What the Three Witnesses Saw

 In Come Follow Me this week we read about the calling of the three and eight witnesses to the Book of Mormon. When we think of these special witnesses we think about them seeing the Gold Plates, but if you read Section 17 carefully you see that they saw more than that.  The three witnesses saw

1. the gold plates, 

2. the breast plate, 

3. the sword of Laban,

4. the Jaredite Urim and Thummim, 

5.  the Liahona.  

Bryce Dunford from Talking Scripture, who is a bit obsessed with finding temple imagery in every scripture text, put forth the idea that the things they saw were probably the holy temple relics from the Nephite nation. The original Hebrew temple contained certain relics in the alter in the Holy of Holies. Those included 

1. The tablets Moses made with the Law written by the finger of God

2. Aaron's rod which budded.

3. a gold jar of manna. (Hebrews 9:4)

Bryce tried to show that the items in the stone box that Joseph Smith found corresponded to the items in the temple arc. 

The stone tablets = the Gold Plates because both contained the religious law of the culture. 

Aaron's rod that budded = the Urim and Thummim, because both provided revelation, and the sword of Laban because that was a symbol of political supremacy. i.e. As the priests of Aaron were the religious leaders, the one possessing the sword of Laban was the political leader. 

The Jar of manna=the Liahona, since the Liahona lead the Nephites through the more fertile parts of land where they could find food.  i.e. both represented temporal salvation. 

The one to one symbolism is a little sketchy, but I think he could be correct on the more general point. The ark of the covenant held the most sacred relics of the old world church.  Lehi and his family didn't bring those items with them, and they were lost soon after Lehi left Jerusalem. When the Nephites built their own temple in the new world they naturally would have put in to its altar the most holy relics of their own culture--things that represented the power of their God and his willingness to save and protect them. Mike even suggested that stone box in which the relics were found may have actually been the buried altar of the temple.  I think that is a stretch because I couldn't see Mormon, on the run and in constant danger, hauling around a large stone box everywhere he went.  Still, it doesn't seem strange to me that at some point, when Mormon saw that the temple was going to fall into the hands of sinful men, he might have taken the temple relics, or that maybe the temple relics were already with the religious records he was given when he was a young man, and that he cared for and protected them the rest of his life. 

This brings up an obvious question:  Does the church have holy relics in its modern temples, or perhaps just in a single central temple?  If it does, what might they be? I think (and this is pure speculation) that is wouldn't be ridiculous to suppose that the items seen by the special witnesses may still exist on this earth, and that the Church keeps them somewhere in the Salt Lake Temple. They are kept secret for fear of theft or defilement. Another idea is that the church may have other relics from the modern church, like the seer stone, Joseph Smith's temple robes or something of the like, that they keep in the temple. Of course, the most likely thing is that there are not "sacred relics" that the church keeps in the temples, because temples don't need relics to be holy. 

I am sure I will never know, but I think the idea that the 11 witness saw temple relics supports my earlier idea that the restoration of the gospel was primarily the restoration of the temple and temple blessings and that the church that Joseph Smith restored was primarily an Old Testament based church rather than a New Testament style church.   

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. 

Doctrine and Covenants 2

Doctrine and Covenants 2 is a variation on Malachi 4: 4-5 that the angel Moroni told Joseph Smith during his visit in 1823.  The D&C version expands the Bible passage quite a bit, focusing on priesthood, promises, and the importance of family ties. On Talking Scriptures with Mike Day and Bryce Dunford they suggested that while the Book of Mormon revealed the Doctrine of Christ, the Doctrine and Covenants restores the importance of temples and temple work.  In every major settlement of the saints, they are commanded to build a temple.  It has always seemed a little crazy to me that they were asked to build temples when they were in the most dire of circumstances, but now I think that, even though God knew they wouldn't be able to build most of the temples he commanded them to build at that time, the fact that he asked them to build them was a way to underscore their importance.  

Of course, the building of temples is related to this chapter.  Joseph didn't know in 1823 anything about temples and the sealing power. He was just a teenage boy, wondering about his standing with God. Yet, even then, God was planting a seed of an idea in his mind that would grow and develop into an understanding of the importance of the temple ordinance culminating in temple marriage. Since Joseph's Smith's time that understanding has continued to develop so that now almost every talk at conference emphases the importance of temple worship. 

Just one more side thought. 

In that episode of Talking Scriptures, Bryce geeks out a little on Malachi 4:2.  It says, (JKV) "But unto you that fear my name, shall the Sun of Righteousness arise with healing in his wings."  What Bryce noted is that in Hebrew the "Sun (שֶׁמֶשׁ)of Righteousness" is not masculine, but feminine.  So it should be translated, "Sun of Righteousness" with healing in "her" wings. Bryce didn't mention this, but I am pretty sure the gender switch came because of the Septuagint.  When the King James scholars translated the Old Testament, they primarily used the Greek Septuagint version of it, instead of the original Hebrew, and in Greek, the word sun, ἥλιος, or Helios, is masculine. Anyway, Bryce was wondering who this feminine "sun of righteousness" represented.  Could it be an example of the divine feminine that the Hebrews worshiped before the reforms during the reign of Josiah?  Or could it represent the church, which is often portrayed as a woman, dressed in glorious robes, as in the book of  Revelation (19: 7-8). The idea of having "healing in her wings" makes me think of the image of the hen gathering her chicks under her wings (Luke 13: 34-35).  Or it could just be that the word, "sun" is feminine in Hebrew and masculine in Greek, and the gender isn't really relevant to the scripture.  Who knows?

A Random Thought about Matthew 17.

This year in Come Follow Me we are studying the Doctrine and Covenants, but I am also reading the New Testament in Latin as part of my four year cycle to keep up on my ancient languages. This week in the New Testament I read about the Mount of Transfiguration in Matthew 17.  It is an interesting coincidence since both the reading in the Doctrine and Covenants and my Bible reading recount an important theophany.  In both cases God the father and Jesus reveal themselves in their glory to disciples that are destined to become the leaders of the organized church in their dispensation. The two events have a lot of the same elements. 

•  In both cases the participants went into a wilderness place apart.  For Peter James and John, Jesus lead them to a high mountain.  For Joseph Smith, he went into the woods.
• In both cases, the theophany was accompanied by great light. In Matthew it says "and his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light." In JS History 1:17, Joseph Smith describes the beings "When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air."
• In both cases, the Father introduces the Son in the same way, "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him." in Matthew, and "This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!" in JS History.

What struck me this time reading through is that this form of theophany draws both from the Old Testament and Roman traditions. In the Old Testament, the presence of God is associated with a pillar of fire or light. The pillar of fire leads the Israelites in the wilderness (Exodus 13:21), and when the temple is built in Jerusalem, a pillar of light fills the temple to show that God has accepted it (2 Chronicles 7:1-3). In Joseph Smith's 1835 account of the first vision, he states that the personages appeared as if in a pillar of fire, and he was surprised that the forest didn't catch on fire.  

The idea that God has a son, born of a mortal mother, and a divine father is not really an Old Testament idea. It is, however, all over Greek and Roman theology.  All the great heroes of these mythologies-- Hercules, Theseus, Odysseus, Jason, et alii--are demi-gods, with a mortal parent and a divine parent. It is no wonder that the idea of Christianity, with its half god/half mortal founder, would be successful in the Roman world. In Greek mythology, the gods also have a divine glory associated with fire and light. In the story of Zeus and Semele, Semele is burnt up when Zeus is tricked into showing himself to her in all his glory. Of course, that story doesn't have much to do with Joseph Smith, but it does show that the idea of the divine revealing themselves to mortals, accompanied by light/fire, is an old one that crosses cultures. 

In D&C 1: 24 God tells the world "after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding."  That doesn't just mean words.  It means that God uses images and symbols that are part of our culture to communicate important ideas. Both Joseph Smith's first vision and the vision on the Mount of Transfiguration are examples of God using symbols the from people's culture to communicate truth.

 

The Woman in the Wilderness from Revelation 12

 Several of the podcasters I listened to this week referred the story of the woman who is cast into the wilderness in Revelation 12. I am not sure why.  Maybe there are some key words in this chapter that refer back to the passage in Revelation, but if so, they aren't super obvious to me. More than one commentator talked about it, so there must be something there.

In that story the woman is about to give birth (Revelation 12:2) but as soon as her child is born it is taken up to heaven. Then the woman flees into the wilderness (v. 6) where is she protected while the dragon fights against Michael and his hosts. Once the war is over the dragon his hurled to earth. He then pursues the woman, but she is miraculously saved and preserved (v. 15). Then when the dark ages are over, she is brought out of the desert and enthroned with the Lamb (21:9). The podcasters compared this to the apostacy and restoration.  The true church is the woman, who, after Jesus is taken into heaven, has to flee and hide because of persecution.  This leads to apostacy which is represented by the desert. The restoration is when the church is restored by Joseph Smith and takes its place as God's true church. I think that is a good interpretation of this scripture, but I think the image doesn't just have one interpretation. 

I tried to think up all the times this pattern was reenacted.  To be clear, this is the pattern

1. a start-up group of people bring forth something great but then immediately has to flee into the wilderness for safety.
2. While in the wilderness they are protected and nurtured.
3. When they are strong enough, they emerge from hiding.  
4. They are then ready to take their place next to God. 

The first place this happens is when the children of Israel, while still a small group, produce the Abrahamic covenant and religion, but within a few generations descend into Egypt so they won't die due to a famine.  There in the wilderness, although enslaved, they grow into a mighty nation. When they get strong enough they are lead out of Egypt into the Promised Land. They eventually conquer the people of the Promised Land establishing Jehovah worship at the temple as the dominant culture. 

Most Christian religions see the woman figure as Mary, who watches over the church between the time of Jesus' death until his return. It is she who will join Jesus on the throne at his second coming.

It happens again with the Latter-Day Saints. While small, the church produces the Book of Mormon and establishes a church.  It is then driven out of the USA and hides in the desert of Deseret, protected and safe from the Civil War.  In recent decades we have seen it then emerge from obscurity to become a major force for good in the world. 

This further confirms what I wrote in my last blog.  It really was essential for the continued success of the church to leave civilization and set up camp in Utah.  The whole Doctrine and Covenants document key events in that process. There they were able to grow in both size and cultural identity until now, we have gone to almost all the world, trying to bring people back to Christ.

I am curious if there are other instances of this pattern.  It feels like an archetype--like the wilderness journey, and the hero's journey--to me.  I will have to keep my eye open for it. 

The Doctrine and Covenants of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints

 It is now January and in Come Follow Me we are starting the study of church history and the Doctrine and Covenants.  I must admit it is my least favorite year in the four year cycle of study.  I think that the last time we studied it I began to understand it better and reconcile myself to what it is and what it isn't. 

The hardest thing about the Doctrine and Covenants is that so often the Lord tells people that they should do something, and then a few chapters later he says, "because you were wicked you no longer get to do that thing.  Instead do this thing."  It is hard to feel like the Lord isn't deceiving the Saints in these instances. This is most obvious concerning the establishment of Zion. The Lord tells the people they will establish Zion in Missouri, but it ends up that they hardly spend any time in Missouri at all. Then they go to Nauvoo, and build the temple, only to have to leave it soon after it is completed. 

I have partially reconciled myself about this with the idea that God knew the end from the beginning.  He knew that he needed to get his people from New York, to Kirtland, to Missouri, and then to Illinois.  He new that he then needed to somehow get them to cross the Great Plains and end up in a fairly desolate desert in Utah where they could finally grow and flourish.  For God it was about like herding cats. The Saints would have not been prepared to move to Utah when they were in Kirkland, either emotionally or temporally. They needed the time and the motivation to want to follow the church here and there and finally clear out of the country so that they could have the protection of the vast frontier before the Civil War broke loose. God knew this, but he couldn't tell them straight forwardly, because they weren't ready to accept it. So he herded the cats from one place to another until they were ready to be swept out the back door into the valley of the Great Salt Lake.

Since I had this realization I have been able to see God working in my life in a similar way.  I feel directed to do something that then doesn't work out.  I didn't realize that direction wasn't to an end, but just to the next point in the map on the road to where I really needed to go. When I am feeling emotionally strong, I can tell myself that God knows what he is doing with my life, and I can just trust him. When I am more vulnerable I worry and cry and plead with the Lord on my knees in the middle of the night. I think, however, the trust periods are getting longer, they really are, and the cry-in-the-middle-of-the-night events... well... that still happens pretty often (:-). I guess I have a way to go.