Jerry D. Grover on the change from "directors" to "interpreters" in Alma 37:21, 24

  

1) OC indicated that JS would look at the interpreters and then look in the hat. Perhaps at times he also put his seer stone in the hat? This is tricky to square with the premise of him reading the dictation, but perhaps not. 2) While it has recently been popular to accept that contrary to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery’s own statements, that, based principally on other’s statements, that a seer stone was used for the translation of the Book of Mormon after Joseph lost the plates and the interpreters, there are other sources contrary to this position. Although perhaps less direct and reliable as sources, they ought to be considered as at least outlining an alternate possibility that squares more with Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery’s statement but also accommodates the use of a hat. First, in an interview with Fayette Lapham (1870), Joseph Smith, Sr. recounted that Joseph Smith did not lose the interpreters when the plates were taken. In fact, he was able to use the interpreters to see where the plates had been hidden, “among the rocks, in the mountains.” He could also “read them as they were, as well as if they were before him,” which is consistent with other descriptions that the plates were in fact covered during translation. The interpreters were much more powerful tools than simply being translators, as according to Joseph Smith, Sr., the Liahona led to finding the interpreters, at which point the Liahona no longer worked. It was no longer needed as the interpreters also functioned as “directors.” The interpreters mentioned in Alma 37:21, 24 were originally referred to as “directors” in the Original Manuscript (Skousen 2007, 2358–2361) indicating the interpreters were able to still provide the direction that the Liahona previously provided. So, if it is true that the interpreters were not taken, how can this be squared with statements that a hat was used with a seer stone placed in it? Joseph Knight Sr. indicated (referring to the time that Joseph Smith originally began translating) that the “urim and thummim” was placed into his hat (Jessee, 1976). In this context and time frame this reference to the Urim and Thummim are referring to the interpreters. So, the use of a hat noted by some observers is not inconsistent with the use of the interpreters. In addition, although not evidenced in any statements, it is possible that at least one interpreter stones may have been able to be removed from the bow. As discussed later, the original Jaredite stones are not indicated to be in a bow when prepared by the Lord, and the text in the Book of Mormon refers to only one of the interpreter stones (Gazelem) being necessary for translation (Alma 37:23). (Jerry Grover, September 9, 2022, emphasis in bold added)

 

 

Early in 1830 a man named Fayette Lapham visited Joseph Smith Sr. to learn more about the still unpublished Book of Mormon. Lapham would years later publish an account of their interview that relates enough information about the finding of the plates to verify that the interview occurred. There are some known inaccuracies in the recounting based on known information in the Book of Mormon (e.g. the brass plates were described as papers) and some of the recounting is not in the correct order, but the recounting is fairly accurate in most other regards. As part of the interview, Joseph Sr. described Lehi’s journey to the New World and related several of the book’s other narratives (Lapham 1870). The relevant section of the Lapham interview is as follows:

 

After sailing a long time, they came to land, went on shore, and thence they traveled through boundless forests, until, at length, they came to a country where there were a great many lakes; which country had once been settled by a very large race of men, who were very rich, having a great deal of money. From some unknown cause, this nation had become extinct; “but that money,” said Smith, “is here, now, every dollar of it.” When they, the Jews, first beheld this country, they sent out spies to see what manner of country it was, who reported that the country appeared to have been settled by a very large race of men, and had been, to all appearances, a very rich agricultural and manufacturing nation. They also found something of which they did not know the use, but when they went into the tabernacle, a voice said, “What have you got in your hand, there?” They replied that they did not know, but had come to inquire; when the voice said, “Put it on your face, and put your face in a skin, and you will see what it is.” They did so, and could see everything of the past, present, and future; and it was the same spectacles that Joseph found with the gold plates. The gold ball stopped here and ceased to direct them any further.

 

The key pertinent elements in this recounting on this issue are that Nephites initially came to a country that had a “great many lakes” and “had once been settled by a very large race of men,” and “for some unknown cause the nation had become extinct.” This is clearly referring to the land northward. Further, when they first beheld the country they sent out spies and found it “had been a very rich agricultural and manufacturing nation.” These spies also found the “spectacles,” which had to be utilized in dim light or darkness. They used them in their “tabernacle.” It is also noted that the “gold ball stopped” them there and “ceased to direct them.”

 

It is notable that the interpreters mentioned in Alma 37:21, 24 were originally referred to as “directors” in the Original Manuscript (Skousen 2007, 2358–2361) indicating the interpreters were able to still provide the direction that the Liahona previously provided. (Jerry D. Grover, Jr., The Swords of Shule: Jaredite Land Northward Chronology, Geography, and Culture in Mesoamerica [Provo, Utah: Challex Scientific Publishing, 2018], 193-94)

 

Notes on Isaiah 2:16 and "pleasant pictures"

  

MT: וְעַ֖ל כָּל־שְׂכִיּ֥וֹת הַחֶמְדָּֽה

 

KJV: “and upon all pleasant pictures”

 

1917 JPS Tanakh: “and upon all delightful imagery”

 

1985 JPS Tanakh: “And all the gallant barks”

 

NRSV: “and upon all the beautiful craft”

 

New Jerusalem Bible: “and for everything held precious”

 

LXX: καὶ ἐπὶ πᾶσαν θέαν πλοίων κάλλους

 

NETS: “and against every spectacle of beautiful ships”

 

Pseudo-Targum Jonathan: וְעַל כָל דְשָרַן בְבִירָוָת שוּפרָא

 

English: “and against all those who encamp on beautiful palaces”

 

Peshitta: 

 

English: “and on all pleasant prospects” (alt. “watchtowers”)

 

 

A hapax legomenon which has been traditionally taken to be from śāḵâ and having something to do with appearance or display (AV “pleasant pictures”). But the parallelism clearly demands something to do with ships (LXX “every display of fine ships”; conflation?). BHS suggests emending to s^ep̱înôṯ, “ships.” Scott emends to k^esîyôṯ, “canopy, awning” (with reference to ships; cf. Ezek. 27:7). Perhaps it is simplest to see it as an Egyptian loanword, sk.ty, a kind of ship (Kaiser, BHS), which may be a cognate of Ugar. ṯkt (see H. R. Cohen, Biblical Hapax Legomena in the Light of Akkadian and Ugaritic, SBLDS 37 (Missoula: Scholars, 1978), pp. 41–42. (John N. Oswalt, The Book of Isaiah, Chapters 1-39 [The New International Commentary on the Old Testament; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1986], 125 n. 2)

 

 

The expression כָּל־שְׂכִיּוֹת הַחֶמְדָּה (kol-śĕkîyôt haḥemdâ), “boats of desire,” has given both ancient and modern translators difficulty. It now appears that שׂכיה is a loanword from Egyptian śk.tj, “ship,” also found in Ugaritic as ṯkt (HALAT, 1237). This fits the parallelism with אֳנִיּוֹת (ʾŏnîyôt), “ships,” very nicely. Before the discovery of Ugaritic and the recognition of the Egyptian background to the word, it was normally derived from שׂכה/סכה, “to look out, view.” Thus, Vg. has omne quod visu pulchrum est, “everything that is beautiful to view,” and Syr. has klhwn dwqʾ drgtʾ, “all the glances of desire.” LXX, while preserving this derivation, recognized that the context required boats and rendered ἐπὶ πᾶσαν θέαν πλοίων κάλλους, “upon every vision of beautiful boats.” The vocalization of הַחֶמְדָּה (haḥemdâ) may be questioned, since “desire” is a strange parallel to Tarshish. One might think of boats bringing luxury goods to Judea’s rich, such goods replacing Yahweh in these consumers’ affections and desires, but a place-name would be a better parallel to Tarshish. G. R. Driver vocalized החמדה as הַחֲמֻדָּה (haḥămuddâ) (and understood it as a place-name for Arabia, thus NEB’s “dhows of Arabia.”² While this reading remains uncertain, it is very suggestive. (J. J. M. Roberts, First Isaiah: A Commentary [Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2015], 36 n. f)

 

 

שכיות: a hapax legomenon, whose meaning has only relatively recently been recovered. In antiquity, it was associated with שׂכה, which in later Hebrew and Aramaic means ‘to look out’, and this led to several possible interpretations of the phrase: lxx θέα, ‘sight, view, display’, hence ‘display of fine ships’; V quod visu pulchrum est (‘everything beautiful to look at’, which Delitzsch favoured as referring to all kinds of works of art); P (‘watchtowers’, as look-outs); T בירנית (‘palaces’—a guess?); av ‘pleasant pictures’; rv ‘pleasant imagery’; Gesenius (in his Thesaurus Linguae Hebraeae, though not in his commentary) suggested ‘flags, standards’ (of ships, as being conspicuous), and so on. The best defence of this approach is that of Duhm, who thought that it furnished a satisfactory summary of the whole of 12–16, and so led naturally into the refrain in v. 17. Subsequently, the tight structure and parallelism of this section (as observed already by lxx) led scholars to seek another word for ships here and so proposed an emendation to ש/ספינות (cf. ספינה at Jon. 1:5; BDB, 967B; Gray; Procksch). In 1931, however, Begrich (apud Budde) suggested a connection with Egyptian śkty, and this was then independently associated by Ginsberg and Driver with Ugaritic ṯkt, both being words for some kind of ship. Not surprisingly, this convincing proposal has now been generally accepted.³⁰ There can, of course, be no certainty about how exactly it was spelt and vocalized in Hebrew, though possibly the initial letter was שׁ rather than שׂ (which indicates that the Masoretes themselves understood the word in the way that had become common by their time). Driver suggested שֶׁכֶת* (hence שכתי here), but the possibility that mt has faithfully preserved the consonantal spelling cannot be ruled out. Muchiki, Loanwords, 255–56, maintains that Egyptian ś could come into Hebrew directly as שׂ (though is this likely in view of the Ugaritic evidence?) and more plausibly that the vocalization may have been influenced by the parallel אניות.

 

החמדה: Driver further argued that parallelism demands the name of a country here. He therefore proposed vocalizing הַחֲמֻדָּה, ‘the desirable (land)’, seeing in this a reference to Arabia (cf. Arabia Felix); hence neb ‘dhows of Arabia’. While this has an obvious attraction in context, there is no evidence that Arabia was so designated at this early time, and the ‘demands’ of parallelism by no means require it. More recently, Barré, ‘Isaiah 2:12–17’, has conjectured that there is here a garbled reference to the (harbour) place-name Maʾh̬ādu associated with ships in the Ugaritic texts (KTU 4:81.1). Although the Hebrew cognate common noun is מחוז (Ps. 107:30, and perhaps Isa. 23:10), he nevertheless thinks that החמדה is a corruption of an original מחד; once this word was no longer recognized, it was conformed to a known Hebrew word by metathesis (חמד) and then again later the rare masculine form was changed to the commoner feminine חמדה. He accepts that the addition of the article ‘is somewhat more difficult to explain’. This suggestion is very acute, and the process of corruption not impossible, but it is certainly highly conjectural and unsupported and it falls foul of the principles that one should not normally both emend and introduce a new hapax for a text which in itself is possible and that in comparative philology one should keep with attested consonantal equivalents if possible. The reason for making the proposal in the first place is the desire to maintain what Barré finds to be a very tight chiastic structure in this passage as a whole, but not all will think that this is a good enough reason for textual conjecture. In terms of textual criticism, even on Barré’s view it will have been mt which was already in place by the time of the text’s redaction, so that one can do no more than take note of this just possible earlier form. (H. G. M. Williamson, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Isaiah 1–27, 3 vols. [. I. Davies International Critical Commentary; London: T&T Clark, 2006), 1:199-200)

 

 

And upon elegant pictures. This second part of the verse shows still more clearly that the Prophet condemns navigation, which had brought many corruptions into the land. It is too frequent and common, that riches are followed by luxury, effeminacy, and a superfluity of pleasures, which we commonly see in wealthy countries and commercial cities; for those who trade by sea in distant countries are not satisfied with the commodities obtained at home, but carry away new luxuries which were formerly unknown. Since, therefore, wealth is usually the mother of superfluity, the Prophet here mentions costly furniture, as if he had said that the Jews, by adorning their houses at great expense, draw down upon themselves the judgment of God; for he employs the word pictures, by a well-known figure of speech, to denote rich tapestry, and the productions of Phrygia, and vessels framed with consummate skill.

 

It is certain that the manners of men are corrupted, when they eagerly pursue, in every direction, superfluous enjoyments. And we see how destruction was brought on the Roman Empire by delicacies of this nature; for before they travelled into Greece, the greatest moderation prevailed among them; and no sooner had Asia been vanquished than they began to grow soft and effeminate; and when their eyes were dazzled by pictures, furniture, precious stones, and tapestry, and their nostrils regaled by ointments and perfumes, all their senses were immediately overpowered, and, by imitating the luxury of the East as a higher form of civilization, they began gradually to indulge in every kind of debauchery. (John Calvin, Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Isaiah, 4 vols. [trans. William Pringle; Bellingham, Wash.: Logos Bible Software, 2010], 115-16)

 

 

When God is bringing ruin upon a people he can sink all the branches of their revenue. [2.] Of their ornaments at home; but the day of the Lord shall be upon all pleasant pictures, the painting of their ships (so some understand it) or the curious pieces of painting they brought home in their ships from other countries, perhaps from Greece, which afterwards was famous for painters. Upon every thing that is beautiful to behold; so some read it. Perhaps they were the pictures of their relations, and for that reason pleasant, or of their gods, which to the idolaters were delectable things; or they admired them for the fineness of their colours or strokes. There is no harm in making pictures, nor in adorning our rooms with them, provided they transgress not either the second or the seventh commandment. But to place our pictures among our pleasant things, to be fond of them and proud of them, to spend that upon them which should be laid out in charity, and to set out hearts upon them, as it ill becomes those who have so many substantial things to take pleasure in, so it tends to provoke God to strip us of all such vain ornaments. (Matthew Henry, Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible: Complete and Unabridged in One Volume [Peabody: Hendrickson, 1994], 1081)

 

 

The following expression, “works of curiosity” (sechiyyoth hachemdah), is taken in far too restricted a sense by those who limit it, as the LXX have done, to the ships already spoken of, or understand it, as Gesenius does, as referring to beautiful flags. Jerome’s rendering is correct: “et super omne quod visu pulcrum est” (and upon everything beautiful to look at); seciyyâh, from sâcâh, to look (see Job, p. 468), is sight generally. The reference therefore is to all kinds of works of art, whether in sculpture or paintings (mascith is used of both), which delighted the observer by their imposing, tasteful appearance. Possibly, however, there is a more especial reference to curiosities of art and nature, which were brought by the trading vessels from foreign lands. (Carl Friedrich Keil and Franz Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament, vol. 7 (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1996], 7:81)

 

 

pictures—ordered to be destroyed (Nu 33:52). Still to be seen on the walls of Nineveh’s palaces. It is remarkable that whereas all other ancient civilized nations, Egypt, Assyria, Greece, Rome, have left monuments in the fine arts, Judea, while rising immeasurably above them in the possession of “the living oracles,” has left none of the former. The fine arts, as in modern Rome, were so often associated with polytheism, that God required His people in this, as in other respects, to be separate from the nations (De 4:15–18). But Vulgate translation is perhaps better, “All that is beautiful to the sight”; not only paintings, but all luxurious—ornaments. One comprehensive word for all that goes before (compare Rev 18:12, 14, 16). (Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset, and David Brown, Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible, 2 vols. (Oak Harbor, Wash.: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997], 1:431-32)

 

 

And upon all pleasant pictures. Margin, ‘pictures of desire;’ that is, such as it should be esteemed desirable to possess, and gaze upon; pictures of value or beauty. Targum, ‘costly palaces.’ The word rendered ‘pictures,’ שְׂכִיּוֹת, denotes properly sights, or objects to be looked at; and does not designate paintings particularly, but every thing that was designed for ornament or luxury. Whether the art of painting was much known among the Hebrews, it is not now possible to determine. To a certain extent, it may be presumed to have been practised; but the meaning of this place is, that the Divine judgment should rest on all that was designed for mere ornament and luxury; and, from the description in the previous verses, there can be no doubt that such ornaments would abound. (Albert Barnes, Notes on the Old Testament: Isaiah, 2 vols. [London: Blackie & Son, 1851], 1:94)

 

Lexicons on שְׂכִיָּה

 

 

[שְׂכִיָּה] I ₁ n.f. image (unless שְׂכִיָּה II ship or III watchtower or IV high-flying bird)—pl. cstr. שְׂכִיּוֹת—<cstr> שְׂכִיּוֹת הַחֶמְדָּה perh. images of desire, i.e. beautiful images Is 2:16 (or em. שְׂכִיּוֹת to שִׁכְתֵי ships of or סְפִינוֹת ships of); כָּל־שְׂכִיּוֹת all images of Is 2:16. <prep> עַל against Is 2:16 (‖ אֳנִיָּה ship).

 

<syn> אֳנִיָּה ship. (The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew, ed. David J. A. Clines [Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press; Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2011], 8:149)

 

 

שְׂכִייָה (śĕkîyâ). Image, form, appearance. This noun is found only once, in Isa 2:16. From its kinship to maśkît, “a stone image that can be beheld visibly,” various translations have been hazarded for it. Isa 2:16 is in a context of the Prophet announcing that the Day of the Lord will come and humble the proud and destroy the evil. Among the things upon which the judgment will fall are, literally in the Hebrew, “all śĕkîyâ of pleasantness!” The KJV renders these as “pictures;” perhaps we should say “beautiful images.” (Gary G. Cohen, “2257 שׂכה,” in Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, ed. R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer Jr., and Bruce K. Waltke [Chicago: Moody Press, 1999], 876)

 

 

The Lukka People and Evidence of Pre-Exilic Contact Between Peoples in the Aegean and the Levant

 The following, of course, has implications for the presence of Greek names/words in the Book of Mormon:

 

Like many other problems associated with the geography of Anatolia in the second millennium B.C., the question of Lukka’s location (or locations) has been widely disputed since the decipherment of the Hittite texts.

 

. . .

 

Several Egyptian texts appear among the sources which contain references to the Lukka people. These include the following:

 

1. A hieroglyphic inscription on an obelisk in the “Temple aux obélisques” at Byblos, dating to ca. 2000 B.C., and honoring Kwkwn, son of Rwqq.

 

. . .

 

2. An Amarna letter, written by the king of Alasiya to Akhenaton and referring to a raid on the Egyptian coast by a group of people called Lukki.

 

. . .

 

3. Records of the Battle of Kadesh, fought in the fifth year of Ramesses II’s reign. Lukka men figure amongst the allies of the Hittite king Muwatallis in this conflict.

 

4. An account of the “Sea Peoples’” onslaught on Egypt during the reign of Merneptah.

 

. . .

 

The problems involved in attempting to settle on a single location for the Lukka lands lead me to believe that there were in fact two main groups of Lukka people—one in the vicinity of Lycaonia, the other in Caria. Quite conceivably, Lycaonia was the original home of these people, some of whom later moved west, possibly among the Maeander valley, and established themselves on the Aegean coast. Admittedly this theory does not in any way give a complete answer to the problems associated with a study of the Lukka people. However, it may provide a partial explanation for the many apparently conflicting and confusing references to Lukka in the documentary sources of the second millennium B.C. (T. R. Bryce, “The Lukka Problem–And a Possible Solution,” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 33, no. 4 [October 1974]: 395, 396, 397, 404)

 

Cyrus H. Gordon on Greek Names and Influences in Pre-Exilic Texts and Israelite Culture

  

Ugarit provides us with the clearest picture of what was happening in the Near East during the Amarna Age. The community might be called Semitic, because the official local language (Ugaritic) is clearly Semitic. However, there was an influential Aegean enclave there, attested by Cypro-Minoan texts, Mycenaean art objects, and the presence of a Caphtorian god in the Ugaritic pantheon. Hittites, Hurrians, Alashiyans and other segments of the community are mentioned in the tablets. Assyrian and Egyptian enclaves are recorded side by side, though Ugarit certainly did not belong to either the Assyrian or Egyptian kings. While King Niqmad II of Ugarit paid tribute to the Hittite sovereign (Suppiluliuma [Ruled about 1380-1346 B.C.]), Ugarit was a member of the Hittite defensive alliance, rather than a conquered territory. The fact that Assyrian and Egyptian enclaves flourished at Ugarit shows that Ugarit enjoyed enough freedom to have peaceful relations with all nations, near and far. What we see at Ugarit is the interpenetration of commercial empires. At that important city, at the crossroads of east-west and north-south traffic, representatives of the Aegean, Hittite, Hurrian, Mesopotamian, Canaanite, Egyptian and other populations met to conduct their affairs in an international order. (Cyrus H. Gordon, The Common Background of Greek and Hebrew Civilizations [2d ed.; New York: W. W. Norton & Company Inc., 1965], 30)

 

 

Mercenaries were quite common. David and his successors used Cherethite3 and Pelethite troops for generations. Indeed, such Philistine and similar mercenaries, of Aegean origin, did much to spread " Caphtorian " culture in Palestine and throughout the Levantine coast. The great empires also used mercenaries. It is unnecessary to enumerate the evidence for the employment of mercenaries by Egypt, Assyria, Babylonia, the Medes and Persians, etc. It is clear that war brought about cultural interchange not only through invasion and conquest, but also by the importation of mercenaries. Let us not forget that, from Egypt to Iran, Greeks (as well as earlier Aegean peoples) were renowned as mercenaries. Jews were also mercenaries in communities like Elephantine. (Ibid., 39-40)

 

 

“Caphtor” is the land whence the Philistines came to Palestine. Here we use the term “Caphtorian” to designate Aegean culture broadly. (Ibid., 40 n. 1)

 

Richard A. Taylor and E. Ray Clendenen & Carl Friedrich Keil and Franz Delitzsc on the Background to the Imagery Employed in Malachi 4:1

  

The day is initially described as “burning like a furnace,” and the effect it will have on the wicked is figuratively but emphatically stated in two stages. First, God will make stubble (qaš) of them, chaff that is easily burned (Ps 83:13–15; Isa 5:24; 33:11). In Isa 40:24 it is what blows away after young immature plants are hit by a lethal hot wind that withers them. The term is often used of something worthless. Then, as if that were not enough, the wicked will be “set on fire,” the final result of which will be that not even a root or a branch will be left.

 

The day announced here is also similar to the day of the Lord in Joel 2:1–3.

 

Blow the trumpet in Zion; sound the alarm on my holy hill. Let all who live in the land tremble, for the day of the Lord is coming. It is close at hand—a day of darkness and gloom, a day of clouds and blackness. Like dawn spreading across the mountains a large and mighty army comes, such as never was of old nor ever will be in ages to come. Before them fire devours, behind them a flame blazes [lāhaṭ]. Before them the land is like the garden of Eden, behind them, a desert waste—nothing escapes them.

 

S. L. Cook notes that the verb translated “set on fire” in Mal 4:1 is the same one rendered “blazes” in Joel 2:3. Fire, “an important end-time element in Joel 2:3, 5 and 3:3 (Eng. 2:30), often appears in apocalyptic descriptions.” (Richard A. Taylor and E. Ray Clendenen, Haggai, Malachi [The New American Commentary 21A; Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2004], 450-51).

 

 

The day of judgment will be to the ungodly like a burning furnace. “A fire burns more fiercely in a furnace than in the open air” (Hengstenberg). The ungodly will then resemble the stubble which the fire consumes (cf. Isa. 5:24, Zeph. 1:18, Ob. 18, etc.). זֵדִים and עֹשֵׂה רִשְׁעָה point back to v. 15. Those who are called blessed by the murmuring nation will be consumed by the fire, as stubble is burned up, and indeed all who do wickedness, and therefore the murmurers themselves. אֲשֶׁר before לֹא יֲעַזֹב is a conjunction, quod; and the subject is not Jehovah, but the coming day. The figure “root and branch” is borrowed from a tree—the tree is the ungodly mass of the people (cf. Amos 2:9)—and denotes total destruction, so that nothing will be left of them. (Carl Friedrich Keil and Franz Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament, 10 vols. [Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1996], 10:662)

 

 

Further Reading:

 

Dempsey Rosales Asosta and A. E. Hill on the Background to Malachi 4:1 (Hebrew: 3:19)

Go Fund Me for Medical Expenses

Some already know, but I recently found out that I will need to be on medication to treat my liver–will see how it is a year or so from now. So, for those who wish to help me with my ever-growing medical expenses (liver; OCD; chronic migraines), you can do so via:

https://www.gofundme.com/f/d285a-medical-expenses

Alternatively:

Paypal or Venmo would work, too.

Thanks!

Mark Miravalle and Robert Sungenis on the Prophecy Concerning World War 2 in the Third Apparition of Fatima (July 13, 1917)

We read the following, purportedly from Mary, concerning the Third Apparition of Fatima, July 13, 1917, concerning the cessation of World War 1 but also the then-future World War 2:

 

The war is doing to end; but if people do not cease offending God, a worse one will break out during the pontificate of Pius XI. (Mark Miravalle, Private Revelation: Discerning with the Church [2007], 1387 of 1854, Kindle ed.)

 

On Mary informing the three Fatima seers the incorrect pontiff, Mark Miravalle, a leading Roman Catholic Mariologist, wrote that:

 

To the objection that the Second World War, (September 1, 1939-1945), actually began during the pontificate of Pope Pius XII, Sr. Lucia has responded that the war in fact began with the Nazi occupation of Austria in 1938, which took place during the pontificate of Pius XI. The promised light that would illuminate the night as a sign of the forthcoming war corresponds with the reported “aurora borealis” that lit up the European skies (and beyond) on January 25, 1938. War would be a punishment permitted by God due to sin, a just punishment because the human cooperation and conversion necessary to avert justice through acceptance of divine mercy was not satisfied. (Mark Miravalle, Private Revelation: Discerning with the Church [2007], 1406 to 1414 of 1854, Kindle ed.)

 

Another Catholic apologist who tried to salvage the prophecy from the Third Apparition is Robert Sungenis:

 

As we all know too well, that prophecy became a reality in 1938-1939 when World War II began. Pius XI died on February 10, 1939, but already in…

·       September 1938 Germany annexed Czechoslovakia and occupied it in March 1939. (Robert A. Sungenis, Fatima: Fulfilled But Still Foreboding [State Line, Pa.: CAI Publishing, Inc., 2021], 1-11)

 

The problem is that no historian believes that the annexation of Austria by Germany, called “Anschluss,” is when World War 2 began (not even conservative Roman Catholic historians). However, be that as it may, it does show that Roman Catholics, like Latter-day Saints, have to appeal to historical contingencies and engage in nuanced interpretations of prophecies and revelations (note: Fatima is an approved Marian apparition).

On the nature of prophecy, see:

Resources on Joseph Smith's Prophecies

For more on Lucia's failed prophecies, see:

Retconning Fatima: How Lucia updated a Prophecy of Our Lady of Fatima about the End of World War 1