From: Scot Denhalter Subject: [LDSR] RE: Etymology of Eve Date: 01 Jul 1997 13:47:09 -0600 Gen 3:20 "And Adam called his wife's name Eve" Gen 4:1 "And Adam knew his wife Eve" In the OT, the word Eve appears in the Hebrew of the Masoretic text. In Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, the word is referenced as entry 2332 in the Hebrew and Chaldee Dictionary. Here it is pronounced as "Chav vah" The "ch" stands for the Hebrew letter "Het" and is pronounced like an aspirant "h" (as if your were clearing your throat to spit, much like the German pronunciation of Johann Sebastian's last name: Bach). Some posts have used the English letter "w" in place of the "v", but this can be misleading. The Hebrew letter "Vav" is sometimes designated by the English letter "w", but it should, in fact, be pronounced as the "v" in the English word "vine". The name here is defined as a causative from the root word "chavah" meaning "to live", thereby indicative of "life-giver". 2Cor 11:3 "beguiled Eve through his subtlety" 1Ti 2:13 "For Adam was the first formed, then Eve" In the Greek test of the New Testament, the name "Eve" is not translated to the Greek word for "life" or "life-giver" but is merely transliterated from the original Hebrew to "Eua" (pronounced "you-wah") From these two extant texts extant anciently, the Latin Vulgate was later written and rather than translating the name "Eve" into a Latin equivalent meaning "life" or "life-giver", it was again transliterated from the original Hebrew to "Evae". ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Kurt Neumiller" Subject: Re: [LDSR] Baby Blessings Date: 01 Jul 1997 11:10:56 -0400 D&C 20:70 (April 1830) Every member of the church of Christ having children is to bring them unto the elders before the church, who are to lay their hands upon them in the name of Jesus Christ, and bless them in his name. >From the context it seems pretty likely that this was reactionary to infant baptism. On Jun 30, 4:28pm, AEParshall wrote: > Date: Sat, 28 Jun 1997 01:18:17 -0400 (EDT) > From: AEParshall@aol.com > To: lds-research@xmission.xmission.com > Subject: Re: [LDSR] Baby Blessings (fwd) > > > >This question was asked by a member of the RLDS church. Anybody have an > >answer? When did the practice of blessing babies start? > > Unless someone has a definitive answer, maybe we could work together to come > up with an "at least by this date" kind of answer (what's the Latin term for > that?) My contribution: > > The LDS membership record books that were being used by the 1880s had a > column to record blessings, as well as baptism and confirmation, rebaptism, > and so on. So, baby blessings were well established at least by that date. > The books used earlier than that did not have printed headings, and wards > varied greatly in what information they recorded. (You can easily see > examples of these books by checking the Family History Library catalog for > any locality, under the heading for "Church Records".) > > Earlier evidence? > > Ardis Parshall > AEParshall@aol.com > > > > >-- End of excerpt from AEParshall -- Kurt Neumiller kurtn@crssa.rutgers.edu ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: ROY SCHMIDT[SMTP:SCHMIDLG@ConGate.byu.edu] Subject: [LDSR] Baby Blessings (fwd) Date: 01 Jul 1997 14:48:31 -0600 Doctrine and Covenants (LDS) Section 20:70 states "Every member of the church of Christ having children is to bring them unto the elders before the church, who are to lay their hands upon them in the name of Jesus Christ, and bless them in his name." As that revelation was given when the organization of the Church occurred, it would seem that the blessing of children has been in effect from that time. Roy >>> AEParshall@aol.com> 06/30/97 03:28pm >>> This question was asked by a member of the RLDS church. Anybody have an answer? When did the practice of blessing babies start? Unless someone has a definitive answer, maybe we could work together to come up with an "at least by this date" kind of answer (what's the Latin term for that?) My contribution: The LDS membership record books that were being used by the 1880s had a column to record blessings, as well as baptism and confirmation, rebaptism, and so on. So, baby blessings were well established at least by that date. The books used earlier than that did not have printed headings, and wards varied greatly in what information they recorded. (You can easily see examples of these books by checking the Family History Library catalog for any locality, under the heading for "Church Records".) Earlier evidence? Ardis Parshall AEParshall@aol.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Alex-c Lopez[SMTP:ALEX_LOPEZ@novell.com] Subject: [LDSR] Re.: Etymology of "Eve" -Reply Date: 01 Jul 1997 14:48:38 -0600 ** High Priority ** If you wouldn't mind, could you provide a source for the perticular dictionary, dictionaries from which you have retrevied this folk etymology. I have a few etymological dictionaries and am always interested in referencing what ever is extant and to discover some obscure edition. If you have the time it would be appreciated. Thank you >>> Richley Crapo To lds-research@xmission.com - 6/25/97 11:40 AM >>> The Hebrew for Eve is Chaw-wa" or "Chavah". By folk etymology, this name is said to be related to the adjective "living", which is "chay" in Hebrew, or rather "chaya" or "chayah" rather than "chay". "Chayah" is the word in verse 20. It means "life". "Chay" is merely the adjective form meaning "living". By "folk etymology", I basically had in mind that the author of Genesis 3:20 claims that the two words are related: "And Adam called his wife's name Chawwa _because_ she was the mother of all "chaya" but the etymology is not accepted as a valid one by modern linguists. So, you are not likely to find it supported in a lexicon. However, your might check for a note in the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible. It may comment on the folk-nature of the verse's assertion. Richley Vanetten.Edward wrote on 6/24 8:22a... "How is it that the word _EVE_ came to be the English translation of the Hebrew word for the name of Adam's wife? How does the name _EVE_ have anything to do with the expression _mother of all living_?:" Ed Van Etten Ontario, California vanetten.edward@corona.navy.mil ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scot Denhalter Subject: [LDSR] FW: BOUNCE lds-research@xmission.com: Approval required: Date: 01 Jul 1997 14:39:22 -0600 Encoding: 65 TEXT Kurt, What do you mean by "reactionary to infant baptisms"? Scot ---------- Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 1997 9:10 AM Cc: lds-research@xmission.com D&C 20:70 (April 1830) Every member of the church of Christ having children is to bring them unto the elders before the church, who are to lay their hands upon them in the name of Jesus Christ, and bless them in his name. >From the context it seems pretty likely that this was reactionary to infant baptism. On Jun 30, 4:28pm, AEParshall wrote: > Date: Sat, 28 Jun 1997 01:18:17 -0400 (EDT) > From: AEParshall@aol.com > To: lds-research@xmission.xmission.com > Subject: Re: [LDSR] Baby Blessings (fwd) > > > >This question was asked by a member of the RLDS church. Anybody have an > >answer? When did the practice of blessing babies start? > > Unless someone has a definitive answer, maybe we could work together to come > up with an "at least by this date" kind of answer (what's the Latin term for > that?) My contribution: > > The LDS membership record books that were being used by the 1880s had a > column to record blessings, as well as baptism and confirmation, rebaptism, > and so on. So, baby blessings were well established at least by that date. > The books used earlier than that did not have printed headings, and wards > varied greatly in what information they recorded. (You can easily see > examples of these books by checking the Family History Library catalog for > any locality, under the heading for "Church Records".) > > Earlier evidence? > > Ardis Parshall > AEParshall@aol.com > -- Kurt Neumiller kurtn@crssa.rutgers.edu ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: ROY SCHMIDT[SMTP:SCHMIDLG@ConGate.byu.edu] Subject: [LDSR] RE: Baby's Blessings (fwd) Date: 01 Jul 1997 15:04:32 -0600 Doctrine and Covenants (LDS) Section 20:70 states "Every member of the church of Christ having children is to bring them unto the elders before the church, who are to lay their hands upon them in the name of Jesus Christ, and bless them in his name." As that revelation was given when the organization of the Church occurred, it would seem that the blessing of children has been in effect from that time. Roy >>> AEParshall@aol.com 06/30/97 03:28pm >>> >This question was asked by a member of the RLDS church. Anybody have an >answer? When did the practice of blessing babies start? Unless someone has a definitive answer, maybe we could work together to come up with an "at least by this date" kind of answer (what's the Latin term for that?) My contribution: The LDS membership record books that were being used by the 1880s had a column to record blessings, as well as baptism and confirmation, rebaptism, and so on. So, baby blessings were well established at least by that date. The books used earlier than that did not have printed headings, and wards varied greatly in what information they recorded. (You can easily see examples of these books by checking the Family History Library catalog for any locality, under the heading for "Church Records".) Earlier evidence? Ardis Parshall AEParshall@aol.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Kurt Neumiller" Subject: Re: [LDSR] Baby blessings Date: 01 Jul 1997 17:39:03 -0400 On Jul 1, 2:39pm, Scot Denhalter wrote: > > Kurt, > > What do you mean by "reactionary to infant baptisms"? The text surrounding D&C 20:70 is talking about baptism and explicitly states that baptism is only to be performed upon those who are accountable. That this blessing of children (and I would assume that means anyone < 8 yrs old) is imbedded right in the middle of a discourse on baptism. Infant baptism was, and still is, a common practice. I see this text as being reactionary to the practice of infant baptism, i.e. it is saying "Don't practice infant baptism, rather practice infant blessings." > From: Kurt Neumiller[SMTP:kurtn@crssa.rutgers.edu] > Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 1997 9:10 AM > To: Scot Denhalter > Cc: lds-research@xmission.com > Subject: Re: [LDSR] Baby Blessings > > D&C 20:70 (April 1830) > Every member of the church of Christ having children is to bring them unto > the elders before the church, who are to lay their hands upon them in the > name of Jesus Christ, and bless them in his name. > > From the context it seems pretty likely that this was reactionary to > infant baptism. -- Kurt Neumiller kurtn@crssa.rutgers.edu ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: AEParshall@aol.com Subject: Re: [LDSR] Baby Blessings Date: 02 Jul 1997 09:56:20 -0400 (EDT) A couple of readers have pointed out the D&C scripture instructing parents to bring their children to the elders for a blessing. While I am certain this is the authority for the LDS practice of blessing and naming babies, is there any evidence that this was practiced "from the beginning" as a regular, routine ordinance in a form that would be familiar to us today? Here is an easy example to illustrate why the question may be worth asking this way: While the Word of Wisdom was given very early, it was not practiced routinely and expectedly for many, many years. (Coffee and tea were on the list of supplies required for emigrant trains; Franklin D. Richards felt it necessary to suggest to his European missionaries in 1867 that it would be a good idea to avoid alcohol, with no suggestion that disobedience was an automatic disciiplinary offense.) We had the instruction almost "from the beginning", but it took patience and the development of our understanding to bring the Word of Wisdom to the "obvious" place it holds in our culture today. I think this is closer to the intent of the original question: At what point did it become routine and expected that all babies or young children be blessed in a formal, more or less public, rite expected of all active families? Ardis Parshall AEParshall@aol.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: vanetten.edward@corona.navy.mil (Vanetten.Edward) Subject: [LDSR] Book of Abraham Date: 02 Jul 1997 08:20:37 -0700 Two questions: 1. The Book of Abraham seems to stop abruptly with Adam naming all the animals. Is there any indication in LDS History records that imply there was actually more to the record, but Joseph Smith published only what we currently have in the book? 2. The Book of Moses accounts the following order of events (Moses 3:19-23): a. Adam created b. Adam names animals c. Eve created The Book of Abraham (5:14-21) accounts as follows: a. Adam created b. Eve created c. Adam names animals I'm curious as to why a difference in the order of events. The Moses account seems to teach Adam that of all creation there is none like him, hence, a new creation, the source of which is Adam, is needed. The Abraham account perhaps teaches Adam that his wife is indeed unique in all of God's creations. Ed Van Etten Ontario, CA vanetten.edward@corona.navy.mil ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Kurt Neumiller" Subject: Re: [LDSR] Book of Abraham Date: 02 Jul 1997 14:45:38 -0400 On Jul 2, 8:20am, Vanetten.Edward wrote: > Subject: [LDSR] Book of Abraham > Two questions: > > 1. The Book of Abraham seems to stop abruptly > with Adam naming all the animals. Is there > any indication in LDS History records that > imply there was actually more to the record, > but Joseph Smith published only what we > currently have in the book? I havent ever heard anything that would indicate this was the case. > 2. The Book of Moses accounts the following > order of events (Moses 3:19-23): > a. Adam created > b. Adam names animals > c. Eve created > The Book of Abraham (5:14-21) accounts as follows: > a. Adam created > b. Eve created > c. Adam names animals > I'm curious as to why a difference in the order > of events. The Moses account seems to teach > Adam that of all creation there is none like > him, hence, a new creation, the source of which is > Adam, is needed. The Abraham account perhaps > teaches Adam that his wife is indeed > unique in all of God's creations. I suspect that in the case of Abraham the creation of Eve was dislocated deliberately to emphasize the unity the two were ideally to experience (i.e. the twain shall be one flesh), as well as to present Eve as superior to the animals. However, note in the Abraham account the creation of Eve is placed in the Genesis/Moses order after the animals in v. 21 where it says "there was found an help meet for him" (i.e. Eve). -- Kurt Neumiller kurtn@crssa.rutgers.edu ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Clark Goble Subject: RE: [LDSR] Mormonism and Kabbalism Date: 02 Jul 1997 12:46:44 -0600 Just to add a few more comments to our moderator's prelude to my post. I actually have in my archives the entire debate between Lance Owens, Bill Hamblin, myself and others. In some places Lance responds to several of Hamblin's charges. Specifically he points out the gematria connections between Adam and God in Kabbalism. However the debate also points out many of the glaring errors, misquotes and so forth that Lance used to provide parallels. The one off the top of my head that was really bad was the use of Orson Hyde's drawing of a family lineage for God in a description of the nature of God. This was tied to the Kabbalistic tree of life which represents the Serifot. If anyone wishes, I can go through and take excerpts from the discussion and post it here. I can also post the commentary on Genesis 1:1 from the Zohar that supposedly Joseph was "inspired by" to do his translation in the King Follet Discourse. \\\ Clark Goble \\\\ cgoble@fiber.net \\\ Eccentricity has always abounded when and where strength of character has abounded; and the amount of eccentricity in a society has generally been proportional to the amount of genius, mental vigour, and moral courage which it contained. -- John Stuart Mill ********* [Note from owner-lds-research] Clark, Rather than just excerpts, I personally would like to see the entire debate you have archived. If you can obtain permission from those involved in the debate, I have no problem with re-posting the entire debate to this list. If you can get those involved to agree with our publishing it, send the archive to me personally. I could serialize it, thus giving everyone the enitre debate in a number of manageable portions. It might even be a good addition to the web site I am creating for this list. I would be interested to hear what others think about this. Send your comments to sdenhalt@xmission.com. Thanks Scot ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Clark Goble Subject: RE: [LDSR] Book of Abraham Date: 02 Jul 1997 16:17:17 -0600 ___ Ed ___ | The Book of Abraham seems to stop abruptly with Adam | naming all the animals. Is there any indication in | LDS History records that imply there was actually | more to the record, but Joseph Smith published only | what we currently have in the book? ___ Yes there is. I'll hopefully start posting a few excerpts on this from my archives either tonight or next week. Right now I've got to reinstall my system on my Mac, but I don't have my system CD anymore. As soon as I get it reinstalled I'll post lots of stuff, serialized over the next few weeks. I'd like to try and organize it by topic, so let me know what you want to see. I can't promise I'll have everything, but I should have a fair bit. I'll try to be fairly even handed in things too. Oh - for evidence that there was more on the Papyri, we have the following: Soon after this, some of the Saints at Kirtland purchased the mummies and papyrus, a description of which will appear hereafter, and with W. W. Phelps and Oliver Cowdery as scribes, I commenced the translation of some of the characters or hieroglyphics, and much to our joy found that one of the rolls contained the writings of Abraham, another the writings of Joseph of Egypt, etc.,-a more full account of which will appear in its place, as I proceed to examine or unfold them. Truly we can say, the Lord is beginning to reveal the abundance of peace and truth. (DHC 2:236) Obviously things get a little trickier when you deal with who really knew what. There is quite a bit of information in the Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar that appears to deal with the Book of Abraham but is not part of any completed text we have. However different people view all these quotes, texts, and the like in very different ways. Many people believe they were "working" documents as Joseph worked towards a correct translation. Thus they of themselves may be incorrect, uninspired or the like. There are plenty of other theories as well. \\\ Clark Goble \\\\ cgoble@fiber.net \\\ The past is another country; they do things differently there. -- H. E. Bates ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Clark Goble Subject: [LDSR] Islam and Mormonism Date: 02 Jul 1997 17:25:05 -0600 On an other list (LDS-Phil), someone pointed out an other religion that had numerous parallels to Mormonism. This person felt that the Isma'ili branch of Shia Islam was very similar to early Nauvoo theology. The inner circle of disciples are even called "The Holy Order." He references a book called _Isma'ili Gnosis and Cyclical Time_ by Henri Corbin on the subject of this branch of Islam. Does anyone know anything about this? I've heard of parallels to the Oenida Indian tribe, but never of parallel to Islam. \\\ Clark Goble \\\\ cgoble@fiber.net \\\ There is no truth to be discovered; there is only error to be exposed. -- H. L. Mencken ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Morgan Adair Subject: Re: [LDSR] Baby Blessings Date: 02 Jul 1997 18:13:09 -0600 >>> 07/02/97 07:56AM >>> >A couple of readers have pointed out the D&C scripture instructing parents to >bring their children to the elders for a blessing. While I am certain this >is the authority for the LDS practice of blessing and naming babies, is there >any evidence that this was practiced "from the beginning" as a regular, >routine ordinance in a form that would be familiar to us today? I believe the baby blessing where Joseph Smith named Reynolds Cahoon's son "Mahonri Moriancumr" was given in 1841. At least it was reported in the Times & Seasons in 1841. Any records of baby blessings given earlier? And what about the practice of blessing babies in F&T meetings? When did that start? MBA [Note from owner-lds-research] Morgan, This is good information. Can you give us the actual reference to the T&S report (or at least a secondary reference from some other work)? JSD ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Clark Goble Subject: [LDSR] Islam and Mormonism Date: 03 Jul 1997 13:53:02 -0600 I asked Bill Hamblin about the Islamic connection to Mormonism and he kindly responded. He is very familiar with the subject as that is his main field of study and the discipline he got his doctorate in. He said that the Isma'ilis were a very syncretist branch of Islam, adopting many gnostic ideas from earlier Jewish, Christian, Zoroastrian, and pagan sources. Thus quite a few of the parallels to Mormonism from this branch are the same parallels that can be found with gnosticism and various Jewish texts. However there apparently are many interesting parallels with Isma'ilis teachings and many LDS ideas. He also pointed out that while Corbin's work was very interesting, he is fairly speculative. Thus many of the supposed parallels may actually be more parallels with Corbin's thought rather than the Isma'ilis themselves. \\\ Clark Goble \\\\ cgoble@fiber.net \\\ There is no truth to be discovered; there is only error to be exposed. -- H. L. Mencken ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Hajicek Subject: Re: [LDSR] Baby Blessings Date: 04 Jul 1997 09:00:24 -0500 Morgan Adair wrote: > >any evidence that this was practiced "from the beginning" as a regular, > >routine ordinance in a form that would be familiar to us today? > > I believe the baby blessing where Joseph Smith named Reynolds Cahoon's son > "Mahonri Moriancumr" was given in 1841. At least it was reported in the > Times & Seasons in 1841. Thee is no event in the Times and Seasons naming anyone Moriancumer except the brother of Jared. The Reynolds Cahoon folklore was not in print until 1892 (Juvenile Instructor, April 1892). If Cahoon so named his son, it was doubtlessly the result of Oliver Cowdery's letters calling the brother of Jared "Moriancumer," reprinted in the Times and Seasons on April 1, 1841--the only mention of Moriancumer in the Times and Seasons. I did find the following from 1830, 1838, and 1851: D&C 20:70 70 Every member of the church of Christ having children is to bring them unto the elders before the church, who are to lay their hands upon them in the name of Jesus Christ, and bless them in his name. Elders' Journal (July 1838) p.47 The sacrament will then be administered and the blessing of infants attended to. http://www.mormonism.com/law.htm CHAPTER 10 BLESSING OF INFANTS 1. When the Lord thy God in multiplying blesseth thee, and giveth thee a child in thine own image; thou shalt bring him before the Lord thy God, in his house, or in the assembly of the Elders; and they shall lay their hands upon him, and bless him. Thou shalt not delay to do it; and though thou be far away, yet shalt thou bring him before he is eight years old: that the blessing of the Lord thy God may be put upon him; and his heart shall seek to the Kingdom of God, and its righteousness: for of such is the Kingdom. If he die, yet shall he live therein forever. He shall be thine. (117, 450) 2. And the child of thy servant also, and of thy bondman, shalt thou bring to receive this blessing: and the stranger that dwelleth with thee shall bring his child also, to receive his blessing: for thus shall the power of the Kingdom be a shield unto him, and his heart shall cleave unto its righteousness; that he may be established therein forever. (62, 279) 3. And whosoever shall bring a child to be blessed; whether it be father, or mother; or master, or mistress; the same shall teach the child this law to keep it. Thus shall ye be honoured as fathers and mothers in Israel: but, if ye do it not, and evil befall the child, his blood be upon you. (57, 222) 4. The Apostles, High Priests, and Elders, in their assemblies; and the Priest thereunto appointed in the Temples of God, shall bless with this blessing: for, behold, it is a great sacrament. (31, 149) -- John Hajicek (816) 795-8881 (800) 862-5667 http://www.Mormonism.com http://www.Restoration.org http://www.Strangite.org ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scot Denhalter Subject: [LDSR] FW: BOUNCE lds-research@xmission.com: Approval required: Date: 12 Jul 1997 18:42:42 -0600 >>> John Hajicek 07/04/97 08:00AM >>> >Thee is no event in the Times and Seasons naming anyone Moriancumer >except the brother of Jared. The Reynolds Cahoon folklore was not in >print until 1892 (Juvenile Instructor, April 1892). If Cahoon so named >his son, it was doubtlessly the result of Oliver Cowdery's letters >calling the brother of Jared "Moriancumer," reprinted in the Times and >Seasons on April 1, 1841--the only mention of Moriancumer in the Times >and Seasons. Oops. That's what I get for not checking references. I was looking at the Encyclopedia of Mormonism's entry for the Brother of Jared, which appears to refer to T&S for the Reynolds Cahoon story: Encyclopedia of Mormonism, Vol.1, BROTHER OF JARED Although the Book of Mormon does not give this prophet's name, Joseph Smith later identified it as Mahonri Moriancumer (T&S 2 [1841]:362; Juvenile Instructor, Vol. 27 [May 1, 1892]:282) The T&S reference is, as you said, to letters published under the title "The Gospel" from Oliver Cowdery. Vol 2, p.362 refers to the Brother of Jared as Moriancumer: "It is said, and I believe the account, that the Lord showed the brother of Jared [Moriancumer] all things which were to transpire from that day to the end of the earth, as well as those which had taken place." I don't have the Juvenile Instructor, but McConkie quotes from the 1892 article: Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, p.463 MAHONRI MORIANCUMER Elder George Reynolds has left us this account of the circumstances under which the full name was revealed to the Prophet: "While residing in Kirtland, Elder Reynolds Cahoon had a son born to him. One day when President Joseph Smith was passing his door he called the prophet in and asked him to bless and name the baby. Joseph did so and gave the boy the name of Mahonri Moriancumer. When he had finished the blessing, he laid the child on the bed, and turning to Elder Cahoon he said, the name I have given your son is the name of the Brother of Jared; the Lord has just shown (or revealed) it to me. Elder William F. Cahoon, who was standing near, heard the Prophet make this statement to his Father; and this was the first time the name of the Brother of Jared was known in the Church in this dispensation." (Juvenile Instructor vol. 27, p. 282; Improvement Era, vol. 8, pp. 704-705.) Although this account is 50 years removed from the events, it has Joseph Smith doing the naming and blessing. MBA ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scot Denhalter Subject: [LDSR] FW: BOUNCE lds-research@xmission.com: Approval required: Date: 12 Jul 1997 18:44:22 -0600 (Sorry for the delay on this - we're in the process of moving offices and things have been chaotic to say the least) ___ John ___ | There is no event in the Times and Seasons naming anyone | Moriancumer except the brother of Jared. The Reynolds | Cahoon folklore was not in print until 1892 (Juvenile | Instructor, April 1892). If Cahoon so named his son, it | was doubtlessly the result of Oliver Cowdery's letters | calling the brother of Jared "Moriancumer," reprinted in | the Times and Seasons on April 1, 1841--the only mention | of Moriancumer in the Times and Seasons. ___ I'm not sure the "doubtless" epithet is warranted. There are other early people named Mahonri Moriancumr other than the Cahoon's child. Steele, Mahonri Moriancumer, first counselor to Pres. David Cameron, of Panguitch Stake, is the son of John Steele and Catharine Campbell, and was born May 1, 1849, in Salt Lake City, Utah. (LDS Biographical Encyclopedia, Andrew Jenson, Vol. 1, p.543) So there certainly was an early tradition. (There are numerous other children by this name as a quick scan of the infobase will illustrate) It is significant that Cowdery doesn't mention the Mahonri part of the brother of Jared's name. That, to me, means that there is an other source. While Moriancumr is a good Book of Mormon name, Mahonri is a little more unique. Moriancumr could easily be guessed as the name from various events in the Book of Mormon. (Such as the naming of their resting place by the sea) Mahonri exists only as the proper name of individual Mormons (with the second name always as Moriancumer or some variant). Here is the full quote from the Juvenile Instructor. I think we ought to at least give William Cahoon the benefit of the doubt. While residing in Kirtland, Elder Reynolds Cahoon had a son born to him. One day, while the Prophet Joseph Smith was passing by his door, he called the Prophet in and asked him to bless and name the baby. Joseph did so and gave the baby the name of Mahonri Moriancumer. When he had finished the blessing he laid the child upon the bed, and turning to the father, Elder Cahoon, he said, "The name I have given your son ,is the name of the Brother of Jared; the Lord has just shown (or revealed) it to me. Elder William F. Cahoon, who was standing nearby, heard the Prophet make this statement to his father; and this was the first time the name of the Brother of Jared was known in the Church in this dispensation. (Juvenile Instructor, Volume 27, p. 282) Given the combination of names, the occurrence of many names early on in church history identical to Cahoon, the lack of sufficient information in the Cowdery account, and so forth, I think we ought to assume that the account has a basis in fact. \\\ Clark Goble \\\\ cgoble@fiber.net \\\ There is no truth to be discovered; there is only error to be exposed. -- H. L. Mencken ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scot Denhalter Subject: [LDSR] Clark Goble's Thread Date: 13 Jul 1997 15:19:32 -0600 Dear LDS-Research Subscribers, Clark Goble has been kind enough to compile and submit an e-mail thread that originated on another LDS-related mailing list. The thread in its entirety represents 86 pages when printed and Clark is to be commended for the amount of labor he has expended in organizing it. Although, at first glance, Clark's work may not appear to fit within the guidelines of this list's charter (i.e.: It is not a question nor an answer to another subscriber's query.), I yet intend to post it to this list in its entirety. My reason is simply that the thread contains material which addresses several questions I had intended to pose to the subscribers of this list. The basic content of the thread considers a theme popular of late among Mormon and non-Mormon scholars: that of Joseph Smith as the inheritor and purveyor of occult traditions. This theme has been explored in depth by D. Michael Quinn's "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View" (1987), John L. Brooke's "The Refiners Fire: The Making of Mormon Cosmology, 1644-1844 (1994), a review of Brooke's work in FARMS "Reviews of Books on the Book of Mormon" by William Hamblin, Daniel C. Peterson, and George L. Mitton (Vol. 6, No. 2, 1994), Lance S. Owens's article in Dialogue "Joseph Smith and Kaballah: The Occult Connection" (Vol. 27, No. 3, 1994), and William J. Hamblin's review of Owens's work in FARMS "Reviews of Books" (Vol.8, No.2, 1996). Although addressing another subject entirely, Harold Bloom's "The American Religion: The Emergence of the Post-Christian Nation" (1992) touches briefly, but provocatively on this theme as well. The word "occult" here and in the works cited above does not possess the connotation of "evil" or "Satanic", a notion propounded by Christian Fundamentalists. Rather the word means "hidden", and occult traditions are simply teachings intended to be revealed only to worthy initiates and to bed hidden from the profane, those who would mock and/or persecute. There are many such traditions, some very ancient, many only partially preserved, which come to us from Judaism, Christianity, and Islam as well as from pagan sources such as the Greek Mystery Religions, Neo-Platonic Gnosticism, Roman Stoicism, Persian Zoroastrianism, and Egyptian Osirianism. In comparatively more modern times, aspects of these occult traditions found a home in Jewish Kabbalah, Christian Cabala, Hermeticism, Rosicrucianism, and Freemasonry. The works cited above and the thread Clark Goble has compiled both compare and contrast aspects of these traditions with aspects of Mormon theology. They also explore the three theories which explain how Joseph Smith may have come to be seemingly familiar with these occult traditions: the first being that Joseph Smith's doctrines were influenced through dissemination, that is direct contact with human teachers of those traditions; the second being that his doctrines were influenced by personal inspiration through mystical contact with something like the Jungian "collective unconscious" or perhaps the Hegelian "zeitgeist"; and, the third being that Joseph's doctrines were revealed to him by contact immortal beings, if you will, a supernal form of dissemination. Given the traditional Mormon view of the nature of revelation, the traditional Mormon could feel quite comfortable with the assertion that all three theories could be simultaneously true. There is, of course, the possibility that all three theories are untrue, that Joseph Smith has been misunderstood by these writers and that his doctrines do not reflect a theology in any way similar to that of any of the aforementioned occult traditions Now that I have, I hope, wet your appetite, I must prepare you for some delay in posting this thread. Clark's work has come to me in ten separate posts. Some of them contain the remarks of a single person while others contain the remarks of several persons. I, therefore, intend to break Clark's thread down into one post per contributor and then to mail them one day at a time in the order that they were written. As the lion's share of Clark's thread is comprised of a debate between Lance Owens and William Hamblin, I would like to post both Lance Owens's Dialogue article and William Hamblin's FARMS response to that article before posting Clark's thread. I am presently engaged in acquiring permission to do this. So please be patient. Clark, your work will not be ignored. I only hope to apportion the meal into bites more easily chewed and swallowed that it may be more salubriously digested and the savor endure. Scot ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "John D. Hays" Subject: [LDSR] Aaronic Priesthood Age Date: 14 Jul 1997 17:23:30 -0700 In William Hartley's paper "The Priesthood Reform Movement, 1908-1922" he comments that it was a common practice by the year 1877 to ordain boys to the office of deacon at age 12. He did not cite where that information was documented. I am interested in the history of Aaronic Priesthood offices, duties, and ordination ages. I am also interested in how the various duties and ordination ages were determined (i.e. by revelation, by practice, by committee, etc.) ... Any research materials or pointers would be appreciated. John jhays@hays.org ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: AEParshall@aol.com Subject: Re: [LDSR] Aaronic Priesthood Age Date: 16 Jul 1997 09:17:48 -0400 (EDT) >Any research materials or pointers would be appreciated. > >John >jhays@hays.org One of my favorite (and underused) research sources may help you. The church membership records for a generation each side of 1900 are easily available, and provide space for recording ordinations. You may have to hunt around a while to locate records for wards with good clerks who actually recorded this information (like census enumerators, clerks varied greatly in their attention to detail).. Check both the records for individual members (where you will also find birthdates to easily check boys' ages), and the pages in the back of the volumes where there are lists of ordinations (as well as other types of ordinances). Almost complete runs of these records are available at the family history libraries in Salt Lake and Provo (BYU), with limited runs available at many other FHCs. Check the catalog for Utah counties and towns, under the "Church Records" subdivision. Most of them are found in the 24,XXX, 25XXX, 26XXX range. You'll probably only want to extract statistical information; these records are not supposed to be copied, except for the single membership record of your ancestor. If you do want to make copies, avoid using the films at the main library in Salt Lake -- many of them are on red reels which alert library personnel. Use the ones in Provo which are on plain gray reels. Many Utah wards started using the then-new membership records with printed columns for ordinations in 1877. I wonder if that is why Mr. Hartley used that date? Of course this doesn't help you with "why", but could provide a lot of evidence to confirm or refute a hypothesis on ages. Good luck. Ardis AEParshall@aol.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Austin Subject: [LDSR] Attitudes towards Mormons Date: 16 Jul 1997 12:27:26 -0700 (PDT) I'm currently working on a paper about attitudes towards Mormonism in several key strains of contemporary genre fiction and I wonder if anyone out there in LDS-research land could point me towards any concrete data about attitudes towards Mormon in American culture in general. I'm looking for survey-type data, rather than various opinions of how LDS are perceived. Opinions I got. Its facts I need. Regards, Dr. Michael Austin Department of English and Modern Lanugages Shepherd College, Shepherdstownb, West Virginia ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Keith Irwin Subject: Re: [LDSR] Aaronic Priesthood Age Date: 16 Jul 1997 16:05:42 -0700 Check Hartley's paper, "From Men to Boys, LDS Aaronic Priesthood Offices 1829-1926" in Journal of Mormon History, Vol 22, No 1, (Spring 1996). In this article, Hartley seems to say that the priesthood reorganization of 1877 did not specify ages for aaronic priesthood offices, just that it would be good for youth to be apprentices to experienced teachers and priests. The circular for that reorganization is in James R. Clark's "Messages of the First Presidency, Vol II, pp 283-295. He cites examples of different wards and stakes setting different policies about the age of ordination as well as the duties given the youth. Duties seemed to evolve between 1877 and 1908 as stakes and wards sought ways to involve young men in the aaronic priesthood. In 1908, The General Priesthood Committee on Outlines was tasked to look at curriculum but went significantly farther and recommended the progression of youth through the offices at specific ages, created "Ward Teaching, and over the next few years defined the duties of the three AP offices. The first comprehensive list for all three offices that Hartley cites is in the July 1916 Improvement Era. Keith At 05:23 PM 7/14/97 -0700, John Hays wrote: >In William Hartley's paper "The Priesthood Reform Movement, 1908-1922" he comments that >it was a common practice by the year 1877 to ordain boys to the office of deacon at age 12. He >did not cite where that information was documented. > >I am interested in the history of Aaronic Priesthood offices, duties, and ordination ages. I am >also interested in how the various duties and ordination ages were determined (i.e. by revelation, >by practice, by committee, etc.) ... > >Any research materials or pointers would be appreciated. > Keith Irwin Tanner-Irwin Consulting Group Internet:kirwin@hooked.net Phone: 408-268-6304 Fax 408-268-6389 "We want to know that the little things are little and the big things big before it is too late." -Will Durant, The Story of Philosophy. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: dcahoon@juno.com (Douglas W Cahoon) Subject: [LDSR] MM Cahoon Date: 16 Jul 1997 19:30:41 EDT On Wed, 02 Jul 1997 18:13:09 -0600 Morgan Adair writes: >I believe the baby blessing where Joseph Smith named Reynolds Cahoon's >son >"Mahonri Moriancumr" was given in 1841. At least it was reported in >the >Times & Seasons in 1841. > > [Note from owner-lds-research] >Morgan, >This is good information. Can you give us the actual reference to the >T&S >report (or at least a secondary reference from some other work)? >JSD Sorry about the note I sent earlier. I have been out of town and should have read all my mail before responding. Reynolds Cahoon did have Joseph Smith bless his son. Mahonri was born in 1835 in Kirtland. I tried to name my own son after uncle Mahonri - the bride didn't like that idea. see Juvenile Instructor 27:282 BTW, Mahonri Moriancumer Cahoon never married - went to Utah - and died a drunk - he is buried in Murray. John - you mention this is as "Reynolds Cahoon Folklore".Is that because it wasn't reported until later. I doubt that he would have had to wait for the T&S since Moriancumer (sp) is mentioned as a place in the BofM. --Doug Cahoon ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scot Denhalter Subject: [LDSR] Stan Larson Date: 17 Jul 1997 12:06:15 -0600 Can anyone give me Stan Larson's e-mail address? Scot ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scot Denhalter Subject: [LDSR] RE: Clark Goble's Thread Date: 25 Jul 1997 12:13:08 -0600 Dear LDS-Research Subscribers, I will shortly post Clark Goble's entire thread as an ASCII attachment. Before I do this, I want to post it first to Clark and get his approval. In the meantime, I highly recommend that you read the following articles and/or books on the King Follett Discourse in order to get a good foundation in the document which the debate addresses: 1. Donald Q. Cannon & Larry E. Dahl, "The Prophet Joseph Smith's King Follett Discourse: A Six Column Comparison of Original Notes and Amalgamations" (Provo, UT: BYU Religious Studies Center, 1983) 2. Stan Larson, "The King Follett Discourse: A Newly Amalgamated Text" (BYU Studies 18/2; 1978; pp. 193-208) [I have Stan's permission to post this article to LDS-Research, in the meantime it can also be found in InfoBase's "LDS Collector's Library '97.] 3. Donald Q. Cannon, "The King Follett Discourse: Joseph Smith's Greatest Sermon in Historical Perspective" (BYU Studies 18/2; 1978; pp. 179-192) [This article is also in InfoBase's LDS Collector's Library '97, but I would like to contact Donald to get his permission to post this article to LDS-Research. Does anyone have his e-mail address?] 4. Van Hale, "The Doctrinal Impact of the King Follett Discourse" (BYU Studies 18/2; 1978; pp. 209-225) [This article is also in InfoBase's LDS Collector's Library '97, but I would like to contact Van to get his permission to post this article to LDS-Research. Does anyone have his e-mail address?] 5. The standard text of the King Follett discourse: a. "Times & Seasons" (15 August 1844) [This is the discourse's first publication] b. "Documentary History of the Church" (Vol. 6; pp. 302-317) c. Joseph Fielding Smith, "Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith" (342-362) It is also imperative that you read both Lance Owens's article and William Hamblin's review of that article. These two articles comprise the original debate over the King Follett discourse. I have permission from both Lance Owens and William Hamblin to post these articles to LDS-Research subscribers, but I, as yet, do not have an ASCII copy of either of them. I am busy trying to acquire one of each at this moment. In the meantime, Lance Owens's article, along with the original illustrations, can be found at the following URL: http://www.gnosis.org/jskabb1.htm If you have no way of web-surfing, you can read this article in the Fall issue of "Dialogue" (1994; pp. 117-194). You can read William Hamblin's review of this article in the 1996 "FARMS Review of Books" (Vol. 8, No. 2; pp. 251-325) Unfortunately InfoBase's "LDS Collector's Library '97" ends its "FARMS Review of Books" collection at Vol. 8, No. 1. Nevertheless, I do have Bill's permission to post this article to you as soon as I can acquire an ASCII copy of it. This is a provocative, though not compelling debate. I recommend that everyone read the King Follett discourse, Lance Owens's Dialogue article, and William Hamblin's FARMS review first and in that order to prepare for a better understanding of Clark Goble's thread. Best Wishes, Scot PS: I need the e-mail address of Donald Q. Cannon and Van Hale so that I may garner their permission to post their respective articles to this mailing list. Can anyone help with the supply of those addresses? -----Original Message----- Sent: Sunday, July 13, 1997 3:20 PM Dear LDS-Research Subscribers, Clark Goble has been kind enough to compile and submit an e-mail thread that originated on another LDS-related mailing list. The thread in its entirety represents 86 pages when printed and Clark is to be commended for the amount of labor he has expended in organizing it. Although, at first glance, Clark's work may not appear to fit within the guidelines of this list's charter (i.e.: It is not a question nor an answer to another subscriber's query.), I yet intend to post it to this list in its entirety. My reason is simply that the thread contains material which addresses several questions I had intended to pose to the subscribers of this list. The basic content of the thread considers a theme popular of late among Mormon and non-Mormon scholars: that of Joseph Smith as the inheritor and purveyor of occult traditions. This theme has been explored in depth by D. Michael Quinn's "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View" (1987), John L. Brooke's "The Refiners Fire: The Making of Mormon Cosmology, 1644-1844 (1994), a review of Brooke's work in FARMS "Reviews of Books on the Book of Mormon" by William Hamblin, Daniel C. Peterson, and George L. Mitton (Vol. 6, No. 2, 1994), Lance S. Owens's article in Dialogue "Joseph Smith and Kaballah: The Occult Connection" (Vol. 27, No. 3, 1994), and William J. Hamblin's review of Owens's work in FARMS "Reviews of Books" (Vol.8, No.2, 1996). Although addressing another subject entirely, Harold Bloom's "The American Religion: The Emergence of the Post-Christian Nation" (1992) touches briefly, but provocatively on this theme as well. The word "occult" here and in the works cited above does not possess the connotation of "evil" or "Satanic", a notion propounded by Christian Fundamentalists. Rather the word means "hidden", and occult traditions are simply teachings intended to be revealed only to worthy initiates and to bed hidden from the profane, those who would mock and/or persecute. There are many such traditions, some very ancient, many only partially preserved, which come to us from Judaism, Christianity, and Islam as well as from pagan sources such as the Greek Mystery Religions, Neo-Platonic Gnosticism, Roman Stoicism, Persian Zoroastrianism, and Egyptian Osirianism. In comparatively more modern times, aspects of these occult traditions found a home in Jewish Kabbalah, Christian Cabala, Hermeticism, Rosicrucianism, and Freemasonry. The works cited above and the thread Clark Goble has compiled both compare and contrast aspects of these traditions with aspects of Mormon theology. They also explore the three theories which explain how Joseph Smith may have come to be seemingly familiar with these occult traditions: the first being that Joseph Smith's doctrines were influenced through dissemination, that is direct contact with human teachers of those traditions; the second being that his doctrines were influenced by personal inspiration through mystical contact with something like the Jungian "collective unconscious" or perhaps the Hegelian "zeitgeist"; and, the third being that Joseph's doctrines were revealed to him by contact immortal beings, if you will, a supernal form of dissemination. Given the traditional Mormon view of the nature of revelation, the traditional Mormon could feel quite comfortable with the assertion that all three theories could be simultaneously true. There is, of course, the possibility that all three theories are untrue, that Joseph Smith has been misunderstood by these writers and that his doctrines do not reflect a theology in any way similar to that of any of the aforementioned occult traditions Now that I have, I hope, wet your appetite, I must prepare you for some delay in posting this thread. Clark's work has come to me in ten separate posts. Some of them contain the remarks of a single person while others contain the remarks of several persons. I, therefore, intend to break Clark's thread down into one post per contributor and then to mail them one day at a time in the order that they were written. As the lion's share of Clark's thread is comprised of a debate between Lance Owens and William Hamblin, I would like to post both Lance Owens's Dialogue article and William Hamblin's FARMS response to that article before posting Clark's thread. I am presently engaged in acquiring permission to do this. So please be patient. Clark, your work will not be ignored. I only hope to apportion the meal into bites more easily chewed and swallowed that it may be more salubriously digested and the savor endure. Scot ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: dcahoon@juno.com (Douglas W Cahoon) Subject: [LDSR] Baby Blessings Date: 27 Jul 1997 18:09:54 EDT A few weeks ago some one asked about baby blessings. I mentioned the JS blessing of Mahonri M. Cahoon in Kirtland. I had forgotten about diary entries of Reynolds Cahoon on November 26, 1831, "Saturday evening held a meting with the Brth at Mr. Reeds & Blest the children in the name of the Lord & sealed the church unto eternal life." --Doug ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: AEParshall@aol.com Subject: [LDSR] Access to RLDS library? Date: 27 Jul 1997 20:20:43 -0400 (EDT) Flake lists an item I am interested in reading: Gibbs, Josiah Francis "An Open Letter to Mormons Who Think" He indicates that a copy of this can be found at the RLDS library in Independence. I have not been able to find this anywhere locally (Utah), and don't know how to go about requesting it from Independence. Can someone help me with that -- or, just as good, know some other source for this item? I am interested only in a photocopy, or even a reliable transcription, not in purchasing an original. Many thanks for your suggestions. Ardis Parshall AEParshall@aol.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: wlbagley Subject: Re: [LDSR] Access to RLDS library? Date: 27 Jul 1997 20:19:21 -0600 (MDT) On Sun, 27 Jul 1997 AEParshall@aol.com wrote: > Flake lists an item I am interested in reading: > Gibbs, Josiah Francis > "An Open Letter to Mormons Who Think" > Can someone help me with that -- or, just as good, know some other source > for this item? I am interested only in a photocopy, or even a reliable > transcription, not in purchasing an original. You're in luck, Ardis. RLDS Archives is a joy to work with, and Ron Romig is a first rate fellow. His address: Ron Romig, Archivist Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints The Auditorium River and Walnut Independence MO 64951 Even better: email! tems03@rlds.org Ron Romig, RLDS Archives, Independence, Missouri Of course, I'll ask for a copy of Josiah's immortal prose in return. Will Bagley ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Hajicek Subject: [LDSR] Re: Moriancumer Date: 23 Jul 1997 23:13:14 -0500 Regarding the name Mahonri from the 1892 Juvenile Instructor, Somebody wrote: > So there certainly was an early tradition. (There are > numerous other children by this name as a quick scan > of the infobase will illustrate) It is significant that > Cowdery doesn't mention the Mahonri part of the brother > of Jared's name. That, to me, means that there is an > other source. That, to me, means there is NO known primary source. By definition, that makes it folklore. Perhaps it is true, but it is known only through legend or tradional belief. > Here is the full quote from the Juvenile Instructor. I > think we ought to at least give William Cahoon the > benefit of the doubt. Hey, how about giving James J. Strang the benefit of the doubt? > Given the combination of names, the occurrence of many > names early on in church history identical to Cahoon, > the lack of sufficient information in the Cowdery account, > and so forth, I think we ought to assume that the account > has a basis in fact. The names were not "early on in church history," they were late in church history--mostly from the 1860s to 1880s. I cannot make such an assumption of a "basis in fact"--it may serve fine as part of your folk history and oral tradition, but I do not find the evidence compelling enough for my historical style. Doug Cahoon wrote: > John - you mention this is as "Reynolds Cahoon Folklore". Is that because > it wasn't reported until later? Folklore is not not a pejorative word. It means that it part of oral history rather than contemporary written history. An 1892 account about an 1834 event, taken from a third-hand account, and printed in the Juvenile Instructor, IS folklore. It does not matter what subject. I do know Oliver Cowdery said that Moriancumer was the brother of Jared. I do know that he said it in 1834 because it was printed in 1834. I just do not know about the Mahonri part, since it is first documented in 1892 when Cowdery and Cahoon were both dead--so I could not use it as reliable history, or at least I would assign a low quantitative weight to the evidence. -- John Hajicek (816) 795-8881 (800) 862-5667 http://www.Mormonism.com http://www.Restoration.org