have is a heavily abridged version of the original records ("the hundredth part of the things of my people"). In the interest of making room for spiritual things, they omitted all the nitty-gritty geographical, biological, and anthropological details.
But I think one thing's for sure: there are no spacemen in the Book of Mormon.
[ August 12, 2003, 04:52 PM: Message edited by: Jon Boy ]
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know, I mean Haggoth built ships. It doesn't say which kind of ships does it? Or maybe it does, and I'm just proving myself an idiot, yet again. Posts: 524 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jon Boy, since I know little of your theology, I thought someone should at least lead Don in the right direction. I figured it I just quoted you, I couldn't get yelled at for getting "biased" information from some politically charged websight. The horses mouth and all. See, this way, if someone to exception to it, I could just blame you. Which, is after all, the best way to avoid blame. Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"As a physicist, the parallel behind that worldview and the theory that a new universe is created inside each black hole is compelling. I have always been struck with awe how precisely the Bible describes certain scientific theories (the Big Bang, evolution (!!)) when looked at in the right light. I'm sure that the key to my Nobel Prize is in Ecclesiastes somewhere..."
Quite so. I love science for its edges, where the exploration is to be done. I love physics most because I can do the exploration and still play with the kids in the evening.
You know, Eccl. is quite a book of scripture for description of Nobel Prizes, anyway -
7:25 I applied mine heart to know, and to search, and to seek out wisdom, and the reason of things
2:11 Then I looked on all the works that my hands had wrought, and on the labour that I had laboured to do: and, behold, all was vanity and vexation of spirit, and there was no profit under the sun.
1:18 For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.
I'm not looking forward to the travail of the dissertation - but I suppose there is a time to every purpose under heaven.
Anon-
Glad you got good info. Nope, no spacemen. You've gotta look to Card for those, I'm afraid.
posted
I'm sure you've heard this innumerable times, JonBoy - but as you are an obvious Hitchhiker fan (from your email address), I can't resist. You must have been thrilled to death with your Hatrack member number. I must admit to some shock and awe at how good it is.
posted
Actually, Stradling, I think that's the first time someone other than me has pointed it out. Thanks. Of course, 4242 would've been better, but 4284 still works quite nicely.
posted
And for another coincidence, 4284 is the current McAfee virus definitions file number -- the latest one dated 8-11 that is supposed to stop the new "Blaster Worm."
Weirder and weirder. . . . Posts: 1323 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hello, friends! I thought that I'd join on in this little forum.
Since we're currently in a web-site of a rather famous author, I've thought, why not bring up some about the language of the Book of Mormon?
I don't know how many of you out there have heard of a Chiasmus, but its a rather interesting topic, especialy when in conjunction with the Book of Mormon. I don't have the time to go over every detail about chiasmus, but here's a couple of sights you can look through-
Basically, a chiasmus is a type of poem that has been found in the Bible relatively recently. I've started a very in-depth study of the Book of Mormon and have found at least four chiastic poems within the first chapter of First Nephi alone. One is from verses 1-17, another comprises verse 16 alone, another verse 17, and the last chiasmus that I found in that chapter was from verses 18-20. There may be more, but they are difficult to find and even more difficult to write. Especially larger ones.
Anyway, I hope this provides some interesting info for you all.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
You know you're not even supposed to let on that it exists. When that gets out, everyone will be able to pass for a physicist, and then where will we be?![[Wink]](wink.gif)
(slim compare to how fast I can read, that is).![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
