The Mysteries of Master Mahan

[_Kishkumen]

It is quite clear from the fact that Lot offers his daughters as a substitute for bringing out his guests that the men of the city intend to rape the visiting agents of Yahweh who are in Lot's house.

Of course the writer of the story was probably well enough aware of the fact that the wish to perpetrate such an act is not indicative that the men of Sodom were 'gay' in the modern sense of the word, merely that they regarded penetrative sex as an act of power that could be inflicted on either gender.

But homophobic people might find that distinction way too subtle for them.

The key issue here is the ethics of the guest/host relationship. Rape, regardless of the genders involved, is an extreme violation of the proper treatment of guests, and the angels are, well, angels. I can see how it is that hysterical homophobes latch onto these things to validate their views, but such interpretations don't hold up under close scrutiny.

[_Kishkumen]

It's interesting to see how it's possible to construct compelling narratives tying together so many elements. Bit of a meta-commentary on historiography, as well as an exercise in creative mythmaking. Tolkien would have appreciated it.

Indeed. Well, in my book it is all about stories. It may be myth or theology, but at its base it is all about stories. People tell stories to make sense of their world. We judge the stories, play with the stories, throw them out, etc. The freedom of the narrative process is wonderful.

[_Symmachus]

I am struck with awe, as this is all utterly brilliant and absolutely fascinating, noble Kishkumen. Can we set up a conference with the Interpreters? How could they possibly ignore this further light and knowledge? Surely they will want to know.

If not a conference, I think a commentary on Moses 5 must surely be in order, especially in light of Zeezrom's observations on the Phaistos Disc. In fact, I envision a whole text-and-commentary series, akin to the Cambridge Classical Texts and Commentaries, to further the ends of Jaredite Studies and Mormon Antediluvian Studies. If nothing else, these posts demonstrate that such a series is sorely needed, since we don't even know if that nameless Relief Society sister in Parowan frequents this digital trailer park. She deserves a reliable text with an enlightening commentary, the same as any academic specialist.

[_Kishkumen]

I am struck with awe, as this is all utterly brilliant and absolutely fascinating, noble Kishkumen. Can we set up a conference with the Interpreters? How could they possibly ignore this further light and knowledge? Surely they will want to know.

If not a conference, I think a commentary on Moses 5 must surely be in order, especially in light of Zeezrom's observations on the Phaistos Disc. In fact, I envision a whole text-and-commentary series, akin to the Cambridge Classical Texts and Commentaries, to further the ends of Jaredite Studies and Mormon Antediluvian Studies. If nothing else, these posts demonstrate that such a series is sorely needed, since we don't even know if that nameless Relief Society sister in Parowan frequents this digital trailer park. She deserves a reliable text with an enlightening commentary, the same as any academic specialist.

You are too kind, dear consul. Thank you for your praise. It means so much to a musty old Jaredite scholar like myself, who has for too long felt the isolation of operating outside the reach of the shadows of the everlasting hills.

Yes, what to do with our exciting new research? I think the first step is to copy your and zeezrom's recent contributions to the Electronic Journal of Jaredites Studies here at MDB, if only to have a convenient place to keep track of this groundbreaking work. One would like to see cross-posting with the Interpreter or maybe on other sites (Meridian?), but some of this may be a little advanced for the readership of the latter. As to the former, well, we don't exactly have a warm relationship with them, particularly their resident Arabist and Egyptologist.

At some point we will definitely want to provide a commentary of Moses as you propose. It may take some doing, but I am sure we can pull it off. Cassius has always generously supported faculty research and publications.

[_zeezrom]

I have heard a different interpretation on this Master Mahan business. Let me start with some hearsay. I know a fellow who has served in a stake presidency. As you may know, general authorities come around sometimes for stake conference. Apparently, on one such occasion, a general authority, (I don't recall which) had a meeting with the stake presidency and opened the scriptures unto them:

49 For Lamech having entered into a covenant with Satan, after the manner of Cain, wherein he became Master Mahan, master of that great secret which was administered unto Cain by Satan; and Irad, the son of Enoch, having known their secret, began to reveal it unto the sons of Adam;
50 Wherefore Lamech, being angry, slew him, not like unto Cain, his brother Abel, for the sake of getting gain, but he slew him for the oath’s sake.
51 For, from the days of Cain, there was a secret combination, and their works were in the dark, and they knew every man his brother.

Per my acquaintance, per this general authority, what is this great secret administered to Cain by Satan? How do you become Master Mahan? It lies in the meaning of the word "know." At the end of verse 51: "and they knew every man his brother." Yes, "know" the biblical kind of "know." This scripture is actually talking about Satan introducing homosexuality to the sons of man...literally.

I want to just laugh this one off as more Mormon silliness, but this is pretty messed up. Anyway sorry for the derail.

Not silliness. Not a derail https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ag6j3x8KTqk

[_Dr. Shades]

Bravo, Reverend! You clearly put a lot of time and effort into this.

Will you please do the Norse mythology next?

[_Kishkumen]

Bravo, Reverend! You clearly put a lot of time and effort into this.

Will you please do the Norse mythology next?

Perhaps at some point in the future, Doctor. Thank you for your kind words.

[_ludwigm]

...
While it is unwise to dismiss the Masonic explanation altogether, there are ancient Egyptian roots to the Master Mahan narrative, which we will now explore.
...

I enjoy Your material (as Symmachus' ones), even it is a hard task to understand everything, for a foreigner...


To be serious:
The Moses 5:31 Mahan thing is - for me - another nail in the coffin of Mormonism.
Masonry, Kabbalah, Sephiroth, Bible codes, and such systems are flashing my red signal of "this is rubbish". I am happy that I didn't joined. Unfortunately, my wife did...

[_consiglieri]

I am so impressed by your research, good Reverend, that while reading I find myself fluctuating back and forth from whether this is intended is satire.

But I think you make many good points, and are to be congratulated on your indefatigable erudition.

Here is something I jotted down a few years ago while teaching Gospel Doctrine class. It may be of some relevance, if only peripherally.

Again my heartiest and most sincere congratulations.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

__________________________


Old Testament class deals this week with the brazen serpent Moses lifted on the pole, and which the Israelites were told to look to and live.

In the single most popular New Testament scripture, John likened this serpent to Jesus, concluding, "For God so loved the world that he sent his Only Begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him might not perish but have eternal life." (John 3:16)

The "serpent in the tree" motif appears to begin in Eden, with the serpent who was the most "subtle" (wise) creature tempting Eve to gain knowledge from the forbidden tree rather than the tree of life, and commonly depicted as situated in the tree itself (the tree of life or the tree of knowledge?).

This motif is seen as continuing in the episode of Moses and the brazen serpent, with the figure of a serpent once more being placed in a "tree" with obviously positive connotations.

The Bible culminates with Jesus (as the serpent?) being placed on another pole (tree), which will be the source of deliverance to all those who look to him. (John 3:14-16)

_____________________


The Book of Mormon refers to the incident of the brazen serpent twice, and both times in connection with the tree of life.

Nephi mentions the brazen serpent to his brothers in a sermonette given immediately after Nephi has his vision of the Tree of Life. (1 Nephi 17:41)

Perhaps more significantly, Alma also uses the figure of the brazen serpent:

O my brethren, if ye could be healed by merely casting about your eyes that he might be healed, would ye not behold quickly, or would ye rather harden your hearts in unbelief, and be slothful, that ye would not cast about your eyes, that he might perish? (Alma 33:21)

Alma's reference appears in close connection with his sermon on "planting the seed" in Alma 32, and two verses after the brazen serpent reference, Alma identifies the tree so grown as the tree of life:

And behold, it will become a tree, springing up in you unto everlasting life. (Alma 33:23)

What I find to be the most interesting aspect of Alma's usage is what he does just before he begins to preach this sermon. You will recall he is on the hill Onidah and he is preaching to the rich people who want nothing to do with him or his message.

Alma is approached by a multitide of poor people, and their spokesman asks him what they should do to worship God.

What Alma does here may be significant:

And now when Alma heard this, he turned him about, his face immediately towards him, and he beheld with great joy; for he beheld that their afflictions had truly humbled them, and that they were in a preparation to hear the word. (Alma 32:6)

I believe this idea of Alma turning his face to behold these poor people is unique in the Book of Mormon, and may be placed here specifically to reinforce the ideas that he will then teach concerning the tree of life (in whose branches the serpent is understood to dwell?), and then invoking the story of Moses and the brazen serpent for good measure.

In this regard, the introduction to Alma's sermon as well as the subject matter seem to have been carefully constructed along thematic lines that may have been familiar to ancient people from an Israelite culture.

[_consiglieri]

And here is something else I came up with in January of 2010 while studying the Old Testament that may have some bearing.

It deals with the unusual question of whether the manna God fed Israel in the wilderness was actually considered to be the flesh of the Leviathan slain in the primordial battle.

________________________________________


It has long been recognized that Psalm 74:12-17, together with other Old Testament texts, preserves a tradition relating to the Creation where God defeats in battle a sea monster dwelling in the waters of chaos.

Psalm 74:12 For God is my King of old, working salvation in the midst of the earth.
13 Thou didst divide the sea by thy strength: thou brakest the heads of the dragons in the waters.
14 Thou brakest the heads of leviathan in pieces, and gavest him to be meat to the people inhabiting the wilderness.
15 Thou didst cleave the fountain and the flood: thou driedst up mighty rivers.
16 The day is thine, the night also is thine: thou hast prepared the light and the sun.
17 Thou hast set all the borders of the earth: thou hast made summer and winter.

The Genesis account of Creation does not include this tradition, though the “sea-monsters” are given primacy of place in the creature feature, being the first animals to appear. (Although the KJV translates it as “great whales,” the footnote in the LDS edition lets us know the Hebrew is literally “great sea-monsters.”)

(In a similar way, the NRSV translates “people” in Psalm 74:14 as “creatures” in an apparent attempt to avoid the strangeness of the reading, and yet there, too, is a footnote advising that the Hebrew is literally “people.”)

Although the Genesis account omits the episode of God breaking the heads of leviathan in pieces, what appears to be an obvious referent to the incident appears in the Eden account, where another (?) serpent appears to Eve, and after causing mischief in the garden, God tells the serpent that the seed of the woman “shall bruise thy head.” (3:15) Here, yet another footnote in the LDS edition informs us that the Hebrew for “bruise” is literally “crush, or grind.”

Here, we are reminded that Isaiah describes leviathan as a “serpent” and as a “dragon that is in the sea.” (27:1)

But just who are “the people inhabiting the wilderness” to whom God gave pieces of leviathan, as described in Psalm 74?

Because this text is so firmly imbedded in a Creation context, it is unlikely the feeding of leviathan in pieces to people would be contemporaneous (there were no people at that point, according to the texts we have), but would occur at some point long afterward. If the Old Testament speaks to this issue, the most likely candidate for “the people” thus fed would be the Israelites who famously wandered in the “wilderness.”

The phrase, “Didst cleave the fountain and the flood” simultaneously evokes images of both the Creation account as well as the Exodus, when the Israelites were led through the Red Sea preparatory to entering the wilderness which they inhabited for 40-years.

While the Israelites were “inhabiting the wilderness,” Exodus 16 tells us that God did “rain bread from heaven” for them (4), and when the people saw it and asked what it was, “Moses said unto them, This is the bread which the Lord hath given you to eat.” (15)

When Israelites disobeyed Moses in leaving the manna until the morning, “it bred worms, and stank.” (20)

This is reminiscent of Jesus Christ, who in John 6 likens himself to the bread which God sent from heaven to feed the Israelites, while at the same time equating the bread with flesh:

“I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.” (51)

The bread/flesh Jesus offers is contrasted with the bread/flesh(?) God gave to Israel in the wilderness:

“Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead. This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.” (49-50)

It appears elsewhere that the imagery of the great sea-monster/dragon/serpent of the chaotic waters that opposes God and his purposes survived into the New Testament, as Revelation informs us of the “serpent” who “cast out of his mouth water as a flood after the woman, that he might cause her to be carried away by the flood.” (12:15)

In conclusion, it seems possible the Psalmist identified the manna God fed his people in the wilderness as being the flesh of the sea-monsters God slew in primordial battle.

The Genesis account as we have it may have originally contained this primordial battle account between God and the great sea-monster/serpent, as it would not only give background to the introduction of the serpent in Eden, but also inform God’s statement to the serpent that Eve’s seed would have power to crush his head.

Finally, it is possible Jesus drew upon the same imagery of the Israelites being fed the flesh of leviathan in the wilderness when he declared that he was the true bread from heaven in John 6, and then equated the bread from heaven with flesh; thereby equating himself in some sense with the primordial Leviathan.