King Benjamin Ends his Speech

 This week we read Mosiah 4-6. In this section King Benjamin continues his instruction about how to show love to God by being obedient and serving others (Mosiah 4). He urges them to humble themselves, repent, and call upon God  (4:9-10). King Benjamin then proclaims that they have taken upon themselves the name of "Children of Christ" (5:8), and he urges them to retain in their memory the name of Christ (5:12). 

In the past when I have read these chapters, it didn't feel like a story of something that really happened.  Two things made it seem like a folk retelling, or an exaggeration of what must have actually happened: 1. That they all fell to the earth when they heard his words (4:1) and that they all quoted, in unison, a long speech about their acceptance of the words of King Benjamin (5:2-5). Do people really fall down to the ground when they hear a moving speech?  Do they all spontaneously say the same thing when moved by the spirit? Sure, maybe they did, but it seemed really unlikely. I figured that some significant confirmation of faith had happened at the temple in Zarahemla, but that over the years the story of it had been rewritten in a stylized way. \

This time as I was reading through it, I had a different perspective.  Up until three months ago I had been serving as an ordinance worker at the Provo temple.  In the temple ordinance patrons do stand up, sit down and quote things in unison. Because of that perspective, it began to seem likely to me that Mosiah 1-6 recounts a set ceremony, not a chance occurrence.  People have come to the temple to have a specific experience/ordinance that have prepared for.  They have memorized their parts and their lines ahead of time and come ready to participate in the believe-affirming ceremony with their families. Whether this was an annual ceremony or whether this was a special ceremony, ordained by King Benjamin, to reunify his people after a long period of warfare, I don't know, but it seems obvious to me that what happened at the temple that day was scripted. 

Some might think this point of view removes the sense of the miraculous from the event, and thus makes it less significant. I mean, it would seem pretty amazing if people just spontaneously started saying a long speech in unison because they were all moved upon by the Spirit at the same time. I think, however, it is more valuable for us in this day to see this as an equivalent to our modern Temple ceremonies.  The fact that ceremony was scripted instead of spontaneous does not mean that it was not meaningful and impactful on the people present. Their recommitment to believe, serve, and obey could be just as sincere even if it was preplanned and anticipated. On the contrary, if this was an annual event, the repetition of the ceremony would tend to make it more lasting and impactful than if it was a one-time spontaneous result of the outpouring of the spirit. 

The leaders of the church have been emphasizing the important of attending the temple lately. I would estimate that at least 3/4 of the talks last conference were about temple covenants. I think the story of King Benjamin's speech at the temple is a reminder and a encouragement for us to go to the temple prepared to recommit ourselves to keeping our temple covenants. If we are doing it right we should go to the temple prepared to receive a "mighty change" so that we have "no more disposition to do evil" (5:2). As I have recently experienced, the spiritual high we feel at the temple tends to fade with time.  Aren't we glad we can return and seek to feel that sense of the "infinite goodness of God" again and again. (5:3)

That your blood should not come upon me

 Benjamin's speech in Mosiah is one of the most masterful discourses in all scripture.  I could write blogs about any number of topics but this week the thing that caught my attention was a passage in Mosiah 2:27-28.  

"Therefore, as I said that I had served you, walking with a clear conscience before God, even so I at this time have caused that you should assemble yourselves together, that I might be found blameless, and that your blood should not come upon me....that I might rid my garments of your blood...that I might go down to my grave...in peace."

In our temple ceremonies we talk about becoming "clean from the blood and sins of this generation."  How is the symbol of blood used in the scriptures, and more specifically, how might someone, symbolically, be stained with someone else's blood. 

In Jacob 1:19, Jacob says, "We did magnify our office unto the Lord, taking upon us the responsibility , answering the sins of the people upon our own heads if we did not teach them the word of God with all diligence; wherefore by laboring with our might their blood might not come upon our garments; otherwise their blood would come upon our garments, and we would not be found spotless at the last day."  

These really similar passages seem to equate blood with the responsibility of sin. My mind can't help but go back to the Old Testament. As Aaron's son's were being prepared to be set apart as priests, they were sprinkled with blood as part of the ceremony in Exodus 9:21 

"And thou shalt take of the blood that is upon the altar, and of the anointing oil, and sprinkle it upon Aaron, and upon his garments, and upon his sons, and upon the garments of his sons with him: and he shall be hallowed, and his garments, and his sons, and his sons' garments with him."

There are also all the passages where it talks about us being forgiven through the blood of Christ, e.g. Ephesians 1:7 "...we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;"

and Hebrews 9:22 "Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins."

From reading all these, I think this is how the symbol of blood goes:

Blood represents life, and spilling blood represents death.  

In the Old Testament, animals were killed on the altar and their blood was sprinkled on things. The animals represented Jesus, who would die and spill his blood to atone for our sins.  Sprinkling that blood represents applying Jesus' atonement so that we can be made clean or free from our sins. 

Priests were sprinkled with blood as a symbol that, although they worked at the temple, they, too need the atonement in order to be made clean.  The permanent nature of blood stains also created a constant reminder for the priests of their duties and covenants, much like LDS temple garments do today. 

If we are called to preach repentance to people and do not, we become responsible for their spiritual death. In other words, we have their (metaphorical) blood on ourselves.  We are, then, not clean and acceptable before God. If we call them to repentance and teach them the principles of the gospel, we are freed from that responsibility. They are then able to choose for themselves whether to follow Jesus or not. 

Finally: When we receive our initiatory ordinance in the temple, God takes away the responsibility we might have acquired for other's sins.  By being at the temple, and taking upon ourselves sacred covenants, God forgives pasts mistakes, even our failure to proclaim the gospel as we ought, and we start the process of receiving temple ordinances with a "clean slate" so to speak. This is a gift of grace that we are eligible for because of our past efforts and future promise to be true to our covenants. 

I don't know if this was useful to anyone else, but it did me a lot of good to think through it.  In our modern day, when we don't butcher our own meat, we don't come in contact with the blood of other creatures very often.  In the Old Testament, and in the early Book of Mormon, they were clearly still doing animal sacrifices, and the symbol of blood getting on your clothes would have been very relatable and impactful. We do not wish that others, through our neglect, miss their chance to follow Jesus and thus become spiritually dead.  We do not want their blood on our garments, but instead we want Jesus' blood to cleanse us and make us worthy to reenter his presence. 

Enos's Name

My favorite insight about the Come Follow Me reading this week came from Jared Halverson, in the Unshaken podcast.  He thought it was interesting that Jacob called his son's name Enos. The only person named Enos in the Old Testament is the grandson of Adam and he is only mentioned a couple of times in the recitation of genealogies.  Brother Halverson noted several similarities between the Biblical Enos and the Book of Mormon Enos.  That, in turn, suggests that Jacob saw similarities between his father, Lehi, and Adam. I had never thought of Lehi as a new Adam, but in many ways he was. 

Adam: Righteous patriarch of his family.  Driven out of the garden of Eden because of his own transgression. Taught his children to follow the Lord. One of his sons rebelled against the Lord and slew his other son.  Adam and Eve had a third, younger son, Seth who followed the righteous ways of his father.  Seth, younger brother of the warring older brothers, has a son which he calls Enos.

Lehi: Righteous patriarch of his family.  Driven out of Jerusalem because of the wickedness of the people. Teaches his children to follow the Lord.  Two of his sons rebel against their younger brothers and tries to slay them. Lehi and Sarah have another younger son in the wilderness, Jacob, who carries on as religious leader after Nephi's death. Jacob, younger brother of the older warring brothers,  has a son called Enos.

The two stories are not exactly the same, but there are a lot of similarities, enough that Jacob may have seen them and decided to call his son Enos because of them.

There are those who think Joseph Smith came up with the Book of Mormon on his own.  If he did, either Joseph Smith, at age 21, was a genius and remembered that Adam's grandson was named Enos, realized there were a lot of similarities between Adam and Lehi, Jacob and Seth, and used the name Enos here on purpose to call attention to the similarities. The other option is that the parallel's between this Enos' life and the Enos in the Old Testament was a coincidence. Enos was just a name that Joseph Smith threw in there. It isn't super common as an English name in the 1800's, but it wasn't unheard of.  Still, if it was a coincidence, it was a pretty good one. 

Hebraisms in the Allegory of the Olive Tree.

 This week in Come Follow Me, we read the longest chapter in the Book of Mormon, Jacob 5, which contains the allegory of the olive tree.   This allegory has been extensively studied and analyzed.  Some people talk about how it represents the history of the House of Israel.  Others talk about how is demonstrates the Lord's untiring efforts to help and save his people. I think these are the most important interpretations of the allegory, but they have already been thoroughly explored.

I decided to take a historical/linguistical approach to the allegory for this blog post.  I am assuming here that this allegory is what Jacob stated it is, a copy of an allegory written by an ancient prophet named Zenos. I am also assuming it was written in Hebrew on the Brass Plates.  Here are a few guesses/observations I have about Zenos and his allegory.

First of all Zenos.  If I were guessing I would say that Zenos was probably a Greek convert to the Jewish faith , a kind of Jewish "Samuel the Lamanite". My only evidence for this is his name. Zenos, means "foreigner" ξένος in Greek.  In 600 BC, Greece had not yet become the world power it would 200 years later under Alexander the Great, but it was still a major player in the region. If a Greek converted to Judaism, and lived in Jerusalem, it seems probable to me that people might call him Zenos.  That might also explain why none of his prophecies or writing have survived except in the Book of Mormon.  Jewish people might not make an effort to preserve the writings of a non-Israelite, especially if his allegory suggested that they were rotten at the core.

Second, one of my podcasters observed that Jacob specifically mentions that the top of the tree was dying. The top of a tree was called its "head" or רֹאשׁ in Hebrew and this is also a term used to denote the leadership of the church.  No one understood better than the descendants of Lehi, that the leadership of the church in Jerusalem was becoming corrupt.  They had sought to kill Lehi, after all. 

Third, I was interested in the question why the olive orchard is called a vineyard in this allegory.  I wondered if orchard and vineyard were the same word in Hebrew, but no, there are two separate words.  orchards is גנות and vineyard is כרם.  Then I decided to look up each instance of each word to see how they are used.  גנות, orchard, is only used eleven times in the Old Testament and it sometimes also denotes a garden, or a cultivated area that was a pleasant place to hang out. Vineyard is כרם and it appears about 80 times in the Old Testament. In most of those cases it really does mean vineyard, i.e. a place to grow grapes for wine, rather than on olive grove. There is even one verse that mentions an orchard, a vineyard, fig trees, and olive trees in the same verse (Amos 4:9) so vineyard doesn't seem to be a general term.  

Giving up, I googled "vineyard vs orchard in the book of Jacob."  It turns out someone from Book of Mormon Central, John A. Tevdtnes,  had the same question as I did.  He did some linguistical digging and brings in a bunch of other ancient languages to show why the word for vineyard might have been used to describe this olive orchard. The article is interesting and very technical, but I thought maybe he was trying a bit too hard.  I think what is most likely is that Joseph Smith had read the Old Testament enough to sense that vineyard was a much more common word in the Old Testament, so that was the one that came to mind as he was translating the allegory. 

Jacob 1-4

 This week we read Jacob 1-4.  Jacob is Nephi's much younger brother who takes over the ministry after Nephi's death. Jacob says he is writing 55 years after Lehi left Jerusalem, and that probably puts Jacob at about 50 years old. Jared Halverson from "Unshaken" podcast has a whole theory that Jacob suffered  from anxiety due to childhood trauma during the Lehites' journey to the promised. land.  He makes a few good points, one of which is that Jacob actually uses the word "anxiety" more than any other Book of Mormon writer.  It comes up in 2 Nephi 6:3 which is Jacob's sermon on Isaiah, Jacob 1:5, Jacob 2:3, and in Jacob 4: 18 he uses the term "over anxiety".  

Another argument is that even though Nephi made Jacob the religious leader of the society, he didn't make him king. Nephi was seen as both king and religious ruler and he seemed to function actively in both roles.  He built a temple (2 Nephi 5:16) and wielded a sword in his people's defense (Jacob 1:10). Before Nephi dies, he chooses some unnamed man to be king (Jacob 1:9) and Jacob becomes the religious leader.   Why not continue having someone play both roles?  Why the separation of church and state? 

The final evidence is that while Jacob is talking very bluntly to his people, particularly about the sin of adultery, he keeps reminding people that he is speaking for the Lord.  (Jacob 2). Halverson suggests that he has to rely heavily on the Lord because broaching the topic is so difficult for him.  

I think he has some good arguments, but I am not totally convinced. Yes, Jacob had a rough childhood, but the scriptures suggest that Jacob was very young when they were on the boat, young enough that he depended heavily on his mother for food (1 Nephi 18:19).  How much would he have remembered about their trials in the wilderness? How much did he understand as a child the conflict between his older brothers?  I also think that all the talk of anxiety for the welfare of his brethren, the separation of church and state at Nephi's death, and Jacob's refences to the will of the Lord could have easily arisen from other causes.  We just don't have enough information. 

Jacob is clearly sympathetic to the victims of the Nephite men's bad behavior.  I find it interesting that he fully targets the men because of their wish for multiple wives and concubines, forgetting that whenever a man has an illicit relationship with a woman, (except in the case of rape) there is woman having an illicit relationship with a man. It wasn't just the men behaving badly. Still, Jacob comes across as very tender hearted and caring of his people.  He also has a lovely literary style and seemed to carefully craft his writings.  He seems to have a very extensive understanding of Jesus' forthcoming mission on the earth. Even though we only have less than a dozen chapters written by Jacob, he is one of the great prophets of the Book of Mormon. 

The Doctrine of Christ

 This week we finish the book of 2 Nephi, and in so doing say goodbye to the prophet Nephi, son of Lehi.  One of my goals this year in my scripture study was to pay attention to mentions of the Savior in the Book of Mormon.  If you have been following my blog, you will know that I have been tracking how much Nephi and Lehi knew about Jesus at different times in their lives and travels.  When Lehi first saw a vision of God, he saw the Messiah, but didn't know who he was. (1 Nephi 9-10). Gradually, over the next decades, Nephi gradually learned that Jesus would come, suffer for our sins, die, and be resurrected (2 Nephi 11).  By the end of his life, Nephi understands the whole "doctrine of Christ".  Moreover, he has seen a vision of the future of not only his descendants, but also of the gentiles. 

It is interesting that Nephi seems to get this very vital information primarily after his people have separated from the Lamanites. I think we can guess that, by Nephi's death, the Lamanites are still trying, in some way or other, to live the Law of Moses.  We know that Nephi took that brass plates with him when he fled from his brothers, so it is possible that by this time they have already strayed from the worship they had experienced in Jerusalem and are now fully integrated in the culture and belief of the  native peoples of the promised land. In either case, they probably know very little if anything about Jesus and the atonement. As evidence of this, later when Ammon preaches to the king of the Lamanites, he doesn't have a clue about Christian worship. 

Here I have a confession. I also didn't really understand the Doctrine of Christ until recently.  Oh sure, I knew that 4th Article of Faith and the first four principles of the Gospel, but when I went to the temple made covenants during the Endowment, I wasn't sure what I was covenanting to when I promised to obey the Law of the Gospel.  I cast my mind for a meaning and decided that the Law of the Gospel probably referred to the "higher law" preached in the sermon on the mount. This was not a bad assumption.  Jesus did, after all, preach that sermon to both the old and new world saints, so it must have been important.  It wasn't until they changed the wording of the Endowment in February 2023 that I found out that the "Law of the Gospel" is the same as the "Doctrine of Christ" explained in the last 3 chapters of 2 Nephi.  I admit that it was a bit of a relief.  I understand that the Sermon on the Mount was given as much to comfort suffering saints as to encourage them to live a higher standard, but it still sets a pretty high bar for behavior that I knew I was daily falling short of. When I heard the new changes to the Endowment, I thought, "Is that really all it is: faith, repentance, baptism, the gift of the Holy Ghost, obedience to covenants and enduring to the end?  I can do that." Of course, those are no small things, but they seem more attainable then never getting angry, or being a light to the world, or plucking out my right eye if it offends me. (Matthew 5: 22-30)  So yay for the new changes to the temple ceremony and yay for the last three chapters of 2 Nephi.

The Prophecy of the Scriptures from the Lost Tribes.

 In 2 Nephi 29:12-13 Nephi gives a prophecy that three different groups of people will write scripture that will eventually be known to all three groups.

"For behold, I shall speak unto the Jews and they shall write it; and I shall also speak unto the Nephites and they shall write it; and I shall also speak unto the other tribes of the house of Israel, which I have led away, and they shall write it; and I shall also speak unto all nations of the earth, and they shall write it.

And it shall come to pass that the Jews shall have the words of the Nephites, and the Nephites shall have the words of the Jews; and the Nephites and the Jews shall have the words of the lost tribes of Israel; and the lost tribes of Israel shall have the words of the Nephites and Jews."

It is pretty clear that the words of the Jews is the Bible, and the words of the Nephites is the Book of Mormon, but there has been much speculation about the words of the lost tribes and how they might be discovered and distributed to the other groups. The podcasters I listened to this week alluded to some future day when the records of other people Jesus visited will be revealed and how wonderful that would be. That might be how this prophecy is fulfilled but I had another idea that I haven't really heard put forward before. 

What if this prophecy was fulfilled by Joseph Smith?  In my mind Joseph Smith's revelations recorded in the Doctrine and Covenants meet all the requirements of this passage.  Was Joseph Smith from one of the lost tribes?  Yes, he, like the majority of modern American members of the church is from the tribe of Ephraim, which is one of the lost tribes. Did the Lord speak to him?  Yes, Joseph Smith saw God the Father and Jesus in his first vision and then received many revelations from Jesus throughout his life. Did Joseph Smith write the words that he received and are they now available to the descendants of Lehi, to the Jews, and to the whole world?  Yes, the words Joseph Smith received that have been canonized in the Doctrine and Covenants are now available world wide wherever they are allowed to be published and in many languages. 

The scripture ends with the promise, "and I will speak unto all nations of the earth and they shall write it."  As time goes on and the general leadership of the church becomes more diverse, this part of the prophecy is also fulfilled.  Right now in the the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, we have members from North America, Europe, and South America.  We have other general authorities from Asia and Africa and Australia that speak at conference and their words are written and made available freely to the world through the church website. 

I don't think we need to wait for a day when some long-lost ancient civilization is discovered that has records of Jesus visiting them in the meridian of time.  We just need to study the standard works and listen prayerfully to General Conference.