Jackson County, Missouri

 In sections 59-63 Joseph Smith and other leaders arrive at Jackson County Missouri and dedicate a spot where a temple is supposed to be built.  The people of the Coleville branch, lead by Joseph Knight travel to Jackson County as the first settlers of Zion the new Jerusalem.  History tell us that things did not go well in Jackson county.  The saints are persecuted and the temple is never built.  Finally the saints are driven out and threatened with extermination by Governor Boggs.  

So the question is, why did the Lord lead them to Jackson County is the first place?  Didn't he know what would happen there?  Why did he ask them to build a temple, when he knew they would be unable? Finally, is Jackson County still chosen to be the place where the New Jerusalem will be built in some future date?

Of course, we don't have answers to these questions. The in some revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants, the Lord said that Zion was not built because of the disobedience of the saints. (D&C103:4) In that revelation the Lord promises that Zion might yet be restored "after your tribulations" (v. 13) The church leaders form "Zion's Camp" to march to Missouri and escort the saints back to their lands.  But when they arrive it is too late.  All the members have fled.  In Section 105 the Lord says "Therefore, in consequence of the transgressions of my people, it is expedient in me that mine elders should wait a little season for the redemption of Zion." (v 9)  We know from other scriptures that "a little season" to the Lord can be a long time for we who are mortals.  These scriptures make us believe that eventually, Jackson County will be redeemed, and Zion, the New Jerusalem, will eventually be built on that site.

Later, after the saints have been driven from Missouri, and Joseph Smith has languished in Liberty Jail, the Lord rescinds the injunction to build a temple in Jackson County, "Therefore, for this cause I have accepted the offerings of those whom I commanded to build up a city and the house unto my name in Jackson county Missouri, and were hindered by their enemies, saith the Lord your God," (124: 50.) Instead they are commanded to build a temple in Nauvoo (v. 55) which they do. Some would argue that this verse removes the necessity of ever building Zion in Missouri. 

Church history buffs are split as to whether they think that Zion will eventually be built in Missouri, perhaps during the millennium.  Others say that section 124 nullifies the prophecies about building Zion in Jackson County.  I looked online and the church still owns land in Jackson County, but only about 15 acers near the temple lot.  They used to own more, but recently sold it off because residents complained that the church held all that land but didn't have to pay taxes on it. The church is certainly wealthy enough, that if they decided to, they could buy up much of the county any time they decided to.  However, it doesn't really seem to me that they are currently planning to transfer the center of the church to Missouri any time soon, and I, due to section 124, I am OK with the idea that they probably never will.

 

The Law of Consecration

 This week in Come Follow Me, we are introduced to the Law of Consecration. What I hadn't remembered until this week was that some of the new converts to the church, the Campbelites, had already been living a version of the Law of Consecration based on passages from the book of Acts.  However, in their version all property was held in common.  In practice, if someone needed a tool, they could take any tool in the community and use it.  If someone needed a new shirt, and saw one in the community, they could take it as if it were their own.  Of course, this was problematic. People couldn't depend on things they needed being available to them at any specific time. Also, some people, just because of their personality, would be more likely to take things, and others more likely to be taken from. This could not help but cause hard feelings in the group.

The revelation in section 42 sets out a more functional form of consecration.  Verses 30-34 explains that the member of the church make a "first consecration " (v. 33) at which time they acknowledge that all they own belongs to the church. Then they are given stewardship over part or all of what they have consecrated. They have responsibility and control over that portion and are expected to use it to support themselves and meet their family's need, and then if there is any left over, it is given to the bishop and put in the storehouse to care for the poor and needy.  

This is a much more practical way to administer consecration, but still this ended up being problematic.  One of the biggest problems was that there were so many poor and needy in the early church.  When the original members who lived in New York gathered to Ohio, many arrived without enough resources to support themselves.  Some new converts in the Ohio area gave up great amounts of money and land to help the needy saints. Then a few years later new converts from England start to arrive, also without many personal funds or property, and the established saints were expected to help support them. Until the saints were established in Nauvoo, most were pretty poor. It must have been frustrating, once they were established and started to flourish in Nauvoo, to then be driven out again, left destitute again, and have to migrate again, this time to Utah. 

I have been thinking about my ancestors who joined the church during this period, and ended up as some of those who made and sacrificed their fortune several times over because of their belief in the church.  Why would then put up with that?  Some didn't.  Some came into the church, even migrated to Utah, and then became disillusioned and left. So why did the ones that stayed, stay?  All I can think is that they must have seen or felt something so powerful that it galvanized their testimonies. Without the witness of the spirit, without experiences that built and strengthened the early saints, the church would have withered and dried up like so many other utopian schemes that were rather popular in this time period.  But it didn't.  It grew and spread until it is starting to be a real force in the world. 

All those who take on temple covenants still promise to keep the law of consecration.  We do not, at this time, formally turn over all our worldly possessions to the church and then be assigned a stewardship.  The formal process is not the important part. The important part is that in our hearts we turn over all that we have to the Lord. We decide that we are only stewards over our income, possessions, time, and resources, and that we will use them to righteously support ourselves, and help those around us. I must admit I am not perfect in this. I try to be generous, and I try to keep God as the focus of my actions and decisions, but I am also selfish, and I feel ownership over my possessions. 

As we face upcoming reductions in our personal income, this has become an issue I have thought about more. Will I be as generous as I have been with fast offerings and donations to humanitarian projects once my personal income is cut in half, or even more than half? Do I need to be? Will I sacrifice a standard of living in order to remain generous? My standard of living will still be so much higher than many saints across the world.  I guess I need to seek guidance from the Lord in this matter. 

The Lamanite Mission

 This week I was asked to be the Sunday School teacher for teens age 17-18.  This new calling has made me begin to think about how I would present sections of the Doctrine and Covenants to that age group.  When I was given the assignment the bishop of our ward suggested that the focus in our congregation for teaching youth is to help them learn how to find answers to their questions, instead of just answering their questions. So what questions might teenagers ask about the reading this week?

I think they would probably ask the same thing I ask myself every time I read the Doctrine and Covenants.  Why does the Lord tell the Saints to do something, knowing they will not actually be able to accomplish it?  

In section 32 the Lord calls Parley P. Pratt and Ziba Peterson to go with "Oliver Cowdery and Peter Whitmer, Jun., into the wilderness among the Lamanites" (v. 2).  History shows that these four men traveled in December and January through severe winter weather. After a very difficult journey, they were only able to talk with native people a couple of times before an agent for the US Indian Affairs gave them an order to stop proselyting. No native peoples joined the church through their efforts. 

Historians are quick to point out that on the way they stopped in to visit Sidney Rigdon who was the paster of a small Methodist congregation in Kirkland Ohio.  Sidney Rigdon was converted as were eventually 300 from the region.  The mission therefore tripled the numbers of members in the church and laid the foundation for the gathering of the saints in Kirkland and the building of the Kirkland Temple. 

So, why did the Lord tell Oliver Cowdery and the others to go find Sydney Rigdon, instead of telling them to go and preach to the Lamanites?  And what does that tactic tell us about God?

In other words, can we even have faith in God?  When he tells us to do something, can we believe what he says? 

I never answered this kind of complex question when I was 18.  I wasn't even mature enough in my theology to even ask it.  My faith at 18 was simple and fervent. I knew that if I kept the commandments the Lord would bless me and I would progress and eventually inherit eternal life. At 18 this seemed like a fairly easy and straight forward task to me.  I was already pretty good at keeping commandments. I kept the word of wisdom strictly.  I kept the 10 commandments.  I served a mission and applied to and attended BYU.  I was doing everything I knew how to do be an obedient daughter. 

Now at age 60, I look back on my life and see times when the Lord told me to metaphorically go to preach to the Indians, not so I could actually preach to the Indians, but meet up with and preach to Sidney Rigdon instead.  Going on and staying true under those kinds of circumstances, takes real faith. It is not only trusting the Lord, but trusting in the Lord.  It is believing that not matter what snow storms the Lord drags you through, it will all be for the best and for his greater glory. I think I am just getting to that place in my life, 43 years after I was the age of my new students. 

If you look at this section and section 29:6 the Lord doesn't actually say they are going to have success converting native peoples.  He said that Oliver had the power to "build up my church among the Lamanites."  Did Oliver have the power? I assume yes, since the Lord said he did.  Did he have the opportunity to exercise that power?  No. Where Oliver and Peter promised that they would have success among the native peopled? No.  They were told to go, and that as they went Jesus would be their advocate with the Father, and nothing would prevail against them (v. 3). You can argue that that happened.  None of them died, and many felt the Spirit of the Lord and were converted.  The outcome was just as God wanted, It blessed the missionaries and the Church, but it wasn't what they expected. 

The take-away from this lesson is that we can't become so tied down to our own expectations of what is going to happen, that we miss the miracles in our life that come unexpectedly from God. 

Did someone teach me this when I was 18?  They probably tried to, but I wasn't ready and humble enough to understand. I think the youth of today are more sophisticated than I was at 18. Maybe they will get it. 

One more thing. My family had a personal stake in this mission. Sidney Rigdon was a friend of the Oliver Snow family and first told them about Joseph Smith. Rosetta Pettibone Snow was the first member on either my or my husband's family line to join the church, and that happened as a result of the Lamanite Mission.

The Articles and Covenants: Section 20

Section 20 of the Doctrine in Covenants outlines the basic tenets of church.  It was written mostly by Oliver Cowdery and edited through revelation by Joseph Smith. Joseph asked Oliver to create the document, basing it primarily on principles found in the Book of Mormon.  Oliver was particularly suited to do this because he was in the process of recopying the Book of Mormon manuscript so they would have a second copy to give to the printer. 

Oliver was an educated man and understood the different beliefs of the competing religions.  In this chapter he and Joseph clearly delineate where this new church fell in important questions of debate of the day. 

I got a lot of my ideas about this from the different podcasts that I listened to, but I wanted to write down the ideas so I could reference them the next time we go through the D&C. Here are some of the theological questions of the day.

The nature of the Godhead. The idea of the trinity was established at the Council of Nicaea in 325.  Since that time, no major Christian church contested the idea, even during the protestant reformation. Joseph Smith knows that the Godhead consists of three separate beings, but interestingly he does not state it overtly in this section, but he does suggest it in v. 2 when he states that he was called of God, and ordained by Jesus Christ. We know from the Lectures on Faith, written in 1835, that Joseph didn't yet understand that the Holy Ghost was also a separate being.

Ongoing Revelation: The idea that the leader of a church could receive new revelation on how to guide the church was a main point of division between the Catholics and the Protestants.  Catholics believed that the pope received revelation for the church, even after Jesus' and the apostles' deaths.  Protestants believed that all revelation was contained in the Bible, and that there was no need for further visitation of angels or visions etc. In v. 6, 11 Joseph declares that he had received the visitation of angels, and is inspired by God. 

Closed Cannon: Catholics and Protestants both believe in a closed cannon, though Catholics include more books in their cannon than Protestants do.  Joseph Smith departs from both groups by proclaiming that he had brought forth new scripture in v 8-11.

Unconditional Election: Calvinist believed that, because God knows the beginning from the end, he already knows who will be saved.  There is nothing anyone can do to change that, so your good works might show that you are elected, but they don't lead to your election. Joseph Smith refutes this idea in v 14-15 where he clearly states that people have a choice to receive or reject the gospel.

Universal Salvation: There was another religion called Universalist that believed that God is able to do his work and that everyone would be eventually saved after they had suffered the consequences of their sins.  Joseph Smith Senior was a Universalist earlier in his life, and that is why he had never been baptized. In v 29 refutes the idea of universal salvation, because it states that people must do certain things to be saved, and in v. 32 which states that man may fall from grace. 

Requirements for Baptism: Some churches of the day believed that baptism was the start of the journey to Christ and so there should be no requirements to qualify for baptism.  This was a view held by Oliver Cowdery, and he did not write this verse when he put together the Articles and Covenants.  This verse was added by Joseph Smith and it made Oliver Cowdery very upset. He convinced David Whitmer that they were in error as well, and Joseph had to travel to the Whitmer's home and convince both of them that this verse came as revelation from the Lord.  It was perhaps the beginning of Oliver's eventual split with the church.

Hierarchal Priesthood: The Catholics and Episcopalians believed that priesthood authority was essential and hierarchal.  In other words, in order to receive priesthood authority you had to be ordained by someone who already had that authority.  The Methodists, however, believed in universal priesthood.  Anyone who felt moved upon by the spirit to become a minister, could become a minister. In v. 38-67 the importance of a hierarchal priesthood organization. 

Baptism by Immersion: The importance of baptism by immersion was a point of contention between Catholics and some protestant religions, and Baptists.  Joseph is declaring here that he sides with the Baptists.

It is interesting to see the section within historical context, but that doesn't diminish its importance in the church today.  Although the way we administer the offices of the priesthood has been refined since 1830, the basic guidelines remain the same, as do the basic beliefs. 

Eternal Torment

This week in Come Follow Me we are studying Section 19 of the Doctrine and Covenants. This section has the amazing passage in which Jesus describes his suffering during the atonement. We as a church gain a lot of information about the nature of the atonement from this section. 

Today, however, I want to focus on a different part of Section 19, but first I want to remind the reader of the setting of the section.  Martin Harris has been asked to mortgage most of his farm to pay for the printing of the Book of Mormon. This is a really big ask. His farm is his livelihood, and he has spent his adult life building the farm into a productive vocation. In addition, Martin's wife, Lucy, is against the idea of risking the farm for the sake of what she sees as a scam.  She is afraid Martin is gambling away her future security, which, in fact, he is. He ends up losing both the mortgaged farm and his wife, who separates herself from him after he loses the farm.  

So why was Martin even willing to consider such a huge sacrifice?  It is because just two months before this revelation, he saw an angel who showed him the gold plates.  (it reconfirms my theory that that only people who see angels are those who are about to be asked to make a very big sacrifice).  This section is response to Martin's hesitancy to sacrifice his profession and his marriage to support Joseph Smith's prophetic mission.

This section basically says, "Martin, I am asking you to sacrifice a lot, but think of how much I sacrificed for you." That is why Jesus describes his suffering.  Jesus also warns that failure to be obedient leads to Judgement. He says the judgements have been called, "endless torment" (v. 6) and "eternal damnation." (v. 7), but then he clarifies these terms.  These punishments are called "endless" and "eternal" not because they are, in fact without end.  They are called "endless" and "eternal"  because God is Endless and Eternal, and they are God's punishments. (v. 1-12). He also says that he calls them "endless" and "eternal" so they might be "more express...that it might work upon the hearts of the children of men." (v.7)

I listen to a podcast called "Church History Matters" with Scott Woodward and Casey Griffiths.  In their podcasts they always have a section about the "controversies" found in that week's texts.  This week they both agreed that there weren't any real controversies in section 19.  I am like, What? To me this is one of the most controversial passages in all scripture. Why? because it basically says that God intentionally misleads us. Didn't he just say that he says things like "eternal torment" to "work upon the hearts of men." In modern language that is saying that he says something that he knows we will misconstrue in order to motivate us to do something he knows will be good for us. Dare I say, he lies?  It isn't technically a lie, but it kind of is. It is intentionally misleading. 

I have heard some people say that by reading the Doctrine and Covenants we come to know Jesus because most of the sections are revelations given directly from him. If that is so, and if this section is a revelation from Jesus, we need to accept the notion that God intentionally misleads us sometimes.  I think most people of faith would vehemently deny this idea, but I don't know how else you could interpret it. Could you say that he wasn't intentionally misleading? No, he admits that he is.  Could you say he didn't know we would take it wrong? No, he is omniscient. He knows how we would take it. 

In a way this understanding of the nature of God and how he interacts which his children is a little liberating. I think all of us at some point in time have received an inspiration to do something that didn't work out as we expected. Maybe someone felt inspired to marry someone but that marriage ended up in divorce. Maybe someone is inspired to take a job, only to have that job end disastrously.  The fact that God will mislead our understanding of something doesn't mean he doesn't love us.  In fact, it means the opposite.  It means he loves us so much that he is willing to tell us what we need to hear to motivate us to do the right thing, even if he knows we won't accurately understand what he is telling us.  Often, after whatever happened is over, we can look back and see that the failure caused by the misleading inspiration really was for our good. It made us a better/stronger person than we would have ever been if we hadn't gone through it. 

My conclusion is that we don't have to assume that everything God inspires us to do is going to lead to a happy ending.  I think we just need to trust that everything God inspires us to do will lead to the best ending, even if that doesn't come in this life. Still, it is a hard doctrine and it plays out over and over in early church history. We just have to make peace with it and be faithful and "willing to submit to all things the Lord sees fit to inflict upon him." (Mosiah 3:16).

The Restoration of the Melchizedek Priesthood

 This week in Come Follow Me we are studying Doctrine and Covenants 18.  In this chapter David Whitmer and Oliver Cowdery are commissioned to seek out twelve men to be apostles in the church (v. 37).  This section was given in June 1829 so it is assumed that it came about because Peter, James, and John had already come and given Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery the Melchizedek Priesthood.  There is no clear record of when this happened. We know it happened after John the Baptist conferred the Aaronic Priesthood on May 15, 1839.  Some historical records said it happened as Joseph and and Oliver were traveling between Harmony PA and Colesville (D&C 128: 20) There is only one time that Joseph and Oliver traveled to Colesville during this time period. So that is a likely time period.

One of my podcasts with Scott Woodward and Casey Griffiths, asked the question what exactly was restored by Peter, James, and John?  In D&C 27:12  God says that he sent Peter, James, and John "by whom I confirmed you and ordained you apostles and to be especial witnesses in my name and to bear the keys of your ministry."  It sounds like the main thing Peter, James, and John restored were the keys of the apostleship.  In Joseph Smith's history Joseph states that the power of laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost was given by the Lord to them in David Whitmer's home in the summer of 1829. (Church History Topics).  We also know that the sealing power was given to Joseph Smith by Elijah in the Kirtland temple 1836.  At that same time other messengers appeared and bestowed other keys.

So what keys do you have to have before you have the Melchizedek Priesthood?  Does one have to be a Melchizedek Priesthood holder to be an apostle?  Now they do, but did Jesus' original apostles have the Melchizedek Priesthood?  They were ordained as apostles by Jesus, so maybe they did.  Or maybe they just had the authority to be apostles.  

This line of thought made me take a new look at what is meant by the Melchizedek Priesthood.  In the current church, men are ordained as Elders as early as about 18 years old.  When they become Elders it is understood that they hold the Melchizedek Priesthood, but they don' t have many of the keys that were restored to Joseph Smith. They can convey the gift of the Holy Ghost, and give priesthood blessings, but that is about it. As they progress in the gospel they may get more keys or they may not.  They might become a bishop or a temple ordinance worker. Some become 70's or even Apostles.  These passages in the Doctrine & Covenants make it sound like each of those keys were considered separate gifts. The term Melchizedek Priesthood wasn't even used in the church until 1835. When Paul says that Jesus was a high priest after the order of Melchizedek (Heb 5:6) he is saying it because under the Mosaic Law a person couldn't be a high priest unless he was a Levite, and Jesus wasn't a Levite.  So Paul was going to a time before the Mosaic Law to justify Jesus' priesthood. 

I guess I am saying that the term Melchizedek Priesthood does not have a single clear meaning. In a newly ordained Elder it means one thing, and when we say that the Prophet holds all the keys of the Melchizedek Priesthood, it means another.  As a result, it makes sense to say there wasn't a single moment when the Melchizedek Priesthood was restored. Instead it was restored a piece at a time as those pieces, or keys, were needed. It may be that there are priesthood keys that we don't even have yet, that might given for the first time as part of the Millennium.  I do think we have all the keys we need for right now, and they were given to Joseph Smith over the course of the restoration of the Gospel. 

The Lost Manuscript

 This week in Come Follow Me we read D&C 10 which explains why Joseph Smith shouldn't retranslate the lost Book of Mormon manuscript. I have had several thoughts about the lost manuscript and the philosophical implications of that whole episode in Church History.

During Sunday School today there was a discussion about how great God's grace is that he could foresee the loss of the 116 pages and so he provided a replacement 1,500 years before it was needed.  They also pointed out that the replacement was, in a way, better than the lost part because it "throw(s) greater views upon my gospel." (v. 45).  I agree what they were saying, mostly, but I did bring up the point that if Martin Harris hadn't lost the manuscript, we would still have had the books of Nephi. They were there, already, on the plates.  So, presuming the original lost text had valuable information on it, we did lose valuable information when the manuscript was lost.  I would personally love it if the manuscript was discovered and we got to see what was in it.   

Of course, this begs the question:  If the manuscript wasn't going to be lost, would Heavenly Father inspired Nephi and Mormon to write/include that other record? Was Martin Harris destined to lose the manuscript, or just very likely to. In other words, this incident does bring up the age old question "does God's foreknowledge of what we will do mean that we are predestined to do it?"  Scott Woodward and Casey Griffiths deal with this question in their podcast. I don't think there is a satisfying answer.  I think you need to just pick which option you like best and stick to it.  As for me, I think Martin could have chosen to obey the Lord and not to lose the manuscript and we could have had both versions of the first books of the Book of Mormon, kind of like the different versions of the four gospels. In other words, I think foreknowledge does not mean predestination.  

I like this view because it affirms something I experience in my life.  Decisions do have permanent consequences. God's grace can ameliorate those consequences, and turn them for our good, but they are still there. The day I made a bad choice and damaged my hearing had permanent consequences. I have received blessing from having hearing aids.  It makes it easier to listen to recorded books and podcasts, but if I could go back, I wouldn't have tried to listen to a recorded book while mowing the lawn. 

One other question, that is actually not super important, but is interesting, is what happened to the lost manuscript. Bryce Dunford on Talking Scripture mentioned that the Martin Harris pageant in Clarkston portrays Lucy Harris throwing the manuscript into the fire.  That is the tradition in the Harris family. Section 11 of the D&C seems to contest that.  Section 11 seems to have been received months after the manuscript was lost (though the section heading suggests that the actual date it was received it not clear).  Would the Lord warn Joseph Smith of the plan of evil men to use the manuscript to discredit Joseph Smith if the manuscript had already been destroyed?  If it still existed in 1829, when, exactly, would have Lucy destroyed it?  I guess she could have destroyed it later, maybe after the Book of Mormon was published without it. Lucy, herself, died in 1836. 

Here are some possibilities

1. Lucy did burn the manuscript some time after the revelation in 1829.  This seems a little unlikely because she would have had to do a good job of hiding it from her husband who was very motivated to find it. It is possible, however.

2. Someone else destroyed it after 1829.  Maybe they were holding on to it to use it just as the Lord said to discredit Joseph Smith and when their scheme didn't work, they destroyed it to cover their culpability. I think this is a distinct possibility, but not very fun.

3. The manuscript was kept somewhere, and then perished by accident.  Maybe someone found it among their great grandparents things, didn't know what it was, and threw it away. This is also a good possibility, but also not very fun.

4. The manuscript still exists somewhere and someday someone will find it and sell it to the church for a tremendous amount of money.  Then BYU scholars will have a grand time studying and analyzing it.  This is a much more fun and exciting prospect because it could happen at any time, maybe in my lifetime.

5. The Lord took up the manuscript and keeps it in the same place as the plates and the Urim and Thummim. When the time is right it and other lost books will be restored to the church.  This is also a nice idea, but probably wouldn't happen in my life time, so therefore not so exciting, at least to me.

Of course, this is all silly speculation, with no chance of verifying any of the options. Still, it is an interesting thing to think about.

Oliver Cowdery's Attempt at Translation

 In D&C 8 we first meet Oliver Cowdery who helps Joseph Smith finish the translation of the Book of Mormon by acting as his scribe.  Oliver was a young school teacher who learned about Joseph's work while he was boarding with Joseph's parents in New York. Oliver gets very excited about the prospect of being part of such an exciting undertaking, so he travels to Pennsylvania where Joseph and Emma are living and offers to help with the work. Within a day or two of his arrival, he starts acting as a scribe and within three months the whole translation is finished. 

Soon after the work of translation resumes, Oliver has a desire to be able to translate himself, so he asks Joseph to ask of the Lord if he can translate.  In Section 6:25 the Lord gives Oliver permission and the gift to translate like Joseph.  Then in Section 9 we learn that Oliver's attempt to translate didn't go well, and the Lord tells him that "it is not expedient that you should translate at the present time."  This is one of the instances I mentioned when we started the Doctrine & Covenants at the beginning of January that bother me about the D&C.  The Lord says one thing and then soon after seems to retract his promise, and says, "Just kidding, you don't get to do that after all." 

As I was reading it again this week, I saw some things I hadn't noticed before.  For one thing, it sounds to me like Oliver wasn't promised to translate the Book of Mormon text, but some other text, "records... that have been kept back because of the wickedness of the people."  The Lord says, "if you have good desire...then you shall assist in bringing to light, with your gift, those parts of scriptures which have been hidden because of iniquity." (6: 26-27)

I find it very interesting that the very next section in the D&C is a seemingly random translation of a parchment made by John the Baptist that explains whether he died or tarried on the earth. None of the podcasts I listened to asked the obvious question: what if this is the "hidden scripture" that Oliver was given to try to translate?  The heading says it is a revelation given to Joseph Smith (Section 7 heading) but those headings were added in 1876 by Orson Pratt, years after Joseph's death. Maybe Oliver did start to translate, but something about the experience overwhelmed him and he had to back away from it. I am thinking about Peter walking on the water, and then when he starts to doubt he sinks. Maybe a similar thing happened to Oliver.  

The reason I think this, is the way the Lord talks about the incident of Oliver's failed attempt in Section 9.  "Behold...because you did not translate according to that which you desired of me, and did commence again to write for my servant, Joseph Smith, Jun, even so I would that ye should continue until you have finished this record, which I have entrusted unto him." (v. 1).  It sounds like Oliver tried to translate, and then said, "wait, this is too hard, why don't you do it, Joseph, and I will just be the scribe." The rest of the chapter seems to be the Lord consoling and encouraging Oliver instead of condemning him.  He says in vs 2 that Oliver will have another chance, and later he basically says, it's ok because "I have given unto my servant Joseph sufficient strength whereby it is made up? And neither of you have I condemned." (v. 12).  The Lord does take time to tell Oliver how he might do better next time (v. 7-11) and assures him that what he is doing now, helping as the scribe, is important (v.13)

This helps me feel better about the whole incident.  Granted, there must have been a little murmuring going on because the Lord tells Oliver not to murmur (v. 6).  In the end, however, it seems that Oliver didn't feel too hurt by it because he does continue to act as scribe, receives the priesthood with Joseph at the hands of angels, and becomes the second elder of the church when the church is organized in 1830. 

About Mormon

This week we start the Book of Mormon in the Book of Mormon. In it we learn of the utter destruction of the Nephites.  I think Mormon is the most tragic figure in all scripture.  I don't know how a man could endure what he endured and not be utterly crushed.  We actually don't know that much about his life.  He gives us the barest of outlines, and we are left to speculate on the rest.  Here are some speculations based on hints in the text. 

Mormon was only ten when Ammaron came to him and asked him to keep a record of what he saw. I hope someday to have a full account of how that all happened.  Why would Ammaron choose Mormon?  Was he a relative? Was he a student of Ammaron? I think we can deduct from the text that Mormon came from a prominent family.  He states that he "began to be learned somewhat after the manner of the learning of my people." (Mormon 1:2). In most ancient agrarian cultures, education and literacy are only available to the upper classes. It also seems that he was unusually intelligent. Why else would Ammaron single him out for such an important task at such a young age. 

Then at the tender age of 15 he was"visited of the Lord" (1:15).  Again, why so young? Of course there is precedence. David was probably about that same age when he killed Goliath, (see this link for justification for that assertion). Samuel was a boy of 12 when he heard the voice of the Lord (1 Sam 3). Later, Joseph Smith had his First Vision at age 14. The Lord is willing to call young people  into service as soon as they are willing and able.

Soon after his vision he became a military leader (Mormon 2:1). He modestly states he got the job because he was "large of stature" (ibid) but there must have been something else going on there. Some of the podcasters this week (Jack Welsh, and Lynn Wilson were two) suggested that he was likely the son of the previous commander, and that the position was hereditary.  That is how Alexander the Great came to lead his army at age 18. The text suggests that he had an academic education, but did he also understand warfare and strategy?  Apparently the Nephites thought he did. That fact that he was trained as a military leader and given an academic education further supports the idea that he was some kind of aristocracy, being raised to rule. 

So, he is the leader of the army and even though the people were wicked, under his leadership they had some success. During that time we presume he started reading the plates.  One should remember that when he was initially called at ten, he wasn't appointed to abridge the plates of Nephi, just to add an account of the things he saw in his day.  Perhaps his call to abridge the plates came when he was visited of the Lord at age 15.  He doesn't say.  We do get a sense that he has read the plates, or at least part of them, by the 46th year because he encourages his people with almost the exact speech Captain Moroni used, "for their wives, and their children, and their houses, and their homes." (2:23). 

Because of his inspired leadership, He was able to make a treaty with the Lamanites and had ten years of peace. (2:28) We know he preached to the people during this time and made military preparations (3:1), but I think we can also presume this is when he started his abridgment. There was also a time when he refused to lead the Nephites because of their wickedness. He most likely worked on the abridgment then as well.  Once he goes back to being a military leader, he moves the plates to protect them from the Lamanites (3:9).  After that he would not likely have had time to work on them as it is just war and preparations for war, at the end of which he gives the plates over to his son. 

There is a theme in the Book of Mormon that if you are righteous you will prosper in the land.  The text helps us understand that this is a promise made to groups, on individuals.  Mormon had a lifetime (perhaps 75 years) of life during which there where only short snippets of time that he prospered as an individual. He strove, suffered, grieved and died.  He had the satisfaction of knowing that his son Moroni was righteous and outlived him.  He had the hope that his great work, the abridgement of the history of his people, would someday come forth and bless Israelites and Gentiles alike, but his life was rough, by any standard.  He saw the death of almost all of his friends, and all of his people, men, women and children.  Almost worse, he saw them sink into vicious wickedness and open rebellion against God.  Sometimes it is terrifying that God can ask so much of some people.  We just have to have faith that Mormon's ultimate reward will compensate him for all he went through. 

Jesus at the Temple in Bountiful

 When I was a missionary, I had a older sister companion that taught that when Jesus had finished his ministry in Jerusalem, he came and taught the people in the Americas.  I called her into question.  Didn't Jesus appear to the Nephite's right after his crucifixion?  I was pretty adamant that Jesus visited the Americas the day after his resurrection while the people in Judea were sleeping. I kind of bullied her into accepting my timeline.  Years later I realized that she was right.  Jesus spoke to the people during the three days of destruction at the time of his death, but his visit to the temple Bountiful was some time, maybe months later.  Here are the scriptures that support this idea.  

The beginning of the sign:

3 Nephi 8:5 "And it came to pass in the thirty and fourth year, in the first month, on the 4th day of the month, there arose a great storm..."

Jesus' actual visit:

3 Nephi 10:18 "And it came to pass that in the ending of the thirty and fourth year, behold I will show unto that the people of Nephi who were spared, ...did have great favors poured out upon their heads, insomuch that soon after the ascension of Christ into heaven he did truly manifest himself unto them."

There are two schools of thought on this.  Some scholars think Jesus appeared to the Nephites after his ascension into heaven before the day of Pentecost. That would put it around 40 days after his crucifixion.  Others suggest that is was nearly a full year,  since Mormon said it was "in the ending of the thirty and fourth year" while his appearance was in the first month of that year. They think that his appearance was part of the High Holy Days observed by Jews at the end of the levitical calendar and that is why everyone was gathered at the temple. 

I favor the second explanation.  I think the people experienced the destructions at Jesus' death and then had to wait almost a year before they saw him appear in person.  Here are some reasons I think that. 

When Jesus spoke to the people out of the darkness he told them that "in me is the Law of Moses fulfilled" (9:17) and that they should "offer unto me no more shedding of blood; yea, your sacrifices and your burnt offerings shall be done away, for I will accept none of your sacrifices and your burnt offerings." (9:19)  This pronouncement entailed a major shift in how the people worshiped. Up to this time there were (presumably) coming to offer animal sacrifices to atone for sin and to be pronounced clean from defilement. The animal sacrifices were the main way that they worshiped.  

It makes sense to me that after all the destruction, the people would have gotten to work repairing the damage. A group of believers would have been tasked to not only clean up and repair the temple, but also to rework it to function without animal sacrifices.  This was no small task.  How would they know how to set up a new form of worship?  I would hope that some of the leaders, perhaps Nephi himself, received directions and supervised the work.  

When the people came to the temple "they were marveling and wondering one with another and showing each other the great and marvelous change which had taken place." This sentence makes sense, if it were only a day after the destruction took place, but if it were 40 days after the calamities, they would have already seen all the destruction, but they wouldn't have had much time to repair the temple. There wouldn't have yet been many changes that they could marvel at. But if they had been away from the temple complex for almost a year, and workers had repaired and transformed the temple for worship without blood sacrifice, a lot of things would have changed, and they truly may have wondered. 

One more thing that I thought was interesting. When Jesus appeared to the apostles after his resurrection, he showed them his "hands and his side" (John 20:20).  When Jesus appeared to the people at the temple of Bountiful, he told them to "thrust your hands into my side, and also that you may feel the prints of the nails in my hands and feet." (3 Nephi 11:14).  Why side first in the Americas?  It is totally possible that the Nephites did not practice crucifixion--It was kind of a Roman thing--so showing someone the wounds in your hands wouldn't have meant that you were resurrected from the dead.  People can survive hand wounds.  But the wound in the side would have been fatal no matter if you were in Jerusalem or the New World.  It is a small thing, but it suggests authenticity.  

So what does this all mean?  I think that the people of the New World, after all the destruction was done, had time to contemplate their experience and begin to make changes in their worship and lives.  I think they even actively started to transform their temple worship from animal sacrifices to some kind of ceremony more like what temple worship is like today.  It was when they were done with the major clean up and had started to transform their temple, that Jesus understood they were ready for his visit. Then once there, he showed the tokens of his death the way that would most clearly transmit his resurrected state. 

Anti-Nephi-Lehi Swords

One of the most impactful scenes in this week's reading is found in Alma 24 when the new Lamanite converts make a covenant to never again wield a weapon against another human. They talk about how their swords were "stained" with the blood of their brethren (v. 12) but that they had become bright by the blood of Christ (v. 13). They feared if they took them up again they would never be able to make them clean again. A couple of the podcasters talked about the question, how could a metal sword become stained with blood? Metal washes right off. 

I had never been concerned with this question. I always just figured that it was metaphorical, like Lady MacBeth's spotted hands. But one of the podcasters, Bryce Dunford, mentioned that the Mayans did use wooden swords, which could, conceivably, become stained with blood. They are called a "macuahuitl" and they are like a cricket bat but with pieces of obsidian,or shark teeth embedded along the shaft.  At the time of Cortés' invasion of Central America one of the Spaniards saw a man sever a horse's head off with one of these weapons.

Of course, the Mayan civilization was hundreds of years later than the time of Alma. Still, I had never seen a weapon like this, and I thought it was cool.  Maybe this kind of weapon had been in use for centuries and was the kind that the Lamanites used. If it is, it supports another idea that I have had that I blogged about before. I think there is a lot of evidence that the Nephites were an iron age culture and understood metalworking, but the people of the New World were more primitive and didn't have the metallurgy skills Nephi used to make tools to make his boats. (1 Nephi 17). There is a Wikipedia Article about Metallurgy in Pre-Columbians America  that suggests the pre-Columbians did have some metalworking skills, but they didn't use them to make weapons. If the Nephites retained their ability to make metal swords, (Nephi said he used the Sword of Laban as a model to make many swords 2 Nephi 4:14) it would help explain why, as a smaller group, they were able to escape conquest from the Lamanites for so long. 

The important thing about this story is not what kind of sword the Lamanites used.  It is that they were willing to give up their past life style, their past sins, and even their lives because of their faith in Christ. The slaughter of the Anti-Nephi-Lehi people is a brutal scene but it reminds us all, in times of trial, to take the long view. Whatever trials we endure in this life, if we endure them well, we will be blessed, even if it is in the next life.

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. 

A New Look at the Isaiah Chapters

This week in Come Follow Me we are reading 2 Nephi 1-19, which contain the first of the Isaiah chapters.  Nephi quotes, with small variation, Isaiah 2-9.  The Isaiah chapters are difficult because they is so steeped in symbolism and references to current events.  If you don't understand the current events of Isaiah's times, it is almost impossible to understand his symbolism. If you do understand the historical context, you can begin to apply what was happening in Isaiah's time to what was happening in Nephi's day. 

In these chapters, Isaiah is in Jerusalem and the city is worried because they are being threatened by the Northern tribes of Israel who have united Syria. They want to capture Jerusalem and take over the temple. Jewish leaders are considering asking for help from Egypt to defend Jerusalem, but Isaiah is urging them to not rely on Egypt, but instead rely on the Lord. He promises them that within only a few years, Israel and Syria will no longer be a threat. 

So why did Nephi spend a lot of time and effort rewriting Isaiah passages as part of his sacred record, when they were already present on the Plates of Brass?  In 2 Nephi 11, Nephi gives four reasons for including the passages;

1. Prove the truth of the coming of Christ (v. 4)

2. Show the covenants God made with their fathers (v. 5)

3. That his people might lift up their hearts and rejoice. (v. 6)

5. That his people might liken them to themselves. (v. 2, 6)

A lot has been said about how these passages foreshadow the coming of Christ.  Many messianic prophesies can be found in these chapters. That is not going to be where I will focus today.  I am more interested in how the people of Nephi might have felt "like" the people at the time of Isaiah, and how the covenants of the Lord might give them comfort. 

I am going back to my idea mentioned a couple of weeks ago, that the Lamanites might have united with indigenous people.  We know from 2 Nephi 5:20 that the Nephite's felt threatened by the Lamanites and felt compelled to make swords for his people modeled after the sword of Laban. If the Lamanites had united with indigenous people, the situation of the Nephites would have closely mirrored the situation of the Jews in the days of Isaiah. Like the Jews, the Nephites would have been a smaller, more vulnerable force facing and enemy made of their kinsmen who had united with outside groups.  Maybe, like the people of Jerusalem, the Nephites were feeling pressure to also join with outside groups in order to defend themselves against the Lamanites.  I am proposing that Nephi included these specific chapters from Isaiah to try to convince his people to remain separate from the local cultures and instead rely on the Lord to defend them from the Lamanites. I think Nephi knew that in order for his people to maintain the worship of Jehovah and their cultural identity as the covenant people of Israel, they needed to stay isolated. He might have included these passages to give his people encouragement and show that God is faithful in defending his covenant people, even against superior forces. 

Of course, we know that in Isaiah's day, Jerusalem did survive the attack of the Northern tribes, and that those tribes were soon after taken into captivity by the Assyrians and ultimately lost their cultural identity.  Through Nephi's emphasis on the words of Isaiah, the Nephites were also able to remain true to their covenants and maintain their cultural identity as followers of Jehovah for many generations. 

Jacob's Sermon: 2 Nephi 9

 In 2 Nephi 6-10 Jacob, Nephi's younger brother, gives a sermon based on the writings of Isaiah which were found on the plates of brass. In this sermon, Jacob takes passages from Isaiah usually associated with the scattering and gathering of Israel and relates them to the mission and atonement of Christ. His teaching in 2 Nephi 9 sounds very Christian.  In many ways it could have been attributed to Paul or another New Testament theologian. I know I have said this before, but this is way earlier than anything known in the Old World. From the establishment of the Law under Moses until the Babylonian Captivity, the religion of Jehovah was that if Israel as a group were righteous, they, as a group, would be safe from other nations.  When the fall of the Northern Tribes began to seem imminent, Isaiah, Jeremiah and others began to talk about the Messiah who would come and free Israel from captivity.  There were hints in Isaiah that this was a spiritual redemption instead of a physical redemption, but this is all hidden in mists of symbolism.  Jesus was able to point out these ideas to his disciples later, and they didn't even really get it before his death and resurrection. 

It was a mercy from God that Nephi and even to a greater extent Jacob were given an understanding that the covenants of God didn't only pertain to the safety of a nation and its ownership of a land of inheritance.  Nephi left all that seemed to be promised by the Abrahamic Covenant when he left Jerusalem: the temple, inheritance in the promised land (i.e. Israel), and membership in the family of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.  After arriving in the new Promised Land, Nephi and Jacob were gradually taught that the salvation of the Lord wasn't a physical group salvation from political captivity, but a spiritual salvation from Death and Sin.  They were made to understand that they hadn't left the God of Israel and all his covenants behind when they left Jerusalem, but instead had even greater understanding and hope of his eternal covenants than the people in Jerusalem had. It would have been a comfort, after all they had lost, to know that God's promises were sure and eternal.

So what are the main point of Jacob's sermon?

v. 1-3  Reassurance of God's Covenant with scattered Israel

v. 4-5 Christ will suffer to overcome Death and Sin

v. 6    The Fall brings about Death and Sin

v.7-13  The atonement overcomes Death and Sin

v.14-22 Final Judgement 

v. 23-24 Need for ordinances and obedience

v. 25-27 Those who don't have the law are not condemned

v. 28-39 Condemnation of the prideful and wicked

v. 40-53 Exhortation to righteousness

Clearly, by the time of Jacob's ministry, the Nephites had a fairly complete understanding of the doctrine of Christ.  They are missing a few things that were clarified later, but they had as much as the New Testament people had. It wasn't until Joseph Smith that the last few details were added in, like assignment to different degrees of glory after judgement, the eternal nature of families and necessity of eternal marriage, the universal access to priesthood power et alii.

2 Nephi 3-5: Weighing in on the debate

This week in Come Follow Me, we read 2 Nephi 3-5.  My favorite part of this section is Nephi's Lament in 2 Nephi 4.  I like it so much that a couple of years ago I took the time to memorize it. It is a lovely example of a Hebrew lament poetry, but that isn't what I am going to talk about today.

Today I want to weigh in on the debate about 2 Nephi 5. This chapter contains the highly controversial passage about the "cursing" mentioned in v 21. 

"And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing because of their iniquity.  For behold they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them." 

What is Nephi describing here?  It is possible they went to bed one night and had light skin and woke up the next morning and they had dark skin, but I don't really think so. That kind of instant and obvious mass miracle is recorded a couple of times in the Old Testament, but if it had happened here wouldn't we have some kind of indication of the Lamanite's response?  Wouldn't they have seen the change and realized God was sending them a message?  I have to think that the change was subtle so that Nephi saw it as an act of God, but the Lamanites probably didn't.  What then is Nephi referring to when he said they had a "skin of blackness"?

Some of the podcasters I listened to suggested that the idea of a black skin is metaphorical; that somehow their countenances changed and they didn't look as blessed or righteous as before.  I think the textural evidence suggests that there was some kind of physical change, or else why would Nephi say, "that they might not be enticing unto my people."  A metaphorical change would assume that all the people of the Nephites would have been sensitive to the metaphor. Could Nephi be sure that everyone of his people would pick up on the changed countenance, and think "wow, those Lamanites really have a black aura now." 

Others suggest that the Lamanites started wearing black animal skins as clothing.  That is a possibility, but does someone wear the same thing every day, and would everyone in that society just start to wear the same color?  Maybe, but again it seems unlikely. 

If they are not wearing black clothes, or have a black aura, what could Nephi be describing? One idea is that the "black" skin came over time a the Lamanites married native peoples that had darker skin than the Lehites. I think there is quite a bit of evidence for this one. In v 23 Nephi says, "cursed shall be the seed of him that mixeth with their seed."  This suggests that: 1. the curse could be associated with intercultural marriage, something that was forbidden under Mosaic law, and 2. That is was passed on genetically. There is additional evidence that if the Lamanites did meet and join with indigenous people they were hunter gatherers. It says in v. 24 "And because of their cursing which was upon them they did become an idle people, full of mischief and subtlety, and did seek in the wilderness for beasts of prey."  In contrast, the Nephites established a stationary settlement, only possible with an agrarian culture, "And I did teach my people to build buildings, and to work in all manner of wood, and of iron, ..."  (v. 15).  Another evidence is that within only a few generations, the Lamanites far outnumber the Nephites (Jarom 1:6).  Why would they be more numerous if they hadn't joined with other people and intermarried?  

One fault in the argument is that there is really no reason to believe the indigenous people of the Americas were black skinned. Archeology suggest that the inhabitants of the Americas had migrated from northern Asia where skin tone is darker than northern Europeans, but not at all like the black skin of some African peoples. They might have had darker skins than the Lehites, but why would Nephi say they had a skin of "blackness" instead of a skin of "darkness".  He might have done so for dramatic and metaphorical impact, but I am not sure "blackness" is more metaphorically expressive than "darkness."  Both terms carry a negative association in the Old Testament.  

Another possibility that I heard on a podcast was that the Lamanites might have adopted a local custom of tattooing their skin. If there were an indigenous people whose warriors had a tradition of tattooing their skin, and if the Lamanites adopted this practice in order to be incorporated into the society,  Nephi could have called the tattoos a "skin of blackness" and considered it unattractive to his people. Of course, tattooing is not passed on genetically through intermarriage, but the practice might have been passed on to descendants of Laman and Lemuel culturally for a long time and any later Nephites joining the culture might have been required to also assume the tattoos. 

These are interesting speculations, but in the end, there is no way to resolve the question. We just don't have enough information. It is important, however, to reassert, as church leaders have done over the pulpit and on the church website, that dark skin is not a sign of divine disapprobation. The curse that came on the Lamanites for the disobedience was a separation from the Lord (v. 20).  In this specific case there was some kind of side affect of the separation that Nephi described as "skin of blackness" but the skin was not the curse, the separation was the curse. 

Travels in the Wilderness: 1 Nephi 16-22

 This week in Come Follow Me we studied the time period from when Lehi and Ishmael's families leave the Valley of Lemuel, travel to Bountiful, build ships and sail to the Promised Land.  These are very familiar stories and I can't say I had many new insights about them.  Here are just a few:

1. When it says that the family of Lehi ate raw meat in the wilderness, (1 Nephi 17:2) the picture that came to my mind as a child was them taking dead animals, skinning them and then biting into the red meat.  That is, frankly, pretty disgusting and also pretty risky from a health point of view. Recently I read a survival story where the main character stops every 3-5 days, catches fish and then dries them to carry with him on his next part of the journey.  I am thinking this is what must have been going on.  They were traveling through the desert.  If they carried salt with them, it would have been possible to salt the meat and then dry it into jerky.  That would make it less likely to spoil, lighter to carry and safer and more palatable to eat.

2. I had never really connected the death of Ishmael with the lack of food,  but those two things happen back to back in the story.  Ishmael probably died because of starvation or he became susceptible to illness because of lack of food. It would further explain why his family was so angry at Nephi about their father's death.

3. One of the podcasters, I think it was Tyler Griffith, pointed out that Nephi had more confidence that he would be able to build a ship, cross the many waters, and make it to the Promised Land than his brother because he had seen in a vision that this is what was going to happen. The revelation strengthened his faith. It goes along with Joseph's Smith's teaching in the Lectures on Faith that in order to exercise faith we need to receive revelation of Heavenly's Father's will, and then move forward with confidence that His will would be fulfilled. (Lectures on Faith: Law of Sacrifice)

4. I have mentioned this before, but this whole Book of Mormon exodus narrative is told in such a way to draw parallels to the story of Moses leading the Hebrews out of Egypt and through the wilderness. Many of the same elements are there. The initial vision of Lehi is like Moses' vision.  Getting the brass plates are like the Israelites plundering the Egyptians.  Food is miraculously provided though Nephi's broken bow instance, like the mana in the Old Testament. The Liahona is like the fire that went before the Israelites by night and the cloud by day to lead their way.  Crossing the river Jordan is like building the ships and crossing the great waters. Then what do they do when they get to the new land?  They build a temple like Solomon's temple. By telling the story this way Nephi is legitimizing the decision to leave Jerusalem, which is compared to Egypt and captivity, and to establish a new center of worship in the new world. 

Jesus' Brothers

 Recently in Come Follow Me, we read the epistles of James and Jude. Although scholars contest the authorship of these epistles, they are traditionally attributed to two of the half brothers of Jesus. If they were written by members of Jesus' immediate family, they could shed some light on the homelife of Jesus as he was growing up in Nazareth.

What do the scriptures say about Jesus' nuclear family? Not very much.  In Matthew 13:55-56 the residents of Nazareth were upset at Jesus' teaching and said, "Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?

Even though this is a short passage, we actually learn a few notable things from it.  First off, we learn that Jesus had four half brothers and at least two half sisters.  We can also guess that at the time of this event, Joseph, Mary's husband may have died, because he is not mentioned as being "with us".

We can also, I think, deduce that they were a very orthodox family.  All of the names of the brothers are from famous people or words from the Torah:  James is really יעקב or Jacob (The KJV changed all the Jacobs to James to please their patron, King James), Joses is יוסף or Joseph (Don't know why they translated it Joses here, and Joseph in Luke 2.  Both names are exactly the same in Greek) , Simon is שמעון which is the first word of the most famous prayer in the Torah, the Shema, and Judas, is, of course, יהודה or Judah. You can't get much more orthodox than that. 

We also learn that they were not on the lowest rung of the social ladder since Joseph Sr was a τεκτονος which is most closely translated as builder or artisan, and was a skilled laborer. They seem to have had enough money to send even their non-miraculous sons to Hebrew school instead of keeping them home to work with their father because both the epistles of James and Jude are full of references to the Torah. Remember that no one back then had a torah scroll in their home to study.  You could only study the Torah in a synagogue school, or with a master and both options cost money. 

Both also seem to have risen to positions of leadership in the church after Jesus' resurrection despite having doubted his messiahship before his death (John 5:5) because both of them have epistles included in the cannon and the epistles are written as from a leader to their congregations. 

If James and Jude are Jesus' half brothers, the things they emphasize in their epistles might have been reflections of what and how they were taught at home.  If so, Mary and Joseph must have been both strict and loving parents. Both epistles not only emphasize loving and serving others, but also the necessity of strict obedience. James said "Then when lust has conceived, it bringeth fort sin; and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death. Do not err, my beloved brethren" (James 1: 15-16).  Jude said, "But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before the apostles of our Lord, Jesus Christ; How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts...But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on you most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost, keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life." (Jude 1: 17-18, 20-21).  There isn't any hint of softness toward sin in ether passage, but each ends with an exhortation and expression of love. 

Paul's Prison Epistles

 This week for Come Follow Me we read two more of Paul's prison epistles.  When Paul first arrived in Rome his captivity wasn't too bad.  He was in house arrest and was able to receive visitors and live in relative comfort. Many scholars believe he was released after two years and had further missionary journeys, though these do not appear in the New Testament.  Then around 66 AD he was arrested again, put in a terrible prison, and eventually executed.  It is unclear whether the epistle to the Philippians came from the time of this second imprisonment, but many believe it did because he seems to be more resigned to his ultimate fate than in some of his other epistles.  He says, "For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain...For I am in a strait betwixt the two, having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ; which is far better: Nevertheless to abide in the flesh is more needful for you." (v 21-24)

I have been thinking this week about Paul's life. One might think that Paul's imprisonment in Rome was a terrible thing.  From this passage we see that, at least in his letters, Paul didn't think so.  He actually felt that his imprisonment allowed the gospel to spread more easily (v. 12).  Of course, he was more right than he knew even then.  What if Paul had not gone to prison?  He seems to have written some letters to the saints in the different areas of his missions before he went to prison, but much of the second half of the New Testament is composed of letters that Paul wrote in prison.  Would he have written them if he was still out traveling around, teaching the gospel? 

His prison epistles have a similar structure.  He introduces himself, teaches the doctrine of Christ, applies that doctrine to specific problems his audience is having, and then closes with encouragement and salutations.  He is clearly writing the letters to be a kind of manual for the saints about what Christians believe and how to live the life of a Christians. If Paul hadn't written these teachings down, they probably would not have persisted into the future. If you don't believe me just consider how many of Peter's teachings we have in the New Testament. After the apostles' death the Christian church would probably have weakened and been absorbed back into the polytheism that prevailed in the Roman Empire.  Paul's epistles laid the solid, tangible foundation of the Christian religion among the gentiles which ended up being the group that carried the religion into the future. 

I must admit, one of the things that frightens me about being a follower of Christ is that there is a real possibility that God will ask me to do something really hard and unpleasant during this life.  I look at historical characters like Paul, Moroni, Joseph Smith and my own ancestors, Wilford Woodruff and Lorenzo Snow.  Their lives were not always (or even often) very happy. God asked them to do really hard things.  Of course, we have faith that they were amply rewarded for their sacrifice in the eternities.  I actually have that faith as well.  I truly believe that anything God asks me to do will ultimately be the best thing for me to do.  But that doesn't mean it doesn't scare me. It is a little bit like facing surgery.  Anyone who agrees to surgery does so because they believe it will be of benefit to them, but few look forward to it. Maybe as I age and mature spiritually, I will come to accept with more courage  God's plan for me, and face it with Paul-like joy.

Paul Speaks as a Fool

 One of the challenges of reading Paul's letters are that we often don't know what they are written in response to.  It is like listening to one side of a phone conversation without knowing what the other person is saying.  You can extrapolate something of what the unheard person said just by how the person on this side responds, but you can't know for sure.  That is what is happening with the second part of 2 Corinthians.  In 2 Corinthians 11 Paul seems to be responding to people who has challenged his authority as a prophet. They seem to have said that Paul writes boldly, but speaks weakly.  They seem to think that he should have let the people of Corinth support him financially, but instead he supported himself.  One of their biggest criticisms, and the one he spends the most time responding to, seems to have been, "if you are a prophet of God, why have so many terrible things happened to you?"

Starting at 2 Corinthians 11:23 Paul says, "Are they (i.e. his detractors) ministers of Christ? (I speak as a fool) "I am more, in labors more abundant, in stripes above measure, in prisons more frequent, in deaths, oft."  Then he goes into a long list of all the trials he has suffered in his 14 year ministry. To a modern reader, his recitation sound a bit self-righteous.  It sounds like he is saying, "You think you have sacrificed a lot for the gospel.  Well, I have sacrificed way more."  The important thing here is to pay attention to his little asides where he says he is speaking as a "fool."  He is admitting that what he is giving as evidence of his authority as an apostle will sound ridiculous to them.  But wait.  Isn't sacrificing and suffering for the Kingdom of God a mark of extreme righteousness?  Wouldn't he expect his listeners to be impressed with the long list of what he was willing to undergo in his quest to spread Christianity?  Well, yes and no.

We need to remember historical context here. So here is a trick question.  Who was the first Christian martyr?  You might think, Steven, but really the first Christian martyr was Christ.  I bring this up because the idea of someone whom God favors suffering was a new and unfamiliar idea in the ancient world.  In both ancient Judaism and in Greek culture, you can tell if someone is favored of God because of their wealth and prosperity.  Jesus was the first to turn that on its head and, as an agent of God, suffer. Yes, there was the talk of the Suffering Servant in Isaiah 53, but in day to day life in the ancient world  god's favor=prosperity. If you look at Greek mythology, the heroes only fell when they angered a god.  Odysseus had to wander for ten years because he angered Poseidon. Heracles had to perform his 10 labors because he angered Hera. On the Jewish side, Sampson was captured by Delilah because he broke his vow to God. Moses was prevented from entering the promised land because he smote the rock to get water without giving credit to God.  The fact that Paul had endured so many trials would have been evidence to some of this mindset in the ancient world that he was not in good standing with God.  

Of course, Paul, in this chapter, it turning this on its head, and by doing so, I believe, helps originate the Christian ideal of suffering as a sign of righteousness. Of course, it really originated with Jesus, but I think Paul brought it to the common believer. At the time when Paul was a missionary, the idea of the righteous suffering was new and strange. A few decades later when Christians began to be the target of Nero and experienced widespread persecution and mass murder in gladiatorial arenas and elsewhere, this idea of suffering as a sign of righteousness took root. Perhaps these chapters in 2 Corinthians were even the foundation for the later glorification of Christian martyrs and even the establishment of the idea of "Saints." Early Christians who underwent persecution certainly would have been a comforted by Paul's example of enduring trials with faith.  It would have given them a way to say, "I have suffered for Christ, as Christ suffered for me.  My suffering has value and validates my righteousness instead of negating it."

Ruins of Ancient Corinth