I’d like to propose three “helps” for reading Isaiah that I think actually help.

First, compare what is in the Book of Mormon with a modern translation of Isaiah.  I’ve posted multiple times (see here, here, and here) about the difficulty of understanding the KJV.  Since the Book of Mormon quotes the KJV for Isaiah, it is a problem here as well.  So here is what you are going to do:  with Book of Mormon Isaiah passages in hand, you are going to go to the NetBible and look up the reference in Isaiah.  You can also click on the word “parallel” near the upper left corner and see a half dozen more translations.  You can then fairly easily fix in your mind what the text plainly says, and then return to the KJV or Book of Mormon text.  But now, you’ll be about 80% of the way there in understanding what the text means.  As an example, consider 2 Nephi 7:11

Behold all ye that kindle fire, that compass yourselves about with sparks, walk in the light of your fire and in the sparks which ye have kindled. This shall ye have of mine hand—ye shall lie down in sorrow.

This verse is virtually identical to Isaiah 50:11, which in the NetBible reads

Look, all of you who start a fire

and who equip yourselves with flaming arrows,

walk in the light of the fire you started

and among the flaming arrows you ignited!

This is what you will receive from me:

you will lie down in a place of pain.

The NIV has this

But now, all you who light fires
and provide yourselves with flaming torches,
go, walk in the light of your fires
and of the torches you have set ablaze.
This is what you shall receive from my hand:
You will lie down in torment.

I’m sure the first thing you notice is that it is written as poetry (in lines), not as prose (in paragraphs)–more on that in a minute.  The language and punctuation make the meaning much clearer.  Now that you have the gist of the verse, you can return to your study of the KJV.

Second, pay attention to the structure of the text.  Something like 90% of Isaiah is written in poetry, and it is a mistake to read biblical poetry as if it were prose.  The nice thing about Isaiah is that the poetry in it is really quite simple:  you only need to know one thing.  (For a fuller treatment of how to read biblical poetry,  see Kevin Barney’s great Ensign article.)  Here’s the one thing:  biblical poetry relies on the relationship between lines of poetry–not (for our purposes) rhyme or rhythm or anything like that.  The lines in Isaiah are almost always what is called synonymous parallelism; you don’t need to know that term, you just need to know that Isaiah seems like he is constantly repeating himself not because he’s crazy but because he’s writing poetry.  Let’s put letters in front of the lines from the NIV version:

A But now, all you who light fires
A and provide yourselves with flaming torches,
B go, walk in the light of your fires
B and of the torches you have set ablaze.
C This is what you shall receive from my hand:
C You will lie down in torment.

The A lines are virtually identical; you don’t need to parse them for differences in meaning or feel put out that he’s being so dang redundant.  Same with the B lines.  The C lines aren’t precisely identical, but close enough for our purposes–the expectation that they will be virtually identical may contribute to making the theological point that what the Lord says you will receive, you’ll receive!

The example I’ve used above is a very interesting verse once you get your mind around the text:  usually in the scriptures, light is a good thing.  But here, people are kindling and following their own lights, and the result of that is sorrow from the Lord.  There’s a lot to think about there:  What am I doing that is kindling and following my own light?  How can I avoid that?  How do I know which light is which?  What caution does this verse imply about people who are, shall we say, well-lit?
I’m strongly convinced that a lack of awareness of biblical poetry is an enormous stumbling block to the reader of Isaiah–you might subconsciously sense that he is being terribly redundant, but you don’t really know what to make of it, and it becomes easy to lose his train of thought.  Read the text as lines of poetry that are synonymous with each other, and things will be much smoother.  Here’s another example that I chose because it isn’t a simple AABBCC:

A Yea, for thus saith the Lord:
B Have I put thee away, or have I cast thee off forever?
A For thus saith the Lord:
B Where is the bill of your mother’s divorcement?
C To whom have I put thee away,
C or to which of my creditors have I sold you?
C Yea, to whom have I sold you?
D Behold, for your iniquities have ye sold yourselves,
D and for your transgressions is your mother put away.
(2 Nephi 7:1)

Surely ABABCCCDD is much more complicated (and certainly atypical), but if you just sat down with the lines here, you could have figured out that pattern yourself.  And I’ll note that the process of trying to determine the pattern is an enormously beneficial one, as it requires you to study the lines of text, figure out what they mean, and how they relate.  It is truly the heart and soul of “pondering” the scriptures.  I can’t imagine trying to read Isaiah without a copy of the text printed as poetry and with ABCs in the margin.

Third, pay attention to the speaker and the audience.  Probably the loopiest thing about Isaiah is that the text will suddenly, without warning, and multiple times within the same chapter, shift who the speaker and who the audience is.  You need no outside information in order to figure out what is going on;  you just  need to read the text multiple times, and then, once you have it figured out, re-read the text now that you know who is speaking to whom.  For example, consider 2 Nephi 7 (=Isaiah 50).  In verses 1-3, the Lord is speaking to rebellious people.  But in v4, the speaker and audience shift suddenly and without warning:  now “the servant” is speaking and the audience is more general.  (We usually interpret “the servant” to be a prophetic representation of the voice of the mortal Jesus Christ, but that’s a topic for another day!)  I think lots of readers get lost here–without consciously thinking about who is speaking and to whom they are speaking, it is very difficult to follow the train of thought.

So, three simple things:  look at a modern translation, read poetry as poetry, and pay attention to the (constantly shifting) speaker and audience.

CHAPTER 3
Joseph in Egypt saw the Nephites in vision—He prophesied of Joseph Smith, the latter-day seer; of Moses, who would deliver Israel; and of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon. Between 588 and 570 B.C.

 1 And now I speak unto you, Joseph, my last-born. Thou wast born in the wilderness of mine afflictions; yea, in the days of my greatest sorrow did thy mother bear thee.

Compare to words to Jacob (2 Nephi 2:1:  “And now, Jacob, I speak unto you: Thou art my first-born in the days of my tribulation in the wilderness. And behold, in thy childhood thou hast suffered afflictions and much sorrow, because of the rudeness of thy brethren.”)  What do you make of the similarities and differences, particularly the reference to Sariah?

 2 And may the Lord consecrate also unto thee this land, which is a most precious land, for thine inheritance and the inheritance of thy seed with thy brethren, for thy security forever, if it so be that ye shall keep the commandments of the Holy One of Israel.

Compare what was said to Jacob in 2 Nephi 2:2 (“Nevertheless, Jacob, my first-born in the wilderness, thou knowest the greatness of God; and he shall consecrate thine afflictions for thy gain.”)  What do you make of the similarities and differences?

Is Lehi making a link between his experience in the wilderness and Joseph’s relationship with the land?

 3 And now, Joseph, my last-born, whom I have brought out of the wilderness of mine afflictions, may the Lord bless thee forever, for thy seed shall not utterly be destroyed.

What purpose is served by the repetition of last-born, wilderness, and afflictions in these verses?

Who else has been brought out of the wilderness?

“Not utterly destroyed” is pretty weak sauce . . .

 4 For behold, thou art the fruit of my loins; and I am a descendant of Joseph who was carried captive into Egypt. And great were the covenants of the Lord which he made unto Joseph.

What work does “thou art the fruit of my loins” (something he already knows!) do in this sentence?

Jacob’s blessing focused on the creation/fall/agency; this one focuses on Joseph in Egypt.  What do you make of the difference?  What is the relationship between the two narratives?

 5 Wherefore, Joseph truly saw our day. And he obtained a promise of the Lord, that out of the fruit of his loins the Lord God would raise up a righteous branch unto the house of Israel; not the Messiah, but a branch which was to be broken off, nevertheless, to be remembered in the covenants of the Lord that the Messiah should be made manifest unto them in the latter days, in the spirit of power, unto the bringing of them out of darkness unto light—yea, out of hidden darkness and out of captivity unto freedom.

Why would Joseph have seen their day?  What benefit would that have been, and to whom?

Do I read correctly that Lehi describes Jesus’ visit to the New world as happening “in the latter days”?

What does “in the spirit of power” mean?

Why does Lehi go back and modify darkness with “hidden”?  In what way can darkness be hidden, and what might that symbolize?

6 For Joseph truly testified, saying: A seer shall the Lord my God raise up, who shall be a choice seer unto the fruit of my loins.

Why does Lehi switch from Joseph seeing “our day” to “a seer” (who, I presume, is Joseph Smith)?

 7 Yea, Joseph truly said: Thus saith the Lord unto me: A choice seer will I raise up out of the fruit of thy loins; and he shall be esteemed highly among the fruit of thy loins. And unto him will I give commandment that he shall do a work for the fruit of thy loins, his brethren, which shall be of great worth unto them, even to the bringing of them to the knowledge of the covenants which I have made with thy fathers.

In what sense was Joseph Smith “esteemed highly”?  Is this different from how we usually think of him?  Should we therefore think of him differently?

NB v6 and v7 both emphasize that the seer’s role is to the fruit of Joseph’s loins (three times in this verse!).  Is that how we view Joseph Smith’s mission?  Is that how we should view it?

 8 And I will give unto him a commandment that he shall do none other work, save the work which I shall command him. And I will make him great in mine eyes; for he shall do my work.

Why the first sentence?  Isn’t that kind of a given?  (And even if the seer needed that commandment, why mention it to Joseph several thousand years in advance?)

Does this mean that JS did nothing other than God’s work in his life?  How else might you read it?

I’m curious about “I will make him great in mine eyes:”  it strikes me as kind of an unusual idea to think of the Lord making someone great in the Lord’s eyes.  What do you think this phrase means?

What do we learn about true greatness from this verse?

Thinking about the nesting here:  This is us reading Nephi’s summary of what Lehi said to his son Joseph that Joseph in the Bible said that the Lord said to him about (presumably) Joseph Smith.  What do you make of the nesting here?

 9 And he shall be great like unto Moses, whom I have said I would raise up unto you, to deliver my people, O house of Israel.

If Joseph is speaking here (which I think might be the most natural reading), why would the Lord reveal this to Joseph, who lived ~400 years before Moses?  (It is interesting to think about Joseph knowing this bit of ‘future history’ of his people . . . does it change how we read his story?)

Do you think prophets today get this kind of information about the future (“And in that day I will raise up a prophet named ___ who will ___”)?

10 And Moses will I raise up, to deliver thy people out of the land of Egypt.

11 But a seer will I raise up out of the fruit of thy loins; and unto him will I give power to bring forth my word unto the seed of thy loins—and not to the bringing forth my word only, saith the Lord, but to the convincing them of my word, which shall have already gone forth among them.

The initial “but” implies a contrast with Moses; what is the point of the contrast?

Who is the seer in this verse?  How do you know?  If it is Joseph Smith, what do you make of the bouncing back-and-forth from Moses?

Think about the role of “convincing”:  What does it mean and how does it relate to free agency and our belief that the Spirit is the real teacher?

To what does ‘the word that has already gone out’ refer?

General question:  What does the comparison of Moses and Joseph Smith teach you about each of them?

 12 Wherefore, the fruit of thy loins shall write; and the fruit of the loins of Judah shall write; and that which shall be written by the fruit of thy loins, and also that which shall be written by the fruit of the loins of Judah, shall grow together, unto the confounding of false doctrines and laying down of contentions, and establishing peace among the fruit of thy loins, and bringing them to the knowledge of their fathers in the latter days, and also to the knowledge of my covenants, saith the Lord.

Why “grow together”?  Does that not suggest a slow and organic process?  How should that impact how you understand the relationship of the Bible and the Book of Mormon?

W1828 confound

1. To mingle and blend different things, so that their forms or natures cannot be distinguished; to mix in a mass or crowd, so that individuals cannot be distinguished.
2. To throw into disorder.
3. To mix or blend, so as to occasion a mistake of one thing for another.
4. To perplex; to disturb the apprehension by indistinctness of ideas or words.
5. To abash; to throw the mind into disorder; to cast down; to make ashamed.
6. To perplex with terror; to terrify; to dismay; to astonish; to throw into consternation; to stupify with amazement.
7. To destroy; to overthrow.

What does the word ‘confound’ mean in this verse?

In what ways is it true that these two records have resulted in the laying down of contentions and establishing peace?  How does having that idea as the goal for which the two records came together shape how we interact with other people and the texts?

Why is knowledge of their fathers important?

What do you take from this verse that could impact how you study the scriptures?

13 And out of weakness he shall be made strong, in that day when my work shall commence among all my people, unto the restoring thee, O house of Israel, saith the Lord.

Who is the “he” in this verse?

Is it significant that it is “out of” weakness as opposed to “in” or “despite”?

Interesting to see ‘O house of Israel’ as the noun of direct address here.  Why the shift?

14 And thus prophesied Joseph, saying: Behold, that seer will the Lord bless; and they that seek to destroy him shall be confounded; for this promise, which I have obtained of the Lord, of the fruit of my loins, shall be fulfilled. Behold, I am sure of the fulfilling of this promise;

See above for various definitions of confounded.

How can Joseph be sure of the fulfilling of this promise, and why does he mention it?

How does “and they that seek to destroy him shall be confounded” square with the martyrdom of Joseph Smith?

15 And his name shall be called after me; and it shall be after the name of his father. And he shall be like unto me; for the thing, which the Lord shall bring forth by his hand, by the power of the Lord shall bring my people unto salvation.

There’s that free agency versus prophecy question again . . .

In what ways was Joseph Smith “like unto” Joseph?  How does this relate to the similarities with Moses?

Why do you think this material is part of Joseph’s final blessing?  Is it just the coolness factor of him sharing a name with Josephs past and present and future, or is this material related to him in some way?

What do you think Joseph got out of this material?  What should we get out of it?  (Note that past, present, and future are interwoven.)

16 Yea, thus prophesied Joseph: I am sure of this thing, even as I am sure of the promise of Moses; for the Lord hath said unto me, I will preserve thy seed forever.

Again, what to make of the surety statement, especially its repetition?

17 And the Lord hath said: I will raise up a Moses; and I will give power unto him in a rod; and I will give judgment unto him in writing. Yet I will not loose his tongue, that he shall speak much, for I will not make him mighty in speaking. But I will write unto him my law, by the finger of mine own hand; and I will make a spokesman for him.

Skousen reads “I will make one a spokesman for him” here.

Why emphasize the rod and writing?  (I don’t think that those would be some of the first things that we would associate with Moses.)

Does “a” Moses mean “the” Moses or someone else (Joseph Smith?)?  (Or is Moses a title here the way we use Elijah/Elias sometimes?)

Brant Gardiner:

Joseph of Egypt uses “a Moses” as the identifier, almost indicating a title rather than a name. This leave open the possibility that the original was not so specific as to name, but either Lehi or Joseph Smith filled in the obvious person the possible title referred to.  Citation

Judgment in writing is interesting–what do you make of that?

What does it mean that the Lord wrote the law “unto” Moses?

18 And the Lord said unto me also: I will raise up unto the fruit of thy loins; and I will make for him a spokesman. And I, behold, I will give unto him that he shall write the writing of the fruit of thy loins, unto the fruit of thy loins; and the spokesman of thy loins shall declare it.

Skousen reads “I will raise up one unto the fruit” here.

Who is the “me” in this verse?  How do you know?

Who is the “spokesman”?  How do you know?  Did Joseph Smith have more than one spokesman and, if so, how does that affect how you interpret this verse?

Why is spokesman separated from the prophetic role?   (Why not just call a prophet with decent speaking skills?)

Is this verse about Aaron and Moses, or Joseph Smith and (maybe) Oliver Cowdery or (maybe) Hyrum Smith?  How do you know?

19 And the words which he shall write shall be the words which are expedient in my wisdom should go forth unto the fruit of thy loins. And it shall be as if the fruit of thy loins had cried unto them from the dust; for I know their faith.

Does crying from the dust allude to Abel’s blood?  If so, what does that suggest about what is happening here?

20 And they shall cry from the dust; yea, even repentance unto their brethren, even after many generations have gone by them. And it shall come to pass that their cry shall go, even according to the simpleness of their words.

Why “simpleness” and not “plainness”?

In the OT, crying from the dust is usually to protest injustice; here, it is to cry repentance.  What do you make of the change?

(In what way) is this related to Lehi’s admonition that L&L arise from the dust and be men?

21 Because of their faith their words shall proceed forth out of my mouth unto their brethren who are the fruit of thy loins; and the weakness of their words will I make strong in their faith, unto the remembering of my covenant which I made unto thy fathers.

What do you make of the role of faith in v19 and v21?

How exactly does remembering the covenant relate to the rest of the verse?

The beginning of this verse sets up a situation that could be read as implying that their faith causes the Lord to speak.  Is that accurate?  If so, what does it mean to say that people’s actions can cause the Lord to act?  Is that how you understand the Lord’s actions?

What do you make of weakness/words :: strong/faith?  What is the relationship between words and faith here?

22 And now, behold, my son Joseph, after this manner did my father of old prophesy.

What does Lehi accomplish by calling Joseph “my father of old”?

23 Wherefore, because of this covenant thou art blessed; for thy seed shall not be destroyed, for they shall hearken unto the words of the book.

To which book is he referring?

24 And there shall rise up one mighty among them, who shall do much good, both in word and in deed, being an instrument in the hands of God, with exceeding faith, to work mighty wonders, and do that thing which is great in the sight of God, unto the bringing to pass much restoration unto the house of Israel, and unto the seed of thy brethren.

Do you read v23-24 as Lehi’s summary of Joseph’s prophecy?  If you did, what would you conclude about the most important points of Joseph’s prophecy?  Why might Lehi have felt the need to offer this summary–does it imply that the prophecy was not clear in some way?

Who is the person referred to in this verse?

Why “much restoration”?  What does that phrase imply that “a restoration” wouldn’t imply?

25 And now, blessed art thou, Joseph. Behold, thou art little; wherefore hearken unto the words of thy brother, Nephi, and it shall be done unto thee even according to the words which I have spoken. Remember the words of thy dying father. Amen.

CHAPTER 4
Lehi counsels and blesses his posterity—He dies and is buried—Nephi glories in the goodness of God to him—Nephi puts his trust in the Lord forever. Between 588 and 570 B.C.

1 And now, I, Nephi, speak concerning the prophecies of which my father hath spoken, concerning Joseph, who was carried into Egypt.

Why would Nephi do this–does it suggest some insufficiency or lack of clarity in his father’s (or Joseph’s) words?

2 For behold, he truly prophesied concerning all his seed. And the prophecies which he wrote, there are not many greater. And he prophesied concerning us, and our future generations; and they are written upon the plates of brass.

What makes a prophecy “great” in the terms of this verse?  (truthfullness, importance, etc.)

Why would it be important for us to know that these prophecies are on the brass plates?  In what ways is it significant that we get these prophecies filtered through Lehi’s last words to Joseph and not the prophecies themselves?  Why might these prophecies have not been included in the OT as it has come to us?

3 Wherefore, after my father had made an end of speaking concerning the prophecies of Joseph, he called the children of Laman, his sons, and his daughters, and said unto them: Behold, my sons, and my daughters, who are the sons and the daughters of my first-born, I would that ye should give ear unto my words.

Did Jacob and Joseph presumably not have children at this point, or did Lehi not address them for some other reason?

Interesting that he gives Laman the first-born title here . . .

The only other time Laman is distinguished from Lemuel is when he draws the lot to go talk to Laban.  Is that background significant here?

Is it significant that the daughters of this generation (=Lehi’s granddaughters) are addressed, but the daughters of the previous generation (=Lehi’s daughters, others) were not?

4 For the Lord God hath said that: Inasmuch as ye shall keep my commandments ye shall prosper in the land; and inasmuch as ye will not keep my commandments ye shall be cut off from my presence.

This statement seems, in many ways, to be the crux of the message of the BoM.  It deserves careful analysis.  Thoughts to start with:
–What did “commandments” mean to Lehi?  In what ways would his people have had access to those commandments?
–What did “prosper” mean to Lehi?
–Why “in the land”?
–What does it mean to say that “prosper” and “cut off” are opposites?
–What do you make of the antithesis of “in the land” and “from my presence”?
–What do you make of the bifurcated nature of this statement–is there no middle ground?

5 But behold, my sons and my daughters, I cannot go down to my grave save I should leave a blessing upon you; for behold, I know that if ye are brought up in the way ye should go ye will not depart from it.

Skousen reads “brought up in the right way that ye should go” here.

What does “I cannot . . . my grave” mean in this sentence?  Is it simply a rhetorical flourish, or something else?

Why do you think he refers to them as *his* sons and daughters?

The “I know” statement seems a little odd, given that he knows that that is not how they are being brought up.  Why do you think he says that?

Lehi’s statement is very similar to Proverbs 22:7 (“Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.”)

The proverbs are usually interpreted as if they had the words “everything else being equal” at the end as an acknowledgement of their, um, proverbial nature.  Do you think that is true of Lehi’s words here?

Given that L&L were in the process of departing from the way they should go, despite the fact that they were brought up that way, how do you understand what Lehi is saying here?  Is Lehi blaming himself for their apostasy and, if so, is he correct?  See also v6–does it suggest that L&L are responsible, not Lehi?  If so, how do you make sense of all of this?

6 Wherefore, if ye are cursed, behold, I leave my blessing upon you, that the cursing may be taken from you and be answered upon the heads of your parents.

Where does “if ye are cursed” come from?

What does this verse teach about childraising?  Agency?  Responsibility?

7 Wherefore, because of my blessing the Lord God will not suffer that ye shall perish; wherefore, he will be merciful unto you and unto your seed forever.

The combo of v6-7 makes me a little uncomfortable–what about all the kids raised by crummy parents who don’t have this blessings?  Are they just out of luck and cursed?

8 And it came to pass that after my father had made an end of speaking to the sons and daughters of Laman, he caused the sons and daughters of Lemuel to be brought before him.

Why does Lehi separate L&L here, especially since, as the next verse will show, he gives them an identical blessing?

9 And he spake unto them, saying: Behold, my sons and my daughters, who are the sons and the daughters of my second son; behold I leave unto you the same blessing which I left unto the sons and daughters of Laman; wherefore, thou shalt not utterly be destroyed; but in the end thy seed shall be blessed.

Lehi labels this as the same blessing he gave to Laman’s kids, but it is not identical.  What do you make of that?

10 And it came to pass that when my father had made an end of speaking unto them, behold, he spake unto the sons of Ishmael, yea, and even all his household.

Do we presume from the lack of reference to Ishmael’s daughters that they have all married off and are spoken to elsewhere, or that they don’t get a blessing, or what?  Or does the “yea, and even . . .” include the daughters?

11 And after he had made an end of speaking unto them, he spake unto Sam, saying: Blessed art thou, and thy seed; for thou shalt inherit the land like unto thy brother Nephi. And thy seed shall be numbered with his seed; and thou shalt be even like unto thy brother, and thy seed like unto his seed; and thou shalt be blessed in all thy days.

Here’s the blessing order:  Jacob, Joseph, Laman, Lemuel, Ishmael, Sam.  Is that what you would have expected?  Why do you think Lehi went in this order?  What happened to Nephi, and his children?  Grant Hardy suggests that Lehi’s blessing to Nephi contained a plea to keep the family together (since that is a theme in Lehi’s other teachings) and that Nephi therefore did not include the blessing in the record since Nephi wasn’t able to do that.  Does that seem like a reasonable supposition?  Is it possible that Lehi didn’t bless Nephi and, if so, why?  Or, for what other reasons might Nephi have omitted the record of the blessing.  (Of course, the reason he wasn’t able to keep the family together was that the Lord told him to get the heck out of dodge.  However, would he have gotten this command had he not made L&L so angry?  Is that why the theme of the Psalm of Nephi is Nephi’s anger?)  Also see 2 Ne 1:29–that’s close to a blessing for Nephi.  I think the lack of a blessing for Nephi in the BoM is a huge lacuna–what are we to make of it?

John W. Welch:

One of the most enduring legacies of Lehi’s last will and testament appears to be the organization of his descendants into tribes. Just as the ancient patriarch Jacob left the House of Israel with a family structure composed of twelve tribes, Lehi addressed his posterity in seven groups. This seems to be the precedent that established the legal order that lasted among these people for almost one thousand years. After speaking to several of his sons collectively (2 Nephi 1:1–29), Lehi spoke (1) to Zoram in 2 Nephi 1:30–32, (2) to Jacob in 2 Nephi 2, (3) to Joseph in 2 Nephi 3, (4) to the children of Laman in 2 Nephi 4:3–7, (5) to the children of Lemuel in 2 Nephi 4:8–9, (6) to the sons of Ishmael in 2 Nephi 4:10, and (7) to Sam together with Nephi in 2 Nephi 4:11. The seven groups recognizable here are exactly the same as the seven tribes mentioned three other times in the Book of Mormon, each time in the rigid order of “Nephites, Jacobites, Josephites, Zoramites, Lamanites, Lemuelites, and Ishmaelites” (Jacob 1:13; 4 Nephi 38; Mormon 1:8; see also D&C 3:17–18). Though kingships and judgeships might come and go in Nephite history, the underlying family fabric of Nephite society attributable to Lehi’s testament remained permanent (e.g. 3 Nephi 7:2–4). Even in the final days of the Nephite demise, Mormon still saw the general population divided along this precise seven-part line (Mormon 1:8). The fact that this exact organization persisted so long is evidence that Lehi’s last words to his sons in this regard were taken as constitutionally definitive-just as the organization of Israel into twelve tribes in the earlier age had been essential to the political, social, religious and legal structure there.  I see Lehi here acting like Jacob of old. Both Jacob and Lehi pronounced their blessings to “all [their] household” who were gathered around them shortly before they died to organize a household of God in a new land of promise (2 Nephi 4:12; cf. Gen. 49). Seeing Lehi in the patriarchal tradition is borne out by the fact that Lehi was remembered by Nephites from beginning to end as “father Lehi.” Just as Israelites have always known Abraham as “father Abraham,” so the Nephites including Enos, Benjamin, Alma the Younger, Helaman, the later Nephi and Mormon, consistently remembered Lehi as “our father Lehi” (Enos 1:25; Mosiah 1:4; 2:34; Alma 9:9; 18:36, 36:22; 56:3; Hel. 8:22; 3 Nephi 10:17). Since Lehi is the only figure in the Book of Mormon called “our father,” this designation appears to be a unique reference to Lehi’s patriarchal position at the head of Nephite civilization, society, and religion. Citation

What does this verse suggest about their inheritance practices?

I’m kind of fascinated by Sam; he seems to be a good guy but also sort of a non-actor in the family drama.  His passivity reminds me in some ways of Isaac’s in the OT.  (Stuff is always happening to Isaac; he never does anything.)  What do you make of Sam’s character?  What are we to learn from him?

How would you feel if you were Sam and got this blessing?  (At its most hostile reading, there is a sense in which this erases Sam by incorporating his descendants into Nephi’s.)

12 And it came to pass after my father, Lehi, had spoken unto all his household, according to the feelings of his heart and the Spirit of the Lord which was in him, he waxed old. And it came to pass that he died, and was buried.

Where are Nephi’s sisters in all of this?  Did he speak to Sariah?  (This is the moment where it is hard to be a female scripture reader–several chapters of “Dad’s final words” and yet not one word about Sariah’s death (did I miss something?), let alone any advice she gave her children that was worth writing down.)

“According . . .” is interesting.  Does it allow for the possibility that the feelings of his heart were different from the Spirit?

“Waxed old” is interesting–it sounds like something that would take 30 years, but I don’t think that is the case here.  Why do you think Nephi used this expression?

13 And it came to pass that not many days after his death, Laman and Lemuel and the sons of Ishmael were angry with me because of the admonitions of the Lord.

I love what he leaves out:  “angry at me because I told them the admonitions of the Lord, probably not at a good time–what with Dad just dying–and in my usually naive and tactless way.”  See the apologia in the next verse.

14 For I, Nephi, was constrained to speak unto them, according to his word; for I had spoken many things unto them, and also my father, before his death; many of which sayings are written upon mine other plates; for a more history part are written upon mine other plates.

Skousen reads “according to the word” here.

“Constrained” is interesting.  Why do you think Nephi used that word, the same one he used of the Spirit constraining him to kill Laban?

“More history” is the classic example of poor grammar in the BoM.  What do instances such as this suggest to you about the translation process and the degree of control that Joseph Smith had in it?

15 And upon these I write the things of my soul, and many of the scriptures which are engraven upon the plates of brass. For my soul delighteth in the scriptures, and my heart pondereth them, and writeth them for the learning and the profit of my children.

What do you make of Nephi’s opposition between “the more history part” and the “things of my soul”?  (It seems the historians wouldn’t be too thrilled about that . . .) Why would Nephi have copied from the brass plates to these plates?

There are not a lot of references to Nephi’s children.  Does the reference in this verse have anything to do with the fact that Nephi has not narrated a blessing from Lehi to his (Nephi’s) children?  Why do these verses about the record keeping show up in the spot where we would have expected to read about Lehi’s blessing of Nephi and his children?

16 Behold, my soul delighteth in the things of the Lord; and my heart pondereth continually upon the things which I have seen and heard.

This verse is an interesting repetition (but with some changes) of material from the previous verse.  What do you make of the repetition and the lacuna?  What do you make of the leap from scriptures in the previous verse to “things which I have seen and heard” in this verse?

What kind of scripture study leads to delight? What kind of study leads to pondering?  I think this verse is asking us to reflect on our own feelings about the scriptures; do we delight in them?  Do we ponder them?

I find it interesting that all of this pondering and delighting is followed by a psalm of lament!  I think true scripture study might be just as likely to make us morose as joyful!

Susan W. Tanner:

“My soul delighteth in the things of the Lord” (2 Nephi 4:16)—His law, His life, His love. To delight in Him is to acknowledge His hand in our lives. Our gospel duty is to do what is right and to love and delight in what is right. When we delight to serve Him, our Father in Heaven delights to bless us. “I, the Lord, … delight to honor those who serve me in righteousness and in truth unto the end” (D&C 76:5). I want to be worthy always of His delight. Apr 02 GC

17 Nevertheless, notwithstanding the great goodness of the Lord, in showing me his great and marvelous works, my heart exclaimeth:
O wretched man that I am!
Yea, my heart sorroweth because of my flesh;
my soul grieveth because of mine iniquities.

(Note that I have reformatted this section as poetry, given the general agreement that v17-35 constitute “the Psalm of Nephi.”)

Webster 1828  wretched:

 1. Very miserable; sunk into deep affliction or distress, either from want, anxiety or grief.
2. Calamitous; very afflicting; as the wretched condition of slaves in Algiers.
3. Worthless; paltry; very poor or mean; as a wretched poem; a wretched cabin.
4. Despicable; hatefully vile and contemptible. He was guilty of wretched ingratitude.

I think I have always thought of definition (3); but (1) is quite different.  Which definition do you think is best here?  It would be interesting to make the case of (3) or (4) as a reaction to not getting a blessing from his father . . .

Is “O wretched man!” the right attitude to have?  Is Nephi a wretched man?

Does the exclaiming and sorrowing heart in this verse have any relation to the pondering heart in the previous two verses?

If you read heart/sorrow/flesh and soul/grieve/iniquities as poetic parallelism, then what do you make of the link between flesh and iniquities?

18 I am encompassed about,
because of the temptations and the sins which do so easily beset me.

Do you think Nephi was beset with sin more than the average Joe?  Does your answer to the previous question affect how you understand this verse?

What is he encompassed about by?

19 And when I desire to rejoice, my heart groaneth because of my sins;
nevertheless, I know in whom I have trusted.

Should we limit our rejoicing if we are sinful?

What is the relationship between the second phrase and the first phrase here?

Marion D. Hanks:

Nephi understood that true remorse is a gift from God, not a curse, but a blessing.  Apr 1979 GC

20 My God hath been my support;
he hath led me through mine afflictions in the wilderness;
and he hath preserved me upon the waters of the great deep.

This verse is very typical of the language of the psalms, where we would probably take it to be metaphorical.  For Nephi, of course, this is literal!

21 He hath filled me with his love,
even unto the consuming of my flesh.

Is the consuming of flesh what you would have expected to be the result of being filled with God’s love?  What might this imply?

22 He hath confounded mine enemies,
unto the causing of them to quake before me.

Are L&L is enemies?  Is that a productive way for Nephi to think about them?

23 Behold, he hath heard my cry by day,
and he hath given me knowledge by visions in the night-time.

How do the two halves of this verse relate?

24 And by day have I waxed bold in mighty prayer before him;
yea, my voice have I sent up on high;
and angels came down and ministered unto me.

Of what does the ministering of angels consist?  (I always unconsciously picture them putting a band-aid on someone’s forearm and patting their back, but I suspect that isn’t quite right.)

Nice balance between sent up and came down.  Thoughts on what this might teach us about prayer?

25 And upon the wings of his Spirit hath my body been carried away upon exceedingly high mountains.
And mine eyes have beheld great things,
yea, even too great for man;
therefore I was bidden that I should not write them.

Is this a reference to his vision in 1 Ne 11?  If so, what does it tell us about how we should interpret that vision?

What does the metaphor of the Spirit having wings imply to you?

26 O then, if I have seen so great things,
if the Lord in his condescension unto the children of men hath visited men in so much mercy,
why should my heart weep and my soul linger in the valley of sorrow,
and my flesh waste away, and my strength slacken, because of mine afflictions?

Skousen reads “had visited me in so much mercy” here.

What can you learn from this verse about dealing with afflictions?

27 And why should I yield to sin, because of my flesh?
Yea, why should I give way to temptations,
that the evil one have place in my heart to destroy my peace and afflict my soul?
Why am I angry because of mine enemy?

Why do we do things that we know we shouldn’t do?

Why did Nephi choose to use questions here?

Compare this verse’s reference to enemies with v22.  What do you conclude?

28 Awake, my soul! No longer droop in sin.
Rejoice, O my heart,
and give place no more for the enemy of my soul.

Why “awake”?  Is this related to Lehi’s use of the word in speaking to L&L in 2 Ne 1?

This is the only use of “droop” in all of the standard works.

29 Do not anger again because of mine enemies.
Do not slacken my strength because of mine afflictions.

The idea of anger at enemies seems to be a major theme.  Why do you think that was central for Nephi?  How is it relevant to us today?  May I have an exemption for being angry at pedophiles and terrorists?

What is the relationship between the two sentences here?  Does the anger:enemies::slacken:afflictions relationship surprise you?  What might we learn from it?

30 Rejoice, O my heart, and cry unto the Lord, and say: O Lord, I will praise thee forever; yea, my soul will rejoice in thee, my God, and the rock of my salvation.

I’m curious about the idea of ‘telling your heart what to say.’  How do you understand what is going on here?  Is there a risk of phony self-denial in this?

NB shift to speaking directly to the Lord.  This is enallage, not a grammatical error but a deliberate rhetorical technique that in this case shows a move from distance from the Lord to union with the Lord.  More on this idea here.

31 O Lord, wilt thou redeem my soul?
Wilt thou deliver me out of the hands of mine enemies?

Wilt thou make me that I may shake at the appearance of sin?

Are you surprised that Nephi is asking these questions?
Do you get the impression that Nephi is really struggling with his personal sinfulness here?  Does this surprise you?

It would be interesting to consider both the form and content of Nephi’s questions and commands in this psalm.  If you look at those, what patterns emerge?

32 May the gates of hell be shut continually before me, because that my heart is broken and my spirit is contrite!
O Lord, wilt thou not shut the gates of thy righteousness before me,
that I may walk in the path of the low valley,
that I may be strict in the plain road!

Do you conclude from this verse that a contrite spirit and broken heart can shut the gates of hell?  But that the Lord controls the gates of righteousness?

33 O Lord, wilt thou encircle me around in the robe of thy righteousness!
O Lord, wilt thou make a way for mine escape before mine enemies!
Wilt thou make my path straight before me!
Wilt thou not place a stumbling block in my way—
but that thou wouldst clear my way before me,
and hedge not up my way, but the ways of mine enemy.

Encircling in a robe is an odd image–what do you think Nephi is getting at here?

See here for the idea that the encircling in the robe is a ritual embrace symbolizing entering into the presence of the Lord:

What do you think about Nephi praying for his enemies to have trouble?

I’m fascinated by the verbs here:  encircle, make a way, make a path, place a stumbling block, clear the way, not hedge the way.  What do these verbs suggest?

Would not question marks work better in this verse, and perhaps be more consistent with the previous questions?

34 O Lord, I have trusted in thee,
and I will trust in thee forever.
I will not put my trust in the arm of flesh;
for I know that cursed is he that putteth his trust in the arm of flesh.
Yea, cursed is he that putteth his trust in man or maketh flesh his arm.

“Arm” is usually a symbol for power in the OT.  In what ways might we be tempted to trust the power of flesh?  In what ways might Nephi have been tempted to do that?

35 Yea, I know that God will give liberally to him that asketh.
Yea, my God will give me, if I ask not amiss;
therefore I will lift up my voice unto thee;
yea, I will cry unto thee, my God, the rock of my righteousness.
Behold, my voice shall forever ascend up unto thee,
my rock and mine everlasting God. Amen.

Many readers regard this as “The Psalm of Nephi.”  It seems that v34-35 do something different (less poetic, more didactic), and yet the “amen” points to the end of v35 as the end of the unit.  What to make of this?  Do you think this should be read as a psalm?

How would you describe the change in Nephi’s emotional state from the beginning to the end of the psalm?  What causes it to change?

Can you discern a structure in this passage?  How would you outline it? What themes can you identify? What emotions/moods are portrayed?
Are there occasions when Nephi’s word choice is particularly compelling?Consider the images in this text.  Which ones resonate with you? Why do you think Nephi included this passage in the sacred record?

Is there a link between v15-16 (scripture study) and the psalm or is Nephi changing the subject?

I feel like we are seeing a different Nephi in this chapter–one with weaknesses and doubts who writes poetry.  Do you think this is related to the death of Lehi?  What else do you take from this chapter?

Summary thus far:  Lehi gives blessings to all of his descendants except for Nephi (and his kids).  Lehi dies.  Nephi preaches to his brothers, who become angry with him.  Nephi records this rather un-Nephi-like psalm.  What insight does this context give you to what is going on in this chapter?

This is probably the only psalm in the BoM.  Why is there a psalm here?  Is it related to the absence of Nephi’s blessing?

(In what way) is the psalm of Nephi related to the recent death of Lehi?

It seems easy to locate the psalm in the context of increased conflict with his brothers after the death of Lehi, but a little harder to make sense of the context of delighting in the scriptures.  What do you make of those verses as the context for the psalm?

CHAPTER 5
The Nephites separate themselves from the Lamanites, keep the law of Moses, and build a temple—Because of their unbelief, the Lamanites are cursed, receive a skin of blackness, and become a scourge unto the Nephites. Between 588 and 559 B.C.

Note that the chapter heading has been changed in the newest online edition of the scriptures to remove the reference to a “skin of blackness.”  See here for more info.  (Some of the footnotes have been changed as well.)

1 Behold, it came to pass that I, Nephi, did cry much unto the Lord my God, because of the anger of my brethren.

Interesting that in the previous chapter, he seemed to be very focused on his own anger and sins, but that the Psalm of Nephi is bracketed by references to the anger of his brethren.  Given those brackets, how does that affect your interpretation of the psalm?  If the focus of the context is on the anger of his brethren, then why is the content of the psalm focused on Nephi’s own weaknesses?

I’m curious about the anger; it seems to be caused by Lehi’s death.  Why would they be angrier now than they were when Lehi was alive?

2 But behold, their anger did increase against me, insomuch that they did seek to take away my life.

3 Yea, they did murmur against me, saying: Our younger brother thinks to rule over us; and we have had much trial because of him; wherefore, now let us slay him, that we may not be afflicted more because of his words. For behold, we will not have him to be our ruler; for it belongs unto us, who are the elder brethren, to rule over this people.

Why do you think Nephi recorded this verse?

4 Now I do not write upon these plates all the words which they murmured against me. But it sufficeth me to say, that they did seek to take away my life.

5 And it came to pass that the Lord did warn me, that I, Nephi, should depart from them and flee into the wilderness, and all those who would go with me.

NB that flight, not fight (or anything else), is the appropriate response here.

Why was this the right call, after all of those calls to unity and preaching repentance before this?  (Is the fact that they were seeking his life what made the difference?)

Jim F.:  “Contrast verse 1 with 2 Nephi 4:27-29. Following the pattern of Moses and Israel that Nephi has referred to on several occasions, Nephi leaves Laman and Lemuel, taking his family and those who would follow him into the wilderness. The Doctrine and Covenants uses a related imagery when it commands us to leave Babylon, (See, for example, D&C 133:5, 7, and 14). What kinds of meanings can this type have for us today? How can we leave “Babylon” and go into the wilderness? Where is the wilderness today?”

Brant Gardiner points out that in previous, similar situations, Nephi had been protected by an angel.  Why didn’t that happen here and what might we learn from that?

6 Wherefore, it came to pass that I, Nephi, did take my family, and also Zoram and his family, and Sam, mine elder brother and his family, and Jacob and Joseph, my younger brethren, and also my sisters, and all those who would go with me. And all those who would go with me were those who believed in the warnings and the revelations of God; wherefore, they did hearken unto my words.

John L. Sorensen:

Ishmael’s two sons evidently married daughters of Lehi. Nephi’s cryptic mention of his sisters going with him when the colonists split into two factions in the land of promise (2 Nephi 5:6) implied to Sidney B. Sperry that they had left their husbands, sons of Ishmael. I agree. Professor Sperry supported this idea by citing a statement made by Erastus Snow in an address printed in the Journal of Discourses. Apostle Snow said, “The Prophet Joseph Smith informed us that the record of Lehi was contained on the 116 pages that were first translated and subsequently stolen . . . [and] that Ishmael['s] sons married into Lehi’s family, and Lehi’s sons married Ishmael’s daughters.”  Citation

7 And we did take our tents and whatsoever things were possible for us, and did journey in the wilderness for the space of many days. And after we had journeyed for the space of many days we did pitch our tents.

8 And my people would that we should call the name of the place Nephi; wherefore, we did call it Nephi.

9 And all those who were with me did take upon them to call themselves the people of Nephi.

10 And we did observe to keep the judgments, and the statutes, and the commandments of the Lord in all things, according to the law of Moses.

11 And the Lord was with us; and we did prosper exceedingly; for we did sow seed, and we did reap again in abundance. And we began to raise flocks, and herds, and animals of every kind.

Does this verse give you some insight into what “prosper” means in the BoM?

12 And I, Nephi, had also brought the records which were engraven upon the plates of brass; and also the ball, or compass, which was prepared for my father by the hand of the Lord, according to that which is written.

Why the (unnecessary) “I, Nephi” here?

Did his brothers fight him for these objects (and, if so, is it odd that he doesn’t mention it) or just let them go?

13 And it came to pass that we began to prosper exceedingly, and to multiply in the land.

What work does this verse do that v11 didn’t do?  Or is it just redundant and, if so, why?

14 And I, Nephi, did take the sword of Laban, and after the manner of it did make many swords, lest by any means the people who were now called Lamanites should come upon us and destroy us; for I knew their hatred towards me and my children and those who were called my people.

Do you think that v14 implies that he went back for the sword (since v13 has them already prospering in the wilderness), or is he telling the story out of order?  If he goes back, that is an interesting repetition of all of the trips back to Jrsm.  If he is telling it out of order, why would he do that?

If you read the three items together (plate, ball, sword), what do you make of the triad?  Are there any obvious patterns?

Do they copy the plates and/or the ball?  Why only the sword?

See Mosiah 1:16 for how these three items will come to legitimate leadership.  In that light, how do they relate to the items in the ark in the OT?

Does the sword of Laban function symbolically?  Why does Nephi bother mentioning it?

Is Nephi wrong or right to think that their sword-of-Laban clones will protect them?

This is an interesting context in which to introduce the concept of “Lamanites.”  What effect does it have on the reader to be introduced to the Lamanites this way?

Re-read v2-4.  Is Nephi right about “hatred”?

15 And I did teach my people to build buildings, and to work in all manner of wood, and of iron, and of copper, and of brass, and of steel, and of gold, and of silver, and of precious ores, which were in great abundance.

Why was this verse included in the record?  (Is it only to set the stage for v16?)  How did Nephi gain this knowledge?

16 And I, Nephi, did build a temple; and I did construct it after the manner of the temple of Solomon save it were not built of so many precious things; for they were not to be found upon the land, wherefore, it could not be built like unto Solomon’s temple. But the manner of the construction was like unto the temple of Solomon; and the workmanship thereof was exceedingly fine.

Do you see some tension between the abundant precious things in v15 and the lack of them in v16?  And why is Nephi bothering to tell us about all of this, anyway?

In the OT, it is emphasized that the command to build a temple comes from the Lord, not individual initiative.  Is that the case here?

Why the references to Solomon?  (It seems that given their wilderness state, they might have modeled the tabernacle.)

Is this an inside baseball verse, or is there a universal principle here?  Why do you think Nephi included these details about temple construction?

17 And it came to pass that I, Nephi, did cause my people to be industrious, and to labor with their hands.

Wouldn’t this have been a given?  Why would Nephi have thought to mention this?  Is it related to the previous verse?  The next verse?

18 And it came to pass that they would that I should be their king. But I, Nephi, was desirous that they should have no king; nevertheless, I did for them according to that which was in my power.

Nephi’s desires are a huge theme in his vision–is that related to the reference to his desires here?

Does this mean that Nephi was their king?  Is he deliberately evasive here?

If he was the king, what do you make of the fact that he went against his own best judgment here?

It seems clear above, when they name the land after him, that Nephi was already functioning as a leader.  What, then, did they want to do in this verse–a formal coronation?

In (most of) the OT, the desire for a king is not a righteous desire.  (See 1 Sam 8)  Is that the case here?  If so, what do you make of it–the people righteous enough to want to go with Nephi pretty quickly then would be unrighteous enough to want a king.

How does this verse relate to the anti- and pro-monarchy polemics in the OT?

It is hard to imagine this group exceeding 30 or so people at this point.  Is “king” the best word to use here?

Noel B. Reynolds:

The widespread assumption that Nephi was a king cannot be supported conclusively from a reading of the text. If anything, the Book of Mormon text may tilt against that assumption, and at best the textual support for Nephi’s kingship is ambiguous.   Citation  (The entire article is very interesting.)

19 And behold, the words of the Lord had been fulfilled unto my brethren, which he spake concerning them, that I should be their ruler and their teacher. Wherefore, I had been their ruler and their teacher, according to the commandments of the Lord, until the time they sought to take away my life.

This is curious:  Why bother mentioning the fulfillment of this promise, when it was only temporarily fulfilled?  Or does it apply to Nephi’s people and not the Lamanites?  (Was he never supposed to be a ruler/teacher/king of the Lamanites–could L&L have been right about that–although the last line of the verse seems to speak against that?)

What do you make of the leap from king in v18 to ruler and teacher in v19?  If he was a king, was Nephi exceeding what the Lord had asked him to do?

20 Wherefore, the word of the Lord was fulfilled which he spake unto me, saying that: Inasmuch as they will not hearken unto thy words they shall be cut off from the presence of the Lord. And behold, they were cut off from his presence.

I’m thinking it is curious that Nephi has gone back to this topic right after the discussion of temple building.  I think the point might be that if the temple is in the wilderness with Nephi, then this is the sense in which L&L are removed from the presence of the Lord.

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 a 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.

Is the “him” in this verse the Lord?

NB that they were “white” in the same way that Middle Eastern people today are “white,” not in the same way that Scandinavians are “white.”

What does it say about Nephi’s people that the Lamanites would have been enticing to them otherwise?  What does it say about Nephi’s people that the Lamanites were not enticing to them with a skin of blackness?

The Lamanites and Nephites are adopting different lifestyles (hunter/gatherer versus agricultural, lowlands v. highlands).  Is the skin color change related to that?

I think the assumption is that “enticing” refers to a desire to marry.  Might it mean something else?  What if the entire lifestyle would be enticing (sidenote:  I believe studies show that hunter/gatherers spend less time working than farmers do), and the mark is meant to remind them of the consequences of . . . ah, here is where I get hung up.  Is the hunting/gathering wrong in some sense, or just a happenstance side effect of the cultural divergence?  Or, does it take us back to the Cain and Abel story with its difference in mode of earning a living?

Can you read the skin color as a separate thing from the curse?  (The way some people read the mark of Cain as separate from the curse of Cain.)

Gardiner quoting Sorensen:  “The scripture is clear that the Nephites were prejudiced against the Lamanites (Jacob 3:5; Mosiah 9:1-2; Alma 26:23-25). “  Is that an accurate statement?  If it is, was that the right thing for them to do?

Brant Gardiner:

Because we can see the Nephites as possessing a prejudice typical of their age, does that mean that we impute prejudice to God? Of course not. God’s “hand” in this matter was to mark the Lamanites as separate. The prejudices came from the Nephites themselves.  Citation

He suggests that lifestyle plus intermarriage with local people produced the change of skin color.  (How is that consonant with the Lord saying that the skin color was to stop them from being enticing?  Or is it just a big metaphorical way of saying that their intermarrying made them not enticing to the Nephites, and the record here is expressed in a shortened way?)

The “mark” of Cain was meant so that people would not kill him (that is, it was protective).  This mark is so that the people will not be enticing.  What do you make of the difference?

Rodney Turner:

For this reason the Lamanites were declared to be “more righteous” than the “enlightened” Nephites, who despised them for their dark skins and primitive ways. It was their moral virtue that assured their preservation and eventual redemption, even as the immoralities of the early Nephites led to their destruction in the days of Mosiah I (see Jacob 3:39; Jarom 1:10; Omni 1:5, 12–13). . . . While the dark skin was initially designed to insulate Nephi’s followers against the false traditions and godless ways of their Lamanite brethren, in a later turn-about it served to protect the Lamanite people from the fatal sin of their supposedly superior Nephite brethren. The Lamanites’ righteousness in this area was one reason why they were still flourishing more than two centuries after the original Nephite kingdom ceased to exist (see Omni 1:5). In the third century BC, Mosiah I led an exodus of “as many as would hearken unto the voice of the Lord” (Omni 1:13) from the land of Nephi farther northward to the land of Zarahemla, where they united with the more numerous people of Zarahemla (see Omni 1:12–19; see also Mosiah 25:2). Those who remained “in the land of their first inheritance” (Mosiah 9:1; 10:13) were either destroyed by the Lamanites or assimilated into their culture. Such was the irony of the curse! Citation

See Alma 23:18 and 3 Nephi 2:14-16 for removal of the curse/mark.

“Flint” is a rare word in the scriptures.  It is, according to W1828, used for things that are proverbially dark.  Is there a link between the dark flint and the dark skin?  Is the point just that their external state mirrored their internal state so that the Nephites would not be deceived?  If so, why would the Lord do this–wouldn’t it have been better to teach the Nephites not to look at external states and use them to judge internal states?  In fact, wouldn’t this curse just encourage them to judge the internal by the external?

See Alma 3:6-16 and Jacob 3:5-8.

Lamentations 5:10:  “Our skin was black like an oven because of the terrible famine.”
Lamantations 4:8:  “Their visage is blacker than a coal; they are not known in the streets: their skin cleaveth to their bones; it is withered, it is become like a stick.”
Job 30:30:  “My skin is black upon me, and my bones are burned with heat.”

I think most LDS commenters are right that these verses should be read outside of the matrix of US racial issues.  That said, what do you make of the fact that these verses (which, on their face, are most difficult) were included in a record written “for our day”?

22 And thus saith the Lord God: I will cause that they shall be loathsome unto thy people, save they shall repent of their iniquities.

Given that repentance makes the “skin of blackness” go away, does this suggest that it is not, in fact, what we would call a skin of blackness?  Should this be understood figuratively and, if so, what would that mean?

23 And cursed shall be the seed of him that mixeth with their seed; for they shall be cursed even with the same cursing. And the Lord spake it, and it was done.

How is this verse relevant to us today?

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.

Is it the skin color or some other element of the curse that leads them to idleness, etc.?

Is seeking for beasts of prey wrong?  Why?

This verse, not to mention what comes before it, seems to play into the very, very worst stereotypes and beliefs about African Americans.  What do you do with these verses?

25 And the Lord God said unto me: They shall be a scourge unto thy seed, to stir them up in remembrance of me; and inasmuch as they will not remember me, and hearken unto my words, they shall scourge them even unto destruction.

Given that the purpose of the skin of blackness was so that they would not intermarry with the Nephites, what would have constituted the “scourge” part?  In other words, what would their relationship have been?

Is it fair to say that they put the mark upon themselves? Alma 3:13, 14, 18.

26 And it came to pass that I, Nephi, did consecrate Jacob and Joseph, that they should be priests and teachers over the land of my people.

“Over the land” as opposed to “over my people” is unusual and interesting–what do you think it means?

27 And it came to pass that we lived after the manner of happiness.

What does this verse mean?  Why include it?  How would you explain “the manner of happiness.”

28 *And thirty years had passed away from the time we left Jerusalem.

29 And I, Nephi, had kept the records upon my plates, which I had made, of my people thus far.

30 And it came to pass that the Lord God said unto me: Make other plates; and thou shalt engraven many things upon them which are good in my sight, for the profit of thy people.

31 Wherefore, I, Nephi, to be obedient to the commandments of the Lord, went and made these plates upon which I have engraven these things.

32 And I engraved that which is pleasing unto God. And if my people are pleased with the things of God they will be pleased with mine engravings which are upon these plates.

33 And if my people desire to know the more particular part of the history of my people they must search mine other plates.

34 And it sufficeth me to say that *forty years had passed away, and we had already had wars and contentions with our brethren.

How did we get from the happiness in v27 to wars?  Does this mean wars with Lamanites, or civil wars among the Nephites?

General Themes:
(1) What does the Psalm of Nephi do to our view of Nephi?

(2) The driver of the action in these chapters is L&L’s anger, particularly after Lehi’s death when Nephi begins to be a ruler and teacher over them.   It seems too pat to say that we need to recognize the authority of those over us.  What else might we do with these chapters?

(3) Transitions:  Lehi’s death, the separation of Lehi’s descendents.  What do we take from these stories?

—————————-

Additional Resources:
“The Psalm of Nephi:  A Lyric Reading”

“Lehi’s Last Will and Testament: A Legal Approach”

“The Israelite Background of Moses Typology in the Book of Mormon”

President Boyd K. Packer, Acting President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and himself a master teacher, has a question he often asks when we have made a presentation or given some sort of exhortation to one another in the Twelve. He looks up as if to say, “Are you through?” and then says to the speaker (and, by implication, to the rest of the group), “Therefore, what?”  . . . You and I know that too many people have not made the connection between what they say they believe and how they actually live their lives.  Citation

. . . and invite the class to think about the “therefore, what” today.  We’ll be studying 2 Nephi 2, which is Lehi’s final words to Jacob (but really all of his sons).  This chapter is doctrinal and abstract, and so, I think, more meaningful if we keep asking ourselves “therefore, what?” as we study.  I will probably explicitly ask the “therefore, what”? question–looking for real-life applications–for each verse as we conclude our discussion of it.  So if this lesson seems a little short on practical application questions, that’s why.

2 Nephi 1
1 And now it came to pass that after I, Nephi, had made an end of teaching my brethren, our father, Lehi, also spake many things unto them, and rehearsed unto them, how great things the Lord had done for them in bringing them out of the land of Jerusalem.

What do you make of the fact that Nephi was teaching before Lehi spoke?  Why are Lehi’s words recorded but Nephi’s are not?

NB that a choice is made here–a choice to focus on the good things that the Lord did in bringing them out as opposed to the hard things they faced as a part of that process.

2 And he spake unto them concerning their rebellions upon the waters, and the mercies of God in sparing their lives, that they were not swallowed up in the sea.

3 And he also spake unto them concerning the land of promise, which they had obtained—how merciful the Lord had been in warning us that we should flee out of the land of Jerusalem.

What is the land of promise–all of the all of the Americas, or a small portion of it where this group actually lived, or something in between?  (I think how you answer this question makes a big difference in how you interpret the rest of this chapter [see v5, for example], and perhaps how you view the US.)

How does the part of the verse after the dash relate to the part before it?

4 For, behold, said he, I have seen a vision, in which I know that Jerusalem is destroyed; and had we remained in Jerusalem we should also have perished.

This is a very interesting vision in that it shows them contemporaneous, contrafactual events in another part of the world. (I’m having a hard time thinking of any similar visions . . .)   It is also interesting in that it showed them perishing in Jerusalem, when many people were either taken into captivity (but survived) or continued to live in Jerusalem (under foreign rule).

5 But, said he, notwithstanding our afflictions, we have obtained a land of promise, a land which is choice above all other lands; a land which the Lord God hath covenanted with me should be a land for the inheritance of my seed. Yea, the Lord hath covenanted this land unto me, and to my children forever, and also all those who should be led out of other countries by the hand of the Lord.

Do you read “above all other lands” as the kind of hyperbole one sometimes encounters in scriptural writings (cf. Matthew 3:5) or more literally?

The original manuscript has “consecrated” instead of the second instance of “covenanted” here.

6 Wherefore, I, Lehi, prophesy according to the workings of the Spirit which is in me, that there shall none come into this land save they shall be brought by the hand of the Lord.

(In what ways) does this verse apply to Africans brought to the New World in slavery?

While I would never, ever, ever ask a question like this while teaching, I think it might be worthwhile to consider how this verse could shape how we might think about US immigration policy and foreign affairs (if you think “the promised land” includes the US).

7 Wherefore, this land is consecrated unto him whom he shall bring. And if it so be that they shall serve him according to the commandments which he hath given, it shall be a land of liberty unto them; wherefore, they shall never be brought down into captivity; if so, it shall be because of iniquity; for if iniquity shall abound cursed shall be the land for their sakes, but unto the righteous it shall be blessed forever.

Cursed “for their” sakes is an interesting concept and is reminiscent of Genesis 3:17 (“cursed is the ground for thy sake”).  Does this verse teach you anything about the cursing of the ground in Genesis, or does the Genesis story teach you anything about the cursing of the land here?

What does it mean for land to be consecrated?  (Especially since it is conditional.)  What is the link between consecration and liberty?

8 And behold, it is wisdom that this land should be kept as yet from the knowledge of other nations; for behold, many nations would overrun the land, that there would be no place for an inheritance.

One way to read this verse is that the power of the Lord is not such that the land could have been consecrated to these people had too many others arrived.  Is that accurate?  If so, what does it teach you about the Lord, the land, the promises, etc.?

9 Wherefore, I, Lehi, have obtained a promise, that inasmuch as those whom the Lord God shall bring out of the land of Jerusalem shall keep his commandments, they shall prosper upon the face of this land; and they shall be kept from all other nations, that they may possess this land unto themselves. And if it so be that they shall keep his commandments they shall be blessed upon the face of this land, and there shall be none to molest them, nor to take away the land of their inheritance; and they shall dwell safely forever.

I think the tendency is to read v6-9 as applying to modern America, but then v10-11 seem to suggest that v6-9 applies to pre-Columbian America.  Which do you think it is?

According to this verse, is it possible that, had the Lamanites been more righteous, Europeans would not have been allowed to settle in the New World? (But cf. the use of the word ‘when’ in the beginning of the next verse.) If so, what does this suggest about European settlement of the Americas, the Lord’s justice, Native Americans, etc.?

10 But behold, when the time cometh that they shall dwindle in unbelief, after they have received so great blessings from the hand of the Lord—having a knowledge of the creation of the earth, and all men, knowing the great and marvelous works of the Lord from the creation of the world; having power given them to do all things by faith; having all the commandments from the beginning, and having been brought by his infinite goodness into this precious land of promise—behold, I say, if the day shall come that they will reject the Holy One of Israel, the true Messiah, their Redeemer and their God, behold, the judgments of him that is just shall rest upon them.

Verse 9 made promises predicated on their righteousness; v10 begins with “when” they break those promises.  What happened to their free agency?

Why the focus on “unbelief” and not “unrighteousness”?  (By comparison, there is virtually nothing in the OT about “unbelief” relative to the amount of concern about wrong actions.)

Why so many titles for Jesus here?

What work does the phrase “him that is just” do in this verse?

Some readers see v10 as highly analogous to modern LDS temple worship.  If you find those similarities here, what do you make of them?

What do you make of the shift from “when” in the beginning of the verse to “if” at the end?

11 Yea, he will bring other nations unto them, and he will give unto them power, and he will take away from them the lands of their possessions, and he will cause them to be scattered and smitten.

This verse is even more clear in suggesting that European colonization of the Americas is an instrument of the Lord’s punishment for covenant breaking.  What do you make of this reading?  What does it teach you about history?

12 Yea, as one generation passeth to another there shall be bloodsheds, and great visitations among them; wherefore, my sons, I would that ye would remember; yea, I would that ye would hearken unto my words.

13 O that ye would awake; awake from a deep sleep, yea, even from the sleep of hell, and shake off the awful chains by which ye are bound, which are the chains which bind the children of men, that they are carried away captive down to the eternal gulf of misery and woe.

What is the link between this verse (which seems to be very personal) and the previous verses (which seem to be more historical/political)?  Given the personal situation as described in this verse, why do you think Lehi spent so much time in the previous verses talking about future/historical/political matters?

I’m struck by the contrast between the chains that currently are holding them captive and the liberty that they have been promised above.

Marvin J. Ashton:

Lehi warned his sons to “shake off the chains” because he knew that chains restrict our mobility, growth, and happiness.  . . . Samuel Johnson wisely shared, “The chains of habit are too small to be felt until they are too strong to be broken” (International Dictionary of Thoughts, Chicago: J. G. Ferguson Publishing Co., 1969, p. 348).  Oct 1986 GC

Spencer W. Kimball:

[There] are Church members who are steeped in lethargy. They neither drink nor commit the sexual sins. They do not gamble nor rob nor kill. They are good citizens and splendid neighbors, but spiritually speaking they seem to be in a long, deep sleep.
They are doing nothing seriously wrong except in their failures to do the right things… To such people as this, the words of Lehi might well apply… (Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, p149)

This goes back to my theme of L&L and not being really evil, but more like modern-day slackers.

Why is sleep a good metaphor for sin?

“Deep sleep” is evocative; is it related to :
–Genesis 2:21 (“And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs”)?
–Genesis 15:12 (“And when the sun was going down, a deep sleep fell upon Abram; and, lo, an horror of great darkness fell upon him. “)?
–Isaiah 29:10 (“For the Lord hath poured out upon you the spirit of deep sleep, and hath closed your eyes: the prophets and your rulers, the seers hath he covered. “)?
–Acts 20:9  (“And there sat in a window a certain young man named Eutychus, being fallen into a deep sleep: and as Paul was long preaching, he sunk down with sleep, and fell down from the third loft, and was taken up dead.”)?

On chains:
–Alma 12:11:  “And they that will harden their hearts, to them is given the lesser portion of the word until they know nothing concerning his mysteries; and then they are taken captive by the devil, and led by his will down to destruction. Now this is what is meant by the chains of hell.”
–Moses 7 :26:  “And he beheld Satan; and he had a great chain in his hand, and it veiled the whole face of the earth with darkness; and he looked up and laughed, and his angels rejoiced.”

Why are chains a good image here?

14 Awake! and arise from the dust, and hear the words of a trembling parent, whose limbs ye must soon lay down in the cold and silent grave, from whence no traveler can return; a few more days and I go the way of all the earth.

Is this dust related to the dust from which Adam was created?  That might be a tenuous link, but combined with the “deep sleep” of v13, and the idea of Lehi dying as everyone must (and as he specifically mentions) and therefore returning to the dust/grave, I think there might be a link.  If so, what work is it doing?

What did Lehi want to suggest by “trembling”?

Why “limbs”?  (Why not all of him?  Why focus on the limbs?)  (“Limb” does not appear in the KJV.)

This verse seems awfully poetic compared to the rest of Lehi’s speech–any sense as to why that might be so?

15 But behold, the Lord hath redeemed my soul from hell; I have beheld his glory, and I am encircled about eternally in the arms of his love.

Nice inversion between the chains that make you captive and the arms here.

It is interesting to think of someone as righteous as Lehi being redeemed from hell.  What might we learn from that?

I thought it was very interesting that this appears to be one of a few (or, perhaps, the only) scripture cited by more female speakers at General Conference than it is by men.  (This would be particularly significant given the ratio of female to male speakers!)  Now, I can’t say that I have checked every single scripture verse for gender ratio in its use (although I’ve checked a lot), and part of the disparity is probably due to the fact that “encircled in the arms of his love” was a Relief Society theme in 2006, but still.

Bonnie D. Parkin:

Do we frequently reject the Lord’s love that He pours out upon us in much more abundance than we are willing to receive? Do we think we have to be perfect in order to deserve His love…? This is a gospel of eternal progress, and we must remember to appreciate the journey. Eternal means ‘without beginning or end,’ so the encircling of His love is there for us every day. Nov 06 GC

Why is being eternally embraced by the Lord a good metaphor?

In the OT, ‘arm’ is usually a metaphor for power/strength.  Is that the case here?

16 And I desire that ye should remember to observe the statutes and the judgments of the Lord; behold, this hath been the anxiety of my soul from the beginning.

17 My heart hath been weighed down with sorrow from time to time, for I have feared, lest for the hardness of your hearts the Lord your God should come out in the fulness of his wrath upon you, that ye be cut off and destroyed forever;

18 Or, that a cursing should come upon you for the space of many generations; and ye are visited by sword, and by famine, and are hated, and are led according to the will and captivity of the devil.

19 O my sons, that these things might not come upon you, but that ye might be a choice and a favored people of the Lord. But behold, his will be done; for his ways are righteousness forever.

Do you see anything in v16-19 that you would or would not want to model as a parent?  How effective do you think this is as a call to repentance?

20 And he hath said that: Inasmuch as ye shall keep my commandments ye shall prosper in the land; but inasmuch as ye will not keep my commandments ye shall be cut off from my presence.

The original manuscript has “his” before commandments and prosper instead of “my.”

Note the parallel in this verse:
keep commandments -> prosper in the land
not keep commandments -> cut off from presence

Does this suggest anything about what “prosper” means?  “Cut off” is frequently used in covenant contexts in the OT with great debate about its meaning (does it mean excommunicated, killed, denied posterity, denied God’s presence after life, etc.)–what do you think it means here?  What do you make of the link between the land and the presence of the Lord?

21 And now that my soul might have joy in you, and that my heart might leave this world with gladness because of you, that I might not be brought down with grief and sorrow to the grave, arise from the dust, my sons, and be men, and be determined in one mind and in one heart, united in all things, that ye may not come down into captivity;

No mental health professional today would approve of what Lehi is doing here–namely, couching their righteousness as a condition of his happiness, or telling them to be righteous for his sake.  This verse drips with guilt, particularly given its ‘deathbed’ setting.  Do you approve of what Lehi is doing here?  Is he doing the best possible thing here?  (We often assume that ‘if a good guy in the scriptures does something, we should model it,’ but it is not clear to me that that is always the case.)

Does ‘arise from the dust’ allude to the creation of Adam?

I’m curious about the emphasis on unity here, since Lehi, Nephi, visions, angels, etc., have described divisions between the brothers.

D. Todd Christofferson:

The prophet Lehi pled with his rebellious sons, saying, “Arise from the dust, my sons, and be men” (2 Nephi 1:21; emphasis added). By age, Laman and Lemuel were men, but in terms of character and spiritual maturity they were still as children. They murmured and complained if asked to do anything hard. They didn’t accept anyone’s authority to correct them. They didn’t value spiritual things. They easily resorted to violence, and they were good at playing the victim.  Oct 06 GC

I’m fascinated by how the BoM constructs masculinity, and this verse (particularly with the kind of comments on it that are traditional, such as Elder Christofferson’s) might be Exhibit A for that endeavor.  What does this verse suggest about what it means to be a Real Man?  Or is no gendered message implied here?

22 That ye may not be cursed with a sore cursing; and also, that ye may not incur the displeasure of a just God upon you, unto the destruction, yea, the eternal destruction of both soul and body.

Are “cursed with a sore cursing” and “incurring the displeasure of God” two ways of saying the same thing or two different things?

How do you understand a phrase like “the destruction, yea, the eternal destruction”:  is this emphasis or the correction of an error when you can’t erase?  Or something else?

Is Lehi saying that souls can be destroyed?

23 Awake, my sons; put on the armor of righteousness. Shake off the chains with which ye are bound, and come forth out of obscurity, and arise from the dust.

Does this verse allude to Isaiah 29:18 (“And in that day shall the deaf hear the words of the book, and the eyes of the blind shall see out of obscurity, and out of darkness.”)?  Cf. 2 Ne 27:29.

Why is “arise from the dust” the phrase that Lehi keeps returning to?  Is it a reference to Adam as a creation of the dust?  Is the point that they should exercise their agency as Adam did?

Does “the armor of righteousness” suggest that righteous living is a battle?

24 Rebel no more against your brother, whose views have been glorious, and who hath kept the commandments from the time that we left Jerusalem; and who hath been an instrument in the hands of God, in bringing us forth into the land of promise; for were it not for him, we must have perished with hunger in the wilderness; nevertheless, ye sought to take away his life; yea, and he hath suffered much sorrow because of you.

This verse is the only scriptural combo of views/glorious.  I’m fascinating by that phrase–it strikes my ear as very unusual–but I’m not sure what to make of it.

This is one of those moments where I think we suspect that the record might read just a touch differently if someone other than Nephi had been writing it.  ;)    Am I being overly cynical in my approach to this verse?

I’ve always been oddly fascinated by the phrase “instrument in the hands of God”  (See all scripture refs here; NB that it is only used in the BoM, not the Bible), but perhaps that is to be expected from someone whose conversion involved A Prayer for Owen Meany.

25 And I exceedingly fear and tremble because of you, lest he shall suffer again; for behold, ye have accused him that he sought power and authority over you; but I know that he hath not sought for power nor authority over you, but he hath sought the glory of God, and your own eternal welfare.

26 And ye have murmured because he hath been plain unto you. Ye say that he hath used sharpness; ye say that he hath been angry with you; but behold, his sharpness was the sharpness of the power of the word of God, which was in him; and that which ye call anger was the truth, according to that which is in God, which he could not restrain, manifesting boldly concerning your iniquities.

Skousen reads “constrain” instead of “restrain” here.

Do you agree with Lehi that Nephi’s plainness was the cause of the murmuring?  (I’m not convinced.)

Was Nephi sharp and angry with them?  Does Lehi here justify those things?  Is anger justified if it is true?  (‘Cuz I could have a lot of fun with that . . .)

Does sharpness relate to D& C 12143 (“Reproving betimes with sharpness”)?

W1828 ‘sharpness’:

1. Keenness of an edge or point; as the sharpness of a razor or a dart.

2. Not obtuseness.

3. Pungency; acidity; as the sharpness of vinegar.

4. Pungency of pain; keenness; severity of pain or affliction; as the sharpness of pain, grief or anguish.

5. Painfulness; afflictiveness; as the sharpness or calamity.

And the best quarrels in the heat are curst

6. Severity of language; pungency; satirical sarcasm; as the sharpness of a satire or rebuke.

7. Acuteness of intellect; the power of nice discernment; quickness of understanding; ingenuity; as sharpness of wit or understanding.

8. Quickness of sense or perception; as the sharpness of sight.

9. Keenness; severity as the sharpness of the air or weather.

Which one fits best here?

27 And it must needs be that the power of God must be with him, even unto his commanding you that ye must obey. But behold, it was not he, but it was the Spirit of the Lord which was in him, which opened his mouth to utterance that he could not shut it.

What happened to their moral agency here?  It sounds as if it is trumped by the Spirit acting in Nephi.

Do you read the last sentence as literally true or hyperbolic?

28 And now my son, Laman, and also Lemuel and Sam, and also my sons who are the sons of Ishmael, behold, if ye will hearken unto the voice of Nephi ye shall not perish. And if ye will hearken unto him I leave unto you a blessing, yea, even my first blessing.

Are you surprised to see Sam mentioned here?

What does ‘first blessing’ mean here?

29 But if ye will not hearken unto him I take away my first blessing, yea, even my blessing, and it shall rest upon him.

Am I right that there is no record of a blessing from Lehi to Nephi?  If so, what to make of that omission?  Is it because *this* is the blessing that Nephi gets?  (If so, that would have put Nephi in the somewhat odd position of hoping that his brothers fail, else Nephi would be left with no blessing.)

What exactly is the content of the blessing?  Why isn’t it specified?

30 And now, Zoram, I speak unto you: Behold, thou art the servant of Laban; nevertheless, thou hast been brought out of the land of Jerusalem, and I know that thou art a true friend unto my son, Nephi, forever.

Why is Zoram separated, especially from the sons of Ishmael?

Why does he refer to him as the servant of Laban in the present tense?  Why say it at all–everyone knows that anyway?

Friendship is not a well-developed theme in the Bible, save maybe the David and Jonathan story.  Is that alluded to here?

Given their initial interaction (which, let us remember, involved death, deception, threats, etc.), how did Zoram end up being “a true friend” to Nephi?  Is he supposed to be a foil to L&L here–he has every reason to despise Nephi, but does just the opposite?  (OK, I’ll just say it:  Is Zoram suffering from Stockholm Syndrome?)

31 Wherefore, because thou hast been faithful thy seed shall be blessed with his seed, that they dwell in prosperity long upon the face of this land; and nothing, save it shall be iniquity among them, shall harm or disturb their prosperity upon the face of this land forever.

The content of Zoram’s blessing is, I think, identical to that articulated above to L&L, but the tone is sure different–much more positive.  What do you make of this?

32 Wherefore, if ye shall keep the commandments of the Lord, the Lord hath consecrated this land for the security of thy seed with the seed of my son.

Chapter 2
1 And now, Jacob, I speak unto you: Thou art my first-born in the days of my tribulation in the wilderness. And behold, in thy childhood thou hast suffered afflictions and much sorrow, because of the rudeness of thy brethren.

Why does Jacob get such a long speech directed to him, when Zoram got just a brief mention and Sam got lumped in with L&L and the sons of Ishmael?

Brant Gardner:

The discourse is directed to Jacob, but it is a convenience. It is a way Lehi can continue to teach his wayward sons important spiritual information without spending too much obvious time lecturing them, a tactic that while it might have been the real desire of father Lehi’s heart, would have been too difficult for Laman and Lemuel to bear. They would have ceased listening (perhaps) had the lesson been directed to them, but might (just possibly) hear what was said to their brother, and learn from that.  Citation

Jacob is Lehi’s fifth son and the word “Jacob” means “supplanter.”  What’s going on here when Lehi calls him “his first-born son”?  (I realize the phrase is modified by “in the wilderness,” but still.  It would never occur to me to call my second child “my first-born son in Texas.”)

Feast wiki:  “What does Lehi mean by wilderness? Is it important that his tribulations occur in a wilderness? How are Lehi’s “days of tribulation in the wilderness” separated from or related to his pre-existent days in Jerusalem or his later days in the paradise of the promised land? Does Lehi somehow see his whole journey as a type of our premortal, mortal, and post-mortal existence?”

John Tvedtnes:

The use of the term firstborn implies that Lehi may have considered Jacob to be a replacement for his eldest son, Laman, with his younger son Joseph being a replacement for the second son, Lemuel.  We have a parallel to this situation in Genesis 48:5, 16, where Jacob adopted Joseph’s sons Manasseh and Ephraim in place of Reuben and Simeon, who had sinned (see Genesis 34:30; 35:22; 49:3–5). In consequence of Reuben’s sins, he was replaced as firstborn by Joseph (see 1 Chronicles 5:1–2).  . . . The name Jacob is explained as “supplanter” in the King James Bible of Genesis 27:36 (compare 25:23–26), but could just as easily be read “successor” or “replacement,” since Jacob replaced Esau as firstborn and received the birthright and the blessing (see Genesis 25:29–34; 27:22–40). Esau was unfit to serve as firstborn. Citation

Would he have suffered without the rudeness of his brothers?  In other words, wouldn’t the journey have caused suffering anyway?  So why do you think Lehi focuses on the brothers’ actions here?

W1828 “rudeness”:

1. A rough broken state; unevenness; wildness; as the rudeness of a mountain, country or landscape.

2. Coarseness of manners; incivility; rusticity; vulgarity.

3. Ignorance; unskillfulness.

4. Artlessness; coarseness; inelegance; as the rudeness of a painting or piece of sculpture.

5. Violence; impetuosity; as the rudeness of an attack or shock.

6. Violence; storminess; as the rudeness of winds or of the season.

1 Ne 18:9 is only other scriptural use of rudeness; there, it focuses on what they said.

John Tvedtnes:

Though “rude” has come to mean “impolite” in twentieth-century English, at the time Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon it meant “wild” or “savage.”  Citation

2 Nevertheless, Jacob, my first-born in the wilderness, thou knowest the greatness of God; and he shall consecrate thine afflictions for thy gain.

What effect does the repetition of “first-born in the wilderness” from the previous verse have on the reader?

Joseph Smith’s famous quote, which might help us think about what consecrated affliction looks like:

I am like a huge, rough stone rolling down from a high mountain; and the only polishing I get is when some corner gets rubbed off by coming in contact with something else, striking with accelerated force against religious bigotry, priest-craft, lawyer-craft, doctor-craft, lying editors, suborned judges and jurors, and the authority of perjured executives, backed by mobs, blasphemers, licentious and corrupt men and women-all hell knocking off a corner here and a corner there. Thus I will become a smooth and polished shaft in the quiver of the Almighty, who will give me dominion over all and every one of them, when their refuge of lies shall fail, and their hiding place shall be destroyed, while these smooth-polished stones with which I come in contact become marred. (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 304)

Is there a link between knowing the greatness of God and having afflictions consecrated?

Feast wiki:  “What is happening here as Lehi moves from the past (hast suffered) to the present (knowest) to the future (shall consecrate)? How does knowing “the greatness of God” in the present influence our past and future?”

Consecrate means “to make sacred.”  So this verse is saying that your afflictions can be made sacred.  What might that look like?  Does it imply that not all afflictions are consecrated?

Any personal experiences with having your afflictions consecrated for your gain?

Dallin H. Oaks:

I love the musical and motion picture Fiddler on the Roof. There a wonderful Jewish father sings “If I Were a Rich Man.” His memorable prayer concludes with this pleading question:

Lord, who made the lion and the lamb,

You decreed I should be what I am;

Would it spoil some vast eternal plan,

If I were a wealthy man?

(Lyrics by Sheldon Harnick [1964])

Yes, Tevye, it might. Let us give thanks for what we are and for the circumstances God has given us for our personal journey through mortality. In ancient times the prophet Lehi taught this truth to his son Jacob: “In thy childhood thou hast suffered afflictions and much sorrow, because of the rudeness of thy brethren.Nevertheless, Jacob, my first-born in the wilderness, thou knowest the greatness of God; and he shall consecrate thine afflictions for thy gain” My mother loved that scripture and lived its principle. The greatest affliction of her life was the death of her husband, our father, after only 11 years of marriage. This changed her life and imposed great hardships as she proceeded to earn a living and raise her three little children alone. Nevertheless, I often heard her say that the Lord consecrated that affliction for her gain because her husband’s death compelled her to develop her talents and serve and become something that she could never have become without that seeming tragedy.  Apr 03 GC

3 Wherefore, thy soul shall be blessed, and thou shalt dwell safely with thy brother, Nephi; and thy days shall be spent in the service of thy God. Wherefore, I know that thou art redeemed, because of the righteousness of thy Redeemer; for thou hast beheld that in the fulness of time he cometh to bring salvation unto men.

Is “soul” significant here (not body, seed, etc.)?

On what basis does Lehi know that Jacob is redeemed?  Is it curious that he can know this (1) 600 years before the redeeming act has been performed and (2) while Jacob is still quite young and still has choices to make?

NB *why* he is redeemed–it is because of the Redeemer, not because of anything he did.

I like the link between service and redemption here.  I also think this verse is probably saying that being able to spend your days in service is a blessing; that is not how our culture usually views it.  Thoughts on this?  Experiences with this?

Is Lehi alluding to a revelatory experience (“thou hast beheld”) that Jacob had that we don’t know about?

We usually refer to the present dispensation as “the fulness of time,” but here it appears to be a reference to the time of Jesus’ mortality.  Here is W1828 on fulness:

1. The state of being filled, so as to leave no part vacant.

2. The state of abounding or being in great plenty; abundance.

3. Completeness; the state of a thing in which nothing is wanted; perfection.

What does Lehi mean by referring to “the fulness of time”?

Feast wiki:  “Of curious interest in this verse is Lehi’s blessing upon Jacob of being dedicated to “the service of thy God.” The word “service” in the Old Testament is almost universally used in reference to the work of the temple priests. That Jacob clearly goes on to be associated quite closely with the temple (see 2 Nephi 6-10, and of course Jacob 1-3) perhaps suggests that this is precisely what is at work here: Lehi sets Jacob the task of becoming a temple priest. If this is the case, then the whole of this chapter might be re-read according to temple themes: Lehi discusses the creation, the fall, and the atonement. Moreover, this perhaps clarifies the consecration Lehi promises in verse 2: Jacob’s negative experiences will somehow work to his benefit as a temple priest.”

4 And thou hast beheld in thy youth his glory; wherefore, thou art blessed even as they unto whom he shall minister in the flesh; for the Spirit is the same, yesterday, today, and forever. And the way is prepared from the fall of man, and salvation is free.

Again, does this verse suggest that Jacob had a vision?

W1828 free.  Which of those definitions fit here?  Is it the same for v26?

Jim F.:  “The ideas in this verse move from “you have seen Christ in his glory” to “your experience is the same as that of those who will know him when he comes to earth” to “the Spirit is the same at every time” to “the way for salvation has been prepared from the beginning and salvation is free.” It is not difficult to see the connection of the first three ideas, but how is the fourth idea connected to the three that precede it?”

Why is the Spirit being the same related to the similarity of blessings?

Could “the way” here have the semi-technical meaning that it has in the NT as a reference to Xianity?

What does ‘free’ mean in this verse?

5 And men are instructed sufficiently that they know good from evil. And the law is given unto men. And by the law no flesh is justified; or, by the law men are cut off. Yea, by the temporal law they were cut off; and also, by the spiritual law they perish from that which is good, and become miserable forever.

Is the first sentence true of all people everywhere?  If not, why does Lehi say it?  If so, then why do we need proxy baptism, etc.?  Is Moroni 7:15-16 helpful here (meaning, is this referring to the light of Christ, which is given to all people)?

Does “sufficiently instructed” perhaps just refer to the Fall (meaning:  Adam and Eve knew the consequences of their actions)? (I am thinking that the “they” in this verse is Adam and Eve.)  If so, what to make of how they could know “good from evil” before they had eaten of “the tree of knowledge of good and evil”?

What is meant by temporal law and spiritual law?  Does it refer to the two “conflicting commandments” in Eden?  If so, which was which?

Perhaps the instruction here is a reference to the premortal life;  Robert D. Hales:

He taught that “men are instructed sufficiently that they know good from evil.” This sacred instruction began in the heavens.  Apr 06 GC

Think about the relationship between the first two sentences:  What is the relationship between the law (of Moses) and knowing good from evil?

Do we get a distinction between the temporal law and the spiritual law in the OT?  If not, where does Lehi get it from?  What does it mean?

What is the point of the Lord giving a law that cannot be kept?  What does this practice suggest about the Lord?  (A hostile view would be something like this:  The Lord gave them a law they had no way of keeping to make them miserable.)

6 Wherefore, redemption cometh in and through the Holy Messiah; for he is full of grace and truth.

The “in and through” makes me think that particular attention is being paid to the propositions in this verse.  With that in mind, what work are “in and through” doing here?

Why call him “Messiah” here instead of “Redeemer”?

“Messiah” is a Hebrew word that means ‘anointed.’  “Christ” is a Greek word that means ‘anointed.’  Why do you think the text here reads “Messiah” instead of “Christ” or “anointed”?

Why is Jesus’ being full of grace and truth relevant here?

7 Behold, he offereth himself a sacrifice for sin, to answer the ends of the law, unto all those who have a broken heart and a contrite spirit; and unto none else can the ends of the law be answered.

W1828 contrite:  “Literally, worn or bruised. Hence, broken-hearted for sin; deeply affected with grief and sorrow for having offended God; humble; penitent; as a contrite sinner.”  What would be a good modern translation for ‘broken heart and contrite spirit”?  Is it two ways of saying one thing, or two different things?

Richard G. Scott:

This absolute requisite of “a broken heart and a contrite spirit” prescribes the need to be submissive, compliant, humble (that is, teachable), and willingly obedient. Apr 97 GC

Ezra Taft Benson:

Godly sorrow is defined as a sorrow that leads us to repentance. Godly sorrow is a gift of the Spirit. It is a deep realization that our actions have offended our Father and our God. It is the sharp and keen awareness that our behavior caused the Savior, He who knew no sin, even the greatest of all, to endure agony and suffering. Our sins caused Him to bleed at every pore. This very real mental and spiritual anguish is what the scriptures refer to as having “a broken heart and a contrite spirit.” Such a spirit is the absolute prerequisite for true repentance.  Oct 89 GC

Richard G. Scott, referring to v6-7:

That scripture indicates that for the proud and haughty, it is as though there never were an Atonement made.  Apr 2010 GC

Why “the ends of”?  How would the verse be different without those words?  (Ends of usually means ‘purpose of.’)  What are the ends/purposes of the law?  Does knowing that the purpose of the law can’t be fulfilled without (1) Jesus offering himself as a sacrifice and (2) people with broken heart and contrite spirits teach you something about the purposes of the law?

8 Wherefore, how great the importance to make these things known unto the inhabitants of the earth, that they may know that there is no flesh that can dwell in the presence of God, save it be through the merits, and mercy, and grace of the Holy Messiah, who layeth down his life according to the flesh, and taketh it again by the power of the Spirit, that he may bring to pass the resurrection of the dead, being the first that should rise.

What does “according to the flesh” mean in this verse?  Does it relate to “no flesh can dwell” earlier in the verse?  Why the emphasis on flesh?

Jim F.:  “What does the phrase “merits, and mercy, and grace” mean? Should we understand each of those three terms separately, or should we understand the phrase as a unit? To think about what is being said here, ask yourself what it means to rely only on the merit of the Messiah. Then ask yourself what it means only to rely on his mercy. And then on his grace.”

Does the idea of doing “missionary work” imply that Lehi knew that Jacob would encounter other people in the promised land?

9 Wherefore, he is the firstfruits unto God, inasmuch as he shall make intercession for all the children of men; and they that believe in him shall be saved.

Why is firstfruits relevant here?

Jim F.:  “Lehi tells us that Christ is the firstfruits inasmuch as, or because, he intercedes. How does his intercession make him the firstfruits?”

What does this verse have to say about the interplay of faith and works?

10 And because of the intercession for all, all men come unto God; wherefore, they stand in the presence of him, to be judged of him according to the truth and holiness which is in him. Wherefore, the ends of the law which the Holy One hath given, unto the inflicting of the punishment which is affixed, which punishment that is affixed is in opposition to that of the happiness which is affixed, to answer the ends of the atonement—

Does the “him” in “which is in him” refer to the person brought before God or to Christ?

How/why is happiness affixed to the law when we just heard that it was impossible to keep the whole law?

What does “to answer the ends of the atonement” mean?

11 For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. If not so, my first-born in the wilderness, righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad. Wherefore, all things must needs be a compound in one; wherefore, if it should be one body it must needs remain as dead, having no life neither death, nor corruption nor incorruption, happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility.

Why exactly does there need to be opposition in all things?

“all things must needs be a compound”–Is this a contrafactual (meaning:  if there wasn’t opposition, then all things would be compound)  If it is, then what do we learn about opposition if we take its, um, opposite to be “compound in one”?

Interesting thoughts on this verse here.

Webster 1828:  opposition:

1. Situation so as to front something else; a standing over against; as the opposition of two mountains or buildings.

2. The act of opposing; attempt to check, restrain or defeat. he makes opposition to the measure; the bill passed without opposition. Will any opposition be made to the suit, to the claim or demand?

3. Obstacle. the river meets with no opposition in its course to the ocean.

4. Resistance; as the opposition of enemies. Virtue will break through all opposition.

5. Contrariety; repugnance in principle; as the opposition of the heart to the laws of God.

6. Contrariety of interests, measures on designs. The two parties are in opposition to each other.

7. Contrariety or diversity of meaning; as one term used in opposition to another.

8. Contradiction; inconsistency.

9. The collective body of opposers; in England, the party in Parliament which opposed the ministry; in America, the party that opposed the existing administration.

10. In astronomy, the situation of two heavenly bodies, when distant from each other 180 degrees.

Do you think that there will be opposition in the post-mortal life?  If not, then how can there be righteousness?  If so, does that imply a continuation of earthly tests?  (It would, I think, also radically change our notion of ‘heaven.’)

What work does the (repetitive, unnecessary) reference to “my firstborn in the wilderness” do here?

Are holiness and misery opposites?

Jim F.:  “In the ancient Mediterranean Basin and Near East, many religions understood the world as a continuum: ultimately there is no difference between the lowest insect and the highest god; there is a unity of all-in-all, a state that could be described as “compound in one.” Some religions today hold similar beliefs. Perhaps Lehi has such religions in mind here. If so, why would he think it important to teach Jacob that they are false? If there must be opposition in all things for there to be good, why are those who oppose God’s law punished? What does “opposition” mean, “contrariety” or “difference”? My dictionary says that in the nineteenth century one of the meanings of “opposition” was “contrast.” Could that be the meaning here? Does that change our understanding of the verse? Does it follow from what Lehi says here that there must be evil acts?”

Are righteousness/wickedness and holiness/misery and good/bad three different things or three different ways of saying the same thing?  And how do these pairs relate to the pairs (life/death, corruption/incorruption, happiness/misery, sense/insensibility) later in the verse?

One of these things is not like the other:  how does the sense/insensibility (which has to do with the ability to perceive reality) relate to all of the other inverse pairs in this verse (which have to do with moral issues)?

Why is “all things compounded in one” a “therefore” statement?  How does it relate to the material that comes before it?

What does “if it should be one body” mean?

Dallin H. Oaks:

Brigham Young gave us some practical advice on how to do this. “The difference between God and the Devil,” he said, “is that God creates and organizes, while the whole study of the Devil is to destroy” (Discourses of Brigham Young, p. 69). In that contrast we have an important example of the reality of “opposition in all things.”  Apr 08 Liahona

Howard W. Hunter:

For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. If not so, … righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad” I have taken great comfort over the years in this explanation of some of life’s pain and disappointment. I take even greater comfort that the greatest of men and women, including the Son of God, have faced such opposition in order to better understand the contrast between righteousness and wickedness, holiness and misery, good and bad. From out of the dark, damp confinement of Liberty Jail, the Prophet Joseph Smith learned that if we are called to pass through tribulation, it is for our growth and experience and will ultimately be counted for our good.  Nov 1987 Ensign

Neal A. Maxwell:

The plan [of salvation] always points the way, but does not always smooth the way, since individual development requires an “opposition in all things.” Apr 84 GC

A general thought about moral agency:  my belief in it took an enormous hit a few years ago when, in quick succession I had the following two experiences.  First, I read a book about life in North Korea.  I was left with the distinct impression that given the omnipresent disinformation to which North Koreans had been exposed, there was no meaningful sense in which they could be accountable for their beliefs and subsequent decisions.  Second, we had a 9mo foster baby.  Based on what I knew of his history and likely future, based on the behavior I saw in his 3yo brother, I would have bet any sum of money that the baby would serve time in jail at some point.  I was holding this innocent, precious, new baby when this thought came to me, and I was stunned.  In what sense does that child have agency?

Feast wiki:  “Does it follow from what Lehi says here that there must be evil acts?”

12 Wherefore, it must needs have been created for a thing of naught; wherefore there would have been no purpose in the end of its creation. Wherefore, this thing must needs destroy the wisdom of God and his eternal purposes, and also the power, and the mercy, and the justice of God.

I realize that it is just a counterfactual hypothetical, but I’m kind of fascinated that Lehi would even verbalize the possibility that God “messed up” by having the creation be for nothing.

What does this verse teach you about the purpose of creation?

To what does “this thing” refer?  (By which I mean:  what would destroy the wisdom of God?)

I think it is easier to understand why the wisdom and purpose of God would be for naught, but how does the power/mercy/justice fit in?

Remember that our initiating factor from the previous verse is opposition in all things.  This verse tells us that without opposition, God’s purpose and wisdom would be destroyed.  And, God’s power, mercy, and justice would be for nothing.  This is, to put it mildly, unusual doctrine.  To state it simply, God’s power would not exist without opposition.  God’s mercy would not exist without opposition.  It almost turns opposition into the prime mover.  What exactly is this opposition–is it simply Satan?  Or something else?  (See v15 for more on what the opposition is/was.)

13 And if ye shall say there is no law, ye shall also say there is no sin. If ye shall say there is no sin, ye shall also say there is no righteousness. And if there be no righteousness there be no happiness. And if there be no righteousness nor happiness there be no punishment nor misery. And if these things are not there is no God. And if there is no God we are not, neither the earth; for there could have been no creation of things, neither to act nor to be acted upon; wherefore, all things must have vanished away.

NB the “ye” here.  Do you think Jacob had toyed with the idea that there is no law, or is this merely a hypothetical?

Let me restate the propositions in this verse:

Law is required for sin.
Sin is required for righteousness.
Righteousness is required for happiness.
Righteousness and happiness are required for punishment and misery.
All of the above are required for God.
God is required for us and the earth.

Some of those statements are pretty well-accepted (Righteousness is required for happiness and God is required for us and the earth.); others, I think, are pretty surprising (Righteousness and happiness are required for punishment and misery and All of the above are required for God.)  What do you make of these statements?

This verse (and, to some extent, the surrounding material) reads almost like something out of an Intro to Logic textbook, something very unusual in the scriptures.  Why do you think Lehi spoke this way?

Why does Lehi divide the world into “things to act” and “things to be acted upon”?  What kinds of things would fit into each category?

I think the best reading of v13 is that it shows the necessity of the law by showing the results of its absence.  However, why would Lehi feel the need to raise a defense of the concept of law here?  (Grant Hardy points out that L&L are -not- violators of the law.  And to this point, the main issue separating L&L from Nephi has been (1) right to rule and (2) scripture interpretation, not law per se.)

James E. Faust:

I wish that I better understood all of the divine purposes in having to contend with so many painful irritants in this life. Lehi explained one reason: that we will appreciate and savor the goodness and loveliness of the world.   Apr 91 GC

14 And now, my sons, I speak unto you these things for your profit and learning; for there is a God, and he hath created all things, both the heavens and the earth, and all things that in them are, both things to act and things to be acted upon.

Why does he switch here to sons (plural)?

Is profit the same as learning?

David A. Bednar:

In the grand division of all of God’s creations, there are things to act and things to be acted upon (see 2 Nephi 2:13–14). As sons and daughters of our Heavenly Father, we have been blessed with the gift of moral agency, the capacity for independent action and choice. Endowed with agency, you and I are agents, and we primarily are to act and not just be acted upon. To believe that someone or something can make us feel offended, angry, hurt, or bitter diminishes our moral agency and transforms us into objects to be acted upon. As agents, however, you and I have the power to act and to choose how we will respond to an offensive or hurtful situation. Oct 06 GC

15 And to bring about his eternal purposes in the end of man, after he had created our first parents, and the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air, and in fine, all things which are created, it must needs be that there was an opposition; even the forbidden fruit in opposition to the tree of life; the one being sweet and the other bitter.

Which fruit was bitter?  Which was sweet?  How do you know?  I think the assumption is that the forbidden fruit is bitter, but you’ve been to the temple, think about how Eve describes the fruit after eating it.  What do you make of that?

Harold B. Lee quoted v15 and then said:

In other words, he set the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in opposition to the tree of life. The fruit of the one which was “bitter” was the tree of life, and the forbidden fruit was the one which was “sweet to the taste.” Apr 56 GC

I thought I was crazy for thinking that the fruit of the tree of life was bitter!  But apparently no moreso than Pres. Lee!  Why would we characterize the fruit of the tree of life as bitter?

Why does Lehi call it “the forbidden fruit” as opposed to “the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil”?  Is the phrasing a hint to his theology?

In what ways were the forbidden fruit “in opposition” to the tree of life? (I believe that most people think that Adam and Eve were able to eat of the tree of life *until* they ate of the fruit of the tree of k of g and e.  So before the Fall, were they really opposed?) Does the fact that it is “in opposition” make it good (see above, re the importance of opposition).

While the serpent encourages the consumption of the forbidden fruit, we are not told where the forbidden fruit comes from.  (Did the serpent create it?  Did God create it?  Is it eternal?  Something else?)  What does this teach us about opposition?

Just a reminder:  I think you can construe this passage to say that if the opposition inherent in the choice between the forbidden fruit and the fruit of the tree of life hadn’t existed, then God wouldn’t exist.  That is pretty trippy!

16 Wherefore, the Lord God gave unto man that he should act for himself. Wherefore, man could not act for himself save it should be that he was enticed by the one or the other.

Really?  Can we not choose without being enticed?

More thoughts about the enticement process:  What does it involve?  Who does it involve?

I assume that “man” is used generically here, but it is worth mentioning that the first man to chose was a woman.  If you read this verse and think about Eve, what would you conclude?  Is the message about gender?  If so, why isn’t Eve mentioned here?

Is it fair to say that this verse teaches that choice is something God gave humans and not inherent?

17 And I, Lehi, according to the things which I have read, must needs suppose that an angel of God, according to that which is written, had fallen from heaven; wherefore, he became a devil, having sought that which was evil before God.

What work does “I, Lehi” do given that we already know who is speaking?

“According . . . written” is very interesting–why is that included?  Does “must needs suppose” combined with “I read it” serve as qualifiers–like he isn’t too sure about this?  Why would Lehi want Jacob (and us!) to know that he was working off of written texts and not direct revelation here?

I’m thinking that the reading reference points to the brass plates, but what in our OT might he have been reading?

Why “a” devil and not “the” devil here?

How does the fall of the angel relate to the fall of man?

I’m curious about the process to become a devil . . . is it the same as falling from heaven, or something different?

“Having sought that which was evil” is a great way of NOT telling us exactly what he sought.  Why isn’t Lehi more specific here about what exactly was done that was evil?

Matt Evans, commenting on Jim F’s notes:  “In verse 17, Lehi says an angel became the devil because he “sought that which was evil before God.” Does “before” in this instance means “in the presence of” or “instead of”.If the former, then the passage sheds some light on the reason we needed to be tested on earth, outside the presence of God, using faith: those spirits who didn’t become devils, and came to earth, were already proven in God’s presence. We were those spirits who would not choose evil if we had a perfect knowledge of God. To make this second probationary state significant, we needed a setting removed from God, dependent on faith. The Sons of Perdition are those who regress, choosing evil with perfect knowledge, failing the standard of the first estate and thereby becoming devils.”

18 And because he had fallen from heaven, and had become miserable forever, he sought also the misery of all mankind. Wherefore, he said unto Eve, yea, even that old serpent, who is the devil, who is the father of all lies, wherefore he said: Partake of the forbidden fruit, and ye shall not die, but ye shall be as God, knowing good and evil.

Why would you seek other people’s misery?  What things do I do that cause other people to be miserable?

Brant Gardner:

Twice in that verse Lehi uses misery as an opposite, first for holiness and second for happiness. In the context of Lehi’s concerns, holiness and happiness must be seen as transcendental states, and happiness would be more than an ephemeral earthly feeling. For Lehi, these are parts of the eternal realm promised to us. When he contrasts that with misery, once again he refers to more than a temporary unhappiness. Satan is miserable not because he is unhappy, but because he is contrary to righteousness, contrary to holiness. He is miserable in contrast to the happiness and joy that are denied him. Citation

Robert D. Hales:

I once had an opportunity to accompany President Spencer W. Kimball to a distant land. We were given a tour of the various sites in the area, including underground catacombs—burial grounds for people who had been persecuted by Christian zealots. As we came up the dark, narrow stairs of that place, President Kimball taught me an unforgettable lesson. He pulled my coattail and said, “It has always troubled me what the adversary does using the name of our Savior.” He then said, “Robert, the adversary can never have joy unless you and I sin.”  Apr 06 GC

I am interested in the fact that Pres. Kimball brought the idea of Satan’s joy into this conversation . . .

Why introduce the idea of “serpent” here?

Isn’t it good to know good and evil?  Compare verse 5.

Following the logic of this verse, is what he said to Eve a lie?

Bruce Pritchett:

[Psalm 82:7, Job 31:33, and Ezekiel 28:11—19 . . . mention the fall of Adam in close connection with the fall of Satan.  Citation

And these are some of the very few OT references to the Fall.  Lehi also mentioned the Fall of humans in connection with the Fall of Satan.  I don’t think we usually link these two concepts together.  What is gained from thinking about them together?

Why “father” in this verse?

19 And after Adam and Eve had partaken of the forbidden fruit they were driven out of the garden of Eden, to till the earth.

This verse strikes me as a more traditional reading of the Fall as a big oops, and not the modern LDS reading.  What do you think is going on here?

Why do you think he elides the interaction between Adam and Eve (and the gender distinctions that we draw from that) here?

The focus on “drive out of garden” and “to till” puts the emphasis on the consequences that have to do with their relationship with the Earth, not so much with God or with each other.  Why do you think Lehi chose to emphasize that here?

20 And they have brought forth children; yea, even the family of all the earth.

Interesting that in v19 “they” till and here “they” have children--no gender distinctions.

Why bother mentioning this at all if he isn’t going to elaborate on it?

21 And the days of the children of men were prolonged, according to the will of God, that they might repent while in the flesh; wherefore, their state became a state of probation, and their time was lengthened, according to the commandments which the Lord God gave unto the children of men. For he gave commandment that all men must repent; for he showed unto all men that they were lost, because of the transgression of their parents.

What does prolonged mean?  Does it refer to the lengthy (but perhaps not literal?) lifespans in Genesis?  Why were prolonged days necessary for repentance?  Or does prolonged mean that they did not instantly die from eating the fruit (which is perhaps what Eve thought would happen before Satan tricked her, but then . . . does this mean he was right?)

How does “lost because of the transgression of their parents” relate to LDS rejection of original sin?

Feast wiki:  “Prolonged seems to be a reference to the fact that though God told Adam "in the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die," Adam does not die right away but is given time to repent. Note though that the subject here is not Adam but "the children of men." Since for Lehi here Adam represents all of us, this change is natural.”

Do “days prolonged” and “time lengthened” refer to the same thing?

22 And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end.

The previous verses have been remarkably gender-neutral; why just mention Adam here?

Joseph Fielding Smith:

I am very, very grateful for Mother Eve. If I ever get to see her, I want to thank her for what she did and she did the most wonderful thing that ever happened in this world and that was to place herself where Adam had to do the same thing that she did or they would have been separated forever. Joseph Fielding Smith, Take Heed to Yourselves, 291—92.

This verse seems closer to modern LDS readings of the Fall.

23 And they would have had no children; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin.

Point: children make you miserable.  :)

Jim F.:  “This verse connects having children directly to the necessity of opposition, with being able to have joy and being able to sin. Can you say explicitly what that connection is? Why is it that if Adam and Eve could not have had children they could not have known what joy was (because they wouldn’t know misery) and they couldn’t have done any good (because they wouldn’t know sin)? “

Given that it was the devil’s goal to make people miserable, how do you understand the reference to misery in this verse?

Are all of the consequences listed at the end of this verse specifically the result of having children?

Notice that this verse sets innocence and joy up as being incompatible.  What do you make of that?

Notice that this verse suggests that you can’t do good if you don’t know sin.  Is that accurate?

Notice joy : misery :: good : sin.  What does that relationship suggest?

24 But behold, all things have been done in the wisdom of him who knoweth all things.

Does this suggest that the Fall was the wisdom of God?  (I think the next verse supports that reading.)  If so, then how do you understand the previous point about the requirement for opposition, particularly as it relates to the trees in the garden, if partaking of the fruit of the tree of k of g and e was wisdom in God?

25 Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy.

Is joy really the ultimate purpose of human existence?  If you truly believed that, what might you do differently?

Jim F.:  “Is the word “Adam” being used here of only Father Adam, or is it being used as it is used in Genesis 1:27, “God created man [adam] in his own image, male and female created he them”?”

Dallin H. Oaks:

Joy is more than happiness. Joy is the ultimate sensation of well-being. It comes from being complete and in harmony with our Creator and his eternal laws. Oct 1991 GC

How would you apply this verse to someone struggling with a great trial?

Howard W. Hunter:

Religion is often regarded as opposed to pleasure, but God’s reason for creating man is that he might have joy. “Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy” There is no reason why joy should be turned out-of-doors before religion can come in. Many people think of a religious person as one with a sad countenance and draped in black, but this is not so. When the angel of the Lord appeared to the shepherds to announce the birth of the Savior, he said: “. . . Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people” “. . . I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly” Joy existed in the pre-existence before the foundations of the earth were laid, “. . . and all the sons of God shouted for joy” Peter, in his epistle, speaking of the appearance of Jesus Christ, said: “. . . though now ye see him not, yet believing, ye rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory” There is nothing sad or gloomy about a person who accepts the truths of the gospel and incorporates these principles in his daily living. God wants all of his children to be joyous and glad, and we can have this blessing if we are willing to keep his commandments and live by his word in all that we do. Thus living one’s religion must apply to temporal affairs as much as it does to those things which we think of as spiritual.
Oct 1961 GC

26 And the Messiah cometh in the fulness of time, that he may redeem the children of men from the fall. And because that they are redeemed from the fall they have become free forever, knowing good from evil; to act for themselves and not to be acted upon, save it be by the punishment of the law at the great and last day, according to the commandments which God hath given.

How does this verse relate to the last verse?

Does this verse imply that knowing good from evil makes you free forever?

Jim F.:  “Lehi seems to equate three things, being free, knowing good and evil, and acting for oneself rather than being acted upon. How are those the same? What understanding of free agency does Lehi seem to have here?”

This verse suggests that the purpose of the redeemer is to redeem men from the fall.  The last verse suggests that the fall happened so that humans could exist and have joy.  How do you reconcile these two verses?

In what sense are we “free forever”?

Given that “the punishment of the law” is given here as an example of “being acted upon,” what does that suggest to you about what Lehi means when he makes this distinction of things that act versus things that are acted upon?

This verse suggests that redemption from the fall makes us know good and evil; I think a more traditional reading is that the fall itself makes us know good from evil.  How do you reconcile these two ideas?  (I’m sorry, I know this is crazy, but I can’t stay away from the idea that the serpent might represent Christ in the Genesis account.)

What do you make of “to act for themselves and not to be acted upon” as a result of the redemption?  Isn’t the redemption the ultimate in “being acted upon” since it is something that we couldn’t do for ourselves?

Jennifer Clark Lane:

In addition to identifying Yahweh, the Redeemer of Israel, with Jesus Christ, the writers of the Book of Mormon give another important insight into spiritual redemption by making a distinction between redemption from spiritual death and redemption from physical death. Lehi explains that the universal redemption from physical death is possible because “the Messiah cometh in the fullness of time, that he may redeem the children of men from the fall” (2 Nephi 2:26). This physical redemption of the children of men is not complete redemption. It only makes men “free according to the flesh” and able “to choose liberty and eternal life” or to choose “captivity and death” (2 Nephi 2:27). In addition to this redemption from death brought about by the resurrection of Christ (Mormon 9:13), Christ’s suffering and atonement provide a redemption from hell, or spiritual bondage. Both Lehi and Nephi explicitly declare that the Lord “hath redeemed my soul from hell” (2 Nephi 1:15; 33:6).  Citation

Robert D. Hales:

In these latter days, as in the times of old, we must avoid being acted upon by acting for ourselves to avoid evil. The Holy Ghost will prompt us. Joseph was told to flee from Potiphar’s wife. Abraham obeyed the commandment to flee out of the land of Ur. Lehi was instructed to flee Jerusalem before it was destroyed. And to protect the Savior’s life, Mary and Joseph were prompted to flee into Egypt.  . . . But if we ignore those promptings, the light of the Spirit will fade. Our agency will be limited or lost, and we will lose the confidence and ability to act. Apr 06 GC

I like what he is adding to the idea of acting and acted upon . . .

27 Wherefore, men are free according to the flesh; and all things are given them which are expedient unto man. And they are free to choose liberty and eternal life, through the great Mediator of all men, or to choose captivity and death, according to the captivity and power of the devil; for he seeketh that all men might be miserable like unto himself.

What does “according to the flesh” mean in this sentence?

In what sense are “all things” which are expedient given to people?  (Not everyone has enough food, access to the Gospel, peace, etc.)

Why the title mediator here, when redeemer and messiah were used previously?

What does the choice between liberty/eternal life and captivity/death suggest to you about the choices we make?

The opposition set up in this verse is between “through the Mediator” and “according to the captivity.”  What do you learn if you set mediation and captivity opposite each other?

Howard W. Hunter:

To fully understand this gift of agency and its inestimable worth, it is imperative that we understand that God’s chief way of acting is by persuasion and patience and long-suffering, not by coercion and stark confrontation. He acts by gentle solicitation and by sweet enticement. He always acts with unfailing respect for the freedom and independence that we possess. He wants to help us and pleads for the chance to assist us, but he will not do so in violation of our agency. He loves us too much to do that, and doing so would run counter to his divine character. Oct 1989 GC

28 And now, my sons, I would that ye should look to the great Mediator, and hearken unto his great commandments; and be faithful unto his words, and choose eternal life, according to the will of his Holy Spirit;

Is “hearken/commandments” and “faithful/words” two different things or two ways of saying the same thing?

So when Lehi sets the choice out like this, it seems patently obvious what you should chose and why.  So why isn’t it obvious in real life?

29 And not choose eternal death, according to the will of the flesh and the evil which is therein, which giveth the spirit of the devil power to captivate, to bring you down to hell, that he may reign over you in his own kingdom.

NB that this verse sets the will of the flesh in opposition to the will of the Spirit in v28.  Does flesh refer to Satan or to human flesh?  (Perhaps Spirit should not be capitalized here, and it refers to human spirit.)  In either case, what does it mean to refer to the evil that is in the flesh?  Is this consonant with modern LDS views of the body?

Does the devil have a spirit?  What is Lehi talking about here?

W1828 ‘captivate’:

1. To take prisoner; to seize by force; as an enemy in war.

2. To subdue; to bring into bondage.

3. To overpower and gain with excellence or beauty; to charm; to engage the affections; to bind in love.

4. To enslave; with to; as, captivated to error.

30 I have spoken these few words unto you all, my sons, in the last days of my probation; and I have chosen the good part, according to the words of the prophet. And I have none other object save it be the everlasting welfare of your souls. Amen.

He started talking to Jacob (v1) and ends up talking to his “sons.”  Is this deliberate for some reason and, if so, why?

Luke 10:28 is only other use of chosen/good/part.  Is that related here?  Does Lehi’s use suggest that Jesus and Lehi were quoting an otherwise-unknown proverb?

Who is “the prophet”?  Why isn’t the prophet named?

General thoughts:

(1) Chapter 1 is very similar to what we would expect from a farewell discourse (of which there are many in the Bible, and it would make a great study to compare them), but ch2 is not so much because of its focus on doctrine.  Why do you think Lehi departed from the standard format (which I think he would have been familiar with) to teach doctrine here?  Why is the longest blessing given to Jacob?

Robert D. Hales:

If we could leave one lesson of greatest importance for our children and grandchildren, what would it be? Of all the glorious principles of the gospel, Lehi chose to teach his son about the plan of salvation—and the gift of agency.  Apr 06 GC

(2) What is Lehi’s theology of the Fall?  Do you agree with this statement:

Bruce M. Pritchett:

Lehi taught that Adam’s fall did not directly transmit sin but rather created circumstances within the world such as death, opposition, temptation, and choice, which all humanity inherited (2 Nephi 2:11—16; see also Alma 42:9, 16—17). In other words, Lehi saw Adam’s fall as a transition from immortality to mortality, from an immortal realm to a mortal one.  Citation

Why is there so little about the Fall in the OT?  Conversely, why was the Fall important enough to Lehi to get such attention during such an important address?

Fortunate and negative consequences of the Fall–What does Lehi identify?  How are we to weigh the morality of an action with positive and negative consequences?

Jim F.:  “Why is the story of Adam and Eve in the Garden such an important scriptural story, so important that it is repeated for us more often than any other if we attend the temple regularly? If we think in types, how does their story give us a type for understanding our own lives?”

(3) Lehi as a Moses figure:

Noel B. Reynolds:

He led his people out of a wicked land because of commands received in visions from God, through the wilderness, across the sea, and to a promised land. And then he died, leaving it to others to establish the covenant people in the promised land.  . . . It was hard for [L&L] to believe that the kingdom of Judah was the wicked and soon-to-be-destroyed place their father described from his visions. The analogy between a thriving and prosperous Jerusalem and an oppressive Egypt of old was not easy for them to assimilate (see 1 Nephi 17:21–22). So in his final words to them, Lehi invokes the very phrases and concepts used by Moses in his farewell address to the Israelites, as recorded in Deuteronomy. In so doing, Lehi casts himself in a role similar to that of Moses, the great prophet revered by all Israel, in an eloquent attempt to bring his mur muring sons to accept and obey the successor leader the Lord had chosen. Citation  (If you are interested in this theme, read the entire article.)

Additional Resources:

“Lehi’s Theology of the Fall in Its Preexilic/Exilic Context”

“Sunday School Lesson 6” (No one will be surprised that an LDS philosophy professor has some marvelous thoughts and insightful questions about 2 Nephi 2.)

“Lehi As Moses”

“To Act for Ourselves:  The Gift and Blessings of Agency”

Lots of interesting comments here.

Romney’s initial refusal to release his tax records had nothing to do with the fact that he makes a lot of money.  It had very little to do with the fact that he only paid about 15% in taxes.  It likely had nothing to do with wanting to hide shady dealings.

It had everything to do with the fact that he’s almost certainly a full tithe payer (and then some).  I have no idea how much money he made last year, but if he can refer to +300K in speaking fees as “not much,” then I’d assume he made perhaps tens of millions or even much more.  That likely means he paid 1M or more in tithing and other donations.  And that number is likely to freak out both Evangelicals and not-religious swing voters. Very few people in this country donate either 10% of their income or huge amounts of money.  It is one thing to say “I’m a Mormon” and another thing to give 1M+ (I’m just guessing on the number here, remember) to an organization that doesn’t release its financial data.  A quick perusal of the released tax returns of other candidates shows that most give much less (in dollars and in percentages), and so Romney is going to look . . . weird.  Very, very Mormony, and weird.  And that isn’t going to play well.

I am disappointed that no news outlet (that I have seen) has picked up on this angle.  But since I’ve read speculation that Romney might run for LDS Church President if he doesn’t win the nomination and assured statements that LDS children are all raised bilingual so they are ready to serve missions, I perhaps should not have expected you to pick up on this.

Let’s look at another story you missed:  you’ve spilled lots of ink (and, um, pixels) writing about whether Romney will be a puppet for HQ in SLC and/or whether voters will perceive him as such, but I haven’t seen a single report on the fact that he is currently taking a position on immigration that differs with the Church’s position.  Do you think that might possibly be a useful data point?

Left, right, center, nutter–I realize you are all struggling from a changing landscape that makes it difficult to do your job properly, but please.  There’s a bunch of Mormons engaged with current events out there.  Start with Nate Oman or Joanna Brooks and try to get up to speed before you run something.

CHAPTER 12
 1 And it came to pass that the angel said unto me: Look, and behold thy seed, and also the seed of thy brethren. And I looked and beheld the land of promise; and I beheld multitudes of people, yea, even as it were in number as many as the sand of the sea.

Lehi’s vision was prefaced with the family eating actual seeds.  Is it significant that Nephi’s vision begins with references to the same word (“seed”) but used with a different meaning (=descendants)?

Is it significant that Lehi’s vision is told to his sons (particularly L&L, as Kevin Barney pointed out in the comments last week), but Nephi’s is told to no one in particular–which means it is told to the reader?

Is it significant that he is told to look at his seed but what he actually looks at is the land of promise?

I’m still kind of stuck on how frequently Lehi, Nephi, random angels, etc., divide Nephi from his brothers.  Do you think it is significant that the angel tells Nephi to look at his seed (separated from) the seed of his brethren, but what Nephi sees are “multitudes”?

Where do you think Sam’s seed fits into all this?  Is it part of “the seed of [Nephi’s] brethren”?

Does number/sand/sea make a link to the promises made to Abraham?  If so, how is that relevant to this dream?  Another way of asking that:  Why would Nephi want the reader to be thinking about those promises to Abraham right now?

 2 And it came to pass that I beheld multitudes gathered together to battle, one against the other; and I beheld wars, and rumors of wars, and great slaughters with the sword among my people.

Just stop for a minute and think about how heartbreaking this is–this is the first thing he sees, but the absolute last thing that you want to see if you were to see your posterity.

The references to “rumors of wars” always surprises me a little–surely it is not bad enough to warrant mention alongside actual wars.  But the fact that it often is suggests to me that general fear, instability, etc. is seen as almost as destabilizing as actual warfare.

Is the phase “with the sword” significant?  Does it relate to Laban’s sword?

Does this verse have a parallel in Lehi’s vision?  If so, what is it?

Is “my people” significant?  Why doesn’t he mention his brothers’ seed here?  Are they not included in the slaughter?

 3 And it came to pass that I beheld many generations pass away, after the manner of wars and contentions in the land; and I beheld many cities, yea, even that I did not number them.

Do the unnumbered cities link to the unnumbered people in v1?  In the OT, cities are generally negative symbols.  Is that the case here?  Why is Nephi shown the cities, and what is he to take from the image?

Did Lehi see anything parallel to this?

 4 And it came to pass that I saw a mist of darkness on the face of the land of promise; and I saw lightnings, and I heard thunderings, and earthquakes, and all manner of tumultuous noises; and I saw the earth and the rocks, that they rent; and I saw mountains tumbling into pieces; and I saw the plains of the earth, that they were broken up; and I saw many cities that they were sunk; and I saw many that they were burned with fire; and I saw many that did tumble to the earth, because of the quaking thereof.

How do these mists of darkness relate to the mists of darkness in Lehi’s vision?

The inverted symmetry of “mists of darkness” and “land of promise” is both aesthetically pleasing and theologically haunting.  What does this juxtaposition teach us about the concept of a land of promise?

The verse suggests that the ‘natural’ (Are they really natural, or divine?  The next verse may be implying that they are the judgments of the Lord.) disasters seen here are linked to the mists of darkness.  This is not something one would conclude from reading just Lehi’s vision, although there is a logical link between mists of darkness (=a dark fog) and other weather conditions that make life difficult for people.  What is going on here?

This verse seems to echo the destructions wrought in the New World when Jesus died.  Is that the correct interpretation here?

Does the reference to plains here relate to the field in Lehi’s vision?

 5 And it came to pass after I saw these things, I saw the vapor of darkness, that it passed from off the face of the earth; and behold, I saw multitudes who had not fallen because of the great and terrible judgments of the Lord.

Skousen reads “I saw the multitudes which had not fallen.”

(How) does the vapor of darkness relate to the mist of darkness?

Does Lehi’s mist of darkness leave?  If so, what do you make of the difference?  Is Nephi able to see things that Lehi didn’t see because the mist of darkness leaves?  (Nephi will say later that there were things his father didn’t notice.)

Multitudes who have not fallen is an interesting contrast to the “good” group in Lehi’s vision who partakes but isn’t ashamed, because they do fall–before the tree/fruit.  What might we learn from the contrast?

In Lehi’s vision, the emphasis with the good group is on their holding the rod, pressing forward, eating the fruit, etc.  Here, the focus is on them avoiding judgment (equated to the mists?).  Why the difference?

 6 And I saw the heavens open, and the Lamb of God descending out of heaven; and he came down and showed himself unto them.

Does this mean that the heavens were not open before this?

 7 And I also saw and bear record that the Holy Ghost fell upon twelve others; and they were ordained of God, and chosen.

Is the falling of the Holy Ghost related to the “not falling” in v5?

Three items here:  Holy Ghost falls, ordained, chosen.  Are these three ways of describing the same thing?  Three sequential things?  Something else?

 8 And the angel spake unto me, saying: Behold the Twelve Disciples of the Lamb, who are chosen to minister unto thy seed.

Why does the angel explain this, but not anything in the previous verses?
I think “minister” is such an interesting word and we really make virtually no effect to figure out what it might mean.

9 And he said unto me: Thou rememberest the Twelve Apostles of the Lamb? Behold they are they who shall judge the twelve tribes of Israel; wherefore, the twelve ministers of thy seed shall be judged of them; for ye are of the house of Israel.

In what context would Nephi have learned about the 12 apostles?  Or:  What is it that the angel wants him to remember?

Is Nephi seeing Judas here or his replacement?  Or is it more symbolic/idealized than that?

Why would it be important for Nephi to know this?  Are there any truths relevant to our lives that come from knowing the relationship of the twelve apostles to the twelve ministers?

Do we think of the role of the first apostles as primarily about judging?  Should we?  What about modern apostles?

 10 And these twelve ministers whom thou beholdest shall judge thy seed. And, behold, they are righteous forever; for because of their faith in the Lamb of God their garments are made white in his blood.

So the apostles judge the ministers and the ministers judge Nephi’s descendants.  Why is the focus on judging?  What should we learn from this pattern?

What does it mean to suggest that there are intermediary judges (that is, people who judge you but who are judged by someone else) in a context that is *not* earthbound (that is, your bishop judges you but is in turn judged by someone else)?

To whom does the “they” refer in this verse?

We read the idea of making garments white in blood so often that it is hard to remember what an utterly bizarre and counterfactual image this is.  (Anyone who has ever done laundry should know that!)  What do we learn about the atonement from this image?

Why are garments a good symbol here?

 11 And the angel said unto me: Look! And I looked, and beheld three generations pass away in righteousness; and their garments were white even like unto the Lamb of God. And the angel said unto me: These are made white in the blood of the Lamb, because of their faith in him.

Interesting that in the previous verse, their garments were made white because of their faith, but in this verse, their garments are white like the Lamb.

Does this relate to the whiteness of the fruit of the tree?

Why does the angel repeat what we already know from v11?

To what does “these” refer–the people or their garments?

 12 And I, Nephi, also saw many of the fourth generation who passed away in righteousness.

The words “many of” are pregnant with failure–why nothing about the cause?

13 And it came to pass that I saw the multitudes of the earth gathered together.

Why switch from “promised land” to “earth” here?

 14 And the angel said unto me: Behold thy seed, and also the seed of thy brethren.

I think you could read this to imply that Nephi and his brothers’ seed has spread beyond the promised land (since “earth” was used in v14).  Is that a legitimate reading?

15 And it came to pass that I looked and beheld the people of my seed gathered together in multitudes against the seed of my brethren; and they were gathered together to battle.

16 And the angel spake unto me, saying: Behold the fountain of filthy water which thy father saw; yea, even the river of which he spake; and the depths thereof are the depths of hell.

How does this verse relate to the one before it?

I don’t remember Lehi saying anything about that.  What’s going on here?  There appears to be more than one fountain–why didn’t we know about this before?  The angel seems to equate the river Lehi saw with the “filthy fountain,” but Lehi didn’t do this.

Where do you see this river in relation to the tree, path/rod, and building?  How do you know?  What does it mean to say that the depths of hell are in between the tree/path/rod and the great building?

Joe Spencer:

This is striking, and I don’t hear us in our discussions of this passage catching the significance of this passage. What is the fountain of filthy water in Nephi’s visionary experience? In a word: war. The depths of war—of the spirit that incites to war—are the depths of hell. And what arises out of the river that flows out of that fountain—these “mists of darkness”—is temptation. War—its pursuit, promotion, use, etc.—is what gives rise to the most debilitating temptations. I think there’s a too-clear message here: We should have nothing to do with war at all.  Citation

Why is a fountain/river a good symbol for the depths of hell?

 17 And the mists of darkness are the temptations of the devil, which blindeth the eyes, and hardeneth the hearts of the children of men, and leadeth them away into broad roads, that they perish and are lost.

Skousen reads “that they may perish.”

Why would we backtrack to discuss the mists of darkness again, especially since (I think) they are gone by this point?

Why are the mists a good symbol for the temptations of the devil?

“Blindeth” is an effect on the senses; “hardeneth” is an effect on the heart/mind; “leadeth” is an effect on actions/choices.  What can we learn from this?

Why are broad roads bad and narrow roads good?

Do they perish before they are lost?  (Wouldn’t they get lost and then perish?)  What might we conclude from this?

18 And the large and spacious building, which thy father saw, is vain imaginations and the pride of the children of men. And a great and a terrible gulf divideth them; yea, even the word of the justice of the Eternal God, and the Messiah who is the Lamb of God, of whom the Holy Ghost beareth record, from the beginning of the world until this time, and from this time henceforth and forever.

Skousen:

1 Nephi 12:18 . . . reads as follows in the original manuscript: “and a great and a terrible gulf divideth them / yea even the sword of the justice of the Eternal God”. But Oliver Cowdery miscopied this into the printer’s manuscript as “yea even the word of the justice of the Eternal God”.  . . . Yet when we look at the rest of the Book of Mormon, we discover that there are seven references to “the sword of God’s justice” but no examples of “the word of God’s justice.  Citation

I think “sword” fits the context much better.  And, perhaps, does it make reference to the sword of Laban?

Why is a sword a good symbol for God’s justice?

Skousen reads “and Jesus Christ which is the Lamb of God” here.

What does “from the beginning of the world” modify?

Wait–didn’t he just learn that it was the world’s wisdom?  And then conclude that it was pride?  Why the introduction of vain imaginations?  Are these three ways of saying the same thing?

What is the link between “vain imaginations” and their fine clothing?

Did Nephi see the large and spacious building?

What does “them” refer to?

Is the shift from great to large significant?

I thought the dividing gulf was the river–now it is the (s)word of God?  What happened?

Why the time references?

19 And while the angel spake these words, I beheld and saw that the seed of my brethren did contend against my seed, according to the word of the angel; and because of the pride of my seed, and the temptations of the devil, I beheld that the seed of my brethren did overpower the people of my seed.

Why does pride lead to defeat?

Why does Nephi pick up on pride but it wasn’t mentioned by the angel?

What does this verse teach about how the devil’s actions relate to agency?

20 And it came to pass that I beheld, and saw the people of the seed of my brethren that they had overcome my seed; and they went forth in multitudes upon the face of the land.

21 And I saw them gathered together in multitudes; and I saw wars and rumors of wars among them; and in wars and rumors of wars I saw many generations pass away.

What effect does the frequent repetition of the word “multitude” have on the reader?  Why is there no individuation in this vision?  What effect would that have had on Nephi?

22 And the angel said unto me: Behold these shall dwindle in unbelief.

What is the relationship between war and unbelief?  What causes the unbelief?  Belief in what?

 23 And it came to pass that I beheld, after they had dwindled in unbelief they became a dark, and loathsome, and a filthy people, full of idleness and all manner of abominations.

Do the references to ‘dark’ and ‘filthy’ tie in to Lehi’s vision?

Why would darkness, loathsomeness, filthiness, and idleness be the results of unbelief?

Wouldn’t we expect the unbelievers to be wealthy and gorgeous so they would tempt us to be like them?  (Don’t we frequently say that Satan makes ugly things appealing to the senses?)  What purpose is served by ugliness resulting from sin here?

Poetic Parallelism in the Book of Mormon:

seed of my brethren did overpower the people of my seed.
20 And it came to pass that I beheld, and saw the people of the
seed of my brethren that they had overcome my seed; and they went forth
in multitudes upon the face of the land.
21 And I saw them gathered together
in multitudes; and I saw
wars and rumors of wars among them; and in
wars and rumors of wars I saw many generations pass away.
22 And the angel said unto me: Behold these shall
dwindle in unbelief.
23 And it came to pass that I beheld, after they had
dwindled in unbelief they became a dark,
1 And it came to pass that the angel spake unto me, saying:
Look! And I
looked and beheld
many nations and kingdoms.
2 And the angel said unto me: What beholdest thou? And I said: I behold
many nations and kingdoms.
3 And he said unto me: These are the
nations and kingdoms
of the Gentiles.
4 And it came to pass that I saw among the nations
of the Gentiles the
formation of a great church.
5 And the angel said unto me: Behold the
formation of a church

Citation

I would call this staircase parallelism.  What effect does it have on the reader?  Does it suggest to you a linking of the concepts?

John Welch:

At this point in Lehi’s vision the record is interrupted; we do not know what was omitted here (see 8:29). But at this place in Nephi’s vision we learn of the painful prospect of war between the seed of Lehi (see 12:20—23).  Citation

If this is the case, then do you think Lehi omitted (or:  Nephi omitted) that section because it was not to be transmitted to L&L?  Because to record it might have been to ‘cause’ it or make it seem inevitable?  Why else?

CHAPTER 13
1 And it came to pass that the angel spake unto me, saying: Look! And I looked and beheld many nations and kingdoms.

Why the shift from ‘multitudes’ to ‘nations and kingdoms’?

2 And the angel said unto me: What beholdest thou? And I said: I behold many nations and kingdoms.

This verse is completely unnecessary at the narrative level–it isn’t telling us anything that we didn’t know from v1.  So I assume that it was included because the process of dialogue between Nephi and the angel was important in itself.  Why might that be?

3 And he said unto me: These are the nations and kingdoms of the Gentiles.

Does this verse imply that that (=that they were Gentiles) would not have been obvious to Nephi without clarification?

4 And it came to pass that I saw among the nations of the Gentiles the formation of a great church.

Stephen E. Robinson:

We find that the term great and abominable church means an immense assembly or association of people bound together by their loyalty to that which God hates. Citation; see article for evidence for this claim

Here is Webster’s 1828 on “church.”  Is anything there useful?

Modern LDS interpretation is that the “church” is any institution that does what v5 describes.  Why do you think the word “church” was used here if it doesn’t equate with what we mean by the word “church”?

Skousen reads “formation” (as it is here), although “foundation” was in the printer’s manuscript and the 1830 BoM. (Same goes for the word in the next verse.)  In Analysis of Textual Variants in the BoM, Skousen writes, “When he copied the text from O [=the original manuscript] into P [=the printer’s manuscript], Oliver Cowdery replaced the word formation with foundation, but only for the first three cases [13:4, 13:5, 13:26], not the fourth one (in verse 32).  It is difficult to determine whether Oliver’s three changes are accidental or intentional.”  (p264)  I have to admit that I wish it were “foundation” because that would make an awesome link to the (lack of) foundation of the great and spacious building.

In the mid-20th century, this great and abominable church was usually thought to be the Catholic Church.  While there are a few (obvious and other not-so-obvious [hints:  Of which church was Columbus a member?  When was the Catholic Church formed?]) problems with that reading, remember this:  in an apocalyptic vision, everything is a symbol for something else.  So when John the Revelator talks about Babylon, he isn’t talking about the physical city whose remains are even now 85km south of Baghdad.  He’s using Babylon, which was a “bad” place in the Bible, as a symbol for all other “bad places.” By the same token, even if we were to read the g and a church as a reference to the Catholic Church (and I’m not suggesting that you do), it wouldn’t be a reference to the Catholic Church.  It would be using it as a symbol.

5 And the angel said unto me: Behold the formation of a church which is most abominable above all other churches, which slayeth the saints of God, yea, and tortureth them and bindeth them down, and yoketh them with a yoke of iron, and bringeth them down into captivity.

Is there anything in these verses that suggests to you why this church was formed?

The acts of this church seems to be in inverse order of seriousness.  Do you agree with that?  if so, why would it have been written that way?  (We usually do the opposite.)

Is the yoke of iron related to the rod of iron?

6 And it came to pass that I beheld this great and abominable church; and I saw the devil that he was the founder of it.

Skousen writes that for the 1837 edition, Joseph Smith changed “founder” to “foundation.”  (He made the same change in 14:17.)

7 And I also saw gold, and silver, and silks, and scarlets, and fine-twined linen, and all manner of precious clothing; and I saw many harlots.

Does this reference relate to the people in the great and spacious building?  (NB that these items are not specifically mentioned as clothing, but the list is similar.)

What does this verse teach about wealth?

8 And the angel spake unto me, saying: Behold the gold, and the silver, and the silks, and the scarlets, and the fine-twined linen, and the precious clothing, and the harlots, are the desires of this great and abominable church.

NB that the angel adds clothing–Nephi didn’t mention that in the previous verse.  (I don’t have time to pursue this right now, but I think it would be interesting to make a chart comparing what Nephi says he sees with what the angel points out to him.  I have a suspicion that the angel is showing him things that he didn’t notice.  “What Nephi Didn’t Notice” might make an interesting topic for study.)

Point:  They get what they want.  They desire these things, and they have them.

NB introduction of harlots at this point–Nephi didn’t see that and neither did Lehi.  Why mention them now?  Do they relate to the harlots in v34?

Again with desire . . . why are desires mentioned here?  Why was desire such a huge component of Nephi’s visionary experience?

Why no mention of the pointing and mocking here, as we had in Lehi’s vision?

NB that the overwhelming focus in on their (signaling of their) wealth (through clothing).  Does this surprise you?  Would you have expected more sex and less Ralph Lauren?

If these things are the desires of the church, why then is it engaged in the activities of v5 as opposed to things more directly focused on wealth generation?  Does v19 explain this?

9 And also for the praise of the world do they destroy the saints of God, and bring them down into captivity.

Why would destroying saints bring the praise of the world?

Boyd K. Packer:

To seek after the praise of men, the scriptures caution us, is to be led carefully away from the only safe path to follow in life. Apr 2007 GC

It seems that we would have some interesting boundary problems with this one:  scholarships, internships, admittance to educational programs, promotions, professional recognitions, etc., etc. all involve “the praise of men” to some extent.  How do you think about these?

Is “destroying the Saints of God” the same thing as accumulating wealth (=fine clothing) and desiring harlots?  If not, how does this verse relate to the previous verse?

10 And it came to pass that I looked and beheld many waters; and they divided the Gentiles from the seed of my brethren.

If we take this as a reference to the Atlantic Ocean separating the Old World from the New World, then why is it called “many waters”?

Why is the role of the waters highlighted as the dividing agent, and not, say, God’s direction, or history, or something else?

Is this water, which has the function of dividing, related to the “great and a terrible gulf [which] divideth them” in 12:18?

11 And it came to pass that the angel said unto me: Behold the wrath of God is upon the seed of thy brethren.

How does this verse relate to the great and abominable church?

Joe Spencer:

What we’re seeing in the events of verses 12-19 is not, according to the angel, a series of glorious events that lead to freedom, etc., but a series of largely disturbing events that realize the wrath of God against the Lamanites.  Citation

How does the explanation for these events given in this verse relate to the idea that you sometimes hear in the Church that these events happened in order to lay the groundwork for the Restoration?

Interesting that they enjoyed a military victory above, but this was not evidence of divine approval.

12 And I looked and beheld a man among the Gentiles, who was separated from the seed of my brethren by the many waters; and I beheld the Spirit of God, that it came down and wrought upon the man; and he went forth upon the many waters, even unto the seed of my brethren, who were in the promised land.

Here is Webster 1828 on “wrought.”  (I think it is important to know that it most emphatically does not mean that every single thing that Columbus said or did was done according to the will of the Spirit, just that some of his actions were “worked over” or “affected” by the Spirit.)  (What is funny about this is the only reason Columbus set out on his voyage was because of a misinterpretation of apocryphal scripture suggested to him that the distance to the Indies was much smaller than it really was. Did the Spirit inspire that?)

It is now, I think, generally accepted that the Native American population was absolutely enormous before Columbus, but up to something like 80% of that population may have died as a result of diseases brought by European explorers to which they had no immunity.  If this is the case, it is possible to read this verse in a way that does not impute any righteousness whatsoever to Columbus–he was merely a puppet of the Spirit–the vehicle by which the introduction of a lot of fatal diseases came.  I don’t know that we need to go that far, but I don’t think we need to venerable Columbus either in order to be in harmony with what is going on in this verse.

Why point out that this man was “separated”?  In what way is that true?

I know of no other interpretation of this verse aside from a reference to Christopher Columbus.  If that is an accurate identification, why wasn’t he named in this verse?  (Compare 14:27, which names John the Revelator.)

What would have made Columbus worthy of mention?

Columbus in effect recreates Lehi’s journey by being inspired to go to the promised land.  What might the significance of this be?

Gordon B. Hinckley:

We interpret that to refer to Columbus. It is interesting to note that the Spirit of God wrought upon him. After reading that long biography, a Pulitzer winner of forty years ago, titled Admiral of the Ocean Sea—I have no doubt that Christopher Columbus was a man of faith, as well as a man of indomitable determination.  I recognize that in this anniversary year a host of critics have spoken out against him. I do not dispute that there were others who came to this Western Hemisphere before him. But it was he who in faith lighted a lamp to look for a new way to China and who in the process discovered America. His was an awesome undertaking—to sail west across the unknown seas farther than any before him of his generation. He it was who, in spite of the terror of the unknown and the complaints and near mutiny of his crew, sailed on with frequent prayers to the Almighty for guidance. In his reports to the sovereigns of Spain, Columbus repeatedly asserted that his voyage was for the glory of God and the spread of the Christian faith. Properly do we honor him for his unyielding strength in the face of uncertainty and danger. Oct 1992 GC

Grant Hardy:

But if the Book of Mormon’s “Spirit of God” that “wrought upon the man” was not especially shocking to some Americans in 1830, it did stand firmly against the intellectual trend of the times, which focused on Columbus’s rational, scientific nature and acknowledged the spiritual roots of his quest only grudgingly, if at all. . . . Against all of this, the Book of Mormon boldly asserts that whatever else may have been involved, Columbus’s primary reasons for sailing were spiritual. Thus it may be of interest to Latter-day Saints that much recent scholarship has come to agree with the Book of Mormon’s original assessment of Columbus. . . . Columbus himself was writing [a book] but never completed [it], called Book of Prophecies (the fragments were first edited by Cesare De Lollis in 1894). In this book Columbus set forth views on himself as the fulfiller of biblical prophecies! Columbus saw himself as fulfilling the “islands of the sea” passages from Isaiah and another group of verses concerning the conversion of the heathen. Watts reports that Columbus was preoccupied with “the final conversion of all races on the eve of the end of the world,” paying particular attention to John 10:16: “And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold” (see also 3 Nephi 16:3). He took his mission of spreading the gospel of Christ seriously. “God made me the messenger of the new heaven and the new earth. . . . He showed me the spot where to find it,” Columbus wrote in 1500. Citation

13 And it came to pass that I beheld the Spirit of God, that it wrought upon other Gentiles; and they went forth out of captivity, upon the many waters.

What does “out of captivity” tell us about their circumstances?

14 And it came to pass that I beheld many multitudes of the Gentiles upon the land of promise; and I beheld the wrath of God, that it was upon the seed of my brethren; and they were scattered before the Gentiles and were smitten.

What does this verse teach us about how God uses history?  Is that lesson applicable to all situations?

15 And I beheld the Spirit of the Lord, that it was upon the Gentiles, and they did prosper and obtain the land for their inheritance; and I beheld that they were white, and exceedingly fair and beautiful, like unto my people before they were slain.

If you’re, say, a Howard Zinn fan, this passage will almost certainly grate on your nerves with the idea that American settlers were led by the Spirit to steal the lands of native people and, you know, kill them.  How do you read this?  What demands does it make on the reader?

Nephi’s coloring was probably similar to what you see in  Middle Eastern people today.  Given that, what does he mean by “white” in this verse?

16 And it came to pass that I, Nephi, beheld that the Gentiles who had gone forth out of captivity did humble themselves before the Lord; and the power of the Lord was with them.

Was this before or after they murdered innocent girls for being witches?  (Sorry, I’ll behave.)

17 And I beheld that their mother Gentiles were gathered together upon the waters, and upon the land also, to battle against them.

Why do you think the phrase “mother Gentiles” was used?  It seems awfully . . . nice . . . given the captivity and great and abominable motif we’ve just seen.

Most LDS read this as a reference to the American Revolution. If it is, why would that event have been important enough to include in this vision?

Why the emphasis on the water in this verse?

18 And I beheld that the power of God was with them, and also that the wrath of God was upon all those that were gathered together against them to battle.

To whom does “them” refer in this verse?

What do we gain from interpreting historical events as reflecting/including/resulting from “the wrath of God”?  What might we lose?  Can we read all wars/events this way?  If not, which should we?  How do we know?

19 And I, Nephi, beheld that the Gentiles that had gone out of captivity were delivered by the power of God out of the hands of all other nations.

Had they done something to deserve this special treatment?

Joe Spencer:

It’s important not to close up the interpretive possibilities of Nephi’s words too quickly (might the war or wars of independence referred to be wars waged as much by other New World nations as by the colonies that would become the United States of America?). Still more importantly, I think, is the fact that the lack of angelic commentary here means that, for the most part, we’re left without a clear indication of what God thinks about all these events we are so wont to cherish. We have, for the most part, a simple report of their having happened.  Citation

20 And it came to pass that I, Nephi, beheld that they did prosper in the land; and I beheld a book, and it was carried forth among them.

How would you respond to someone who read this verse as justifying the treatment of Native Americans and African Americans by early European Americans?

Why is the book mentioned now, and not previously?

21 And the angel said unto me: Knowest thou the meaning of the book?

Why does the angel use “meaning” as opposed to “contents of” or “identity” or “significance” or somesuch?

Again, I am struck by the dialogue of Nephi and the angel.  What are we to learn from it? How might it be relevant to our lives?

22 And I said unto him: I know not.

Skousen omits “unto him” here.

Nephi almost always knows stuff.  Why doesn’t he know this?

23 And he said: Behold it proceedeth out of the mouth of a Jew. And I, Nephi, beheld it; and he said unto me: The book that thou beholdest is a record of the Jews, which contains the covenants of the Lord, which he hath made unto the house of Israel; and it also containeth many of the prophecies of the holy prophets; and it is a record like unto the engravings which are upon the plates of brass, save there are not so many; nevertheless, they contain the covenants of the Lord, which he hath made unto the house of Israel; wherefore, they are of great worth unto the Gentiles.

What is this book?  Who is the Jew, and why isn’t he named?  If it is the Bible, then why “a” Jew?

Is this book the equivalent of the iron rod in Lehi’s vision?  If it is, then is the “clinging” that was problematic in Lehi’s vision the symbolic equivalent of “clinging” to an imperfect Bible?

How should this use of “Jew” shape our understanding of all of the other times that Nephi uses the word Jew?

Why is this book characterized as covenants and prophecies?  What should that teach us about the content of the book?

Does “save there are not so many” refer to the brass plates, or to this book that Nephi sees?

Why would covenants made with the house of Israel be of great worth to the Gentiles?

Does this verse reflect a step backwards in time relative to the previous verse?  If so, why?

24 And the angel of the Lord said unto me: Thou hast beheld that the book proceeded forth from the mouth of a Jew; and when it proceeded forth from the mouth of a Jew it contained the fulness of the gospel of the Lord, of whom the twelve apostles bear record; and they bear record according to the truth which is in the Lamb of God.

Skousen:

Here is one of Oliver Cowdery’s conjectural emendations that I think he got wrong. In 1 Nephi 13:24 the original manuscript reads “it contained the fullness of the gospel of the Land”, which seems impossible. When Oliver copied this passage into the printer’s manuscript, he changed “the gospel of the Land” to “the gospel of the Lord”. He obviously couldn’t accept the word land here, and he thought Land looked like Lord. In actuality, the reading of the original text was very likely “the gospel of the Lamb”. The original scribe apparently misheard lamb as land but without the d at the end being pronounced, which he then wrote as Land in the original manuscript. At every other place in the Book of Mormon (namely, in four places in 1 Nephi 13), the text consistently reads “the gospel of the Lamb”, never “the gospel of the Lord”. Of course, “the gospel of the Lord” is possible, but that isn’t the way the Book of Mormon expresses it.”  Citation

Skousen reads fulness (as it is here) but the printer’s manuscript and the 1820 BoM read “plainness.”  (From a theological viewport, I think plainness works -much- better than fulness, but it is pretty clear, I think, that the original was fulness.) What does fulness of the gospel mean?  Webster 1828 definition here.

What does it mean to say that the Bible originally contained the fulness of the gospel?  What does that tell us about the Bible?  What is the fulness?  (Did it, for example, include references to all ordinances?)

“Lamb” is clearly the preferred title in this vision; why?

Possible meanings for Lamb of God:
(1) Passover lamb (see Exodus 12)
(2) sacrificial lamb (see Exodus 29:38?46)
(3) suffering servant of God (see Isaiah 53)
(4) destroys all evil in the last days (Revelation 7:17, 17:14)

One thing that we learn from this verse is that it is possible for a book to contain the fullness of the gospel.

25 Wherefore, these things go forth from the Jews in purity unto the Gentiles, according to the truth which is in God.

Jim F.:  “If the Bible went forth from the Jews in purity, what does that suggest about when or how things might have been removed from the record? What does it mean to say that the book went forth “in purity”? In this case is purity the same as completeness? as accuracy? or does the angel mean something else? Does “in purity” modify the book or the way that it was transmitted or . . . ? “

26 And after they go forth by the hand of the twelve apostles of the Lamb, from the Jews unto the Gentiles, thou seest the formation of that great and abominable church, which is most abominable above all other churches; for behold, they have taken away from the gospel of the Lamb many parts which are plain and most precious; and also many covenants of the Lord have they taken away.

Again Skousen reads formation (as the text does) instead of foundation, as the printer’s manuscript and 1831 BoM read.

Jim F.:  “Does this verse tell us that the abominable church is abominable because it has taken away plain and precious parts? Are “many parts which are plain and most precious” and “many covenants” two different things that have been removed, or is this a case of parallelism in which the second item in the parallel tells us what the first item means? In what ways could one remove a covenant from the Bible? “

Stephen E. Robinson:

The notion of shifty-eyed medieval monks rewriting the scriptures is unfair and bigoted. We owe those monks a debt of gratitude that anything was saved at all.  Citation

Why are we back to the g and a church here?  Why introduce it earlier if it is at this moment that its work becomes relevant?

Modern textual critics see most changes to the Bible to be additions of text, not subtractions.  Does that or does that not disagree with what is described in this verse?

What would motivate someone to remove plain and precious things?  What would motivate someone to take away covenants?

What does plain mean?  W1828 here.

Note above that the content of the book was described as covenants and prophecies.  In this verse, what is removed are plain and precious parts and covenants.  Does this mean that prophecies and plain and precious parts refer to the same thing?

27 And all this have they done that they might pervert the right ways of the Lord, that they might blind the eyes and harden the hearts of the children of men.

Why would they want to do this?

28 Wherefore, thou seest that after the book hath gone forth through the hands of the great and abominable church, that there are many plain and precious things taken away from the book, which is the book of the Lamb of God.

Skousen ads “most” before precious.

John Welch:

Close reading shows that Nephi saw other, more fundamental factors first at work.  These words of the angel seem to identify three stages in this process—not just one. First, the Gentiles would take “away from the gospel of the Lamb many parts which are plain and most precious” (1 Nephi 13:26). This stage possibly could have occurred more by altering the meaning or understanding of the things taught by the Lord than by changing the words themselves. This changing of understanding was a fundamental problem seen by Nephi. What would cause many to stumble were those things “taken away out of the gospel” (1 Nephi 13:29, 32).  Second, the Gentiles would take away “many covenants of the Lord” (1 Nephi 13:26). This step, too, could be taken without deleting any words from the Bible as such. The knowledge and benefit of the covenants of God could become lost simply by neglecting the performance of ordinances, or priesthood functions, or individual covenants as the Lord had taught.  Third, Nephi beheld that there were “many plain and precious things taken away from the book” (1 Nephi 13:28). This step was apparently a consequence of the first two, since 13:28 begins with the word “wherefore.” Thus, the eventual physical loss of things from the Bible was perhaps less a cause than a result of the fact that, first, the gospel, and second, the covenants had been lost or taken away.  Citation

That article also explains how the BoM responds to those three phases.

29 And after these plain and precious things were taken away it goeth forth unto all the nations of the Gentiles; and after it goeth forth unto all the nations of the Gentiles, yea, even across the many waters which thou hast seen with the Gentiles which have gone forth out of captivity, thou seest—because of the many plain and precious things which have been taken out of the book, which were plain unto the understanding of the children of men, according to the plainness which is in the Lamb of God—because of these things which are taken away out of the gospel of the Lamb, an exceedingly great many do stumble, yea, insomuch that Satan hath great power over them.

Does this verse imply that the changes were made *before* the book circulated widely?  I

Note that the Gentiles which went over the many waters were able to have the Spirit of God with them and to prosper, despite the fact that plain and precious things had been removed from their book and Satan was able to have power over them.  What might we conclude from that?

Review v20-29, looking for things that should shape your understanding of the Bible.  What do you see here that impacts how you read the Bible?

Going back to my issues above with the view of history presented in this chapter, might this be an acceptable conclusion to draw:  “The European settlers of the Americas had the Spirit with them and did prosper.  However, they also had a corrupt book, which meant that Satan had great power over them, which explains their less-than-Christian treatment of Native people and Africans (and supposed witches).”  Is that a fair summary?

30 Nevertheless, thou beholdest that the Gentiles who have gone forth out of captivity, and have been lifted up by the power of God above all other nations, upon the face of the land which is choice above all other lands, which is the land that the Lord God hath covenanted with thy father that his seed should have for the land of their inheritance; wherefore, thou seest that the Lord God will not suffer that the Gentiles will utterly destroy the mixture of thy seed, which are among thy brethren.

Is there any way to read this as *not* being about the US?  If it is about the US, then doesn’t that imply that the BoM peoples lived in the US?

This is the first reference to Nephi’s seed in a long time.  Why are they re-introduced here?

31 Neither will he suffer that the Gentiles shall destroy the seed of thy brethren.

32 Neither will the Lord God suffer that the Gentiles shall forever remain in that awful state of blindness, which thou beholdest they are in, because of the plain and most precious parts of the gospel of the Lamb which have been kept back by that abominable church, whose formation thou hast seen.

So the Spirit was guiding them, but they are in an awful state of blindness?

33 Wherefore saith the Lamb of God: I will be merciful unto the Gentiles, unto the visiting of the remnant of the house of Israel in great judgment.

How does the second half of this verse relate to the first half?

34 And it came to pass that the angel of the Lord spake unto me, saying: Behold, saith the Lamb of God, after I have visited the remnant of the house of Israel—and this remnant of whom I speak is the seed of thy father—wherefore, after I have visited them in judgment, and smitten them by the hand of the Gentiles, and after the Gentiles do stumble exceedingly, because of the most plain and precious parts of the gospel of the Lamb which have been kept back by that abominable church, which is the mother of harlots, saith the Lamb—I will be merciful unto the Gentiles in that day, insomuch that I will bring forth unto them, in mine own power, much of my gospel, which shall be plain and precious, saith the Lamb.

NB this is the first reference to Lehi’s (not Nephi’s, not his brothers’) seed.  Why is it used here?

Why “mother of harlots”?

Does this mean that only “much” of the gospel has been restored?

NB that the angel is speaking to Nephi, but quoting the words of the Lamb, which is mentioned at the beginning and the end of the verse.  Why does the Lamb speak directly here?

35 For, behold, saith the Lamb: I will manifest myself unto thy seed, that they shall write many things which I shall minister unto them, which shall be plain and precious; and after thy seed shall be destroyed, and dwindle in unbelief, and also the seed of thy brethren, behold, these things shall be hid up, to come forth unto the Gentiles, by the gift and power of the Lamb.

NB that bow the Lamb is speaking directly (through the angel?) to Nephi.

Does this verse move us backwards in time from the previous verse?  If so, why the disjunct?

Remember that gift-giving was for kings in the ancient world, so this is a big deal, I think.

Why is the solution to an imperfect book another book, and not something else?

Grant Hardy:

From the perspective of the readers, the angel is obviously speaking of the Book of Mormon, but Nephi, at this point, gives no indication that he recognizes the visionary volume as including a history that he himself would someday compose.  Citation:  Understanding the Book of Mormon, A Reader’s Guide

What I find interesting about this is that the modern reader knows more than Nephi does.  It seems that most scripture wants to create a situation where the writer knows more than the reader.  Why does this happen here, and is it destabilizing to the extent of completely upending the enterprise of scripture writing?

36 And in them shall be written my gospel, saith the Lamb, and my rock and my salvation.

Why do we go to “my” here?  Why the addition of rock and salvation to lamb?  Is the lamb speaking the words “my rock and my salvation,” or is that the angel’s or Nephi’s description of the Lamb?

37 And blessed are they who shall seek to bring forth my Zion at that day, for they shall have the gift and the power of the Holy Ghost; and if they endure unto the end they shall be lifted up at the last day, and shall be saved in the everlasting kingdom of the Lamb; and whoso shall publish peace, yea, tidings of great joy, how beautiful upon the mountains shall they be.

Does “gift and power” in this verse relate to the same phrase in v35?

Jim F.:  “The writings of the Book of Mormon contain “the gospel [. . .] and my rock and my salvation” (verse 36). Why does the Lord describe the gospel as “my rock”? In what other ways does he use “rock” and how might it be related to his use here? (Compare, for example, Matthew 16:18.) Why does he describe the gospel as “my salvation” rather than just “salvation”? What does it mean to bring forth Zion (verse 37)? Is the last part of the verse (“and whoso shall publish peace . . .”) parallel to the first part, making “bring forth Zion” and “publish peace” parallel? What does it mean to publish peace?”

38 And it came to pass that I beheld the remnant of the seed of my brethren, and also the book of the Lamb of God, which had proceeded forth from the mouth of the Jew, that it came forth from the Gentiles unto the remnant of the seed of my brethren.

39 And after it had come forth unto them I beheld other books, which came forth by the power of the Lamb, from the Gentiles unto them, unto the convincing of the Gentiles and the remnant of the seed of my brethren, and also the Jews who were scattered upon all the face of the earth, that the records of the prophets and of the twelve apostles of the Lamb are true.

Skousen reads “and also to the Jews” here.

What are these books?  How do you know?

40 And the angel spake unto me, saying: These last records, which thou hast seen among the Gentiles, shall establish the truth of the first, which are of the twelve apostles of the Lamb, and shall make known the plain and precious things which have been taken away from them; and shall make known to all kindreds, tongues, and people, that the Lamb of God is the Son of the Eternal Father, and the Savior of the world; and that all men must come unto him, or they cannot be saved.

Skousen omits “Son of” from this verse.

41 And they must come according to the words which shall be established by the mouth of the Lamb; and the words of the Lamb shall be made known in the records of thy seed, as well as in the records of the twelve apostles of the Lamb; wherefore they both shall be established in one; for there is one God and one Shepherd over all the earth.

“Thy seed” is interesting here–we have this progression where Nephi has seed, where it is destroyed, where it is referred to as mixed with that of his brethren, and here it is back as seed.  One wonders if this is more metaphorical than literal.

The last phrase suggests a relationship between the oneness of the record and the oneness of God.  What is this relationship?

42 And the time cometh that he shall manifest himself unto all nations, both unto the Jews and also unto the Gentiles; and after he has manifested himself unto the Jews and also unto the Gentiles, then he shall manifest himself unto the Gentiles and also unto the Jews, and the last shall be first, and the first shall be last.

Poetic Parallelism:

A unto the convincing of the Gentiles and the remnant of the seed of my brethren,
B and also the Jews
C who were scattered upon all the face of the earth, that the records of the prophets
and of the twelve apostles of the Lamb are true.
40 And the angel spake unto me, saying: These last records, which thou hast
seen among the Gentiles,
D shall establish the truth of the first,
E which are of the twelve apostles of the Lamb,
F and shall make known the plain and precious things which have been taken
away from them; and shall make known to all kindreds, tongues, and people,
G that the Lamb of God is the Son of the Eternal Father, and the
Savior of the world;
H and that all men must come unto him, or they cannot be saved.
41 H And they must come according to the words which shall be
established
G by the mouth of the Lamb;
F and the words of the Lamb shall be made known in the records of thy seed,
E as well as in the records of the twelve apostles of the Lamb;
D wherefore they both shall be established in one; for there is one God
and one Shepherd over all the earth.
42 C And the time cometh that he shall manifest himself unto all nations,
B both unto the Jews
A and also unto the Gentiles;  Citation

What I like about that structure is that it puts the emphasis on the H line, or the idea of coming to the Lamb and being saved.

Considering all of chapter 13, is this just “a history lesson in advance”?  To what moral or devotional purpose can you put these facts?

CHAPTER 14
1 And it shall come to pass, that if the Gentiles shall hearken unto the Lamb of God in that day that he shall manifest himself unto them in word, and also in power, in very deed, unto the taking away of their stumbling blocks—

Can you think of examples of stumbling blocks that have been removed?

2 And harden not their hearts against the Lamb of God, they shall be numbered among the seed of thy father; yea, they shall be numbered among the house of Israel; and they shall be a blessed people upon the promised land forever; they shall be no more brought down into captivity; and the house of Israel shall no more be confounded.

W1828 “confound” — “To mingle and blend different things, so that their forms or natures cannot be distinguished; to mix in a mass or crowd, so that individuals cannot be distinguished.”

NB a reference to Lehi’s seed again (unless this is more metaphorical–fathers in general?).  The idea that people can be “adopted” in to be considered part of Lehi’s seed suggests that the line of descent is, perhaps, more symbolic than literal.

3 And that great pit, which hath been digged for them by that great and abominable church, which was founded by the devil and his children, that he might lead away the souls of men down to hell—yea, that great pit which hath been digged for the destruction of men shall be filled by those who digged it, unto their utter destruction, saith the Lamb of God; not the destruction of the soul, save it be the casting of it into that hell which hath no end.

What does this verse, particularly the part about those who dug the pit being thrown into it, teach us about sin and punishment?

Who are the devil’s children?

Does filled by those who digged it mean that they will fill it with dirt–or with their bodies?

4 For behold, this is according to the captivity of the devil, and also according to the justice of God, upon all those who will work wickedness and abomination before him.

This verse suggests that both the devil’s and God’s wills are aligned here. (It feels sort of wrong to say that, but I think you know what I mean.)  What’s going on in this verse?

5 And it came to pass that the angel spake unto me, Nephi, saying: Thou hast beheld that if the Gentiles repent it shall be well with them; and thou also knowest concerning the covenants of the Lord unto the house of Israel; and thou also hast heard that whoso repenteth not must perish.

We know that the angel has been speaking unto Nephi, why mention it again?

The word “repent” hasn’t been used in this chapter yet.  Is the angel referring to things outside of this chapter, or should we interpret v1-4 as being about repentance, even though that word wasn’t used?

Are the words of the angel here a summary up to this point?  If so, what purpose would that serve for Nephi (and us)?

6 Therefore, wo be unto the Gentiles if it so be that they harden their hearts against the Lamb of God.

7 For the time cometh, saith the Lamb of God, that I will work a great and a marvelous work among the children of men; a work which shall be everlasting, either on the one hand or on the other—either to the convincing of them unto peace and life eternal, or unto the deliverance of them to the hardness of their hearts and the blindness of their minds unto their being brought down into captivity, and also into destruction, both temporally and spiritually, according to the captivity of the devil, of which I have spoken.

Skousen reads “unto destruction” instead of “into destruction.”

Joe Spencer:

It’s only at this point that there is any talk of a good church—before this, all talk of churches has been talk of the great and abominable.  Citation

8 And it came to pass that when the angel had spoken these words, he said unto me: Rememberest thou the covenants of the Father unto the house of Israel? I said unto him, Yea.

Why does the angel ask him this?  Is it possible that the angel thought Nephi might answer “no”?

9 And it came to pass that he said unto me: Look, and behold that great and abominable church, which is the mother of abominations, whose founder is the devil.

Skousen writes that for the 1837 edition, Joseph Smith changed “founder” to “foundation.”

What is the link to the previous verse?

10 And he said unto me: Behold there are save two churches only; the one is the church of the Lamb of God, and the other is the church of the devil; wherefore, whoso belongeth not to the church of the Lamb of God belongeth to that great church, which is the mother of abominations; and she is the whore of all the earth.

Note that if you do not choose to be a member of the church of the Lamb, you are automatically a member of the g and a church.

Jim F.:  “How do we know which church we are in?”  (That’s such a great question.)

11 And it came to pass that I looked and beheld the whore of all the earth, and she sat upon many waters; and she had dominion over all the earth, among all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people.

A link to the whore in Revelation?  Does her sitting upon many waters relate to the waters (fountains, etc.) in Lehi’s vision?  To the many waters that the Gentiles crossed?

Why is this very powerful figure symbolized by a woman?

Stephen E. Robinson:

While the book of Revelation does not use the exact phrase great and abominable church, both John and Nephi use a number of similar phrases to describe it. They call it the “Mother of Harlots, and Abominations,” “mother of abominations,” and “the whore that sitteth upon many waters.” (Revelation 17:1, 5; 1 Nephi 14:10–11). The major characteristics of the great and abominable church described in 1 Nephi may be listed as follows:

1. It persecutes, tortures, and slays the Saints of God (see 1 Nephi 13:5).
2. It seeks wealth and luxury (see 1 Nephi 13:7–8).
3. It is characterized by sexual immorality (see 1 Nephi 13:7).
4. It has excised plain and precious things from the scriptures (see 1 Nephi 13:26–29).
5. It has dominion over all the earth, among all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people (see 1 Nephi 14:11).
6. Its fate is to be consumed by a world war, when the nations it incites against the Saints war among themselves until the great and abominable church itself is destroyed (see 1 Nephi 22:13–14).

Another symbol used in the book of Revelation to represent the great and abominable church, as well as worldliness and wickedness in general, is Babylon. Five of the six characteristics identified in 1 Nephi are also attributed to Babylon in the book of Revelation:

1. Babylon is drunk with the blood of the Saints, the martyrs of Jesus, and the prophets (see Revelation 17:6; 18:24).
2. She is known for her enjoyment of great wealth and luxury (see Revelation 17:4; 18:3, 11–16).
3. She is characterized by wanton sexual immorality (see Revelation 17:1–2, 5).
4. She has dominion over all nations (see Revelation 17:15, 18; 18:3, 23–24).
5. Her fate is to be consumed by the very kings who, because of her deceptions, have made war on the Lamb (see Revelation 17:14–16; 18:23).

The one characteristic not common to both prophetic descriptions is Nephi’s statement that the great and abominable church has held back important parts of the canon of scripture. This omission in Revelation is not surprising since John’s record is one of the scriptures Nephi says was tampered with (see 1 Nephi 14:23–24).  Citation

Stephen E. Robinson has some really important things to say about interpreting the great and abominable church here.

12 And it came to pass that I beheld the church of the Lamb of God, and its numbers were few, because of the wickedness and abominations of the whore who sat upon many waters; nevertheless, I beheld that the church of the Lamb, who were the saints of God, were also upon all the face of the earth; and their dominions upon the face of the earth were small, because of the wickedness of the great whore whom I saw.

At what point in history is this?

(How) does the “numbers are few” relate to the numberless concourses of people?

What, if anything, does this verse teach us about the growth of the church?

13 And it came to pass that I beheld that the great mother of abominations did gather together multitudes upon the face of all the earth, among all the nations of the Gentiles, to fight against the Lamb of God.

Skousen reads “did gather together in multitides” here.  That is a huge difference in our understanding of who/what this mother of abominations is.

Is the woman in this verse the same as the whore?  Is something happening where she changes from a whore to a mother?

If you assume that this verse is about current times, it leads one to view the world in a very black-and-white, us-against-them sort of a way.  How do you reconcile that with modern prophetic teachings that recognize the good that all good people do, as well as the good in all churches, etc.?  Is this black-and-white view useful?  Harmful?  Both?

14 And it came to pass that I, Nephi, beheld the power of the Lamb of God, that it descended upon the saints of the church of the Lamb, and upon the covenant people of the Lord, who were scattered upon all the face of the earth; and they were armed with righteousness and with the power of God in great glory.

Are the saints and the covenant people the same group?  If so, why refer to them in two different ways?

15 And it came to pass that I beheld that the wrath of God was poured out upon that great and abominable church, insomuch that there were wars and rumors of wars among all the nations and kindreds of the earth.

Are these literal wars, or is this symbolic?

16 And as there began to be wars and rumors of wars among all the nations which belonged to the mother of abominations, the angel spake unto me, saying: Behold, the wrath of God is upon the mother of harlots; and behold, thou seest all these things—

We had the harlot, then the mother of abominations, and now the mother of harlots.  Are these all the same thing, or different things?

17 And when the day cometh that the wrath of God is poured out upon the mother of harlots, which is the great and abominable church of all the earth, whose founder is the devil, then, at that day, the work of the Father shall commence, in preparing the way for the fulfilling of his covenants, which he hath made to his people who are of the house of Israel.

This verse almost reads as if those terrible events -cause- the Father to begin his work.  Is that what is meant here?  If so, what might we learn from that?

Isn’t it correct to say that the work of the Father commenced well before this, if there are saints gathered and armed?  Or are we disrupting the temporal sequence again?

Skousen writes that for the 1837 edition, Joseph Smith changed “founder” to “foundation.”

18 And it came to pass that the angel spake unto me, saying: Look!

19 And I looked and beheld a man, and he was dressed in a white robe.

20 And the angel said unto me: Behold one of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

Does this mean that Lehi’s “man in the white robe” was the same guy?  If so, why would John the Revelator have been given the task of guiding Lehi through his vision?  If not, what is the relationship between this guy and Lehi’s guy?

21 Behold, he shall see and write the remainder of these things; yea, and also many things which have been.

How might you read the Book of Revelation differently in light of this verse?  What is in there that consists of “things which have been” (in Nephi’s past tense)?

22 And he shall also write concerning the end of the world.

23 Wherefore, the things which he shall write are just and true; and behold they are written in the book which thou beheld proceeding out of the mouth of the Jew; and at the time they proceeded out of the mouth of the Jew, or, at the time the book proceeded out of the mouth of the Jew, the things which were written were plain and pure, and most precious and easy to the understanding of all men.

Why “just”?  Is the point supposed to be that we don’t need to wonder if the many destructions in the Book of Rev are “just”?

Does this mean that the Book of Revelation is the book referred to above?  If so, why is it the one mentioned, when we might consider the gospels more important?  If not, then why is it singled out here as getting the same treatment as the book mentioned above?

Jim F.:  “Verse 23: Nephi says that the John’s revelation was “plain and pure, and most precious and easy to the understanding of all men.” However, in 1 Nephi 15:3 he says that Lehi’s revelation was “hard to be understood, save a man should inquire of the Lord.” Does this mean that Lehi’s revelation is, in itself, more difficult to understand than John’s or is something else going on here?”  I would add:  does this suggest that ‘being easy to understand’ isn’t always the point (or is this a Lehi fail)?  What does this suggest about revelation?

Unless you believe that Rev has been virtually re-written, then I think we have to assume that apocalyptic can count as “plain.”  What does this mean, and how should it inform our reading of Revelation?

24 And behold, the things which this apostle of the Lamb shall write are many things which thou hast seen; and behold, the remainder shalt thou see.

25 But the things which thou shalt see hereafter thou shalt not write; for the Lord God hath ordained the apostle of the Lamb of God that he should write them.

Why would it be important to the Lord that only John, and not Nephi, write these things, especially since we have multiple instances of duplicated records from the BoM to the Bible?

Why does Nephi bother including all of this in his record, so that we know that he saw things that he didn’t write and that John would write them?

26 And also others who have been, to them hath he shown all things, and they have written them; and they are sealed up to come forth in their purity, according to the truth which is in the Lamb, in the own due time of the Lord, unto the house of Israel.

Who are these others?  Why mention them?

27 And I, Nephi, heard and bear record, that the name of the apostle of the Lamb was John, according to the word of the angel.

Why would this information have been given to Nephi?  Why would it be important for him to bear record of it?  What effect does it have on the reader? What might we say about John’s agency if this were known to Nephi 600 years or so before John was born?

Why is the name not included until the very end of the account–what effect does that have on the reader?

28 And behold, I, Nephi, am forbidden that I should write the remainder of the things which I saw and heard; wherefore the things which I have written sufficeth me; and I have written but a small part of the things which I saw.

29 And I bear record that I saw the things which my father saw, and the angel of the Lord did make them known unto me.

Is what Lehi saw identical?  If so, then why do Lehi and Nephi put such different spins on it?

30 And now I make an end of speaking concerning the things which I saw while I was carried away in the spirit; and if all the things which I saw are not written, the things which I have written are true. And thus it is. Amen.

General Thoughts:
(1) What does Nephi’s vision teach us about historiography?  About specific historical events?  About the relationships between prophets and prophetic records?

(2) The BoM has been criticized for including abundant detail of historical events *before* Joseph Smith’s time but not after his time, something seen as all the more damning since a BoM written “for our day” should, presumably, include more of the events of our day.  How would you respond to these arguments?

(3) I think, in our pride, we have chosen to emphasize the strands of the vision that makes our (European American) ancestors look good.  We choose not the emphasize The Other Parts, the parts about them being in “a state of awful wickedness” so they “stumble exceedingly”  (1 Ne 13:29, 32, 34).

(4) Is Nephi’s vision (or, at least, this part of the vision) to be read as an apocalyptic work?  If so, then we would not want to read it as “history written in advance” but rather as “truths taught symbolically.”  What is appropriate here?  We think that apocalyptic was a popular genre when people were persecuted; is that the case here?  Does the continuation of Nephi’s vision as John’s vision demand that we read this as apocalyptic?  I’m also curious about the fact that Nephi’s vision is a continuation of Lehi’s and John’s is a continuation of Nephi’s.  What’s up with the Great Chain of Visions?  Are *all* visions part of one apocalyptic script?

(5) If you read ch13-14, you could be forgiven for thinking that the entire Bible *was* the Book of Revelation, or maybe that the only significant part of the Bible was the Book of Revelation.  Why might this be?  Does ch13-14 encourage us to read Revelation differently?

(6) If you were to develop a “theology of war” based on these chapters, what would it look like?

Additional Resoureces:

“Nephi’s Great and Abominable Church”

“Connections Between the Visions of Lehi and Nephi”

Chart Comparing Lehi’s and Nephi’s Visions
(Note:  some entries on this chart I am not at all sure about–some are very clearly parallel, but others are quite speculative and I don’t necessarily agree with them.)

Chart based on this and this.

Corbin T. Volluz:

Just as the dream of Lehi left the reader hanging, so does the vision of Nephi. This similarity in abrupt endings of Nephi’s vision and Lehi’s dream tends to confirm the hypothesis that the vision of Nephi is an interpretation of Lehi’s dream, up to and including the cliff-hanger ending. But at the conclusion of Nephi’s vision, we learn the reason behind the premature finale.  Nephi was forbidden by God to record the conclusion of the vision.  Citation

Discussion based on the chart:

Note that you could almost auto-generate discussion questions based on the chart by asking “Why is X an appropriate symbol for Y?” “Why does Lehi see X but Nephi’s parallel is Y?” “Why is there no parallel in [Lehi or Nephi]‘s vision to this part of [Nephi or Lehi]‘s vision” for every row on the chart.

Should Lehi’s location “in the wilderness” (where he literally is) versus Nephi’s high mountain (giving, literally, an overview, but not engaged with the action on the ground) set up for us the two different viewpoints of the vision?  If that is the case, are there other elements in the vision that are symbolic in a similar sense–that is, in terms of giving us information about the visionary instead of the vision per se?

Why is Lehi a participant but Nephi is an observer?

Why does Nephi dialogue with the angel/Spirit but Lehi doesn’t?

Why did Nephi choose not to record Lehi’s words that correspond to 1 Nephi 13?  (And it’s kind of fun to think about what symbols might have been used there in Lehi’s vision.)

John Welch:

The two visions are very different in character. Lehi’s dream is intimate, symbolic, and salvific; Nephi’s vision is collective, historic, and eschatological. Yet both visions embrace the same prophetic elements, only from different angles.  Citation

Do you agree with that?  What do you conclude from the fact that the same core of visionary material could be used to reach such different conclusions?   What does this teach about about interpretation of visions–or, more generally, of the scriptures?

Note:  I’m following the lesson outline the Gospel Doctrine manual uses (Lesson #3:  1 Nephi 8-11, 12:16-18, 15 and Lesson #4:  1 Nephi 12-14), but I won’t be teaching it that way.  In the past, I’ve never found it possible to get past chapter 8 anyway, so it is a moot point for me, but even if I could cover more material, I think it is better to consider Nephi’s experience (1 Nephi 11-15) in its entirety.  I have no idea why they decided to separate 1 Ne 12-14; I think it is counterproductive to try to understand those chapters outside of their native context in Nephi’s vision.  This article, particularly the second section, explains why.

Write on the board:

strait=narrow (could be crooked)
straight=not crooked (could be broad)

CHAPTER 8

1 And it came to pass that we had gathered together all manner of seeds of every kind, both of grain of every kind, and also of the seeds of fruit of every kind.

Is this a deliberate allusion to the creation account in Genesis?

I can’t help but feel that instead of a throw-away line, this is somehow the interpretive key to the vision.  This article suggests that you can’t gather seeds without eating fruit, so this becomes a real-world link to Lehi’s vision; one where L&L have been eating fruit, and in a context where they likely would have understood that their future physical survival depended on eating the fruit.  This experience would have involved eating fruit but with a focus on seeds, whereas Lehi’s vision is focused on eating fruit with no mention of seeds.  Why might that be?  (It might work well to start class with v2 and then read this verse after studying the vision.  At that point, ask the class what difference v1 makes and then discuss the paragraph above.)

 2 And it came to pass that while my father tarried in the wilderness he spake unto us, saying: Behold, I have dreamed a dream; or, in other words, I have seen a vision.

How will this vision compare to his previous ones?

I’m going to ask my class as we read to just stick to the text of Lehi’s vision and not, at this point, incorporate insights that they get either from Nephi’s vision or from Nephi’s later explanations to his brothers.  I think this is important because (1) it honors the way the BoM is structured and (2) the visions are different and serve different purposes, and so it is helpful at this point to take them separately.  But we’ll integrate next week!

How is your interpretation of the vision affected by the fact that the vision is presented in the context of Lehi sharing it with his family, and not just the vision itself?

3 And behold, because of the thing which I have seen, I have reason to rejoice in the Lord because of Nephi and also of Sam; for I have reason to suppose that they, and also many of their seed, will be saved.

(How) does this relate to the “seed” reference in v1?

We’ll learn later that partaking of the fruit doesn’t guarantee salvation (because some of the partakers are later ashamed and wander off).  So what are we to make of this conclusion?

Joe Spencer:

It’s interesting that Lehi here speaks of being “saved.” What does he mean by this term? Should this be understood in a strong soteriological sense—saved from death and hell, etc.? Or does it have a more down-to-earth meaning—saved, say, from the destruction of Jerusalem.  Citation

4 But behold, Laman and Lemuel, I fear exceedingly because of you; for behold, methought I saw in my dream, a dark and dreary wilderness.

Skousen omits “in my dream” from the most likely original reading.  How would you understand the verse differently without those words?

Should we be concerned that Lehi’s communication of this vision to his sons functions as a sort of predestination?  That is, could it have left them feeling that they had no choice in the matter?  (The same could apply to Nephi and Sam in the previous verse.)

Why is Sariah mentioned in neither v3 nor v4?

Shouldn’t the “behold” be followed by either “I have reason to suppose that you wouldn’t be saved” or “because you didn’t eat the fruit” to parallel the previous verse?  Does Lehi leave open why he is afraid or is he afraid because of the dark and dreary wilderness?  The latter might work grammmatically, but is somewhat odd in that *Lehi* was in the wilderness,  not (just) his sons.

It is probably fair to say that Lehi is currently, in real life, living in a dark and dreary wilderness and v1 told us that his family (presumably all of them?) were partaking of fruit.  How do Lehi’s actual circumstances relate to the vision?

Was Lehi commanded to convey this information, or was this his choice?  If so, was it a mis-step?  Was he sowing problems by dividing his boys this way?  (Any parenting expert today would tell you never to compare your kids.)

NB joy in v3 and fear here.  Are these the emotions that we would have expected?  Do we consider fear and joy opposites?  Should we?

What is accomplished–either for the boys or for the reader–by relating the impact that the dream had on Lehi before relating its content?

Does “methought” mean “I thought but perhaps I was wrong”?  The only other use of “methought” in scripture is Alma 36:22, which refers to a vision of Lehi’s (but not this one).

Lehi did not directly address Nephi and Sam in the previous verse but speaks directly to L&L here.  Is that significant?

 5 And it came to pass that I saw a man, and he was dressed in a white robe; and he came and stood before me.

Why man and not angel?  Are we being asked to assume that this is a mere mortal, or should we assume otherwise?

Elder Jeffrey R. Holland:

From the beginning down through the dispensations, God has used angels as His emissaries in conveying love and concern for His children.  . . . Usually such beings are not seen. Sometimes they are. But seen or unseen they are always near. Sometimes their assignments are very grand and have significance for the whole world. Sometimes the messages are more private. Occasionally the angelic purpose is to warn. But most often it is to comfort, to provide some form of merciful attention, guidance in difficult times. When in Lehi’s dream he found himself in a frightening place, “a dark and dreary waste,” as he described it, he was met by an angel, “a man … dressed in a white robe; … he spake unto me,” Lehi said, “and bade me follow him.”Lehi did follow him to safety and ultimately to the path of salvation.  In the course of life all of us spend time in “dark and dreary” places, wildernesses, circumstances of sorrow or fear or discouragement. Our present day is filled with global distress over financial crises, energy problems, terrorist attacks, and natural calamities. These translate into individual and family concerns not only about homes in which to live and food available to eat but also about the ultimate safety and well-being of our children and the latter-day prophecies about our planet. More serious than these—and sometimes related to them—are matters of ethical, moral, and spiritual decay seen in populations large and small, at home and abroad. But I testify that angels are still sent to help us, even as they were sent to help Adam and Eve, to help the prophets, and indeed to help the Savior of the world Himself.  Oct 2008 GC.

It is interesting to me that (1) he reads the man as an angel and (2) that he suggests that this sort of divine aid is the norm, not the exceptional expereince.

Read Rev 6:11, 7:9, 13-14, JS-H 1:31-32.  These are the only other scriptural references to “white robe.”  (Although, more generally, there are some other similar situations.)  What do you conclude?

Charles Swift:

Though there have been other interpretations of whom the man in the white robe represents in Lehi’s dream, from a messenger to a Christ-figure to Moses, I believe that John the Revelator is one important possibility.  Citation

What I find more interesting here than trying to peg down who the mysterious man in the white robe was (I think settling on John the Revelator is too speculative) is this question:  why aren’t we just told who it was?

6 And it came to pass that he spake unto me, and bade me follow him.

Why don’t we get the man’s direct speech?  Did the man say more than “follow me”?

7 And it came to pass that as I followed him I beheld myself that I was in a dark and dreary waste.

Is this “waste” different from the dark and dreary wilderness in v4?  (These are the only scriptural references to “dark and dreary.”)

Are we to draw a contrast between the white robe and the dark waste?  If so, what would be conclude?

Charles Swift:

An excellent example of reversal occurs when Lehi finds himself in “a dark and dreary wilderness,” a guide in a white robe appears, and Lehi follows him to “a dark and dreary waste” (see 1 Nephi 8:4—7). We expect Lehi’s guide to bring him to a place of light and safety, but instead the prophet is taken to yet another dark and dreary place. What kind of deliverance figure, clothed in the powerful symbol of a white robe, would take a prophet from one dark place to another?”  Citation

8 And after I had traveled for the space of many hours in darkness, I began to pray unto the Lord that he would have mercy on me, according to the multitude of his tender mercies.

We always rush past the “many hours.”   Pause for a moment to think about how terrifying it would be to travel for many hours in the dark.  What should we learn from this?

What do you think Lehi was feeling during this time?  Why did the Lord put Lehi through this uncomfortable experience?  Is it punitive?

What happened to the man in the white robe?  Is he no longer there–and that’s why Lehi has to pray to the Lord?  Or is “praying to the Lord” the same as “asking the man in the white robe”?

We’ll later find out that people who try to travel in the dark (or:  is that different because it is a mist?) get lost.  Does that happen to Lehi here?  I’ve seen some semi-critical commentary of this vision for not picturing repentance (it does seem that once you get lost, you’re toast), but I am wondering if it would be legitimate to read this verse as Lehi’s return to the path through prayer (even though no sin is implied, or is it?).

Why is “mercy” what is needed here?  Is “mercy” the same as “light” or “guidance”?

9 And it came to pass after I had prayed unto the Lord I beheld a large and spacious field.

Do you conclude that the field is an example of the Lord’s tender mercies?

What might the field symbolize?  Is this related to the references about the field being white and ready to harvest?

Mosiah 11:8-9 and Ether 10:5 are the only times outside of Lehi/Nephi’s vision that “spacious” is used in the scriptures; both refer to buildings made by the wicked.  Is the field evil?  Neutral?  Good?  Why is it described as ‘spacious’ and what does that mean, given that other scriptural uses of ‘spacious’ are negative?

What does this verse teach you about what you can expect from prayer?

Not much is done with “the field;” our attention quickly shifts to the tree and remains there.  Why mention the field at all?  Why not just behold the tree?

10 And it came to pass that I beheld a tree, whose fruit was desirable to make one happy.

How does this tree relate to the tree of knowledge of good and evil and/or the tree of life?

How does Lehi know that the fruit is desireable?

“Happy” is interesting.  Not a lot of scriptures about happiness per se.  (Some modern translations use happy instead of blessed in the beatitudes.)  Happy seems a little . . . tepid . . . to me.

The fruit is symbolic (right?).  What does it symbolize?

Alma 32:39 is the only other scriptural reference to desirable fruit.  How does that story relate to this one?

It is hard to avoid comparing this verse with Genesis 3:6 (“And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.”)  What do you make of the similarities and differences between these two stories?

11 And it came to pass that I did go forth and partake of the fruit thereof; and I beheld that it was most sweet, above all that I ever before tasted. Yea, and I beheld that the fruit thereof was white, to exceed all the whiteness that I had ever seen.

NB that ‘partake’ is not used in the KJV.

W1828 partake:  “To take a part, portion or share in common with others; to have a share or part.”  Why focus on the communal nature of the fruit here?

Was he commanded to do this or did it just seem like the right thing to do?

Joe Spencer:

I think it’s significant that once he gets to the tree, Lehi finds something small, round, and white to press to his lips in a gesture not at all unlike that of Isaiah in Isaiah 6. Remember that Isaiah there, in what I argued in my “preliminaries” post is a crucial text for Nephi’s record, has a white stone taken from the altar of incense pressed to his lips, thus giving him to join the seraphic throng in singing and shouting praises to God enthroned. Lehi has something of the same experience here, and it is a clear echo of 1 Nephi 1, where we similarly see Lehi being given to ascend into heaven, through the mediation of an angelic figure (with a book, rather than a stone), so that he can shout praises along with the angels surrounding the throne of God. Citation

Note that he just “goes forth,” nothing about a rod, path, mists, etc.  Why is his trip to the fruit so much less complicated than it will be for other people in this vision?

Before he tastes the fruit, he knows that it will make him happy.  After he tastes it, he notes that it is sweet and white.  Shouldn’t he have been able to note that it is white *before* he tastes it? I am wondering if [symbolically] only the inside is white and the outside is a different color. And how did he know about ‘happy’ before he tasted it?  It seems that the whiteness of the fruit would be noticed first, since he would see it before he tastes it.  Why does he tell us how it tastes before he tells us how it looks?

(Why) are sweet and white used as proxies for happy?

Virtually all OT references to “sweet” refer to the smell of the ceremonial incense, which is generally symbolic of prayer.  Is that relevant here?

In the NT, Rev 10:9-10 refers to a sweet taste (“And I went unto the angel, and said unto him, Give me the little book. And he said unto me, Take it, and eat it up; and it shall make thy belly bitter, but it shall be in thy mouth sweet as honey.  And I took the little book out of the angel’s hand, and ate it up; and it was in my mouth sweet as honey: and as soon as I had eaten it, my belly was bitter.”).  Is that relevant here?

Is Alma 32:42 (“And because of your diligence and your faith and your patience with the word in nourishing it, that it may take root in you, behold, by and by ye shall pluck the fruit thereof, which is most precious, which is sweet above all that is sweet, and which is white above all that is white, yea, and pure above all that is pure; and ye shall feast upon this fruit even until ye are filled, that ye hunger not, neither shall ye thirst.) relevant here?

Does the whiteness of the fruit tie it to the white robe?

Why privilege taste and sight above other senses here?

Other combos of “exceed” and “white” include JS-H 1:31-32, Mark 9:3, 1 Ne 13:15, 2 Ne 5:21, and Ether 3:1.  Do any of those passages nuance your understanding of this one?

12 And as I partook of the fruit thereof it filled my soul with exceedingly great joy; wherefore, I began to be desirous that my family should partake of it also; for I knew that it was desirable above all other fruit.

Skousen reads “desirous” instead of “desirable” here.  Does it make a difference in your understanding of the verse?

Why do sweet and white lead to joy?

Is joy different from happiness?  I think you could make the case that, before he tasted it, he knew that it would lead to happiness, but only after did he realize that it would lead to joy, and that these are not the same thing.  I think Alma 27:18 (“Now was not this exceeding joy? Behold, this is joy which none receiveth save it be the truly penitent and humble seeker of happiness.”) is interesting here, because it suggests that seeking happiness can lead to joy.  We might also link this to the desire for his family to partake–when he thought the fruit just made you happy, he wasn’t focused on sharing it with his family.  But now that he knows that it leads to joy, he is compelled to share it.  I wonder if we might also tie this in to Eve’s experience:  is it fair to say that she thought beforehand that eating the fruit would have a certain effect but it actually had something a little different?  I also am thinking that he didn’t realize that it was desireable above all other fruit until after he had eaten it.

I like to experiment with new recipes and I am frequently amazed at the results:  sometimes I think something will rock, and I can barely eat it.  Other times I have pretty low expectations, but a dish knocks my socks off.  You just can’t know until you taste it . . .

What’s with all of the superlatives?

Elder Richard G. Scott:

When in a dream Lehi partook of the fruit of the tree of life and was filled with joy, his first thought was to share it with each member of his family, including the disobedient.  April 1988 GC.

I like the “including the disobedient” there.  I think too often we treat it as our role to exclude the disobedient, to be sure that they are adequately punished for their choices.

Marion D. Hanks:

I conceive this to be the simplest and most understandable of human emotions. That which is beautiful and good and satisfying to the soul is infinitely more so when shared with those we love. I believe this is the foundation of the missionary work of the Church, of the Primary program and the genealogical program and the serviceman’s program, and every other effort made by the Church to lift and inspire and strengthen the individual child of God. Oct 1961 GC.

I love that.

13 And as I cast my eyes round about, that perhaps I might discover my family also, I beheld a river of water; and it ran along, and it was near the tree of which I was partaking the fruit.

I think “cast . . . eyes . . . round about” may be a technical phrase in the BoM with a connotation of spiritual eyes opening.  It doesn’t seem to always work this way, but many references suggest something more than just “looking over there.”  If my hunch is right, then I think we can’t avoid the conclusion that “Lehi’s eyes were now opened as a result of partaking of the fruit.”  Additionally, he is casting his eyes in order to “discover his family,” and it is the opening of Eve’s eyes that makes it possible for her to have children (right?).  Further, despite the fact that we ignore those verses, the rivers in the creation story get a ton of airtime (=verses), and look, folks, we’ve got a river here, too.  In which case, we can’t avoid comparing this story with Eve’s experience.  Some thoughts on that:  What happens by changing the gender of the eater?  How does Sariah’s role in the dream compare with Adam’s role in the garden?  Where’s Satan in Lehi’s dream?  Does the fruit symbolize the same thing in both visions?  In what other ways are Lehi’s and Eve’s experiences similar and different?  Following this analogy, are L&L and Nephi readable as Cain and Abel?

Thoughts about the river here.

What does the river symbolize? What about the river in the New Jerusalem at the end of the book of Revelation?

Given that he was actually looking for his family, does seeing the river constitute some sort of a fail?

Is the running of the river and/or its nearness to the tree significant?

14 And I looked to behold from whence it came; and I saw the head thereof a little way off; and at the head thereof I beheld your mother Sariah, and Sam, and Nephi; and they stood as if they knew not whither they should go.

Is this a criticism of the faith of Sariah, Sam, and Nephi?  How else could you read it?

Why “your mother”?  Don’t they know that?

Why are they unsure about where to go?  (Lehi wasn’t.)

15 And it came to pass that I beckoned unto them; and I also did say unto them with a loud voice that they should come unto me, and partake of the fruit, which was desirable above all other fruit.

This seems unusually participatory for a dream/vision.  Why is it that way?

Why the loud voice?

16 And it came to pass that they did come unto me and partake of the fruit also.

Is it significant that they came unto -Lehi- and not the tree?

Again, there’s no path, rod, or mists for them.  Why?

Lehi partook because of his assessment that the fruit would make him happy.  They partake because Lehi told him to.  Is this significant?  And, getting back to the garden, is it significant that Eve partook because of an assessment of the fruit and Adam partook because Eve told him to?

17 And it came to pass that I was desirous that Laman and Lemuel should come and partake of the fruit also; wherefore, I cast mine eyes towards the head of the river, that perhaps I might see them.

So they are near S, S, and N.  Why didn’t he see them in v14?

Is Lehi’s attitude toward L&L the same as our attitude toward L&L?

18 And it came to pass that I saw them, but they would not come unto me and partake of the fruit.

Does he extend the same invitation that he did in v15?  If so, why isn’t it narrated?  If not, why not?

Why won’t they come?

Joe Spencer:

Lehi’s desire to give the tree’s fruit to his family is duly famous. But the role it plays in the unfolding of Lehi’s dream is almost universally overlooked. It is specifically in looking for his family that Lehi begins to see more of his surroundings, beginning to see the terrain—the difficult terrain—he has just passed through. . . . They’re interested, it seems, in neither the valley of Lemuel (preferring to stay in Jerusalem—echoes, here, of 1 Nephi 7) nor the privilege of ascension into the presence of God (“a visionary man,” they’ve complained before). . . . what readers tend to fail to notice is that it’s specifically the refusal on the part of Laman and Lemuel that expands Lehi’s vision beyond the bounds of his family. It’s just when they refuse to come that he begins to see more, far more, than just the basic surroundings of the tree. He now begins to see not only a much larger stage with many more props, but whole multitudes of people begin to appear in the scene. . . . it’s important only to recognize that it’s Laman and Lemuel who draw Lehi’s attention to the way others, apparently non-familial others, relate to the fruit he’s tasted in the wake of listening to the prophets. Citation

 

19 And I beheld a rod of iron, and it extended along the bank of the river, and led to the tree by which I stood.

Charles Swift:

The rod, which is such a crucial element of the vision from that point on, does not even exist for Lehi and his family when they are making their way to the tree. (One might argue that perhaps the rod exists but Lehi simply does not see it. However, this is a dream—a vision—not reality. If the viewer of the vision does not see something in the vision, then it does not exist as a part of the vision.) Citation.

Is (one of the) purpose(s) of the rod to keep people from falling in the river?

Is the discovery of the rod in any way related to what comes immediately before it, which is L&L’s refusal to listen to Lehi?

John Tvedtnes:

The term rod of iron is found in Psalm 2:9 and in three passages in the book of Revelation. The first of these (Revelation 2:27) paraphrases the Psalm, while the others (Revelation 12:5; 19:15) build on it. All of them imply that the rod is a symbol of ruling power. In the Old Testament, the rod is typically used to chastise children and wrongdoers (2 Samuel 7:14; Proverbs 13:24; 29:15). . . . Anciently, the rod was used both for correction and for gentle guidance. . . . The shepherd’s rod was a weapon, normally a piece of wood with a knob at one end. With it, he could defend the flock from predators. It was also used to count the sheep at day-end (Leviticus 27:32; Ezekiel 20:37). The staff was a long walking stick, sometimes with a crook at the top. It could also be used for handling sheep, including separating sheep and goats. . . . The use of the rod or staff as a symbol of rule is mentioned in a number of Bible passages (Psalm 110:2; Isaiah 14:5; Jeremiah 48:17; Ezekiel 19:11—12, 14; cf. D&C 85:7). The Israelite crown prince Jonathan, son of king Saul, carried a rod (1 Samuel 14:27, 43). Ezekiel 19:11 equates rods with scepters. In Numbers 24:17, the scepter of the Messiah is symbolically used to smite Israel’s enemies. Later Jewish tradition indicates that possession of the rod denotes rule over the world (Midrash Ba-Midbar Rabbah 13:14).  It is interesting that when Laman and Lemuel were stopped from beating their younger brothers Sam and Nephi with a rod, the angel said to them, “Why do ye smite your younger brother with a rod? Know ye not that the Lord hath chosen him to be a ruler over you, and this because of your iniquities?” (1 Nephi 3:29; cf. 1 Nephi 2:22; 2 Nephi 5:19). It is possible that the elder brothers deliberately selected the rod to punish their brother to symbolize their claim to ruling authority in the family. Compare the story in Numbers 17:2—10, where Aaron’s authority as high priest in Israel was established by the miraculous blossoming of his rod. . . . The use of a rod to represent words or speech is found in Proverbs 10:13 and 14:3. In other passages, it refers specifically to the word of God. In Isaiah 30:31, “the voice of the Lord” is contrasted with the rod of the Assyrians. In a few passages, the rod is compared to a covenant with God which, like a rod, can be broken (Ezekiel 20:37; Zechariah 11:10, 14). Citation

(How) do these biblical uses of the rod shape your view of the rod here?  (How) do you think they shaped Lehi’s view?

Later in 11:25, we will find out that the rod of iron is “the word of God.” To what extent is it appropriate to import that meaning into this chapter?

What is the word of God:  the scriptures, the spoken word of God, or Jesus Christ?  Here’s a link to all of the scriptural references to word of God.My sense is that in the BoM, ‘word of God’ is roughly synonymous with “gospel,” not “written scriptures.”  Luke 8:11 is also interesting (“The seed is the word of God.”).

20 And I also beheld a strait and narrow path, which came along by the rod of iron, even to the tree by which I stood; and it also led by the head of the fountain, unto a large and spacious field, as if it had been a world.

For whether this should read straight or strait, see here, here, here, here, and here.  Skousen goes with “straight” here.  Which do you think is right, and how does it affect your interpretation of the vision?  How might it apply to your life?

I think we usually read the rod as something that helps you stay on the path, but I think you can read this verse to suggest that the path is something that develops when people have been walking along holding the rod.  How would this impact your interpretation of the vision?

Again, was the path there when Lehi went to the tree, or does it appear now?

Is this the same field Lehi was in before?

W1828 fountain:  “A spring, or source of water; properly, a spring or issuing of water from the earth.”

Does the “as if” language mean that it is not a/the world?  Does the “it” in that phrase refer to the field, or the entire scene?

Joe Spencer:

If we look at this moment of Lehi’s vision through Nephi’s later comments—according to which the rod is the word of God, which we usually interpret as the scriptures—there’s a really nice little lesson in here. The pathway to the celestial kingdom is not self-sufficient; it only serves if one is quite as attentive to the scriptures as to the path itself. Still better, one might conclude that the path is only the worn ground where those clinging to the scriptures have trod; it’s nothing in itself. Thus, to seek the path alone—to attempt just to “live a good life” or just to “serve others” or just to “do what we’re expected,” etc.—is to run into major difficulties. It’s only those who are buried in scripture who actually make it to eternal life, because they alone can feel their way through the mystifying darkness of the philosophies of men, etc.

I like this little lesson for a lot of reasons, but I want to stick to Lehi’s vision on its own terms, not to turn too quickly to what Nephi has to say about the dream. To be a bit more minimalist, then: the crucial point is just to subordinate the path to the rod. It’s the rod that leads to the tree, and the path is more incidental than anything. To seek the path is to set oneself up for disaster, because it leads through mists of darkness before it arrives at the tree. One might thus say that the path is itself a kind of temptation, a distraction, a simulacrum of the way to the tree. Citation

21 And I saw numberless concourses of people, many of whom were pressing forward, that they might obtain the path which led unto the tree by which I stood.

Does “numberless” allude to the promises re Abraham’s descendants?

W1828:  concourse “A moving, flowing or running together; confluence; as a fortuitous concourse of atoms; a concourse of men.”  (I didn’t get the idea of movement until I read that definition; I saw them as stationary, with only some pressing forward.  Now I am thinking that they are -all- moving, but only some are -moving forward.-)

Why is the path something you have to “obtain”?  Isn’t it obvious?

Does the “they” who might obtain the path just refer to the people pressing forward, or to everyone?  Is there any indication in this verse as to what makes the difference between those who are part of the numberless and those who press forward?

We saw the phrase “numberless concourses” in 1 Nephi 1:8.  Is that passage relevant here?

22 And it came to pass that they did come forth, and commence in the path which led to the tree.

Was it Lehi’s calling out to S, S, and N that caused this, or is that coincidental?  What causes this to happen?

23 And it came to pass that there arose a mist of darkness; yea, even an exceedingly great mist of darkness, insomuch that they who had commenced in the path did lose their way, that they wandered off and were lost.

W1828:  mist:  “Water falling in very numerous, but fine and almost imperceptible drops. That which dims or darkens, and obscures or intercepts vision.”  In other words, a dark fog.

Does the mist arise as a response to people seeking the path?

What does this verse teach us about opposition?  (My thought:  good intentions are not enough.)

Boyd K. Packer:

The mist of darkness will cover you at times so much that you will not be able to see your way even a short distance ahead. You will not be able to see clearly. But you can feel your way. With the gift of the Holy Ghost, you can feel your way ahead through life. Grasp the iron rod, and do not let go.  Citation

Neal A. Maxwell:

A few who have not been Saints, but merely tourists passing through, will depart from the path.   Oct 1982 GC.

So there is a point to which you can walk on the path without the iron rod and be OK, but once that mist of darkness shows up, you have to use the rod.  What does this imply about the symbolism of the path, which seems to be a somewhat neglected topic in the interpretation of the vision?  My guess would be that it is “traditional religion,” by which I mean not a specific religious tradition, but rather being religious because it is traditional. That kind of religion can keep you on the path in easy times, but when temptations arise, it is not enough.

Ezra Taft Benson:

When pride has a hold on our hearts, we lose our independence of the world and deliver our freedoms to the bondage of men’s judgment. The world shouts louder than the whisperings of the Holy Ghost. The reasoning of men overrides the revelations of God, and the proud let go of the iron rod.  Apr 1989 GC.

Only other scriptural references to mist outside of this vision:

Acts 13:11:  And now, behold, the hand of the Lord is upon thee, and thou shalt be blind, not seeing the sun for a season. And immediately there fell on him a mist and a darkness; and he went about seeking some to lead him by the hand.
2 Peter 2:17:  These are wells without water, clouds that are carried with a tempest; to whom the mist of darkness is reserved for ever.
3 Nephi 8:22 And there was not any light seen, neither fire, nor glimmer, neither the sun, nor the moon, nor the stars, for so great were the mists of darkness which were upon the face of the land.
Moses 3:6 But I, the Lord God, spake, and there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.
Abraham 5:6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.

Are they related to the mist in this vision?

Is this mist from the filthy water?  If so, what would that symbolize?

24 And it came to pass that I beheld others pressing forward, and they came forth and caught hold of the end of the rod of iron; and they did press forward through the mist of darkness, clinging to the rod of iron, even until they did come forth and partake of the fruit of the tree.

What distinguishes these people from those in v23, by which I mean:  why are these guys and gals able to reach the rod despite the mist but the last group wandered off?

‘Clinging’ is not used elsewhere in the scriptures (‘cling’ is in D&C 122:6).  It would seem that the clinging is a good thing, since their attachment to the rod distinguishes themselves from the people in v23 who wander off.  And yet, come v25, they fail.  So was the clinging bad?  Does clinging mean that you regard the rod as an end in itself?

What does the image of clinging to the rod and moving through a dark mist convey to you?

Feast wiki:

Lehi sees that they are “clinging” to the rod of iron. In such a dark setting you might expect people to be holding hands. But nothing is said of people clinging together. No person is leading another by the hand. Maybe the significance of this is that the rod of iron, or as we learn later, the word of God, must be grasped directly, individually, of our own choice. We must know the truth for ourselves. Others can “beckon” us, as Lehi did his family, but we each need to grasp the word of God individually if we are to press forward.  Citation

25 And after they had partaken of the fruit of the tree they did cast their eyes about as if they were ashamed.

What causes this?

I would have thought that after you ate the fruit you were “done” or “safe.”  What does it mean to say that you can still mess up after eating the fruit?  Is this a hint as to what the fruit symbolizes?

Is there a link to the creation account, where eating the fruit leads to the shame of nakedness?

Wouldn’t you think that knowing the taste of the fruit would prevent you from being swayed by the reaction of others?  Since that is apparently not the case, what are we to learn from this?

The way v26 reads, it is almost as if Lehi doesn’t notice the building and its inhabitants until the people in v25 do–or *because* the people in v25 do. Why is this?

26 And I also cast my eyes round about, and beheld, on the other side of the river of water, a great and spacious building; and it stood as it were in the air, high above the earth.

Brant Gardiner:

The most difficult image is the building standing in the air – “high above the earth.” It appears likely that the building is shown detached from the “world” because the large and spacious field in which Lehi stands is representative of the larger path to celestialization, and the building has no part in that. It is visible to it, it obviously can effect it, but has no true place in the world of the tree. Citation

Boyd K. Packer:

Largely because of television, instead of looking over into that spacious building, we are, in effect, living inside of it. That is your fate in this generation. You are living in that great and spacious building. Citation

Is it useful to think of this as an anti-temple?

Is the point that the building has no foundation?  If so, what does that mean?

Do we assume that a “mist” would be low to the ground and, if so, does that have any relationship to the fact that the building appears high above the earth?  If so, what is that relationship and what does it symbolize?  Is the point that people surrounded by mist but no path or rod can see nothing but the building?  (These questions poached from here.)

How can Lehi apprehend that the building is in the air?  That is, shouldn’t the mist make it impossible for him to tell what the first floor of the building looks like?

President Thomas S. Monson:

The great and spacious building in Lehi’s vision represents those in the world who mock God’s word and who ridicule those who embrace it and who love the Savior and live the commandments (“May You Have Courage,” Liahona and Ensign, May 2009, 126).

What does the standing in the air (or:  as it were iin the air) symbolize?

Is the shift from ‘field’ to ‘earth’ significant here?

Is Lehi’s eye casting different from the eye casting in v25?  If so, how and how do you know?

How do people get in the building if it doesn’t touch the ground?  How does a building with no foundation stand up?  Shouldn’t people be afraid to enter it?  Are they?

Elder L. Tom Perry:

The current cries we hear coming from the great and spacious building tempt us to compete for ownership in the things of this world.  Oct 1995 GC.

27 And it was filled with people, both old and young, both male and female; and their manner of dress was exceedingly fine; and they were in the attitude of mocking and pointing their fingers towards those who had come at and were partaking of the fruit.

Skousen reads “came up” instead of “come at” here.  Does that imply that the tree is higher up than the surrounding area?  Or is it more metaphorical?

Boyd K. Packer:

All of the mocking does not come from outside of the Church. Let me say that again: All of the mocking does not come from outside of the Church. Be careful that you do not fall into the category of mocking. Citation

There aren’t too many shout-outs to the ladies in the BoM (although Sariah has been mentioned in this vision); why is this one here?
Do the other BoM references (link here) shape your view of why “female” was included here?  Why emphasize the diversity of the inhabitants of the building?

Boyd K. Packer:

One word in this dream or vision should have special meaning to you young Latter-day Saints. The word is after. It was after the people had found the tree that they became ashamed, and because of the mockery of the world they fell away. . . . At your baptism and confirmation, you took hold of the iron rod. But you are never safe. It is after you have partaken of that fruit that your test will come. Citation

The only thing that unifies these people is their dress, and attention is called to this fact.  What does this symbolize?

Why don’t they go about their own business?  Why do they bother paying attention to the fruit eaters?

Is the point that partaking of the fruit is public?  Is the point that it irritates wealthy people?

L. Tom Perry:

Many of you are trying too hard to be unique in your dress and grooming to attract what the Lord would consider the wrong kind of attention. In the Book of Mormon story of the tree of life, it was the people whose “manner of dress was exceedingly fine” who mocked those who partook of the fruit of the tree. It is sobering to realize that the fashion-conscious mockers in the great and spacious building were responsible for embarrassing many, and those who were ashamed “fell away into forbidden paths and were lost.” Citation

Neal A. Maxwell:

Church members will live in this wheat-and-tares situation until the Millennium. Some real tares even masquerade as wheat, including the few eager individuals who lecture the rest of us about Church doctrines in which they no longer believe.  . . . Like the throng on the ramparts of the “great and spacious building,” they are intensely and busily preoccupied, pointing fingers of scorn at the steadfast iron-rodders.  Citation

How does their dress compare with the man in the white robe?

Lehi was mocked as he preached in Jrsm.  Is that relevant here?

Does the pointing fingers (used nowhere else in scripture) show an example of mocking, or is it something other than mocking?  What might it be?

If they are mocking those eating the fruit, why did they eat the fruit and then be ashamed later?  Why did they just not eat it in the first place?

What do these people gain from the finger pointing and the mocking?  Why aren’t they just doing their own thing?

Joe Spencer:

Though I’m not aware of anyone having offered this interpretation, it seems more than obvious to me: the building in question is the Jerusalem temple. Jeremiah had for years, by this point, been profoundly criticizing the institution of the temple, in particular criticizing the blind faith the people had in it—their conviction that, because they had a temple, Babylon could never destroy the city. It would certainly be fitting that the temple would be filled with the wealthy, and that it was precisely the wealthy establishment who would spend their time mocking those who attain the tree. They mock those who claim to have seen through the veil without having been inside the temple, as they mock those who would leave Jerusalem for the desert to escape from a destruction decreed by “visionary men.” . . . For Latter-day Saints acquainted with the sorts of covenants one makes in the temple, the association of the temple with wealth and excess, not to mention mockery and loud laughter, should be a bit shocking. I suspect the author of the dream—God, that is—meant it to be a bit shocking, though it was probably also quite accurate. I can only hope it’s not accurate today. Same source.

28 And after they had tasted of the fruit they were ashamed, because of those that were scoffing at them; and they fell away into forbidden paths and were lost.

Is scoffing just a variation?  Why not use mocking here?

This verse is out first indication that there is a path that you have to stay on *after* you eat the fruit.  (How) does this change our understanding of the symbolism of the fruit?

Is it fair to say that people who haven’t (yet) eaten the fruit are spared the mocking?

Going back to the Fall, is there a parallel to the mocking in Eve’s experience?  If so, what is it?

Why would shame put you on the wrong path?  Why would lack of shame keep you on the right path?

What makes a path forbidden?  Are there signs?  Does the process of feeling shame obscure one’s ability to heed the signs?

Notice the word “fell” in this verse.  Is this a reference to the fall?

Joseph B. Wirthlin:

The ideal course of life is not always easy. Comparatively few will find it and complete it. It is not a well-marked freeway, but a narrow path with only one entrance. The way to eternal life is straight and narrow. When I think of staying on the right path, I am reminded of Lehi’s dream about the tree of life. In it, the love of God was likened to a tree that bore delicious fruit, fruit that was desirable above all others. As Nephi recorded his father’s words: “And I also beheld a strait and narrow path, which came along by the rod of iron, even to the tree. … And I saw numberless concourses of people, many of whom were pressing forward, that they might obtain the path which led unto the tree.” (1 Ne. 8:20–21.) Many of these people later “fell away into forbidden paths and were lost.” (1 Ne. 8:28.) But those who ignored the scoffing and ridicule of the world and held tightly to the rod of iron enjoyed the fruit of the tree. The rod of iron represents the word of God, that leads us to the love of God. (See 1 Ne. 11:25.) You must hold firmly to the rod of iron through the mists and darknesses, the hardships and trials of life. If you relax your grip and slip from the path, the iron rod might become lost in the darkness for a time until you repent and regain your grasp of it.  Oct 1989 GC.

So compared to the v23 people, are these guys better off or worse off?

Why is this the first we are hearing of forbidden paths?

29 And now I, Nephi, do not speak all the words of my father.

Why not, Nephi?

Why “speak” and not “write,” especially since he uses “write” in the next verse?

Given v30, I can’t help but feel that it is the 4 Nephi principle at work:  if everything is going well, we don’t/won’t have a lot to say about it.

30 But, to be short in writing, behold, he saw other multitudes pressing forward; and they came and caught hold of the end of the rod of iron; and they did press their way forward, continually holding fast to the rod of iron, until they came forth and fell down and partook of the fruit of the tree.

This is what we have seen so far, except that they “hold fast” instead of “cling” and they “fell down” before they partake.  In what ways might those changes be significant?

NB “continually.”

Is “fell down” the necessary opposite to “fell away” in v28?

Falling down usually is related to worship; is that the case here?  If so, what are they worshipping?  Did Lehi do this?

31 And he also saw other multitudes feeling their way towards that great and spacious building.

Skousen reads “pressing” instead of “feeling” here.  That is, I think, a pretty significant change, since ‘press’ is in the previous verse and it suggests that pressing is a neutral action (could be used for good or ill) and removes the introduction of the concept of “feeling.”

What, no rod to get you to the building?  Why not?  You’d think that would be easier and better guided than getting to the tree.

This is the first group that we have met that have the building as a goal.

32 And it came to pass that many were drowned in the depths of the fountain; and many were lost from his view, wandering in strange roads.

So–is the fountain a bad thing?  What does it symbolize?  Is the fountain a symbol for Christ (a good, but not a tame, lion)?

Lost from whose view?  Was the goal to stay in view?  What might that symbolize?

Why is wandering bad?

Is there a significant distinction between the strange roads and the forbidden roads?  Is there a distinction between roads and paths?

Ann M. Dibb:

Nephi says, “And many were lost from his view, wandering in strange roads” (1 Nephi 8:32). In difficult times in our own lives, we may find we are also “wandering in strange roads.” Let me reassure you that it is always possible for us to find our way back. Through repentance, made possible by the atoning sacrifice of our Savior, Jesus Christ, we can regain and recommit to a strong grip on the iron rod and feel the loving guidance of our Heavenly Father once again.  Oct 2009 GC.

33 And great was the multitude that did enter into that strange building. And after they did enter into that building they did point the finger of scorn at me and those that were partaking of the fruit also; but we heeded them not.

Neal A. Maxwell:

So let us have patience and faith as did Lehi who saw pointing fingers of scorn directed at those who grasped the iron rod, which rod, ironically, some of those same fingers once grasped (see 1 Ne. 8:27, 33).  Oct 1993 GC.

Nice pick up, since the only use of hands in this vision:  holding the rod, eating the fruit, pointing.

If (v32) many were lost who were aiming for the building but many people made it, then there must have been a *lot* of people aiming for the building.  Why?  Why didn’t they have Lehi’s knowledge that the fruit would make them happy?

Is there a relationship between the strange road and the strange building?

W1828:  strange:  “Foreign; belonging to anther country.”

The eruption of “me” in this verse is interesting; all previous referents to Lehi had been in the third person.  Why does this happen here?

W1828:  heed:  “To mind; to regard with care; to take notice of; to attend to; to observe.”  One of my class members pointed this out and it was a lightbulb moment for me–I had always assumed that “heed” primarily meant “listen to/obey,” but the nuance of “notice” puts a different spin on it.  What are you noticing (even if you are not obeying) that could cause you trouble?

“Finger of scorn” is not used elsewhere in the scriptures.  It sounds like it should be a part of Festivus.

The vision sets up “be ashamed” and “ignore” as possible reactions to scorn.  What might we learn from that?

Ted Gibbons:

Take some time to identify the four groups of people mentioned in the dream. Compare the characteristics of each of the groups. You will find
an interesting comparison between these groups and the four groups in the parable of the sower in Matthew 13. Citation.

Charles Swift:

Lehi’s dream can be divided into three fundamental experiences: that of Lehi (see 1 Nephi 8:5—13), his family (see vv. 14—18), and the world (see vv. 19—33).  Citation

Does that division work for you?

Charles Swift:

Elements of the vision often seem to suddenly appear, without any hint of prior awareness of them and with no foreshadowing in the text. For example, Lehi is standing next to the tree of life but does not see the river until he is looking for his family, even though the river is next to the tree by which he is standing. Citation

Why is that?  Is it just accidental to the visionary experience, or are we to learn from it?

Harold B. Lee:

An interesting distinction between those who bring forth good fruit and those who do not is well illustrated in the parable of the sower, as you recall, where the Master described the three categories of presumably church members—those who brought forth fruit—”some an hundredfold,” he said, “some sixtyfold, some thirtyfold” (Matt. 13:8). And in the interpretation of Lehi’s dream in the Book of Mormon, he has four categories.  Apr 1964 GC.

Joe Spencer:

Also, I think the simplest, most straightforward interpretation of 1 Nephi 8 has to be in terms of the family’s immediate situation: the tree and the river are where they are staying in the desert, the large and spacious building is Jerusalem or even the temple (as Jeremiah would have interpreted it), etc.  Citation:  comment #2

So here are the groups of people:

(1) numberless concourses (so:  people moving randomly)
(2) some of (1) press forward, but when the mist arises, they wander off
(3) some of (1) press forward, cling to the rod and therefore reach the tree despite the mist, partake, are ashamed, forbidden paths, lost
(4) other multitudes (v30), hold fast, fall down, partake
(5) other multitudes (v31), feel for building.  Some drown, some lost, some wander.
(6) (v33) enter building

(How) do these groups relate to Lehi’s family, who face different circumstances?  And why are those circumstances different?

What modern situations would be represented by these groups?  I think we all want to be in (4); what is the key to that?

34 These are the words of my father: For as many as heeded them, had fallen away.

Skousen reads “thus is” instead of “these are.”  What difference would that make to this verse?

I presume that the “them” does not refer to “the words of my father,” but the “them” at the end of v33, or the people in the building.  Why does Nephi find the need to insert “these are the words of my father,” especially given that it introduces an unfortunate ambiguity into the text?  Since v33 was the words of his father, what is the purpose of reiterating that at the beginning of this verse?  Presumably it is to call attention to it, but why?

To reiterate the point above, if “heed’ means notice, then simply “paying attention” is enough to cause you to fall away.  It doesn’t need to rise to “obeying.”  That is a powerful warning.

35 And Laman and Lemuel partook not of the fruit, said my father.

Which group were they in?  Why doesn’t he tell us?

Why the “said my father”?  We know, Nephi, we know.

36 And it came to pass after my father had spoken all the words of his dream or vision, which were many, he said unto us, because of these things which he saw in a vision, he exceedingly feared for Laman and Lemuel; yea, he feared lest they should be cast off from the presence of the Lord.

What in the vision led Lehi to conclude that not partaking of fruit = cast off from presence of Lord?  (Particularly interesting when you make a comparison with Eve, for whom taking the fruit = cast out of the presence of the Lord.)

37 And he did exhort them then with all the feeling of a tender parent, that they would hearken to his words, that perhaps the Lord would be merciful to them, and not cast them off; yea, my father did preach unto them.

The last reference to mercy was when Lehi prayed for it in the dark–(how) is that relevant here?

38 And after he had preached unto them, and also prophesied unto them of many things, he bade them to keep the commandments of the Lord; and he did cease speaking unto them.

Why the last line–isn’t that a given?

Is it appropriate to analyze the BoM looking for parenting fails on Lehi’s part?  If so, is there one here?  Are v37-38 and v3-4 the right thing to do with wayward kids?

CHAPTER 9
1 And all these things did my father see, and hear, and speak, as he dwelt in a tent, in the valley of Lemuel, and also a great many more things, which cannot be written upon these plates.

Why see-hear-speak?

Is it significant to the narrative that he was in the valley of Lemuel?  Is that a point of contact with the field in the vision?

2 And now, as I have spoken concerning these plates, behold they are not the plates upon which I make a full account of the history of my people; for the plates upon which I make a full account of my people I have given the name of Nephi; wherefore, they are called the plates of Nephi, after mine own name; and these plates also are called the plates of Nephi.

Between “after my own name” and “also called the plates of Nephi,” I feel like Nephi is  . . . a  . . . little . . . slow.

What work is this verse doing?  What effect does it have on the reader?

3 Nevertheless, I have received a commandment of the Lord that I should make these plates, for the special purpose that there should be an account engraven of the ministry of my people.

“Engraven” strikes me as a really important word in this verse–what does it accomplish?

Usually, we think of a ministry as being the ministry of a leader of some sort–what does Nephi mean by the ministry of my people?

4 Upon the other plates should be engraven an account of the reign of the kings, and the wars and contentions of my people; wherefore these plates are for the more part of the ministry; and the other plates are for the more part of the reign of the kings and the wars and contentions of my people.

Not only are v3-4 terribly redundant, but why do we need to know them?  Won’t it be obvious when we read?

What does this verse tell us about dividing the world into ‘secular’ and ‘religious’ matters?  Or about ‘religion’ and ‘politics’?  Or about how we should keep our histories?  Or think about the world?

5 Wherefore, the Lord hath commanded me to make these plates for a wise purpose in him, which purpose I know not.

Moral:  we don’t always know why we are commanded to do things.

How can he not know the purpose?  Wouldn’t the Laban experience and surrounding dialogue have made the purpose of keeping a religious record 100% clear to him?

6 But the Lord knoweth all things from the beginning; wherefore, he prepareth a way to accomplish all his works among the children of men; for behold, he hath all power unto the fulfilling of all his words. And thus it is. Amen.

Thinking about this (brief) chapter in its entirely, I am wondering why Nephi included it.  Particularly given the utter lack of any discussion of writing/record keeping in the Bible, it stands out as a monument to the self-consciousness of Nephi.  What purpose(s) does it serve?

CHAPTER 10
1 And now I, Nephi, proceed to give an account upon these plates of my proceedings, and my reign and ministry; wherefore, to proceed with mine account, I must speak somewhat of the things of my father, and also of my brethren.

This seems crazy:  “I’m going to give my own account, but to do that I have to tell you about my father, which is exactly what I’ve been doing, except when I haven’t.”

Isn’t the “reign” and “ministry” combo exactly what he just said he wouldn’t do in the last chapter?

2 For behold, it came to pass after my father had made an end of speaking the words of his dream, and also of exhorting them to all diligence, he spake unto them concerning the Jews—

“The words of his dream” is interesting because it had no direct speech in it.

What is the link–why go from the dream to the Jews?

3 That after they should be destroyed, even that great city Jerusalem, and many be carried away captive into Babylon, according to the own due time of the Lord, they should return again, yea, even be brought back out of captivity; and after they should be brought back out of captivity they should possess again the land of their inheritance.

Did Lehi preach of the return to the people in Jrsm?  Is there something about his vision that made the return apparent to him?  If so, was that new knowledge to him?

What effect would this info have had on Sariah, L&L, Sam, and Nephi?

4 Yea, even six hundred years from the time that my father left Jerusalem, a prophet would the Lord God raise up among the Jews—even a Messiah, or, in other words, a Savior of the world.

What is accomplished by labelling him a prophet first?

The juxtaposition of v3 and v4 makes it sound as if the Messiah would be involved in ending the Babylonian captivity, but the timeframe (600 years) makes this impossible.  What is going on here?

“Messiah” and “Savior” are not the same word in Hebrew.  Why does Nephi label Savior “other words” for Messiah?

Why is the timing (600 years) significant enough for it to have been revealed to Lehi and for Nephi to record it?  Wouldn’t this information have been *much* more useful to the people in Jrsm than for the people going to the New World?

5 And he also spake concerning the prophets, how great a number had testified of these things, concerning this Messiah, of whom he had spoken, or this Redeemer of the world.

This time “Redeemer” instead of “Savior” is added to “Messiah.”  Why?  In OT usage, all of these words have different nuances; why do they get amalgamated here?  On idea that seems plausible to me is that in the OT, there are various expectations (suffering servant, anointed one, etc.) that the majority of people do not expect to be fulfilled in one person, but in a variety of figures and that this is why many have a hard time recognizing who Jesus is.  If that reading is correct (and I grant that it may not be), it would seem very significant that pretty much as soon as Lehi & Co. detach from the main body of the covenant people, he begins to preach to them in a way that would help them understand the unity in fulfillment of these various OT images.

6 Wherefore, all mankind were in a lost and in a fallen state, and ever would be save they should rely on this Redeemer.

“Wherefore” = “for which reason.”    What about v5 leads to this “wherefore”?  What is the chain of logic?  It almost reads as “because this redeemer will come, therefore all mankind was lost,” but that’s backwards.  What is going on here?

Does the “lost” and “fallen” state refer to the various multitudes in the vision?

In the OT, a ‘redeemer’ was (usually) a family member who could ‘redeem’ one from debt (slavery).  What does that word choice teach us about Lehi’s conception of this Redeemer?

7 And he spake also concerning a prophet who should come before the Messiah, to prepare the way of the Lord—

Why would he have told his kids about this?  What benefit would it be to them?

In the grand scheme of things, this really doesn’t seem important enough to warrant a mention 600 years in advance.  Why include it (esp. considering v8 and the “much spake” at the end)?

8 Yea, even he should go forth and cry in the wilderness: Prepare ye the way of the Lord, and make his paths straight; for there standeth one among you whom ye know not; and he is mightier than I, whose shoe’s latchet I am not worthy to unloose. And much spake my father concerning this thing.

Why the specificity?  And what happens to John’s agency when his very words are prophesied before his birth?

Is this “straight” and “path” related to the same concepts in the vision?

Is the crying meant to relate to Lehi’s loud voice used to call his family?

9 And my father said he should baptize in Bethabara, beyond Jordan; and he also said he should baptize with water; even that he should baptize the Messiah with water.

What would “baptism” have meant to Lehi?

Skousen reads “spake that he should baptize” instead of “said that he should baptize.”  I wonder if the speaker in that case could be John instead of Lehi?

10 And after he had baptized the Messiah with water, he should behold and bear record that he had baptized the Lamb of God, who should take away the sins of the world.

Skousen reads “sin” instead of “sins.”  That would be a very significant difference, and fit into the somewhat corporate view of this vision.

This is a HUGE emphasis on the role of John the Baptist, esp. when there is nothing here about Jesus’  mortal ministry (just the titles) or about Jesus’ mission or significance (except what we glean from the titles).  Why?

John Welch:

One of Nephi’s favorite titles for Jesus Christ was “the Lamb of God.” Forty-four references to “the Lamb” appear in Nephi’s vision in 1 Nephi 11—14 alone.  Citation

Possible meanings for Lamb of God:
(1) It refers to the Passover lamb (see Exodus 12).
(2) It refers to the sacrificial lamb (see Exodus 29:38?46).
(3) The lamb is a metaphor for the suffering servant of God (see Isaiah 53).
(4) Some post-Old Testament Jewish literature features a lamb that will destroy all evil in the last days (see also Revelation 7:17 and 17:14).
‘Lamb of God’ is the preferred title for Jesus in this vision.  Why?

11 And it came to pass after my father had spoken these words he spake unto my brethren concerning the gospel which should be preached among the Jews, and also concerning the dwindling of the Jews in unbelief. And after they had slain the Messiah, who should come, and after he had been slain he should rise from the dead, and should make himself manifest, by the Holy Ghost, unto the Gentiles.

“Unbelief” is interesting here; what do you think Lehi meant by it?  While there were various flavors of Judaism both in Lehi’s and in Jesus’ time, they usually tended to be characterized more by divergences in *practice* than in *belief*.  Does this verse refer specifically to unbelief that Jesus was the Messiah, or to something more general?

In what sense did the resurrected Christ make himself manifest “by the Holy Ghost”?

Notice the differing roles of Jews and Gentiles in this verse.  Why does Lehi make this distinction?

12 Yea, even my father spake much concerning the Gentiles, and also concerning the house of Israel, that they should be compared like unto an olive-tree, whose branches should be broken off and should be scattered upon all the face of the earth.

Why would the fate of the Gentiles have been important to them?

Is “house of Israel” the same as or different from “the Jews” when Lehi and/or Nephi use those terms?

In the OT, the olive branch makes prominent appearances after the flood and perhaps also in the lampstand in the tabernacle/temple.  See also Judges 9:8f, 1 Kings 6:31f, Ps 52:8.  See also Romans 11:17f.  What do you make of this reference here?  Is this related to the tree in the vision?

13 Wherefore, he said it must needs be that we should be led with one accord into the land of promise, unto the fulfilling of the word of the Lord, that we should be scattered upon all the face of the earth.

So their fate will mirror that of the Gentiles in v12.  How would they have responded to that?

If “wherefore” is roughly synonymous with “therefore,” then how does this verse function as a “therefore” to the thoughts of v12?

If we follow the chronology, v11 got us to shortly after the Resurrection, v12 is ambiguous in timing, and v13 takes us backward to Lehi’s present.  Does this seem logical?  What is happening to the time sequence here?

“With one accord” is interesting.  It is used primarily in Acts. Does its inclusion explain the temporal disjunct that I asked about above?

It doesn’t appear to be true that they went to the promised land “with one accord.”  What work did that phrase do for Lehi, for Nephi (writing some years later), and for us?

“The Lord wants us scattered” is something of a bitter pill to hear.  How do you think it affected Lehi, L&L, and Nephi’s self-awareness?  What might it mean to us?  What does it teach us about the Lord?

14 And after the house of Israel should be scattered they should be gathered together again; or, in fine, after the Gentiles had received the fulness of the Gospel, the natural branches of the olive-tree, or the remnants of the house of Israel, should be grafted in, or come to the knowledge of the true Messiah, their Lord and their Redeemer.

‘Lord’ is a new title here.

What does the multiple scatter/gather events in scripture teach us about the Lord, about ourselves, about community, and about the covenant?  How are these teachings relevant in the age of social media?

The phrase “in fine” is used frequently in the BoM but not elsewhere. (I’m not counting references to “in fine linen” and the like.)

Checking W1828, “in fine”:  “In the end or conclusion; to conclude; to sum up all.”  If that is the meaning here, then it would be a pretty significant phrase, almost along the lines of “and thus we see.”

This verse seems to equate being grafted in with coming to a knowledge of the Messiah.  Is that accurate?  If so, what does that teach us about the scattering process?

15 And after this manner of language did my father prophesy and speak unto my brethren, and also many more things which I do not write in this book; for I have written as many of them as were expedient for me in mine other book.

Again with the self-conscious record keeper . . .

16 And all these things, of which I have spoken, were done as my father dwelt in a tent, in the valley of Lemuel.

See previous notes for possible significance of all of the tent references.

17 And it came to pass after I, Nephi, having heard all the words of my father, concerning the things which he saw in a vision, and also the things which he spake by the power of the Holy Ghost, which power he received by faith on the Son of God—and the Son of God was the Messiah who should come—I, Nephi, was desirous also that I might see, and hear, and know of these things, by the power of the Holy Ghost, which is the gift of God unto all those who diligently seek him, as well in times of old as in the time that he should manifest himself unto the children of men.

This is first ‘Son of God’ reference.  I’m captivated by the titles in this section–they seem to come fast and furious, they seem to build on each other, etc. What do you make of them?

What to make of see-hear-know?

Start paying attention to references to Nephi’s desires.

Ezra Taft Benson:

Nephi had listened to his father, had believed his father, but he wanted to know through the same source his father knew—revelation.   Oct 1985 GC.

Do you think it is fair to say that Nephi doubted his father?

Nephi appears to be referring to his own times as “times of old” here.  That’s unusual.  But then in v19, he says that his times are *not* times of old.  What does Nephi mean by these phrases?

18 For he is the same yesterday, to-day, and forever; and the way is prepared for all men from the foundation of the world, if it so be that they repent and come unto him.

I’ve never understood “the same” line–it just doesn’t seem true on the face of it.  How do you understand it?

Does this “way” relate to the “path” in the vision?  Does the “foundation” relate to the building without a foundation?

19 For he that diligently seeketh shall find; and the mysteries of God shall be unfolded unto them, by the power of the Holy Ghost, as well in these times as in times of old, and as well in times of old as in times to come; wherefore, the course of the Lord is one eternal round.

Skousen reads “in this time” instead of “in these times.”

References to the mysteries of God.

Feast wiki:

In this verse Nephi says the mysteries of God shall be unfolded unto those who diligently seek them. When referring to the mysteries of God, the verb unfolded is often used. See Jacob 4:18, Mosiah 8:19, Alma 40:3, and D&C 10:64.

What does it suggest about the mysteries of God if we say that they can be unfolded?

References to eternal round.

To me, “the same yesterday/today/forever” is NOT the same thing as having a course that is an eternal round.  (Imagine the difference between someone sitting forever next to a track versus someone continually running around the track.)  Yet Nephi treats these as functionally equivalent (I think).  How do you resolve this paradox? What should this teach us about the Lord?

20 Therefore remember, O man, for all thy doings thou shalt be brought into judgment.

Direct address to the audience is exceedingly rare in the scriptures.  NB especially the singular “man.” Why does it happen here?

Why ‘doings’ and not thoughts or beliefs (esp. given the reference to unbelief above)?

Why does “course is an eternal round” lead to a “therefore” statement about judgment?  How does this verse relate to the one before it?

21 Wherefore, if ye have sought to do wickedly in the days of your probation, then ye are found unclean before the judgment-seat of God; and no unclean thing can dwell with God; wherefore, ye must be cast off forever.

Again NB the verse begins with a ‘wherefore.’  What is the link to the previous verse?

I like “sought to do” as opposed to “have done.”

References to probation. NB one in D&C but all of the rest in the BoM.  Is this not a biblical concept?

W1828 probation:

1. Trial; examination; any proceeding designed to ascertain truth; in universities, the examination of a student, as to his qualifications for a degree.
2. In a monastic sense, trial or the year of novitiate,which a person must pass in a convent, to prove his virtue and his ability to bear the severities of the rule.
3. Moral trial; the state of man in the present life, in which he has the opportunity of proving his character and being qualified for a happier state.
4. In America, the trial of a clergyman’s qualifications as a minister of the gospel, preparatory to his settlement. We say, a man is preaching on probation.
5. In general, trial for proof, or satisfactory evidence, or the time of trial.

Is probation identical in meaning with ‘mortal life’ or could it be something different?  Do you think differently about your life if you think about it as being a “probation”?

“Unclean” would presumably have referred to ritual uncleanness under the Law of Moses.  We might automatically think of it as being dirty in a physical sense.  Would Nephi’s use of this word have had a different nuance for him, given the Law of Moses?  What should this usage teach us about how to understand the law of Moses?

If you need a good story for youth for this verse, try Spencer V. Jones, Apr 2003 GC.  He compares getting sprayed by a skunk to being “unclean.”

Henry B. Eyring:

And so Satan tempts with procrastination throughout our days of probation. Any choice to delay repentance gives him the chance to steal happiness from one of the spirit children of our Heavenly Father.  We have all been tempted with that delay. We know from our own experience that President Spencer W. Kimball was right when he wrote, “One of the most serious human defects in all ages is procrastination,” and then he defined it: “an unwillingness to accept personal responsibility now” (The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, ed. Edward L. Kimball [1982], 48; emphasis in original). And so Satan works on both our desire to think we have no cause to repent and our desire to push anything unpleasant into the future.  Oct 1999 GC.

22 And the Holy Ghost giveth authority that I should speak these things, and deny them not.

Interesting reference to authority here–what to make of it?  Why would he need authority to speak these things?  Isn’t the alternative “not to mention them,” not “to deny them”?

CHAPTER 11
1 For it came to pass after I had desired to know the things that my father had seen, and believing that the Lord was able to make them known unto me, as I sat pondering in mine heart I was caught away in the Spirit of the Lord, yea, into an exceedingly high mountain, which I never had before seen, and upon which I never had before set my foot.

Skousen adds the words “a mountain” before “which I never.”

The only OT references to ‘ponder’ are two proverbs referring to “pondering the path;” that makes a nice link to the vision.

W1828 ponder:  “To weigh in the mind; to consider and compare the circumstances or consequences of an event, or the importance of the reasons for or against a decision.”

Why is it significant that Nephi had never seen this mountain before?  (Especially in a redundant way.)  Why is he on a mountain but his father was in a field?  (Is this related to the fact that Lehi has a family drama, what we might call ‘on the ground,’ while Nephi has a historical overview, or a ‘bird’s-eye view’ that we might see from a mountaintop?)

Why doesn’t Nephi taste the fruit in this vision?

Marion G. Romney:

In addition, however, it may properly be said that prayer includes other means by which men address God.  Nephi doesn’t use the word prayer in introducing his account of his great vision. He simply says:  “After I had desired to know the things that my father had seen, and believing that the Lord was able to make them known unto me, as I sat pondering in mine heart I was caught away in the Spirit of the Lord, yea, into an exceeding high mountain.” (1 Ne. 11:1.)  There is no doubt in my mind but that Nephi’s pondering was in essence a prayer.  Apr 1978 GC.

Robert D. Hales:

Nephi gives a clear and compelling account of the process, which includes desiring, believing, having faith, pondering, and then following the Spirit. Let’s hear it as related by Nephi: “For it came to pass after I had desired to know the things that my father had seen [in a vision of the tree of life], and believing that the Lord was able to make them known unto me, as I sat pondering in mine heart I was caught away in the Spirit of the Lord, yea, … the Spirit [spoke] unto me.” Oct 2003 GC.

Does this imply that he can’t know of the things his father did unless he has his own vision?

Generally, the Bible uses “heart” where we would use “head” or “mind” and uses “bowels” where we would use “heart.”  Can you suss out what Nephi means by ‘heart’?  Does it matter?

NB that Lehi never got any more specific than “man in a white robe” but here is it “the Spirit of the Lord.”  Is that significant?

Why does Nephi bother to tell us that he had never been to this mountain before?

2 And the Spirit said unto me: Behold, what desirest thou?

Why does Nephi’s experience have back-and-forth dialogue with the Spirit, where Lehi didn’t?

Is this back-and-forth dialogue comparable in any useful way to Nephi’s conversation with the Spirit over the killing of Laban?

Nephi has already made several references to his desires.  It seems to be an overriding theme of his vision.  It also shows up in Lehi’s vision (see 1 Ne 8:12.)  Why?

Why would the Spirit ask Nephi what he desired?

Julie B. Beck:

A friend of mine suggested that I start looking for questions that the Lord asks us in the scriptures and ponder them (see John S. Tanner, “Responding to the Lord’s Questions,” Ensign, Apr. 2002, 26). Since then I have discovered many important questions such as “What desirest thou?” (1 Ne. 11:2) and “What think ye of Christ?” Matt. 22:42). I keep a list of those questions in the back of my scriptures. I often choose one to think about in quiet moments because pondering enlightens my mind that I “might understand the scriptures” (Luke 24:45).  Apr 2004 GC.

3 And I said: I desire to behold the things which my father saw.

Why would he want this?  Is it a righteous desire?  Does v4 affect your answer to that question?  If he believes his father, why does he want to see these things?  Should we be asking for visions?

4 And the Spirit said unto me: Believest thou that thy father saw the tree of which he hath spoken?

Why does the Spirit ask this?

What effect does this verse have on the reader?  Should we know the answer already?

Why does the Spirit focus on the tree, and not more generally, “do you believe that your father really had a vision”?

5 And I said: Yea, thou knowest that I believe all the words of my father.

Well then why does he want to see it himself?

6 And when I had spoken these words, the Spirit cried with a loud voice, saying: Hosanna to the Lord, the most high God; for he is God over all the earth, yea, even above all. And blessed art thou, Nephi, because thou believest in the Son of the most high God; wherefore, thou shalt behold the things which thou hast desired.

Why the loud voice?  Is it related to the loud voice that Lehi used in his vision?

Why praise the Lord for Nephi’s faith–shouldn’t he praise Nephi?

Note that the Spirit equates v5’s “all the words of my father” and/or the idea that Lehi saw the tree with “the Son of the most High God.”  This is perhaps especially curious since Lehi’s vision did not directly involve the Son.  What is going on here?

7 And behold this thing shall be given unto thee for a sign, that after thou hast beheld the tree which bore the fruit which thy father tasted, thou shalt also behold a man descending out of heaven, and him shall ye witness; and after ye have witnessed him ye shall bear record that it is the Son of God.

Did Nephi ask for a sign?  Why is he given a sign?  What role should signs serve?

Why does he get a preview of coming attractions?  NB that Lehi gave us a preview of the consequence of his dream (joy and fear), but not its content.  Did Lehi see the man descending?  If not, why does Nephi?  If so, why didn’t Nephi mention it?  (Nephi tells us that he doesn’t record all that his father saw; is he leaving out the man descending–if so, why?)

Does this verse suggest that the descending man is or is not symbolized by the tree and/or fruit?

8 And it came to pass that the Spirit said unto me: Look! And I looked and beheld a tree; and it was like unto the tree which my father had seen; and the beauty thereof was far beyond, yea, exceeding of all beauty; and the whiteness thereof did exceed the whiteness of the driven snow.

Why the “look”?  Lehi didn’t get that.  Lehi didn’t get a guide (that we know about) either.  Why the difference?

Is it the tree his father saw, or is it like the tree his father saw?

Lehi doesn’t mention the beauty of the tree; is it significant that Nephi does?  Lehi described the fruit as exceedingly sweet and white but didn’t describe the tree. Nephi describes the tree itself as exceedingly white.  Why the difference?

Jim F.:  “Before Lehi saw the tree, he went through a dark and dreary space and a large and spacious field (1 Nephi 8:7-9). Why do you think those things are omitted from Nephi’s experience?”

Are any of these references to white/snow relevant here?

9 And it came to pass after I had seen the tree, I said unto the Spirit: I behold thou hast shown unto me the tree which is precious above all.

Skousen adds “most” before “precious.”

Is whiteness a proxy for preciousness?

10 And he said unto me: What desirest thou?

Again?  Why is this all about Nephi’s desire?

11 And I said unto him: To know the interpretation thereof—for I spake unto him as a man speaketh; for I beheld that he was in the form of a man; yet nevertheless, I knew that it was the Spirit of the Lord; and he spake unto me as a man speaketh with another.

Did Lehi just automatically ‘get’ the interpretation of everything, but Nephi has to ask?  If so, why?

Does this verse imply that the interpretation is not obvious?  If so, what effect should that have on the reader?

What does the “as a man speaketh” mean and why does Nephi mention it?

Lehi leads with the idea that his guide is a man, why does Nephi mention it here?  Is form of a man the same as a man?

Bruce Jorgensen:

Nephi’s vision, in fact, should impel any reader of the book toward figural interpretation, for it acts out the method: Nephi asks for and receives a vision of what Lehi saw; then, when he asks “to know the interpretation” of the brilliantly white and beautiful tree, the Spirit of the Lord responds not with explanation but with a series of visions—first, the “fair and white” virgin of Nazareth, then “the virgin again, bearing a child in her arms,” then “the Son of God going forth among the children of men,” his baptism and ministry, and climactically his being “lifted up upon the cross and slain for the sins of the world,” so that, as in patristic Christian typology, the tree of the cross fulfills the figure of the tree in Eden (1 Ne. 11:8–9, 11, 13–15, 20, 24, 27–31, 33). Citation

Grant Hardy points out that we might have expected Nephi to “desire” to partake of the fruit in 11:10 (like his father did).  So 11:11 is something of a surprise when he chooses knowledge over experience.  At that point, the Spirit leaves and an angel takes over.  This choice and consequences strikes me as enormously important, but I’m not sure what to make of it.

12 And it came to pass that he said unto me: Look! And I looked as if to look upon him, and I saw him not; for he had gone from before my presence.

It sorta sounds like the Spirit is messin’ with Nephi, but I doubt that is right.  What is going on here?

13 And it came to pass that I looked and beheld the great city of Jerusalem, and also other cities. And I beheld the city of Nazareth; and in the city of Nazareth I beheld a virgin, and she was exceedingly fair and white.

Is this different from his father’s vision, or is Jrsm co-symbolic with the great and spacious building?  Why the other cities?  What are they?

NB that Nephi asked to know what the interpretation of the tree was and he is shown first a city and then a virgin.  The virgin has the same characteristics as the tree (exceeding white).  What does all this mean?

14 And it came to pass that I saw the heavens open; and an angel came down and stood before me; and he said unto me: Nephi, what beholdest thou?

What does it mean to say that the heavens opened?  Does it mean that the heavens were not opened before this (I would have thought that they were)?  Do any of these references help?

So this angel is not the Spirit mentioned before?  Why the change?

Why does the angel ask about what he sees but the Spirit (of the Lord) asked about what he desired?

15 And I said unto him: A virgin, most beautiful and fair above all other virgins.

Do we assume that virgin is used in the sense of “young woman” here, or do we assume that Nephi is able to ascertain (through spiritual intervention?) her actual status?  Is all of the white/pure/fair business the way in which he is able to ascertain her actual status?

16 And he said unto me: Knowest thou the condescension of God?

W1828 condescension:  “Voluntary descent from rank, dignity or just claims; relinquishment of strict right; submission to inferiors in granting requests or performing acts which strict justice does not require.”

What motivates this question?

Gordon B. Hinckley:

Well did an angel ask a prophet who had foreseen these things in vision: “Knowest thou the condescension of God?” (1 Ne. 11:16.) I suppose none of us can fully understand that—how the great Jehovah should come among men, his birth in a manger, among a hated people, in a vassal state.  Apr 1978 GC.

17 And I said unto him: I know that he loveth his children; nevertheless, I do not know the meaning of all things.

This is on the short list as one of my all time favorite scriptures.  I like Nephi’s attitude toward what he doesn’t know.  He’s frank about it, he puts it in context, he doesn’t let it overshadow the things he does know.  He doesn’t need to know everything to know something.  Compare Moses 5:6-7.

18 And he said unto me: Behold, the virgin whom thou seest is the mother of the Son of God, after the manner of the flesh.

Skousen reads “the mother of God” instead of “the mother of the Son of God” here.

Does this answer the condescension question?  Does it answer the interpretation of the tree question?

19 And it came to pass that I beheld that she was carried away in the Spirit; and after she had been carried away in the Spirit for the space of a time the angel spake unto me, saying: Look!

Nephi has also been carried away in the Spirit.  Link?

“The space of a time” is a singularly vague phrase–why include it?  Is there any relation here to the space of time that Lehi spends in the dark?

20 And I looked and beheld the virgin again, bearing a child in her arms.

Does this vision affect your interpretation of Mary’s story as found in Luke?  Does it affect your thinking about the idea of “preordination”?  In what sense did Mary have any choice in response to the angel if Nephi had seen this event 600 years before it happened?

What do v19-20 have to say about our desire to know more about the circumstances of the child’s conception?

21 And the angel said unto me: Behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the Son of the Eternal Father! Knowest thou the meaning of the tree which thy father saw?

Skousen reads “even the Eternal Father” instead of “even the Son of the Eternal Father.”

So all of this (city-virgin-child) is supposed to explain the tree?

22 And I answered him, saying: Yea, it is the love of God, which sheddeth itself abroad in the hearts of the children of men; wherefore, it is the most desirable above all things.

How did city-virgin-child explain that the tree was the love of God?

Only other scriptural combo of shed/abroad/love is Romans 5:5 (“And hope maketh not ashamed; because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us.”), which also links in the concept of not being ashamed.  The image of love shedding is interesting–what to make of it?

Very interesting:  “Nephi and His Asherah”

So if we think about Lehi’s vision, we need to conclude that the love of God is something that you have to seek and choose to partake of, and that it is most desireable.  That some people don’t even want it; that large numbers of people who are actively looking for it will wander off and not get it; that people who do partake of it might feel ashamed; that the building occupants make fun of people who partake of it.  Is this how you normally think of the love of God?  (I have to confess that I normally think of the love of God as free and easily available, there for everyone, and reaches out to you the very second you make the teeniest effort to get it.  This vision causes me to reconsider that.)

23 And he spake unto me, saying: Yea, and the most joyous to the soul.

NB that joy and desire are linked here.  What are the implications of that?

24 And after he had said these words, he said unto me: Look! And I looked, and I beheld the Son of God going forth among the children of men; and I saw many fall down at his feet and worship him.

Lehi didn’t see this (that we know of), but the people falling at the tree before partaking is close.  Are these related?

25 And it came to pass that I beheld that the rod of iron, which my father had seen, was the word of God, which led to the fountain of living waters, or to the tree of life; which waters are a representation of the love of God; and I also beheld that the tree of life was a representation of the love of God.

In Lehi’s vision, it seemed that the fountain was opposite the tree.  Here, it seems that they are in the same place.  Also, this is the first time that the tree is called the tree of life.  What effect does that have on the reader?

How do you read the ‘or’ between “fountain of living waters, or to the tree of life”:  does it means that the tree renames the fountain, or that the rod leads to one or the other place?  And what are the implications of that, especially of a rod leading to two places?

Why have two things representing one thing?

Possible word play on rod and word explored here.

So the water AND the tree represent the love of God?  Why this dual symbol?

If the tree is the love of God, why would people not want to partake of that?  Why would people be ashamed of partaking of that?

Jim F.:

Why do you think that Nephi doesn’t mention the contrasting river of filthy water in this part of his account, though he seems to have seen it? (Compare 1 Nephi 8:13 and 1 Nephi 15:26-29.) Do you think that Nephi saw, as Lehi did, his family in his vision? (Compare 1 Nephi 8:14-18.) If so, why doesn’t he mention them? If not, why not?

If the tree is the love of God, how does that relate to the tree of knowledge of good and evil?  The tree of life in the Garden?   The tree in Alma 32?  The tree in the New Jrsm at the end of Revelation?

This article reads the tree of life as a symbol for Christ and also of the temple.  If you read the tree as a symbol for Christ, then is partaking of the fruit a symbol of taking the sacrament?

26 And the angel said unto me again: Look and behold the condescension of God!

Why are we circling back to that?

27 And I looked and beheld the Redeemer of the world, of whom my father had spoken; and I also beheld the prophet who should prepare the way before him. And the Lamb of God went forth and was baptized of him; and after he was baptized, I beheld the heavens open, and the Holy Ghost come down out of heaven and abide upon him in the form of a dove.

Why Redeemer here instead of another title?

Why do you think John the Baptist is not named in these passages that seem to refer to him?

Are “preparing the way for him” and “baptizing him” synonymous in this passage?

Is the heavens opening here related to the heavens opening for Nephi previously?

What would the dove have meant to Nephi?

It seems that the living waters (v25) are tied to the waters in which the Lamb is baptized.

In Lehi’s vision, the stuff about Jesus and John the Baptist came AFTER the vision.  Here, Nephi unifies them.  What does this mean?

Does it surprise you that what Nephi is seeing here labelled the condescension starts with Jesus’ baptism and not his birth?  Is it the baptism per se that is the condescension?  If so, what does this teach us about Jesus’ baptism?  About our baptisms?

28 And I beheld that he went forth ministering unto the people, in power and great glory; and the multitudes were gathered together to hear him; and I beheld that they cast him out from among them.

In what way is it accurate to say that Jesus ministered “in great glory” during his earthly life?  How does that description fit with the idea that what Nephi is seeing here is the condescension of God?

29 And I also beheld twelve others following him. And it came to pass that they were carried away in the Spirit from before my face, and I saw them not.

Do the multitudes in the previous verse and the twelve here map onto the various multitudes that Lehi saw?

What does that carrying away symbolize?

Is ‘following’ linked to the iron rod?

Jim F.:  “Notice that the chronological order of the elements of the vision doesn’t correspond to the historical order. What does that tell us about visions? About historical order? Why might there be a break in the vision at this point, with a kind of end to the vision, followed by a new beginning in verse 30?”

30 And it came to pass that the angel spake unto me again, saying: Look! And I looked, and I beheld the heavens open again, and I saw angels descending upon the children of men; and they did minister unto them.

Was this a part of Jesus’ ministry?  In what way?  Why would it be significant enough to merit mention here?

31 And he spake unto me again, saying: Look! And I looked, and I beheld the Lamb of God going forth among the children of men. And I beheld multitudes of people who were sick, and who were afflicted with all manner of diseases, and with devils and unclean spirits; and the angel spake and showed all these things unto me. And they were healed by the power of the Lamb of God; and the devils and the unclean spirits were cast out.

How does this verse relate to the one before it?

Jim F.: “Why does the vision include this relatively lengthy description of the physical and psychological healings that Jesus did? How were they important to his mission of salvation?”

32 And it came to pass that the angel spake unto me again, saying: Look! And I looked and beheld the Lamb of God, that he was taken by the people; yea, the Son of the everlasting God was judged of the world; and I saw and bear record.

Skousen reads “the everlasting God” instead of “the Son of the everlasting God” here.

Skousen reads “bare” instead of “bear.”

33 And I, Nephi, saw that he was lifted up upon the cross and slain for the sins of the world.

Why doesn’t Nephi see Gethsemane?

34 And after he was slain I saw the multitudes of the earth, that they were gathered together to fight against the apostles of the Lamb; for thus were the twelve called by the angel of the Lord.

Jim F.:  “Why does Nephi see a vision of the crucifixion of Jesus, but not of his resurrection? “

35 And the multitude of the earth was gathered together; and I beheld that they were in a large and spacious building, like unto the building which my father saw. And the angel of the Lord spake unto me again, saying: Behold the world and the wisdom thereof; yea, behold the house of Israel hath gathered together to fight against the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

Like the building Lehi saw, or the same building?

So the inhabitants of the great and spacious building = apostasy.

Why is “wisdom,” a generally positive concept in the OT, mentioned here in a negative way?

Why “house of Israel” and not “Jews”?  What about the Gentiles?

Is “house” in “house of Israel” related to the idea of “building” in large and spacious building?  If so, how?

In Lehi’s vision, they were pointing fingers and mocking.  Here, they are fighting.  Is that the same thing or a different thing?  If it is the same, how does it shape your view as to what mocking and fingerpointing are?

It seems that what Lehi saw in the abstract, Nephi’s vision historicizes to the life of Jesus.  But just reading Lehi’s vision, you wouldn’t necessarily make that connection.  What’s going on here?

What about the building symbolizes the wisdom of the world?

Why does the world’s wisdom mock the people who partake of God’s love?

Why are the occupants of the building identified with the House of Israel?

36 And it came to pass that I saw and bear record, that the great and spacious building was the pride of the world; and it fell, and the fall thereof was exceedingly great. And the angel of the Lord spake unto me again, saying: Thus shall be the destruction of all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, that shall fight against the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

Skousen omits “and it fell.”

Why does Nephi think this is pride, if the angel told him it was wisdom?  What link does this vision make between pride and wisdom?

(How) is the fall of the building related to the fact that it did not have a foundation?

Why are nations, kindreds, tongues, and people–but not individuals–mentioned?

Why did Lehi’s vision not include the fall of the building?

Boyd K. Packer:

After the people of Lehi had arrived in the Western Hemisphere, Lehi had a vision of the tree of life. His son Nephi prayed to know its meaning. In answer, he was given a remarkable vision of Christ.  . . . That vision is the central message of the Book of Mormon.  Apr 1986 GC.

CHAPTER 12 (V16-18 ONLY)
16 And the angel spake unto me, saying: Behold the fountain of filthy water which thy father saw; yea, even the river of which he spake; and the depths thereof are the depths of hell.

I don’t remember Lehi saying anything about that.  What’s going on here?  There appears to be more than one fountain–why didn’t we know about this before?  The angel seems to equate the river Lehi saw with the “filthy fountain,” but Lehi didn’t do this.  What’s going on?

Where do you see this river in relation to the tree, path/rod, and building?  How do you kow?

Why is a fountain/river a good symbol for the depths of hell?

What does it mean to say that the depths of hell are in between the tree/path/rod and the great building?

17 And the mists of darkness are the temptations of the devil, which blindeth the eyes, and hardeneth the hearts of the children of men, and leadeth them away into broad roads, that they perish and are lost.

Why are the mists a good symbol for the temptations of the devil?

“Blindeth” is an effect on the senses; “hardeneth” is an effect on the mind; “leadeth” is an effect on actions/choices.  What can we learn from this?

Why are broad roads bad and narrow roads good?

Do they perish before they are lost?  (Wouldn’t they get lost and then perish?)  What might we conclude from this?

18 And the large and spacious building, which thy father saw, is vain imaginations and the pride of the children of men. And a great and a terrible gulf divideth them; yea, even the word of the justice of the Eternal God, and the Messiah who is the Lamb of God, of whom the Holy Ghost beareth record, from the beginning of the world until this time, and from this time henceforth and forever.

Skousen reads “sword” instead of “word” here–I think that fits the context much better.  (And perhaps makes a reference back to the Laban story?)

Skousen reads “and Jesus Christ which is the Lamb of God” here.

Wait–didn’t he just learn that it was the world’s wisdom?  And then conclude that it was pride?  Why the introduction of vain imaginations?  Are these three ways of saying the same thing?

What does “them” refer to?

Is the shift from great to large significant?

I thought the dividing gulf was the river–now it is the (s)word of God?  What happened?

Why the time references?

CHAPTER 15
1 And it came to pass that after I, Nephi, had been carried away in the spirit, and seen all these things, I returned to the tent of my father.

2 And it came to pass that I beheld my brethren, and they were disputing one with another concerning the things which my father had spoken unto them.

Ironic, no?

Again, I think L&L are much more righteous than we give them credit for.  They are spending their free time trying to understand what the prophet was teaching.  (They are going about it wrong, yes, but still . . .)

3 For he truly spake many great things unto them, which were hard to be understood, save a man should inquire of the Lord; and they being hard in their hearts, therefore they did not look unto the Lord as they ought.

Review what he said.  Why would it be hard to understand?  Was it hard for Nephi to understand?  (Is that why he seeks his own vision?) Is Lehi just a bad teacher, or are these things not understandable via human communication?  Is Lehi wrong to try to communicate them?  What others things are hard to understand unless you pray about them?  Should we expect things to be that way?

It seems that a reluctance to inquire of the Lord is an almost-universal failing, as prevalent as it is foolish.  Why do people act like this?

Feast wiki:

“Hard to be understood.” A couple of intriguing cross-references for this phrase are Ezek 3:6 and 2 Pet 3:16 in the KJV, and Mosiah 13:32 and Alma 33:20 in the Book of Mormon. Although these passages may be interesting from a theological, translational, or linguistic perspective, a more relevant passage in terms of what may have had an effect on Nephi is Isa 6:9ff where it seems Isaiah is told to preach things that “were hard for many people to understand,” as Nephi puts it in 2 Ne 25:1.

4 And now I, Nephi, was grieved because of the hardness of their hearts, and also, because of the things which I had seen, and knew they must unavoidably come to pass because of the great wickedness of the children of men.

Grief–cf. to Lehi’s fear.  Interesting reaction–he wasn’t angry or annoyed, but grieved.  What should that teach us?

I’m surprised by ‘unavoidably.’  What happened to repentence?

Note that even given this golden opportunity to link his dream to his brothers, Nephi keeps them separate here.

5 And it came to pass that I was overcome because of my afflictions, for I considered that mine afflictions were great above all, because of the destruction of my people, for I had beheld their fall.

Is grief an affliction?  Is this a good response?  Is he saying he was worse off than Lehi, and was he right about that?

Why does his concern for his brothers fade away in this verse?

What does it mean to be overcome?

Are his afflictions great above all, or is he being overly dramatic here?

What people had he seen being destroyed?  It would not have been his descendants in the great and spacious building if we operate on a strictly historicist reading (that is, that the people in the building were those in the old world that fought against the apostles).  Does this verse demand that we broaden the scope a little and read Nephi’s vision as applying to his descendants as well?

6 And it came to pass that after I had received strength I spake unto my brethren, desiring to know of them the cause of their disputations.

I’m curious about the overcome-received strength process.  What exactly happened?  Was this divine intervention?  (Did Nephi faint like a scandalized Victorian woman or what?)

There’s Nephi and his desires again.  Why is that such a theme in this section?

Doesn’t v2 suggest that he already knows the cause of their dispute?

7 And they said: Behold, we cannot understand the words which our father hath spoken concerning the natural branches of the olive-tree, and also concerning the Gentiles.

Why did they focus on this and not the other parts?  Review the verses where Lehi explained this–was he unclear?

8 And I said unto them: Have ye inquired of the Lord?

J. Reuben Clark, “”If we have the truth, it cannot be harmed by investigation. If we have not the truth, it ought to be harmed.” Citation

This strikes me as a pretty important scripture, one that we frequently use to point out that we don’t need to dispute things but should be able to figure them out through prayer.  Is that the best reading of this verse?

9 And they said unto me: We have not; for the Lord maketh no such thing known unto us.

We usually assume that the “no such thing” is the meaning of the olive branches and Gentiles, but I wonder if they meant that the principle of “ask the Lord if you can’t figure out” was not known to them.  Is this possible?  Is it a better reading?  I have to say that, judging by where Nephi goes in v11, I think it might be a better reading. But if I’m wrong about that and the traditional reading is better, then:  What assumptions are L&L making?  In what sorts of situations do we make similar assumptions?

10 Behold, I said unto them: How is it that ye do not keep the commandments of the Lord? How is it that ye will perish, because of the hardness of your hearts?

What work is “behold” doing in this verse?  Is it Nephi wanting to call our attention particularly to what is being said?

Is it then a commandment to inquire of the Lord?

I have to say, this is not exactly my idea of good teaching and you’d never read this in an Ensign article.  The questions seem unnecessarily combative, practically designed to put L&L on the defensive and guarantee a few more degrees of heart hardening.  Is Nephi having a fail here?

11 Do ye not remember the things which the Lord hath said?—If ye will not harden your hearts, and ask me in faith, believing that ye shall receive, with diligence in keeping my commandments, surely these things shall be made known unto you.

Skousen reads “thing,” not “things,” here.

Bruce R. McConkie quoted this verse and then said, “It is the right of members of the Church to receive revelation.”  Apr 1971 GC.

Note carefully all of the conditions in this verse:  how and why do they work together?

Is the principle in this verse a universal truth?

12 Behold, I say unto you, that the house of Israel was compared unto an olive-tree, by the Spirit of the Lord which was in our father; and behold are we not broken off from the house of Israel, and are we not a branch of the house of Israel?

Wait–isn’t this exactly the wrong thing to do?  Aren’t they supposed to ask the Lord, not have their brother explain it to them? (that’s the process Nephi used and that is what Nephi advocated above? Is this a fail?  How does this verse compare to Lehi’s explanation?

Does the “which was in our father” change your understanding of the visionary experience in this instance?

From this book:

A Behold, we cannot understand the words which our father hath spoken
B concerning the natural branches of the olive-tree, and also concerning the Gentiles.  And I said unto them: Have ye inquired of the Lord?
C And they said unto me: We have not; for the Lord maketh no such thing known unto us.
D Behold, I said unto them: How is it that ye do not keep the commandments of the Lord?
E How is it that ye will perish, because of the hardness of your hearts?
F Do ye not remember the things which the Lord hath said?—
E If ye will not harden your hearts, and ask me in faith, believing
that ye shall receive,
D with diligence in keeping my commandments,
C surely these things shall be made known unto you.
B Behold, I say unto you, that the house of Israel was compared unto an olive-tree,
A by the Spirit of the Lord which was in our father;

I find this interesting, because it puts the focus of the passage on remembering, not on “Have you inquired?” as we usually read it.  (In the narrative, however, this does seem like an odd place to have this structure, I admit.)  Focusing on “remembering” then puts an entirely different spin on “knowing” and “asking,” I think.

13 And now, the thing which our father meaneth concerning the grafting in of the natural branches through the fulness of the Gentiles, is, that in the latter days, when our seed shall have dwindled in unbelief, yea, for the space of many years, and many generations after the Messiah shall be manifested in body unto the children of men, then shall the fulness of the gospel of the Messiah come unto the Gentiles, and from the Gentiles unto the remnant of our seed—

How does Nephi know all this?  If he knows this, why did he need more help with the vision?

14 And at that day shall the remnant of our seed know that they are of the house of Israel, and that they are the covenant people of the Lord; and then shall they know and come to the knowledge of their forefathers, and also to the knowledge of the gospel of their Redeemer, which was ministered unto their fathers by him; wherefore, they shall come to the knowledge of their Redeemer and the very points of his doctrine, that they may know how to come unto him and be saved.

What teachings in this verse are important for us?  What would have been important for the Nephites and Lamanites?

15 And then at that day will they not rejoice and give praise unto their everlasting God, their rock and their salvation? Yea, at that day, will they not receive the strength and nourishment from the true vine? Yea, will they not come unto the true fold of God?

Why does Nephi switch to asking questions here?

What do you make of the mixing of rock, vine, and fold?

16 Behold, I say unto you, Yea; they shall be remembered again among the house of Israel; they shall be grafted in, being a natural branch of the olive-tree, into the true olive-tree.

Skousen reads “numbered,” not “remembered” in this verse.  Does that have any relation to the numberless concourses in Lehi’s vision?

17 And this is what our father meaneth; and he meaneth that it will not come to pass until after they are scattered by the Gentiles; and he meaneth that it shall come by way of the Gentiles, that the Lord may show his power unto the Gentiles, for the very cause that he shall be rejected of the Jews, or of the house of Israel.

How does “for the very cause” relate what comes before and after it?

18 Wherefore, our father hath not spoken of our seed alone, but also of all the house of Israel, pointing to the covenant which should be fulfilled in the latter days; which covenant the Lord made to our father Abraham, saying: In thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed.

19 And it came to pass that I, Nephi, spake much unto them concerning these things; yea, I spake unto them concerning the restoration of the Jews in the latter days.

20 And I did rehearse unto them the words of Isaiah, who spake concerning the restoration of the Jews, or of the house of Israel; and after they were restored they should no more be confounded, neither should they be scattered again. And it came to pass that I did speak many words unto my brethren, that they were pacified and did humble themselves before the Lord.

Skousen reads “speak so many” instead of “speak many,” which I find hilarious–he fillibustered them!

What does “confounded” mean?  How is it different from scattered?

Pacified is interesting.  Humbled is interesting.  Preaching Isaiah at someone having an effect on them besides putting them to sleep is really interesting.  (Again, I’d like to point to some evidence for the basically decent orientation of L&L.)

21 And it came to pass that they did speak unto me again, saying: What meaneth this thing which our father saw in a dream? What meaneth the tree which he saw?

Skousen reads “the things,” but it is conjectural.  (Wish I could read his explanation of why . . .)

Why do they call it “this thing” first and then call it “the tree”?

Is there a relationship between the whole olive tree/branches thing and the tree?  Do L&L assume that and, if so, is that a mistake on their part?

22 And I said unto them: It was a representation of the tree of life.

Why doesn’t he go into the whole city-virgin-child and love of God angle with them?  He nattered on and on about the branches until I was, frankly, quite bored, but this is, to me, the good stuff and he hardly says anything about it.  He answers their next question at good length, as well. Why short this one?

Does he really answer the question?  Isn’t the tree of life a representation for something else?

23 And they said unto me: What meaneth the rod of iron which our father saw, that led to the tree?

Can you discern why they are asking about this now?

Is it significant that Nephi asked for “the interpretation” but they ask for “the meaning”?

24 And I said unto them that it was the word of God; and whoso would hearken unto the word of God, and would hold fast unto it, they would never perish; neither could the temptations and the fiery darts of the adversary overpower them unto blindness, to lead them away to destruction.

NB the link made between “hearken” and “hold fast.”  What does this teach us about the word of God?

“They would never perish”–is this entirely true, given that some people fell away -after- eating the fruit?

25 Wherefore, I, Nephi, did exhort them to give heed unto the word of the Lord; yea, I did exhort them with all the energies of my soul, and with all the faculty which I possessed, that they would give heed to the word of God and remember to keep his commandments always in all things.

NB in Lehi’s vision, not giving heed to the finger pointers was crucial; here Nephi tells them what they should pay attention to.

Why does Nephi doubly emphasize the efforts he went through here?

26 And they said unto me: What meaneth the river of water which our father saw?

Again, I am increasingly uncomfortable by this process:  Nephi prayed and got more information about the vision; Nephi told his brothers to ask the Lord for more information, and yet this entire passage is something else entirely:  they ask Nephi and *he* explains it to them.  What is going on here?

27 And I said unto them that the water which my father saw was filthiness; and so much was his mind swallowed up in other things that he beheld not the filthiness of the water.

This is very interesting to me–a commentary on Lehi’s weakness and/or limitations?

“Swallowed up” is interesting . . .

28 And I said unto them that it was an awful gulf, which separated the wicked from the tree of life, and also from the saints of God.

29 And I said unto them that it was a representation of that awful hell, which the angel said unto me was prepared for the wicked.

So this is another level:  in addition to Lehi’s family drama and Nephi’s history, this is using the vision as a guide to the afterlife.  See this for more on this.

I’m curious about the idea of something being “prepared” for the wicked.  We know that plan of salvation was “prepared” for those who would repent . . .

30 And I said unto them that our father also saw that the justice of God did also divide the wicked from the righteous; and the brightness thereof was like unto the brightness of a flaming fire, which ascendeth up unto God forever and ever, and hath no end.

It is bright flame but also filthy river?

Why is the justice of God described as being “bright”?  What does this imply?

Is this related to the flaming sword the cherubim use to guard the tree in Eden?

Why would this fire ascend to God?  Does that link it to the incense of the OT temple, which was (usually) a symbol for prayer?  If so, how would that work, exactly?

31 And they said unto me: Doth this thing mean the torment of the body in the days of probation, or doth it mean the final state of the soul after the death of the temporal body, or doth it speak of the things which are temporal?

Why would they ask this?

Is the body tormented in the days of probation?  What do they mean by this?  Are they accurate?

Are they offering three options for understanding it, or two?

32 And it came to pass that I said unto them that it was a representation of things both temporal and spiritual; for the day should come that they must be judged of their works, yea, even the works which were done by the temporal body in their days of probation.

33 Wherefore, if they should die in their wickedness they must be cast off also, as to the things which are spiritual, which are pertaining to righteousness; wherefore, they must be brought to stand before God, to be judged of their works; and if their works have been filthiness they must needs be filthy; and if they be filthy it must needs be that they cannot dwell in the kingdom of God; if so, the kingdom of God must be filthy also.

34 But behold, I say unto you, the kingdom of God is not filthy, and there cannot any unclean thing enter into the kingdom of God; wherefore there must needs be a place of filthiness prepared for that which is filthy.

35 And there is a place prepared, yea, even that awful hell of which I have spoken, and the devil is the preparator of it; wherefore the final state of the souls of men is to dwell in the kingdom of God, or to be cast out because of that justice of which I have spoken.

Skousen traces an enormous (for the BoM) number of changes in the word that we have here as “preparator”:  “prepriator,” “father,” “foundation,” and “proprietor” (which is his choice, even though it is conjectural).  Which fits best and what does that teach us about the devil?

Skousen reads “soul of man” instead of “souls of men” here.

I have to admit that this entire conversation makes me a little uncomfortable since it doesn’t mention repentance or the atonement.  Why doesn’t he mention the other preparations that have been made–the Savior?  Is this a Nephi fail?

36 Wherefore, the wicked are rejected from the righteous, and also from that tree of life, whose fruit is most precious and most desirable above all other fruits; yea, and it is the greatest of all the gifts of God. And thus I spake unto my brethren. Amen.

Skousen reads “separated” instead of “rejected” here.  I think that fits better.

Skousen reads “of” instead of “above” here.

MAJOR THEMES:
(1) The relationship between Lehi’s vision and Nephi’s vision.  I think the norm is to read them as just one vision, but I think the differences are significant and fascinating.  Joe Spencer explains why it makes sense to separate them here (second paragraph). Lehi is in an interactive dream, while Nephi is an observor.  Lehi describes the dream as all about his family; Nephi’s is about the broad scope of sacred history.  What does it teach us about visions and heavenly communication to know that the same crux of visionary material could have different functions?  Is it fair to say that Lehi has a vision about family and Nephi has one about history?  If this is indeed the case, why?  And why are the visions so similar?  Given that this is one of the first big chunks of material in the BoM, it and its interpretation has a large impact on the reader.  So what kinds of effects do the experience of interpreting two similar-but-not-identical visions have on the reader?  What do we make of the fact that Nephi wanted to see what his father saw, but actually ends up seeing (and interpreting) something quite different?  It seems to me that one thing that is going on here is that Lehi interprets the symbols as a family drama and Nephi as history and this makes me think of the creation account as presented in the temple, which could also be interpreted as both a family drama and as a historical sweep.  (I’d like to say a little more, but, you know.)  Considering all of this, what do these two visions and their interpretations suggest about the proper parameters of interpretation–whether that is the interpretation of dreams or of any symbolic scriptures?  This is a good article to read in conjunction with considering these questions because it teases out, from material we generally lump together, what belongs to Lehi’s vision and what to Nephi’s and it also includes ch12-14 in the mix.  Two features in Nephi’s vision not found in Lehi’s are (1) verbal interaction with the divine guide and (2) emphasis on desire.  Why do these differ between the two?

(2) Why bother with symbolic visions at all?  What benefit would it have had for Lehi, for Nephi, and for the reader over just a straight (strait?) presentation of the facts?  What do these visions teach us about interpreting the scriptures?
And just for fun:

Harold B. Lee:

“Oh, I’m not here to tell you that every dream you have is a direct revelation from the Lord – it may be fried liver and onions that may have been responsible for an upset nervous disorder. But … if we will learn not to be so sophisticated that we rule out that possibility of impressions from those who are beyond sight, then we too may have a dream that may direct us as a revelation.” — Harold B. Lee (1952) Citation (HT:  Ardis)

Additional Resources:

“Lehi’s Dream of the Tree of Life”

“Nephi and His Asherah”

“Lehi’s Dream and You”

“The Dark Way to the Tree”

Does the headnote give us some indication of what the most important events are in this book? If we use the headnote (as opposed to our own estimation of the ‘highlights’) as a guide, how might we read this book differently?

CHAPTER 1

1 I, Nephi, having been born of goodly parents, therefore I was taught somewhat in all the learning of my father; and having seen many afflictions in the course of my days, nevertheless, having been highly favored of the Lord in all my days; yea, having had a great knowledge of the goodness and the mysteries of God, therefore I make a record of my proceedings in my days.

Feast Wiki:

“According to Webster’s 1828, goodly means “Being of a handsome form; beautiful; graceful; as a goodly person; goodly raiment; goodly houses.” In this context it may mean “well-off.” Goodly is used only once more in the Book of Mormon, Mosiah 18:7: there were a goodly number gathered together at the place of Mormon. It is used twice in the Doctrine and Coventants: D&C 97:9 & D&C 99:7. There the meaning is beautiful or fair. It is also used with this same meaning many times in the Old and New Testaments.. . . But if we read goodly as meaning wealthy . . . , we see Nephi recognizing that it was because of his parent’s wealth that he was able to be taught “somewhat in all the learning of [his] father” (emphasis added).” Citation.

More discussion of the idea here.  If the very first words of the BoM say, in effect, “I was able to get an education because my parents were wealthy,” how does that impact our reading of the rest of the book, particularly, perhaps, the killing of Laban to get the plates?

I wonder if the “goodly parents” implies “and don’t even think about blaming Lehi and Sariah for how Laman and Lemuel (hereafter L&L) turned out!” Is that what Nephi is trying to emphasize here?

Feast Wiki: suggests a serial structure to this verse:

“(1) having been born of goodly parents
and
(2) having seen many afflictions in the course of my days
nevertheless
(3) having been highly favored of the Lord in all my days
yea
(4) having had a great knowledge of the goodness and the mysteries of God”

I find the “having” structure interesting, since most of 1 Nephi is about what Nephi has to give up. We would consider (2) a negative; is that how Nephi views it? Have you given much thought to what you “have”?

1 Ne 1:1, Enos 1:1, and Mosiah 1:2 all refer to value of instruction from their fathers, and all make reference to the language of their fathers. Why is this a theme by which BoM writers introduce their narratives?

“therefore I make a record”–cf. 1 Nephi 9:5. What do you conclude?

Cf. this to the majority of OT/NT books where we have no idea who is writing–why did Nephi start here? Why does it matter? What effect does it have on you as a reader?

Jay E. Jensen:

“Events in the lives of Lehi and Joseph Smith parallel each other: Each has a specific need. Lehi’s is to save himself and his family from Jerusalem’s imminent destruction, and Joseph Smith’s is to know which church is true. Each prays. Each has a vision of the Father and the Son. To each is given a book. Both preach. Each receives revelation from the Holy Ghost and by visions or dreams. Finally, wicked people threaten them. Lehi and his people escape and survive. Joseph is martyred. Is it any wonder that missionaries invite sincere seekers of truth to begin their study of the Book of Mormon in 1 Nephi?” Citation: (Oct 2010 GC).

What does this pattern teach you about Lehi? About Joseph Smith? About prophets in general? Does it teach you anything about us?

Verse suggests an obligation to teach children. How do we fulfill that?

2 Yea, I make a record in the language of my father, which consists of the learning of the Jews and the language of the Egyptians.

What would “Jews” have meant to Nephi? Does he consider himself one? What are the implications of this?

Feast Wiki:

“Whereas Nephi’s first verse opens with the overwhelming announcement of the prophet’s own proper name, the remainder of the three-verse preface to Nephi’s text is, from then on, void of any other proper names for any (earthly) person (“the Lord” might be a proper name, “YHWH”, though it names God; “the Jews” and “the Egyptians” might also be argued to be proper names, but each apparently names a collective–they are both plural). This absence of proper names is most striking in Nephi’s first having, where he makes explicit mention of both his “parents” and his “father”, but without any proper names. The comments above have overlooked this, drawing the names of Lehi and Sariah, of course, from the actual body of the Nephite text. The point raises two questions, one of which cannot be fully examined until after full consideration of Nephi’s autobiographical sketch. This question to be postponed is, indeed, as broad as Nephi’s autobiographical sketch: what does Nephi’s announcement of his proper name accomplish in the text? The other question, to be dealt with presently, concerns rather the unnamed in the text: what does the lack of proper names for Lehi and Sariah in this first having accomplish?”

3 And I know that the record which I make is true; and I make it with mine own hand; and I make it according to my knowledge.

4 For it came to pass in the commencement of the first year of the reign of Zedekiah, king of Judah, (my father, Lehi, having dwelt at Jerusalem in all his days); and in that same year there came many prophets, prophesying unto the people that they must repent, or the great city Jerusalem must be destroyed.

David Rolph Seely and Jo Ann H. Seely:

“Besides Jeremiah and Lehi, from this period we know of the prophetess Huldah and the prophets Zephaniah, Habakkuk, and Uriah of Kirjath-jearim (see Jeremiah 26) in Judah, and Ezekiel and Daniel in exile.” Citation.

It is important to remember that the role of prophet in their society was very different from ours: their prophets were outsiders, criticizing the wickedness of the hierarchy. And there was more than one! It is worth thinking about how radically different these prophets’ assignments were, and what an abject failure and waste of time would have ensued if they had all tried to keep up with the Jeremiahs.

5 Wherefore it came to pass that my father, Lehi, as he went forth prayed unto the Lord, yea, even with all his heart, in behalf of his people.

David A. Bednar:

“Please note that the vision came in response to a prayer for others and not as a result of a request for personal edification or guidance.” Citation: Oct 08 GC.

6 And it came to pass as he prayed unto the Lord, there came a pillar of fire and dwelt upon a rock before him; and he saw and heard much; and because of the things which he saw and heard he did quake and tremble exceedingly.

Pillar of fire: only OT refs to a “pillar of fire” in the KJV are to Moses’ experience with the burning bush. In the NT (Rev 10:1), an angel in Revelation has feet like pillars of fire. In the BoM, Hel 5:24, 43 refer to pillar of fire. D&C 29:12: “mine apostles, the Twelve which were with me in my ministry at Jerusalem, shall stand at my right hand at the day of my coming in a pillar of fire” These are only scripture refs to “pillar of fire.” What do they suggest is symbolized by the idea of a pillar of fire here? What about the rock?

John Welch:

“God appeared to Moses in a burning bush (Exodus 3:2) and on a flaming Mount Sinai (Exodus 19:18); he also appeared over the tabernacle at night in a fire (Numbers 9:15) and over the door of the tabernacle by day in a similar “pillar of a cloud” (Deuteronomy 31:15). On some occasions in the Old Testament, fire was associated with God’s messengers, especially those emanating from God’s council (discussed further below; see, e.g., Psalm 104:4), whose fiery description can be compared with the appearance of Moroni in Joseph Smith—History 1:30–32; in other ancient accounts, fire was used to combat God’s enemies. Thus, we cannot be certain who or what Lehi saw in the pillar of fire that appeared to him. Lehi could have seen God in this pillar, but since Lehi’s vision of God himself is reported as the next stage of the vision, it seems more likely to me that what he beheld at this time was a messenger of God whose threatening words and presence, perhaps summoning Lehi, caused Lehi to “quake and tremble exceedingly” (1 Nephi 1:6).” Citation.

Why fire here, and not some other manifestation?

What emotions do quaking and trembling imply?

7 And it came to pass that he returned to his own house at Jerusalem; and he cast himself upon his bed, being overcome with the Spirit and the things which he had seen.

The only other scriptural cast/bed combo is Rev 2:22 . . . not exactly parallel. Why would this detail be included?

8 And being thus overcome with the Spirit, he was carried away in a vision, even that he saw the heavens open, and he thought he saw God sitting upon his throne, surrounded with numberless concourses of angels in the attitude of singing and praising their God.

Jim F.: “Why is that the way that he sees the Celestial Kingdom, as a place of praise rather than a place of celestial work?”

“he thought he saw God” In modern English, this phrasing would imply “but he didn’t” or “ but he wasn’t entirely sure” or something similar. What does it mean here?

Blake Ostler shows that Lehi’s experience here fits the pattern for a divine calling of a prophet very well. See here, especially the chart on the bottom of p72. The pattern is: historical introduction (v4), intercessory prayer (v4-5), divine confrontation (v6-7), reaction (v6-7), ascension (v8), throne-theophany (v8), descensus (v8), heavenly book (v11-13), songs of praise, (v14), comission (v18-19), rejection and reassurance (v19-20). What does this pattern teach us about prophets and about God’s dealings with prophets? Is this pattern relevant to our own lives?

I’d strongly recommend studying Isaiah 6 to better understand this vision.

9 And it came to pass that he saw One descending out of the midst of heaven, and he beheld that his luster was above that of the sun at noon-day.

Mosiah 13:5 is only other BoM reference to “luster.”

Webster’s 1828 #1 definition of luster is about what we would expect, but here’s the #2 definition: “The splendor of birth, of deeds or of fame; renown; distinction.” Does that add anything to your reading of this verse?

Royal Skousen reads “one” instead of “One” as more likely to be original here.

10 And he also saw twelve others following him, and their brightness did exceed that of the stars in the firmament.

D & C 76:109 is interesting here–not what you would expect but only reference besides Abr 3:13 to stars/firmament.

11 And they came down and went forth upon the face of the earth; and the first came and stood before my father, and gave unto him a book, and bade him that he should read.

We’re in the inaugural passage of the BoM and it is a vision–pretty spectacular stuff–but what is privileged in this text is not the visionary experience (despite its grandiose description!), but a book. That’s a nice nod to the audience, no? Note that the first command is to read a book.

What is this book?

Is there a link between this experience and the book that the angel gave to Joseph Smith? Because that would be pretty recursive.

Merrill J. Bateman:

“At the beginning of most dispensations, a book is given to the newly called prophet. Moses received tablets (see Ex. 31:18). Lehi was given a book to read concerning the destruction of Jerusalem (see 1 Ne. 1:11–14). Ezekiel was given “a roll of a book” (Ezek. 2:9–10) containing the Lord’s message for the house of Judah in his day. John the Revelator on the Isle of Patmos was shown a book with seven seals (see Rev. 5; D&C 77:6). Is it any wonder, then, that the Lord would provide a book containing the fulness of the gospel as part of the “restitution of all things”? The Book of Mormon has the power to draw all men and women to Christ. Its references to the Savior’s Atonement are the clearest on record with regard to its purpose and powers.” Citation: Oct 05 GC.

Here’s what I find interesting about this: in other accounts, there is no indication that the people of that prophet’s time were given the book. But the BoM is most definitely not the private possession of Joseph Smith. It is for all people. This seems to fit into the general theme of an expansionist role for ‘average people’ in the work of the Lord.

12 And it came to pass that as he read, he was filled with the Spirit of the Lord.

One of the first things that the BoM teaches you is that if you read the book you have been commanded to read, you will be filled with the Spirit of the Lord.

13 And he read, saying: Wo, wo, unto Jerusalem, for I have seen thine abominations! Yea, and many things did my father read concerning Jerusalem—that it should be destroyed, and the inhabitants thereof; many should perish by the sword, and many should be carried away captive into Babylon.

Is he quoting from the book when he reads the “wo”s, or are the “wo”s a response to what he reads?

Why would the Lord give Lehi a book to read that said these things (whatever it is the book said), instead of just telling Lehi these things?

14 And it came to pass that when my father had read and seen many great and marvelous things, he did exclaim many things unto the Lord; such as: Great and marvelous are thy works, O Lord God Almighty! Thy throne is high in the heavens, and thy power, and goodness, and mercy are over all the inhabitants of the earth; and, because thou art merciful, thou wilt not suffer those who come unto thee that they shall perish!

W1828 ‘great’: “Large in bulk or dimensions”

W1828 ‘marvelous’: “1. Wonderful; strange; exciting wonder or some degree of surprise. 2. Surpassing credit; incredible.3. The marvelous, in writings, is that which exceeds natural power, or is preternatural; opposed to probable.”

In other words, I don’t think those words mean what you think they mean . . . I think most English speakers would probably interpret them to mean something like “really good,” but the biblical and W1828 usage points to something more like “enormous and surprising.” How have you found the works of the Lord to be “enormous and surprising”?

We don’t know all that Lehi read/saw, but from what we do get here (summarized in v18 as ‘the destruction of Jrsm’), “merciful” is probably not the first word that would come to mind. Why does Lehi have this reaction? Do you have any sense of what Lehi experienced that causes him to conclude, “thou wilt not suffer those who come unto thee that they shall perish”?

Grant Hardy:

“Let’s return to 1 Nephi, chapter 1, where Skousen . . . observes that, grammatically, there are two ways to interpret this phrase: (1) as “a conjoining of the past perfect had read and the simple past-tense saw,” or (2) “as a conjunction of ‘had read’ and ‘had saw’, with ellipsis of the repeated had.” This second reading is implicit in the change in R (= 1920 edition) to the past participle seen, though Skousen does identify a specific case of the nonstandard usage “had saw” in the printer’s manuscript. What difference does this make? The context makes it clear that Lehi saw a vision of God on his throne and then was handed a heavenly book in which he read of the impending destruction of Jerusalem. The sequence of a past perfect tense followed by simple past suggests that after Lehi had finished reading he saw additional, unspecified events (“many great and marvelous things”) in vision, whereas a conjunction of two past perfect forms makes it sound as if the seeing and reading happened at about the same time; that is to say, the “great and marvelous things” were those that Nephi has just reported were contained in the heavenly book. If you are an average reader of the Book of Mormon (or even a way-above-average reader), I would imagine that you have never given a moment’s thought to how 1 Nephi 1:14 might be construed in different ways, unless perhaps you had translated a pre-1920 edition into a foreign language.”  Citation.

15 And after this manner was the language of my father in the praising of his God; for his soul did rejoice, and his whole heart was filled, because of the things which he had seen, yea, which the Lord had shown unto him.

Really? His soul rejoiced that people would be captured and killed and the base of the Lord’s operations on earth would be destroyed?

16 And now I, Nephi, do not make a full account of the things which my father hath written, for he hath written many things which he saw in visions and in dreams; and he also hath written many things which he prophesied and spake unto his children, of which I shall not make a full account.

Why tell us this? Isn’t the assumption that no written account is complete made anyway?

17 But I shall make an account of my proceedings in my days. Behold, I make an abridgment of the record of my father, upon plates which I have made with mine own hands; wherefore, after I have abridged the record of my father then will I make an account of mine own life.

Nephi’s own account begins in ch10.

Again, there is never this consciousness of the writing process in the Bible. What would have motivated Nephi to include it?

“with my own hands” This is not the first time that Nephi mentions this, and we are only 17 verses in! It is theoretically possible (although perhaps unlikely) that not a single biblical author did his or her own writing. Even if the book was written by the person it has been attributed to, it may have technically been written by a scribe. (This certainly seems to be the case with Paul.) Is this comment (and others like it in the BoM) perhaps a criticism of that practice? How else might we understand this emphasis on who is doing the writing–an emphasis completely missing from the Bible?

18 Therefore, I would that ye should know, that after the Lord had shown so many marvelous things unto my father, Lehi, yea, concerning the destruction of Jerusalem, behold he went forth among the people, and began to prophesy and to declare unto them concerning the things which he had both seen and heard.

19 And it came to pass that the Jews did mock him because of the things which he testified of them; for he truly testified of their wickedness and their abominations; and he testified that the things which he saw and heard, and also the things which he read in the book, manifested plainly of the coming of a Messiah, and also the redemption of the world.

What does Nephi mean by “Jews”? Does he not consider himself one?

Many prophets are failures if we look at their numbers–neither Noah nor Lehi was able to convince anyone outside of their own families to come along for the ride. How should this fact shape our viewpoint as to what a prophetic mission is? How should it shape how we define “success” and missionary work? What else?

What do you make of the “saw-heard-read” sequence here?

Did the things that he saw-hear-read talk about Messiah and redemption, or is that just his prophesying? And why is the Messiah and redemption stuff sprung on us now–why wasn’t it mentioned before?

David R. Seely and Fred E. Woods:

 

“At least six interrelated factors, which will be discussed in this article, contributed to the Judahite belief that Jerusalem could not be destroyed: (1) The historical traditions of the spiritual heritage of Jerusalem, “that great city,” suggested to many that the Lord would naturally preserve this holy place from destruction and desecration by the enemies of the covenant people. (2) The Jews misunderstood some of the Lord’s promises in connection with the covenants that he had made with them. In particular, they misunderstood the promises made to David in the Davidic covenant. (3) The miraculous preservation of Jerusalem and its inhabitants when the Assyrians besieged Jerusalem (2 Kings 18–19) in the days of King Hezekiah (701 BC) further reinforced the belief that the Lord would preserve his temple and holy city from the enemy. (4) The city of Jerusalem was fortified and prepared for siege. Hezekiah had heavily fortified the city against the Assyrian siege in 701 BC with massive walls and towers (2 Chronicles 32:2–8) and had even prepared a water source inside the city for the inhabitants of the city to endure a long siege (2 Kings 20:20; 2 Chronicles 32:4, 30). Thus the inhabitants of Jerusalem believed they could endure a long siege brought about by their seemingly impregnable walls. (5) The recent reforms of Josiah (640–609 BC), who had cleansed the temple and led his people in a ceremony of covenant renewal (2 Kings 22–23), had given certain people of Judah an undue sense of self and community righteousness that they believed would surely preserve them from any threatened destruction. (6) Assurances were given by false prophets, who promised Jerusalem and its inhabitants peace, safety, and preservation from the enemy instead of the destruction and exile prophesied by Jeremiah and Lehi. These false assurances were readily accepted by many since they were the words that they wanted to hear.” Citation.

This is enormously important. The real issue is that these people who rejected Lehi were absolutely sure they understood what the scriptures meant, and they were sure that Lehi was interpreting the scriptures incorrectly. This is more interesting and stickier than our usual reading, which is that they were just stupid. What is the control on our own interpretation of scripture so we don’t find ourselves in this position? How much time do you spend questioning your own interpretations of scripture?

20 And when the Jews heard these things they were angry with him; yea, even as with the prophets of old, whom they had cast out, and stoned, and slain; and they also sought his life, that they might take it away. But behold, I, Nephi, will show unto you that the tender mercies of the Lord are over all those whom he hath chosen, because of their faith, to make them mighty even unto the power of deliverance.

What would have motivated their anger? In what ways might we have a similar reaction today to prophetic speech?

Joe Spencer points out that when Lehi preaches (v18-19) that Jrsm will be destroyed, the response is mocking.  When he preaches that the Messiah will come (v19-20), the response is anger.  He writes, “When Lehi speaks critically of his hearers and threatens them with calamity, they laugh, but when he speaks of a beautiful redemption and the coming of an anointed king, they try to kill him.”  What do you make of this double message and double response?  What does it teach us?  How might it be relevant to us today?

Tender mercies: a phrase that has become enormously popular in the Church since Elder Bednar’s talk (Apr 05 GC). I think it resonated with people and was a useful phrase with which to summarize a common experience. Have you experienced any tender mercies of the Lord?

“Hath chosen, because of their faith,” is a very interesting phrase–it seems to simultaneously affirm and negate the concept of chosenness.

Does this verse imply that the chosen people are doing the deliverance? Does it imply some requirements for deliverance (i.e., faith, mightiness)?

CHAPTER 2

1 For behold, it came to pass that the Lord spake unto my father, yea, even in a dream, and said unto him: Blessed art thou Lehi, because of the things which thou hast done; and because thou hast been faithful and declared unto this people the things which I commanded thee, behold, they seek to take away thy life.

Is this ‘dream’ different from the ‘vision’ in 1:8 in some significant way?

2 And it came to pass that the Lord commanded my father, even in a dream, that he should take his family and depart into the wilderness.

What do we learn from the pattern–revelation, fulfillment, blessing, new revelation?

Compare to other departures in the scriptures?

Note that nothing about a promised land is mentioned at this point.

3 And it came to pass that he was obedient unto the word of the Lord, wherefore he did as the Lord commanded him.

What is gained from the redundancy in this verse?

4 And it came to pass that he departed into the wilderness. And he left his house, and the land of his inheritance, and his gold, and his silver, and his precious things, and took nothing with him, save it were his family, and provisions, and tents, and departed into the wilderness.

Was he commanded to leave everything behind? Was it his own decision? Was it pragmatic or dogmatic?

The “nothing, save” is interesting–reminds me of a time when I picked my young son up from a playdate and asked him if he had eaten anything and he said “nothing . . . except for a hamburger. And a hot dog. And three cookies.” Why did Nephi use this odd formulation here?

5 And he came down by the borders near the shore of the Red Sea; and he traveled in the wilderness in the borders which are nearer the Red Sea; and he did travel in the wilderness with his family, which consisted of my mother, Sariah, and my elder brothers, who were Laman, Lemuel, and Sam.

First part of verse is very redundant–why?

Sariah could acted as Lot’s wife, but didn’t. By which I mean that she (and, presumably, L&L) could have chosen to stay home.

No sisters? Were they not yet born? Or just not mentioned here and, if so, why? Cf. 1 Nephi 7:6; 16:7, 2 Nephi 5:6

Interesting note on Sariah.

John L. Sorenson examines Sariah’s life in surprising detail here.

6 And it came to pass that when he had traveled three days in the wilderness, he pitched his tent in a valley by the side of a river of water.

The most famous three days in scripture is Jesus’ time in the tomb–is that alluded to here? If so, what should you learn from it?

7 And it came to pass that he built an altar of stones, and made an offering unto the Lord, and gave thanks unto the Lord our God.

Other references to altars of stones: Deut 27:5-6, Ex 20:25, Josh 8:31, 1 Kings 18:32, Isa 27:9, Zech 9:15.

David Rolph Seely:

 

“Deuteronomy 12 appears to strictly forbid the building of altars and the making of sacrifice outside the place the Lord had chosen for that purpose. The place so designated is usually understood to be the temple in Jerusalem. So the question arises, How could these people who observed the Mosaic law justify building altars and offering sacrifices away from the Jerusalem temple?” Citation.

He offers three possible explanations: “1. Deuteronomy 12 did not intend to eliminate all sacrifice away from the main sanctuary. 2. Melchizedek Priesthood holders were not bound by the centralization of worship as prescribed by Deuteronomy 12. 3. Deuteronomy 12 may have been interpreted anciently as applying only to the land of Israel.” He goes with the third option, partially based on evidence from the Dead Sea Scrolls, which demarcate “three days journey” as the distance beyond which one could slaughter animals outside of the temple, which would make sense of the reference in v6.

8 And it came to pass that he called the name of the river, Laman, and it emptied into the Red Sea; and the valley was in the borders near the mouth thereof.

Only refs to river/names in the OT is Genesis 2–is that alluded to here?

9 And when my father saw that the waters of the river emptied into the fountain of the Red Sea, he spake unto Laman, saying: O that thou mightest be like unto this river, continually running into the fountain of all righteousness!

What is it about the river emptying into the sea that causes Lehi’s reaction?

The Red Sea is, of course, famous for having been parted by Moses. How does that fact play into this passage?

Don’t rivers run OUT OF fountains, not INTO them?

Delbert L. Stapley:

 

“Many rivers have their beginning from springs of pure, crystal-clear water gushing forth from a mountainside. As the water wends its way to the sea, there are side tributaries that join the main stream. Some of these tributaries are polluted and contaminate the main stream, which started pure at its source. By the time the river reaches the sea, pollution has occurred in the body of the stream. How much like life this symbolic representation is! “ Citation: Oct 1971 GC.

10 And he also spake unto Lemuel: O that thou mightest be like unto this valley, firm and steadfast, and immovable in keeping the commandments of the Lord!

I’m fascinated by the fact that both “continually running” AND “firm and steadfast” are applauded here–those seem like opposites to me.

Deiter F. Uchtdorf:

 

“Ultimately, patience means being “firm and steadfast, and immovable in keeping the commandments of the Lord” every hour of every day, even when it is hard to do so.” Citation: Apr 2010 GC.

The naming is a little weird in that none of the other residents of the area will know these names, so they presumably won’t be used again. Why does Lehi name these things?

Is there anything you see in Lehi’s parenting style here that you should model? Is there anything here that causes you to re-approach your own assumptions about parenting? Given how L&L turn out, might we think that Lehi wasn’t engaging in ‘best practices’ here? If so, what else might he have done? (Is it fair to read 1 Nephi looking for how Lehi and Sariah ‘messed up’ as parents?)

11 Now this he spake because of the stiffneckedness of Laman and Lemuel; for behold they did murmur in many things against their father, because he was a visionary man, and had led them out of the land of Jerusalem, to leave the land of their inheritance, and their gold, and their silver, and their precious things, to perish in the wilderness. And this they said he had done because of the foolish imaginations of his heart.

But yet they followed him anyway . . . I dunno, but it seems that Lehi would have been incapable of physically dragging L&L along with him if they had tried to stay home or escape en route. So . . . is this a sort of hedging of bets: “I’ll go, but I’ll whine the whole time”? Do you do that? I do.

Only 3 references to “visionary” in the canon are here and 2 Ne 5:2, 4. I am fascinated by the uptake of Sariah and Lehi’s words in their children and vice versa.

Why does Nephi (here and elsewhere) include so much of L&L’s complaint? Are we to read it and see if we see ourselves in it?

12 And thus Laman and Lemuel, being the eldest, did murmur against their father. And they did murmur because they knew not the dealings of that God who had created them.

What work does “being the eldest” do in this verse?

Nephi points to L&L’s ignorance as the cause of the problem. What should we make of that?

Neal A. Maxwell:

“Like Laman and Lemuel, we, too, sometimes fail to understand the dealings of our God in our lives and in our times.” Citation: Oct 1989 GC.

Any personal experiences with this principle?

13 Neither did they believe that Jerusalem, that great city, could be destroyed according to the words of the prophets. And they were like unto the Jews who were at Jerusalem, who sought to take away the life of my father.

Does that mean that they wanted to kill their father?

14 And it came to pass that my father did speak unto them in the valley of Lemuel, with power, being filled with the Spirit, until their frames did shake before him. And he did confound them, that they durst not utter against him; wherefore, they did as he commanded them.

What emotion does shaking indicate?

Only OTs references to confound are Gen 11:7, 9 (languages at Babel) and Jer 1:17.

W1828 confound: “1. To mingle and blend different things, so that their forms or natures cannot be distinguished; to mix in a mass or crowd, so that individuals cannot be distinguished. 2. To throw into disorder.”

I think something like “confuse” is meant by confound–is that fair? Really–he confused them? Is that the right reaction? Did Lehi do something wrong? (We would consider it a teaching fail to end up with confused students.) But confounding leads to obedience here–is that good?

15 And my father dwelt in a tent.

Feast wiki:

“Students of the Book of Mormon have wondered why Nephi so often repeats that “my father dwelt in a tent.” The exact phrase is found four times in 1 Nephi: 1 Ne 2:15, 1 Ne 9:1, 1 Ne 10:16, and 1 Ne 16:6. Several theories have been advanced for why Nephi might find this fact so significant.
1. The phrase is a literary ending point. The words are used to signal a culmination of one thought or story and the beginning of another.
2. Since Lehi was a well-to-do man of some importance in the land of Jerusalem, Nephi was impressed by the fact that he would leave his riches and take nothing into the desert except his family, provisions, and tents. . . .
3. It is a note to indicate that they have adopted a nomadic style of life. This was not simply a temporary situation, but a commitment to leave their permanent home and travel into the unknown.
4. It is an expression of the father’s tent as the hub of everything. It is the official center of all administration and authority, the center of their universe. 1 Ne 3:1; 1 Ne 4:38; 1 Ne 5:7; 1 Ne 7:5; 1 Ne 7:21-22; 1 Ne 15:1 and 1 Ne 16:10 speak of the tent as the headquarters for all activities, discussions, and decisions.
5. Another possibility is that Lehi’s tent might be symbolic of the temple. . . . The temple at the time of Moses’ exodus was the portable tabernacle. The tabernacle was the center place of Israel’s worship activities during the wanderings and until the building of the temple in Solomon’s day.

Nephi mentions specifically that his father (Lehi) dwelt in a tent. The only person who was designated to go into the most sacred places of the Old Testament temple was the High Priest. . . . As a group of the covenant people being led away by the Lord, they would need a Prophet and High Priest to guide them. We will see that after their arrival in the Promised Land they set about building a temple. . . .
The passages in which we find the phrase “my father dwelt in a tent” lend themselves to temple symbolism. In addition, see comments on Abraham dwelling in his tent in Abr 2:16. This comparison likewise links tent and temple, and may also relate Lehi to Abraham as a founding patriarch of a covenant lineage.
However, in 1 Ne 2:7, Lehi builds an altar and offers a sacrifice. Generally sacrifices are associated with the temple, but in 1 & 2 Nephi they tend to be associated with stone altars rather than with Lehi’s tent per se.”

Gerald Smith writes, “Lehi will walk away from the temple, and return to the ways of Abraham in the wilderness: living in a tent, sacrificing on altars, and living the nomadic life.” Citation.  So we might see the tent references as an effort to locate Lehi in the tradition of the Genesis patriarchs. Note that throughout the OT, cities are negative space and the righteous are not in them. The tent focus may be to show that Lehi is rejecting the urban tradition. Cities would have represented some degree of comfort, sociality, safety, wealth, access to cool food and items, etc. So: what do you make of all the references to tents in 1 Nephi?

16 And it came to pass that I, Nephi, being exceedingly young, nevertheless being large in stature, and also having great desires to know of the mysteries of God, wherefore, I did cry unto the Lord; and behold he did visit me, and did soften my heart that I did believe all the words which had been spoken by my father; wherefore, I did not rebel against him like unto my brothers.

This is a very interesting description of Nephi–age, size, desires. Why include it here?

Joe Spencer wrote that Nephi’s tendency was “to idealize, to simplify, and to prettify his record. As many readers—those perhaps a bit more skeptical in orientation—have noted, Nephi comes off in his record a little too well. He never doubts or hesitates, and his every action exudes righteous zeal.” Citation.
He says that some readers see Nephi as a jerk, and his brothers as at least somewhat justified in their treatment of him. (Sorry, but I can’t help thinking of Mr. No Skinny Jeans here.) Joe suggests that we could read it as “an indication that Nephi was naively baffled at others’ lack of zeal. I think Orson Scott Card in his Homecoming series (a sci-fi series the first four volumes of which are drawn from the story of Nephi in the Book of Mormon) has more or less nailed Nephi’s character: he was someone who just couldn’t see why the will of God didn’t immediately draw uncompromised obedience from others.” (Which still means that he is naive.) He sees Nephi as “a Nephi who eventually saw that his earliest manifestations of zeal were manifestations of zeal without knowledge that had caused irreparable damage to the relationship he hoped to have with his brothers.” It is good to remember that Nephi doesn’t write the record until much later in life–he isn’t writing as he goes along but reflecting with hindsight, including of the terrible division between his people and his brothers’ people.

Eugene England writes that we are justifying victimization if we say “Nephi was a self-righteous prig so no wonder his brothers beat him up.” Citation: p40.

The undercurrent here is that Nephi’s heart needed softening and he perhaps did not yet believe all of Lehi’s words before this event, and that without it, he may in fact have joined his brothers in rebelling. What does that suggest? Is it in any way related to the description Nephi gives of himself?

What do you make of Nephi’s portrayal of himself in this book? Do you trust his viewpoint?

17 And I spake unto Sam, making known unto him the things which the Lord had manifested unto me by his Holy Spirit. And it came to pass that he believed in my words.

Why doesn’t Sam have his own experience?

18 But, behold, Laman and Lemuel would not hearken unto my words; and being grieved because of the hardness of their hearts I cried unto the Lord for them.

Wait–when we last left L&L in v14, they were quiet and obedient. What happened?

19 And it came to pass that the Lord spake unto me, saying: Blessed art thou, Nephi, because of thy faith, for thou hast sought me diligently, with lowliness of heart.

20 And inasmuch as ye shall keep my commandments, ye shall prosper, and shall be led to a land of promise; yea, even a land which I have prepared for you; yea, a land which is choice above all other lands.

What does prosper mean?

This must have been mind-blowing, given that they thought they were leaving the promised land. Application?

21 And inasmuch as thy brethren shall rebel against thee, they shall be cut off from the presence of the Lord.

22 And inasmuch as thou shalt keep my commandments, thou shalt be made a ruler and a teacher over thy brethren.

Ruler and teacher is an interesting combination.

In what ways are Nephi and Joseph of Egypt similiar? What does this teach you about Nephi? About Joseph?

23 For behold, in that day that they shall rebel against me, I will curse them even with a sore curse, and they shall have no power over thy seed except they shall rebel against me also.

Does this mean that as of this writing, they hadn’t yet rebelled against the Lord?

Presumably Nephi’s concerns are more immediate–this is a very long-term perspective here.

24 And if it so be that they rebel against me, they shall be a scourge unto thy seed, to stir them up in the ways of remembrance.

W1828: scourge: “1. To whip; a lash consisting of a strap or cord; an instrument of punishment or discipline. 2. A punishment; vindictive affliction.”

I assume the first ‘they’ is Nephi’s descendants but the second is L&L’s?

I note that the Lord is telling Nephi at this point that there will be a distinction between the descendants, and that they won’t be one people or living the same way. Why is the Lord announcing his plans to treat the two groups differently? In other words, why isn’t there a promise that if L&L’s kids mess up, Nephi’s kids will whip them into shape?

I’m curious about what global principles we might draw from this verse–does it say anything generally applicable about suffering? Sin? Trials? Enemies? Natural consequences?

CHAPTER 3

1 And it came to pass that I, Nephi, returned from speaking with the Lord, to the tent of my father.

Why was this verse included?

2 And it came to pass that he spake unto me, saying: Behold I have dreamed a dream, in the which the Lord hath commanded me that thou and thy brethren shall return to Jerusalem.

I wouldn’t be surprised if many readers thought this reflected poor planning on the Lord’s part! What might have been the Lord’s purposes in first taking them out of Jrsm but then having them return?

Why send the kids but not Lehi?

3 For behold, Laban hath the record of the Jews and also a genealogy of my forefathers, and they are engraven upon plates of brass.

Again the obsession with details of the mechanics of writing! You’d think this record had been made by a bunch of humanities professors!

4 Wherefore, the Lord hath commanded me that thou and thy brothers should go unto the house of Laban, and seek the records, and bring them down hither into the wilderness.

Nephi just got done speaking with the Lord, but the Lord commanded his father, not him, in this? Why not go to Nephi directly?

Do you kinda think a little less of Lehi since he went off into the wilderness without a copy of the scriptures?

5 And now, behold thy brothers murmur, saying it is a hard thing which I have required of them; but behold I have not required it of them, but it is a commandment of the Lord.

Does this verse mean that Lehi presented the plan to L&L before Nephi? Why would the Lord ask L&L to go, anyway? Why not just send Sam and Nephi?

There’s an entire sermon in this verse about how we kvetch about “what the prophet tells us” when, at its best, it isn’t the prophet telling us anything, but the Lord.

6 Therefore go, my son, and thou shalt be favored of the Lord, because thou hast not murmured.

I can’t help but feel a little squeamish in that this is Nephi making the record and recording this–I can’t think of any other biblical figure who is so self-aggrandizing–even the ones who legitimately could have been, like Jesus, are way more modest than this in their self-portrayal.

7 And it came to pass that I, Nephi, said unto my father: I will go and do the things which the Lord hath commanded, for I know that the Lord giveth no commandments unto the children of men, save he shall prepare a way for them that they may accomplish the thing which he commandeth them.

Is this really true? We are commanded to marry, to have children, to support our families, to serve missions, and to do any other number of things that are literally impossible for some people to do.

Neal A. Maxwell:

“Their sad expectation of ease was evident in their bristling over getting the plates from Laban, enduring the harsh wilderness, building a ship, and crossing a vast ocean (see 1Ne. 3–4). Dulled and desensitized, Laman and Lemuel simply didn’t share Nephi’s confidence that the Lord would never command His children to do difficult things, except the Lord first prepares the way (see 1 Ne. 3:7).” Citation: Oct 1999 GC.

When you think about the number of prophets who were called to preach repentance and did not convert many/any, how do you then read this promise?

8 And it came to pass that when my father had heard these words he was exceedingly glad, for he knew that I had been blessed of the Lord.

Why include Lehi’s reaction?

9 And I, Nephi, and my brethren took our journey in the wilderness, with our tents, to go up to the land of Jerusalem.

Terryl L. Givens:

“Why all this redundancy? Why such emphatic insistence on the literal origins of the record, with Nephi’s own hand? Clearly, unlike the impersonal voice with which Genesis opens the biblical account of creation, focusing as it does on cosmic history, epic events, and God’s primal acts of creation, the Book of Mormon’s first named author urgently presses upon his audience the very human, very local, and very historical nature of his narrative. It is as far removed from mythic beginnings and anonymous narratives as he can possibly make it. This is firsthand, eyewitness history of local events (set in 600 BC Jerusalem, we learn shortly). . . In art history, provenance means derivation. More fully, it refers to authenticity that is secured in a particular way, establishing the true origins of an object by verifying its unbroken history of transmission from original owner to the present. In the Book of Mormon, we never lose sight of the links in the chain of transmission. This fact is no coincidence. And it makes sense of the otherwise peculiar series of perfunctory and yet dutiful handoffs that Nephi’s descendents make to each successor. For after Nephi, each inheritor of the plates of ore attests to the unbroken chain of transmission, calling the responsibility to continue the tradition a “commandment” passed on through the generations. The weight of solemn obligation felt by these chroniclers is evident in their clear attestations of a responsibility both executed and then transferred, and explains the curious feature of the Book of Mormon’s structure in which a series of mini-books follows upon the heels of Enos’s record. The accounts of Nephi, Jacob, and Enos are progressively shorter, and that of Enos’s son Jarom is only two pages, making it the shortest of all books named for their authors. (The only exception is the Words of Mormon, but that is more of an explanatory editorial insertion than a chapter proper.) Following Jarom’s brief account, the succeeding chronicles are too short to even constitute books. In one case, that of Chemish, his stewardship takes the form of a single paragraph.
This perfunctory brevity and the self-confessed wickedness of authors like Omni make the whole section seem, somehow, too mechanical—almost pointless. Why do they so dutifully fill their roles when their hearts seem so little invested in record keeping, and why do editors Nephi and Mormon alike leave their portions intact? A terribly important point hinges on those questions. For it is precisely this very brevity, it is the dutiful but soulless nature of some of these entries, that points all the more powerfully to the intimidating magnitude of the obligation the authors have inherited to maintain intact the line of transmission, the authentication of the provenance, of the sacred records. This is the message conveyed loudly and clearly by the economical Chemish: “Now I, Chemish, write what few things I write in the same book with my brother; for behold, I saw the last which he wrote, that he wrote it with his own hand; and he wrote it in the day that he delivered them unto me. And after this manner we keep the records, for it is according to the commandments of our fathers. And I make an end” (Omni 9).
So, that is the first detail of the Book of Mormon that draws attention: the authorial preoccupation—almost obsessive concern—with authenticating the record’s provenance. We are never permitted to lose sight of a documented genealogy that extends back in time—not to an anonymous author, or an implied Moses or even pseudepigraphal writer—but through a meticulously documented lineage to a historical personage of flesh and blood, who fashioned with his own hands the very materials on which the record was engraven. And from those hands, going forward, through a thousand years to Moroni. And one can now see the bridge from Moroni to Joseph Smith, attested to by the sworn affidavits of eleven men, as following in this same path, of confirming with legalistic documentation the still unbroken history of the record’s provenance. That is why, even though the final form those plates take is a printed volume and is now mass produced, each copy nonetheless inherits the same pedigree, and each volume can therefore function as a sacred artifact, a holy icon, from the moment the first copy came off the Palmyra press. This is the final meaning of the book’s ironclad guarantee of provenance. Aaron’s budding rod was not a horticultural treasure, the pot of manna was not a culinary relic, and the Book of Mormon’s primary function has never been textual. It is oracular. . . . In its own self-portrayal, the Book of Mormon functions as that silk twist let down from heaven.” Citation.

I like all of that, but I also have to wonder if, at the very same time, the attention to provenance and autobiography doesn’t serve precisely the opposite function by grounding the record in human fallibility and limitations.  Nice trick, that.

10 And it came to pass that when we had gone up to the land of Jerusalem, I and my brethren did consult one with another.

11 And we cast lots—who of us should go in unto the house of Laban. And it came to pass that the lot fell upon Laman; and Laman went in unto the house of Laban, and he talked with him as he sat in his house.

Apparently the command from the Lord didn’t tell them what to do specifically. Interestingly, casting lots seems in the OT to be an approved method of discerning the will of the Lord.

If the casting of lots does express divine will, what are we to make of the fact that Laman goes? Also, L&L are virtually a Greek chorus in the BoM, usually speaking and acting in unison. Is there something significant about the fact that just Laman is acting here?

This verse is an example of Laman’s obedience. Nephi never calls attention to is–but Lehi told Laman to go back to Jrsm and he went.

L. Tom Perry:

“Several decisions faced these young men as they approached Laban to ask for the records. It’s most interesting to me to note the process by which they made those decisions. First, the decision was to leave it to chance. And they cast lots, and the lot fell to Laman. He went to the house of Laban, and as he sat and talked with him, he said he desired the records that were written on the plates of brass. Laban was not too pleased with this request and was angry, and thrust him out of his presence, and would not let him have the record. He said, “Behold thou art a robber, and I will slay thee” (1 Ne. 3:13). That was enough for Laman; he fled and came back and reported to his brothers that leaving the assignment to chance did not work.” Citation: Oct 1979 GC.

Interesting that he interprets the casting of lots as “leaving it to chance.”

12 And he desired of Laban the records which were engraven upon the plates of brass, which contained the genealogy of my father.

Why repeat all this? We already know. Despite this unnecessary verbiage, what we really need to know–in order to make sense of the next 2 verses–is what Laman said. But that information is not given us, besides “desired,” which is very vague. Why?

Why did Lehi and his family think that they had a right to take the plates of brass from Laban? From the perspective of Laban’s family, this is a simple theft (as the next verse suggests). If you want to posit that there is some backstory that would show that Lehi’s family had a right to the plates and that Laban’s possession was the theft, then why isn’t that story included?

13 And behold, it came to pass that Laban was angry, and thrust him out from his presence; and he would not that he should have the records. Wherefore, he said unto him: Behold thou art a robber, and I will slay thee.

Why was Laban angry?

Interesting that we get Laban’s direct speech. Did Laman genuinely appear to him to be a robber, or is that an inaccurate statement?

14 But Laman fled out of his presence, and told the things which Laban had done, unto us. And we began to be exceedingly sorrowful, and my brethren were about to return unto my father in the wilderness.

15 But behold I said unto them that: As the Lord liveth, and as we live, we will not go down unto our father in the wilderness until we have accomplished the thing which the Lord hath commanded us.

How did Nephi reach this decision? In a similar situation, we might say, “Well, I extended the invitation, but everyone has their moral agency, so I can’t force this situation and I have done the best I can.” And then be done with it.

16 Wherefore, let us be faithful in keeping the commandments of the Lord; therefore let us go down to the land of our father’s inheritance, for behold he left gold and silver, and all manner of riches. And all this he hath done because of the commandments of the Lord.

Grant Hardy:

 

“Another example of Skousen’s close analysis concerns 1 Nephi 3:16. The printer’s manuscript and all printed editions state that Lehi “left gold and silver and all manner of riches and all this he hath done because of the commandments of the Lord.” However, the original manuscript has the singular commandment. Skousen believes this is what Joseph Smith originally dictated, and he explains that “the language in 1 Nephi 3:16 implies a specific commandment for Lehi to leave his wealth behind.” This shifts our understanding of the narrative a bit because Nephi now appears to be telling his brothers that God had specifically commanded Lehi to leave behind his moveable property because God knew the brothers would need it later when they returned to Laban and tried to buy the brass plates.” Citation.

And Skousen also has ‘commandment’ at 4:34.

So does this cause us to re-evaluate Lehi’s decision to leave the wealth at home in the first place?

17 For he knew that Jerusalem must be destroyed, because of the wickedness of the people.

18 For behold, they have rejected the words of the prophets. Wherefore, if my father should dwell in the land after he hath been commanded to flee out of the land, behold, he would also perish. Wherefore, it must needs be that he flee out of the land.

This seems to be a rabbit trail, not immediately relevant to the current situation. Why include it?

19 And behold, it is wisdom in God that we should obtain these records, that we may preserve unto our children the language of our fathers;

Why does it matter if their language changes? And did this work–did their language stay the same? Is there an inverse allusion to the Tower of Babel here?

Elaine S. Dalton:

 

“Nephi was thinking of his future family, even though he had no prospect for marriage. Remember, his family was alone in the wilderness! Nephi not only had a vision of how to return to his heavenly home, but he also had a vision of what he wanted in his earthly home.” Citation: Apr 2003 GC.

20 And also that we may preserve unto them the words which have been spoken by the mouth of all the holy prophets, which have been delivered unto them by the Spirit and power of God, since the world began, even down unto this present time.

21 And it came to pass that after this manner of language did I persuade my brethren, that they might be faithful in keeping the commandments of God.

22 And it came to pass that we went down to the land of our inheritance, and we did gather together our gold, and our silver, and our precious things.

23 And after we had gathered these things together, we went up again unto the house of Laban.

24 And it came to pass that we went in unto Laban, and desired him that he would give unto us the records which were engraven upon the plates of brass, for which we would give unto him our gold, and our silver, and all our precious things.

No lots this time? Does that mean the initial lots were a bad idea?

25 And it came to pass that when Laban saw our property, and that it was exceedingly great, he did lust after it, insomuch that he thrust us out, and sent his servants to slay us, that he might obtain our property.

Irony: so now he is the robber, and a murderer, too.

26 And it came to pass that we did flee before the servants of Laban, and we were obliged to leave behind our property, and it fell into the hands of Laban.

Oops. Does this negate the grandiosity of Nephi’s plan above? Does it mean he messed up, perhaps because he didn’t cast lots or seek the will of the Lord and instead relied on wealth, hoping that he would manage to use riches to motivate Laban just enough to give him the plates but not enough to rob him? Is this a mistake on Nephi’s part, thinking he can arouse lust and then control it? If he had prayed and/or cast lots above, would the plan have been different?

L. Tom Perry:

 

“Nephi had to make another decision on how to obtain the records. He thought of all the wealth they were leaving in their home, the gold and silver and all manner of riches. He thought he would gather up that gold and silver and trust in the things of the world to purchase the records. So they approached the house of Laban and displayed the gold and silver and offered to trade these precious things for the plates of brass. When Laban saw the property and that it was exceedingly great, he did lust after it. Looking at the four boys against all of his servants, it was easy to determine that he could retain the plates and have the wealth also. He sent his servants after the boys to slay them, and they had to flee, leaving their property behind. Things of the world did not produce the records.” Citation: Oct 1979 GC.

Interesting that he labels this a spiritual fail on Nephi’s part.

27 And it came to pass that we fled into the wilderness, and the servants of Laban did not overtake us, and we hid ourselves in the cavity of a rock.

Only other scripture ref to “cavity of a rock” is Ether 13.

28 And it came to pass that Laman was angry with me, and also with my father; and also was Lemuel, for he hearkened unto the words of Laman. Wherefore Laman and Lemuel did speak many hard words unto us, their younger brothers, and they did smite us even with a rod.

Why is Laman angry at him? Why is Sam getting beaten?

29 And it came to pass as they smote us with a rod, behold, an angel of the Lord came and stood before them, and he spake unto them, saying: Why do ye smite your younger brother with a rod? Know ye not that the Lord hath chosen him to be a ruler over you, and this because of your iniquities? Behold ye shall go up to Jerusalem again, and the Lord will deliver Laban into your hands.

In the OT, angels usually appear to Good People to give them an Important Preview of Coming Attractions. In the BoM, angels usually appear to Bad People to tell them to Shape Up. Why the difference? Today, we usually assume that the more spiritual manifestations one has, the more righteous one is. Should the pattern of angelic visitations in the BoM cause us to reconsider that?

30 And after the angel had spoken unto us, he departed.

This verse seems to be another one of those completely unnecessary statements, especially given the beginning of the next verse. Why was it included?

31 And after the angel had departed, Laman and Lemuel again began to murmur, saying: How is it possible that the Lord will deliver Laban into our hands? Behold, he is a mighty man, and he can command fifty, yea, even he can slay fifty; then why not us?

They see an angel and their first response is to begin to murmur. What does this teach us about angels? About human nature? About murmuring?

CHAPTER 4

1 And it came to pass that I spake unto my brethren, saying: Let us go up again unto Jerusalem, and let us be faithful in keeping the commandments of the Lord; for behold he is mightier than all the earth, then why not mightier than Laban and his fifty, yea, or even than his tens of thousands?

I think the chapter break is pretty unfortunate here–this is clearly a continuation of the thought from the previous verse.

2 Therefore let us go up; let us be strong like unto Moses; for he truly spake unto the waters of the Red Sea and they divided hither and thither, and our fathers came through, out of captivity, on dry ground, and the armies of Pharaoh did follow and were drowned in the waters of the Red Sea.

In what way was Moses strong?

Why “hither and tither”?

NB “our fathers.” He’s aiming for common ground with them.

3 Now behold ye know that this is true; and ye also know that an angel hath spoken unto you; wherefore can ye doubt? Let us go up; the Lord is able to deliver us, even as our fathers, and to destroy Laban, even as the Egyptians.

How can they doubt?

What can we glean from the Laban/Egyptian comparison? Is Laban pharoah? Are the records the things the Israelites “borrow” from the Egyptians–and later use to make/decorate their tabernacle?

4 Now when I had spoken these words, they were yet wroth, and did still continue to murmur; nevertheless they did follow me up until we came without the walls of Jerusalem.

Again, this idea of murmuring but still following. I think we want to read L&L as “people out of the church” but I think the text makes clear that L&L are “people in the church who whine a lot.”

Neal A. Maxwell:

“This obscure young man apparently paused while translating and dictating to Emma—probably from the fourth chapter of 1 Nephi [1 Ne. 4]—concerning the “wall of Jerusalem”—and said, in effect, “Emma, I didn’t know there was a wall around Jerusalem.”” Citation: Oct 1983 GC.

5 And it was by night; and I caused that they should hide themselves without the walls. And after they had hid themselves, I, Nephi, crept into the city and went forth towards the house of Laban.

Why did he bring them this far to leave them outside the gates? The only similar scriptural situation I can think of is Jesus leaving his disciples farther away at Gethsemane, but I don’t particularly like that parallel.

Only other references to “crept” are Jude 1:4 (bad guys) and Ether 7:18, good guys who creep in by night to kill a bad guy. The result is returning the proper king to the throne.

6 And I was led by the Spirit, not knowing beforehand the things which I should do.

An entire sermon in here: we usually don’t know beforehand, do we?

Doesn’t v3 imply that Nephi knew that Laban would be destroyed somehow?

7 Nevertheless I went forth, and as I came near unto the house of Laban I beheld a man, and he had fallen to the earth before me, for he was drunken with wine.

8 And when I came to him I found that it was Laban.

9 And I beheld his sword, and I drew it forth from the sheath thereof; and the hilt thereof was of pure gold, and the workmanship thereof was exceedingly fine, and I saw that the blade thereof was of the most precious steel.

Why all of this description here?

See D&C 17:1.

Brett L. Holbrook:

 

“The sword was revered in Nephite history and preserved until the nineteenth century, which hints at the importance of the blade. . . . The existing theories about the sword of Laban have suggested it as a standard high-quality Near Eastern sword, a sacred implement of war, or a metaphorical symbol for the word of God. As a literary type, some have stated that the sword of Laban was a fixation of the Nephites that took on powerful symbolic importance. That symbolism, though, was of the violent paradigms in the human condition. The sword has also been declared as the only constant in the Book of Mormon: a symbolic reminder and ensign of the Lord’s providence. John Taylor compared the preservation of the sword of Laban and other Nephite artifacts to the memorials found in Israel’s Ark of the Covenant. They were manifestations and types of laws and ordinances belonging to the priesthood and purposes of God.” Citation.

Is the sword symbolic? (consider Genesis 3:24, Exodus 18:4, Deuteronomy 34:21, 1 Samuel 17:50-51, D & C 27:17)

Assuming the sword is an important relic for the Nephites and, perhaps, for us, why? Is it comparable to the manna and/or tablets saved in the ark? Wouldn’t the appropriate relic have been the plates themselves, not the sword by which they were obtained?

Can you make a parallel between Nephi and David?
1. sword of mighty and bad man (Laban, Goliath)
2. owner decapitated by faithful youth
3. unusual sword in appearance (iron=Philistines, bronze=Israel)
4. sword revered by people, used to lead them
5. symbol of authority and kingship

See here for more.

Probably the most useful insight of this comparison, to me at least, is the sense that it makes of the “it is better for one man to perish” line–it places it in the context of just sending David and Goliath out to battle instead of entire armies. Applying it to this story, it suggests that it is better that Laban and Nephi are the sole strugglers over the plates, than a battle between all of Lehi and all of Laban’s household. But I’m speculating.

10 And it came to pass that I was constrained by the Spirit that I should kill Laban; but I said in my heart: Never at any time have I shed the blood of man. And I shrunk and would that I might not slay him.

Webster’s 1828 ‘constrained’: “In a general sense, to strain; to press; to urge; to drive; to exert force, physical or moral, either in urging to action or in restraining it. Hence, 1. To compel or force; to urge with irresistible power, or with a power sufficient to produce the effect.”

Joe Spencer makes a big point of the repetition of the word “command[ment]” in this narrative and then contrasts it with the word “constrained” here.  Is it significant that the Spirit is speaking by way of constraint and not commandment here?

This is most emphatically NOT how we usually think of the Spirit operating. What does this word mean?

11 And the Spirit said unto me again: Behold the Lord hath delivered him into thy hands. Yea, and I also knew that he had sought to take away mine own life; yea, and he would not hearken unto the commandments of the Lord; and he also had taken away our property.

Is this just rationalizing?

12 And it came to pass that the Spirit said unto me again: Slay him, for the Lord hath delivered him into thy hands;

13 Behold the Lord slayeth the wicked to bring forth his righteous purposes. It is better that one man should perish than that a nation should dwindle and perish in unbelief.

Does the second phrase mean what we think it means? I’m curious at the repeated use of the word “perish” to describe the fear that Lehi’s group will perish in the wilderness. Maybe those are the passage that need rethinking–maybe that concern is spiritual and not physical. Or maybe here, the idea is that it is better for Nephi to perish for this ‘crime’ than for his people to perish.

I think what is sticky here is that it isn’t “the Lord” slaying–that’s an entirely different ball of wax.  It is “Nephi slaying.”  Is the point of this story somehow wrapped up in Nephi’s required identification with the Lord?

L. Lionel Kendrick:

“He explained: “It is better that one man should perish than that a nation should dwindle and perish in unbelief.” (1 Ne. 4:13.) In contrast, the Mulekites, who migrated to the American continent shortly after Lehi and his family left Jerusalem, failed to bring with them any sacred scriptures or records. Omni recorded the condition of a nation without scriptures: “They had had many wars and serious contentions, and had fallen by the sword from time to time; and their language had become corrupted; and they had brought no records with them; and they denied the being of their Creator.” (Omni 1:17.) Even more serious than their continuous contentions and wars and the corruption of their language was the tragedy that they did not know the Savior. The pattern is the same for individuals as it is for nations. Without searching the scriptures, they cease to know the Savior.” Citation: Apr 1993 GC.

Compare Alma 30:47 and 2 Samuel 20 for the same principle being applied.

Is this verse the Spirit speaking, or Nephi?

I think most commenters on this story seem to think that Nephi has to kill Laban so Laban doesn’t kill Nephi.  But that isn’t what v13 says–it says that the future nation (which, you know, may not exist if Nephi gets killed tomorrow) will dwindle without the records.

John W. Welch and Heidi Harkness Parker:

“Based on the New Testament alone, the “one for many” principle in the Book of Mormon might have appeared anachronistic. Yet the fuller picture shows that this principle operated much earlier in Israelite culture, notably in Nephi’s own day. This was something that Joseph Smith would have had no way of knowing, and it is a point that few legal historians are aware of even today.” Citation.

The weird thing about this proverb is that it is the absolute basis of Christianity: it is better that Christ should die than that everyone should. So doesn’t Xianity itself require us to assume that the ends justify the means?

So the entire “Lehite nation” as it were would perish without these records? Was there no other way?

14 And now, when I, Nephi, had heard these words, I remembered the words of the Lord which he spake unto me in the wilderness, saying that: Inasmuch as thy seed shall keep my commandments, they shall prosper in the land of promise.

Is there any significance in the difference between the Spirit’s words in verse 11 and 12-13? (Note how they trigger different responses in Nephi.)

15 Yea, and I also thought that they could not keep the commandments of the Lord according to the law of Moses, save they should have the law.

This doesn’t make sense–there isn’t a single other copy they could have begged, borrowed, copied, memorized, etc.?

This strikes me as quite the condemnation against The Unwritten Order of Things.

16 And I also knew that the law was engraven upon the plates of brass.

17 And again, I knew that the Lord had delivered Laban into my hands for this cause—that I might obtain the records according to his commandments.

18 Therefore I did obey the voice of the Spirit, and took Laban by the hair of the head, and I smote off his head with his own sword.

Other famous rolling heads: Judges 5:26. 2 Sam 4:7. Ether 15:30.

I think it would be very useful to list Nephi’s rationales in the previous verses.  Is it fair to say that he dismisses some (“he also had taken away our property”) and accepts other (“I knew that the Lord had delivered Laban into my hands for this cause”), or is it more of a cumulative effect?  Or something else entirely?

General comment: I think too often, our approach to troubling scriptures is the interpretational equivalent of “nothing to see here–move along, people!” (Hint:  they only ever say that if there is something really interesting to see, but they want you out of their way.)  But I find that attitude troubling–I don’t think these kinds of things are in the scriptures so we can all put on our best southern belle party faces and say, “Well, bless his heart!” and quickly change the subject (“How’s your momma?”) I think they are there precisely so we will grapple with them. So let’s grapple (more on that idea here).

We might find similarities between this story and others where people “argue” or “question” or “debate” with divine communications in Genesis 18 (Abraham pleads for saving Sodom and Gomorrah), Job 38 (God asks Job by what right he thinks he understands how things work), Luke 1:18 and 34 (Zacharias and then Mary seek to understand the angel–note the different questions and then different responses!), Mark 7:28 (the Syro-Phenician woman pleads for her daughter), and others.  Do these other instances shed any light on Nephi’s conversation with the Spirit here?

What is the difference between Nephi’s opposition to the Spirit and L&L’s?

This statement from Joseph Smith is frequently used in official church sources with regard to this story:

“God said, ‘Thou shalt not kill;’ at another time He said ‘Thou shalt utterly destroy.’ This is the principle on which the government of heaven is conducted—by revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the children of the kingdom are placed. Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see the reason thereof till long after the events transpire. If we seek first the kingdom of God, all good things will be added. So with Solomon: first he asked wisdom, and God gave it him, and with it every desire of his heart, even things which might be considered abominable to all who understand the order of heaven only in part, but which in reality were right because God gave and sanctioned by special revelation” (History of the Church, 5:135).

From the Institute manual:

“Some people have incorrectly felt that the Spirit of the Lord has prompted them to do something contrary to what the Lord has already commanded, such as was the case with Nephi. Today we need not worry that the Lord might prompt us to do something that runs contrary to current commandments. President Harold B. Lee (1899–1973) has taught us who the Lord will give such promptings to: “When there is to be anything different from that which the Lord has told us already, He will reveal it to His prophet and no one else” (Stand Ye in Holy Places [1974], 159).”

I don’t know how to square this with the fact that Nephi was not “the prophet”–his father was.

I’m thinking about 1 Nephi 3:7.  First, I can’t help but think of this story as a big fat cream pie in the face of someone who thought he could blithely speak those words and not have the reality of them cut him to the very core.  I also find it ironic that, in this instance, God is not providing him with a way to keep the “thou shalt not kill” commandment.  I think this story demands that we recite (and we should recite, and sing in Primary) 3:7 with a lump in our throats, not bravado and good cheer (“I will GOOO, I will DOOOO”!)

John Welch:

“The story of Nephi’s unexpected success in 1 Nephi 4 can be viewed today from many perspectives, and obviously it was included in Nephi’s record for several significant reasons. For example, this dramatic account demonstrated the religious importance of the scriptures and the vital role of the law in God’s desires for the Nephite people. If the law was important enough that one man should perish so that an entire nation could have it, the message was clear that the nation should be diligent not to dwindle in unbelief—a lesson that was kept bright in the Nephite memory for many years (1 Nephi 4:13; Omni 1:14; Alma 37:3–10). Moreover, in Nephi’s mind the events that night validated the promises that the Lord had given to him personally about keeping the commandments, prospering in the land, and being a ruler and a teacher over his brothers (1 Nephi 2:20; 4:14, 17). Politically, the account undoubtedly came to play an important part among the founding narratives of Nephite culture and society, for it showed how God miraculously put a copy of their fundamental laws into their hands (1 Nephi 5:8–10). The fact that Nephi alone was able to obtain the plates—while his inept and unfaithful brothers were unable to complete the task their father had assigned them—legitimized Nephi’s claim to possess the plates and to lead the group. Indeed, for several subsequent centuries the Lamanites accused the Nephites of having robbed them of their rightful possession of these plates (Mosiah 10:16), but the recorded facts about the events of that night went a long way toward showing that Nephi was the rightful owner of the plates, was the legitimate successor to his father Lehi, and was able to succeed with God’s help where his brothers not only had failed at the task but had said that it could not be done. Accordingly, for the next six hundred years, one of the most important symbols of authority among the Nephites was possession of the plates of brass (see Mosiah 1:16; 28:20; 3 Nephi 1:2). The story of Laban, therefore, serves several purposes in the Nephite record: religious, political, historical, and personal.” Citation.

That article also explains how “several factors that substantially reduce Nephi’s guilt or culpability under the law of Moses as it was probably understood in Nephi’s day.”

John Welch, same source:

“The implication of the Spirit’s instruction could not have been lost on Nephi: he had not been lying in wait and the Lord had delivered Laban into his hands. Therefore, in order to accomplish the Lord’s purposes, under this unusual and extraordinary circumstance, the killing was on both counts legally justifiable and religiously excusable. It was the kind of killing that would be protected by the mercy of God in a place of refuge within God’s jurisdiction.”

This might make sense to us, but if it made sense to Nephi at the time, why would he have said ‘no’ three times?

Steven Olsen:

While the angel does not reject Nephi’s reasoning, he provides instead a divine justification for such an extreme act. The angel repeats the injunction “Slay him”¹⁷ and, in order to reinforce that doing so fulfills the earlier promise of deliverance (1 Nephi 3:29), adds, “for the Lord hath delivered him into thy hands” (4:12). The angel next provides Nephi with a divine perspective for following his command: “Behold the Lord slayeth the wicked to bring to forth his righteous purposes. It is better that one man should perish than that a nation should dwindle and perish in unbelief” (v. 13). At this point the mission to recover the brass plates is no longer simply about the temporal deliverance of a nuclear family—avoiding death, recovering property, preserving honor. Rather, the proper context for the deed has become the spiritual deliverance of a divinely chosen nation. Citation.

Joe Spencer:

Nephi’s shrinking at the task is itself a manifestation of the wrongness of his relationship to the situation. Now, I know that claim is going to be upsetting to some, but I think it’s clearly at work in the psychology of the situation. Nephi’s unwillingness here shows that something has been amiss in all his zeal, all his obedience, all his fidelity. He’s too emphatic in his denial to himself that he’s ever had murderous desires. It seems to me, in a word, that Nephi’s reticence is the symptom that marks Nephi’s resistance against recognizing that he has had murderous desires all along, particularly toward his brothers. Nephi’s attempt at skirting violence here is an attempt to pretend that there hasn’t been a scapegoating kind of violence at work in his relationship to his brothers. He doesn’t want to believe he’s the sort capable of violence, and so he resists the constraint to be violent here—trying to convince himself that he’s not like that. But his very resistance proves that there’s something violent in his desires already. Citation.

Jeffrey Holland:

“Let me use an example from what is often considered by foes, and even by some friends, as the most unsavory moment in the entire Book of Mormon. I choose it precisely because there is so much in it that has given offense to many. It is pretty much a bitter cup all the way around.
I speak of Nephi’s obligation to slay Laban in order to preserve a record, save a people, and ultimately lead to the restoration of the gospel in the dispensation of the fulness of times. How much is hanging in the balance as Nephi stands over the drunken and adversarial Laban I cannot say, but it is a very great deal indeed. The only problem is that we know this, but Nephi does not. And regardless of how much is at stake, how can. he do this thing? He is a good person, perhaps even a well-educated person. He has been taught from the very summit of Sinai “Thou shalt not kill.” And he has made gospel covenants.”1 was constrained by the Spirit that I should kill Laban; but . . . I shrunk and would that I might not slay him” (1 Nephi 4:10). A bitter test? A desire to shrink? Sound familiar? We don’t know why those plates could not have been obtained some other way–perhaps accidentally left at the plate polishers one night or maybe falling out the back of Laban’s chariot on a Sabbath afternoon.
For that matter, why didn’t Nephi just leave this story out of the book altogether? Why didn’t he say something like, “And after much effort and anguish of spirit, I did obtain the plates of Laban and did depart into the wilderness unto the tent of my father?” At the very least he might have buried the account somewhere in the Isaiah chapters, thus guaranteeing that it would have gone undiscovered up to this very day.
But there it is, squarely in the beginning of the book–page 8–where even the most casual reader will see it and must deal with it. It is not intended that either Nephi or we be spared the struggle of this account.
I believe that story was placed in the very opening verses of a 531-page book and then told in painfully specific detail in order to focus every reader of that record on the absolutely fundamental gospel issue of obedience and submission to the communicated will of the Lord. If Nephi cannot yield to this terribly painful command, if he cannot bring himself to obey, then it is entirely probable that he can never succeed or survive in the tasks that lie just ahead.
“1 will go and do the things which the Lord hath commanded” (1 Nephi 3:7). I confess that I wince a little when I hear that promise quoted so casually among us. Jesus knew what that kind of commitment would entail, and so now does Nephi. And so will a host of others before it is over. That vow took Christ to the cross on Calvary, and it remains at the heart of every Christian covenant. “I will go and do the things which the Lord hath commanded.” Well, we shall see.”
Citation.

F. Burton Howard:

“Some seek to justify their actions by quoting scripture. They often cite Nephi’s killing of Laban as an example of the need to violate a law to accomplish a greater good and to prevent a nation from dwindling in unbelief. But they forget that Nephi twice refused to follow the promptings of the Spirit. In the end, he agreed to break the commandment only when he was convinced that “the Lord slayeth the wicked to bring forth his righteous purposes” (1 Ne. 4:13; italics added) and also (I believe) when he knew that the penalty for shedding blood had been lifted, in that one exceptional case, by Him whose right it is to fix and waive penalties. The truth is that we are judged by the means we employ and not by the ends we may hope to obtain. It will do us little good at the last day to respond to the Great Judge, “I know I was not all I could have been, but my heart was in the right place.”” Citation: Apr 1991 GC.

Val Larsen:

“But since, as a practical matter, we can never know for certain whether God has actually commanded someone else to commit murder, we must hold to the rule that individual citizens are never justified in killing passed-out drunks they stumble upon in the course of a nighttime ramble through a city. If Laban is guilty of capital crimes—as Welch convincingly argues—he should be executed by the state, not by an ordinary citizen who meets him in a chance encounter. “ Citation.

Val Larsen:

“The test of Abraham made a profound theological point: more than any other episode in scripture, it makes clear the cost God paid when he sacrificed his son in order to balance justice with mercy. And in the end, Isaac—and more profoundly, Abraham—was spared. Asking Nephi to kill Laban—violating his conscience, judgment, and God’s law—does not have an equally clear theological purpose, and Nephi is not spared the trauma of actually carrying out the killing.” Citation.

Val Larsen then argues that Nephi is acting as a soverign:

“But while any explanation of this episode will be unsatisfactory if Nephi is held to be acting as an individual, a close reading of the text makes it abundantly clear that the killing of Laban was not an individual act, but rather a sovereign act that had a clear political purpose. That Nephi acts as a sovereign is an overdetermined fact in the text. It is demonstrated by multiple layers of implication.” Citation.

John Welch, same source as above:

“Falsely accusing a person of a capital offense was a capital crime under biblical law (Deuteronomy 19:19), as it had been in the ancient Near East since at least the time of Hammurabi (Code of Hammurabi 1). Since Laban had falsely accused Laman of being a “robber” (a serious capital offense) and had sent his soldiers to execute the sons of Lehi on this pretext (1 Nephi 3:13, 25), Laban effectively stood as a false accuser. Such an accusation, coming from a commanding officer of the city, was more than an idle insult; it carried the force of a legal indictment. Since Nephi and his brothers were powerless to rectify that wrong, God was left to discharge justice against Laban.”

John Welch:

“It is significant that Nephi’s brothers never accused him of breaking the law. Laman and Lemuel had ample reason to accuse Nephi. If he had broken the very law that he so scrupulously claimed to observe, Laman and Lemuel would not have let that pass unnoticed. . . . This strongly implies that they accepted Nephi’s explanation of the case as a justifiable killing. . . . Nephi was not the only prophet in scripture to shed a man’s blood. Moses killed an Egyptian when Moses saw the Egyptian beating a Hebrew slave; when he looked around and saw that no one was watching, Moses killed the Egyptian and buried him in the sand (Exodus 2:11–12). Fearing that he might get caught, Moses fled to the land of Midian.”

Eugene England:

“”It is better that one man should perish than that a nation should dwindle and perish in unbelief” (1 Ne. 4:13) —a classic statement of the scapegoating rationale. Girard claims that the rationale is the foundation of human violence and is absolutely repudiated by Christ •— a repudiation Girard argues is the chief evidence that the Gospels and Christ are divine (1987, 141-79). But Nephi tells us that that rationale is here expressed by the Spirit of the Lord —
and he claims that Spirit also makes the ethically troubling claim that God not only uses his divine ends to justify violence by God but also as the rationale for
a demand that his children also use violent means: “The Lord slayeth the wicked to bring forth his righteous purposes” (1 Ne. 4:13).” Citation.

Eugene England, same source:

“This raises the interesting but rather troubling image of Laban as a type forChrist, since the deaths of both figures are described as bringing the salvation
of whole nations: Laban’s death made possible the obtaining of the brass plates, the literal “word” that brought salvation to the Nephites, and Christ’s
death fulfilled his full mission as Logos, the “Word” that saves all peoples, including the Jews.”

Does this passage teach that the ends justify the means, even if the means are violent?

Eugene England, same source:

“First, is it possible that Nephi’s decision —or at least his rationalization — was simply wrong? This very young man, already a victim of scapegoating and life-threatening violence by his own brothers, knew of Laban’s murderous scapegoating of Laman. He had now found Laban temporarily vulnerable but still a threat to himself and his goals, which he was convinced were divinely inspired. He may have very naturally been tempted toward revenge. Thirty years of reflection may have genuinely convinced him that the Lord would have directed him to kill Laban to obtain the plates in this extreme circumstance — and thus make possible the preservation of his people, which he had witnessed. The text lends some support to this possibility: Nephi is still, much later, troubled by the experience and its
moral meaning. His account contains a remarkable combination of unsparing completeness and honesty with what seems like rationalization, even obsessive
focusing on what might be unnecessary but psychologically revealing details (see 1 Nephi 4, especially verses 9, where Nephi notices the sword before anything
else and examines its hilt and blade in detail, and 18, where, after lengthy rationalization, he confesses, in what seem to be unneeded specifics, “[I] took
Laban by the hair of the head, and I smote off his head with his own sword.”). Clearly he had gone over the experience very often and with some ambivalence.”

England ultimately rejects this reading.

England, same source:

“What if God truly did command Nephi to slay Laban, but not for the very questionable reasons most often offered by Latter-day Saints — reasons that
God himself has denied often in other scriptures? What if it was an Abrahamic test, like the command to Abraham to kill Isaac? What if it was designed to push Nephi to the limits of the paradox of obedience and integrity and to teach him and all readers of the Book of Mormon something very troubling but still very true about the universe and the natural requirements of establishing a saving relationship with God? What if it is to teach us that genuine faith ultimately requires us to go beyond the rationally moral — even as it has been defined by God, when God himself requires it directly of us?”

Joe Spencer:

Nephi before brought up the commandments, but in an entirely misguided way. Before, he was trying to justify the action by making Laban guilty: he had not kept the commandments like a zealously obedient person should. Now, though, the Spirit’s words call him back to the original setting in which the word concerning the commandments was given: the encounter with the Lord through which Nephi received the Lehitic covenant. And it is reflection on that that will make all the difference.

Steve Olsen:

A third related connotation of remember in the Book of Mormon is revealed by defining its opposite, which is not “forget” but “dis-member.” From this perspective, when a covenant with God is broken, the rebellious are cut off or cast out from God’s presence or from the covenant community (e.g., Genesis 17:14; Leviticus 18:29; Isaiah 53:8). In this sense, they are then “dis-membered,” or not “re-membered.” That is, they are not eliminated from one’s temporal consciousness but are separated from the covenant and its constituted community that had defined their eternal identity and place in the kingdom of God. From this perspective, for the ancient peoples of God, the sign of a covenant—such as circumcising the foreskin (Genesis 17:10; 34:15), sacrificing an animal (Moses 5:5–7; Abraham 2:7–8), or rending a garment, as in Moroni’s title of liberty (Alma 46:12–21)—often involved cutting, severing, or cleaving, indicative of the consequence of breaking or “dis-membering” the covenant.

Thus God’s directing Nephi to slay a Jewish religious leader by cutting off his head with his own sword symbolically indicates that Jehovah severed his covenant with the people of Israel at Jerusalem because of their wickedness. Lehi and his family were now to be the rightful heirs of the promised blessings of the covenant. From this perspective, Nephi’s preservation of Laban’s sword as one of the Nephites’ sacred artifacts and its later use as a model for Nephite armaments are seen more fundamentally as symbols of the covenant with God that defines and distinguishes their chosen identity and guides their lives in search of the covenantal promises of salvation. Citation.

(He also has some interesting things to say about the concept of ‘delivering’ in this story.)

Eugene England (same source as above) writes of Thomasson’s reading that 1 Nephi re-enacts Lev 16, with Jrsm the destroyed goat and Lehi’s people the goat–the scapegoat–sent into the wilderness. This would explain–see v20 below–the angry reaction toward Lehi:

“When Lehi’s sons return for the brass plates, Laman, chosen by lot to approach Laban, the plates’ keeper, is scapegoated by Laban in classic Girardian terms (that is, accused of a crime, robbery, to justify Laban in his envious desire to obtain his treasure), and is cast out and nearly killed. But then Laban himself is made into a scapegoat, and the punishment of death he had decreed for Laman is meted to him by Nephi.”

Those are all of the theories and rationales and explanations that I have been able to locate. I think some aspects of each of them are useful, but I’m still not feeling that anyone has solved the riddle of the killing of Laban.

I’m not nearly as smart at God, and I can think of bunches of ways to move Nephi and Laban and the plates around the chess board without drawing blood: just let Nephi take the sword and the clothing and show up to Zoram demanding the plates. Or, wake up Laban and let them fight it out. Or, have Nephi find Laban already dead. Or, Nephi can take Laban’s sword and then demand his cooperation at sword-point. Or, leave Laban out of it: have Zoram out back sporting with a harlot (or preventing his son from sporting with one, if Zoram–as Orson Scott Card theorized–didn’t go in for that sort of thing) and let Nephi walk in and take the plates. Or have an angel with a drawn sword order Zoram to let Nephi take the plates–who’s gonna refuse that? I read several LDS thinkers who claimed that Nephi had to kill Laban or Laban would have sent out a search party. But won’t someone discover a headless Laban, a missing Zoram, and missing plates the next morning and send one out, anyway? And, again, I can think of several ways to stop a search party from reaching Nephi without shedding blood: a sandstorm, the ever-popular angel and sword combo, or even an intestinal complaint of biblical proportions. So I feel like the theories justifying the killing of Laban might stabilize the patient, but they don’t address the raw, gaping wound that arises from asking the question Pres. Benson wants us to ask: “We should constantly ask ourselves, ‘Why did the Lord inspire [Nephi] to include that in his record?’” Had it been completely omitted, I don’t think most readers would have given the process by which the plates were obtained a second thought; they just would have assumed that Lehi took the plates with him when he left. Or, as Elder Holland suggests above, the story of getting the plates could have been included as a drive-by verse: “And then we went back for the plates and got them from Laban. End of story.” But, no, we get the first detailed story in the BoM: compare Lehi’s preaching, where there is no detail on the mocking (no rotten fruit splattering against Lehi’s forehead, no recounting of the insults [“And your wife smells like a camel!”], no strands of saliva dripping from his cloak) to this story’s abundance of detail: gold, hilt, hair, clothing, etc. We are given a level of detail in this story that grabs our lapels and insists that we pay close attention.

Why is that? We really need to think about this one, and think about it carefully. It doesn’t need to be here, it doesn’t need to be here in such excruciating detail, it doesn’t need to play out the way it does, but it is and it does. It makes enormous demands on the reader. How will we respond to those demands? Why was the killing of Laban justified? Why was it included in the BoM? Why is it recounted in such detail? What implications or moral lessons does the story hold for us?

If we can’t stomach this story, are we robbing God of the authority to command in all things?  Does God have the authority to take a human life?  (A bit of irony:  I presume that the words “thou shalt not kill” were on the plates that Nephi killed for.)

Is the lesson here supposed to be that you don’t agree to a spiritual prompting outside of the standard operating procedure the first or even the second time you get it?

Is the lesson that God has the right and authority to completely disorient you?

How would we read this story if we were to presume that Laban had received and ignored a spiritual witness to give Nephi the plates?

Is the lesson that you can’t have both (1) an all-powerful and all-knowing God and (2) the authority to decide if God’s commands are just?  Is this story Nephi’s forced choice between those two options?

Is the back-and-forth dialogue between Nephi and the Spirit supposed to function as evidence that Nephi isn’t mentally ill?  How do we read this story in a world where mentally ill people claim that a voice in their head told them to kill someone?  What about people of other religions making this claim?

Is the point of this story to explore the definition of sin?  What does this story have to say about what sin is?

Is the point of the story that we are not to follow spiritual impressions unless we are certain of them, and that it is Nephi’s thinking-it-through and logical arguments that ultimately seals the deal, not the spiritual impression?

Did Nephi need to have this experience?  If so, why?  How do you think he changed as a result of it?  Why would God put Nephi through this?

Is the point that if Nephi can choose to obey in this enormous, difficult thing that we should be able to choose to obey in the little things?  Was the point to make everything, including building a boat, seem like a little thing to Nephi from this point forward?

This story contains the only reference to the word “shrunk” in the scriptures.  Is that significant?  Here are all of the verbs that Nephi applies to himself in this story, in order:  shrunk, knew, heard, remembered, thought, knew, knew, obeyed.  Is this significant?

A personal note:  we had a very lively dinner table discussion about this story; it generated the previous 11 questions, none of which had occurred to me during a week of reading everything I could get my hands on about this passage.  I doubt we would have had such a discussion about a “slam-dunk” story.  I feel the same way about the many morally ambiguous stories in Genesis, and wonder if the dilemmas that the story places on the reader are by design, to elicit precisely such conversations, and not to be ‘solved’ per se.  I’d also like to note that any time I come upon a sticky story like this one, I am always slapped with the realization that I can’t figure this out on my own–I always gain insights from others that just would never have occurred to me.  In these stories, there is always the subtext of the necessity for interpretive communities.

Perhaps there is a hint to understanding this story in Nephi’s initial act, which was to take the sword.  If you focus on that as the instigating action, what do you conclude?  Was Nephi’s thought to take the sword (and, perhaps the clothes–perhaps they were removed before the beheading) and go from there, but the Spirit requires him to kill Laban as well?

What do you make of the fact that Nephi was wrestling with the morality of the act, not with the source of the message?

Another thought:  not only was this (unnecessary, graphic) story included, but it is positioned very early on in our account.  This puts a huge demand not only on the old salt bored in Gospel Doctrine, but the investigator.  I’ve heard anecdotally of missionaries who have had investigators freak out over this story.  Is that why it is there? Does it function as a narrative barricade:  if you can’t accept the right of God to command you in all things, you may go no further.  If you cannot accept Nephi as a reliable narrator, you may not proceed.

Note that this is the only story that we have where Nephi questions, even a teeny bit.  What should that teach us?

Would we be right in seeing this story as a model to follow in our own lives when God’s commandments seem to clash with other commandments, or otherwise not make sense?

What is the role of reasoning and rationality in Nephi’s experience here?  Is that normative for us?  How?

Does Eve’s experience in negotiating conflicting commandments have any relationship to Nephi’s similar experience?

Does 1 Nephi 22:13 help us understand the symbolic meaning of Laban’s death better?  (“And the blood of that great and abominable church, which is the whore of all the earth, shall turn upon their own heads; for they shall war among themselves, and the sword of their own hands shall fall upon their own heads, and they shall be drunken with their own blood.”)

What does this story have to say about when violence is justified?  How should that apply to us?

Steven L. Olsen writes, “Among other things, the mission to obtain the brass plates is the first instance of Nephi’s exercising leadership over his older brothers.”  How might that fact shape our interpretation of this story?  Is it, perhaps, a sharp pin into the balloon of pride in leadership?

More ideas on this thread.  More thoughts on this post.

Feast wiki: “How can we tell the difference between a spiritual prompting and our own rationalizations?”

19 And after I had smitten off his head with his own sword, I took the garments of Laban and put them upon mine own body; yea, even every whit; and I did gird on his armor about my loins.

No bloodstains?

Is this symbolic clothing in any way?

20 And after I had done this, I went forth unto the treasury of Laban. And as I went forth towards the treasury of Laban, behold, I saw the servant of Laban who had the keys of the treasury. And I commanded him in the voice of Laban, that he should go with me into the treasury.

21 And he supposed me to be his master, Laban, for he beheld the garments and also the sword girded about my loins.

Is this at all plausible or are we to assume divine intervention?

22 And he spake unto me concerning the elders of the Jews, he knowing that his master, Laban, had been out by night among them.

23 And I spake unto him as if it had been Laban.

Not that we are necessarily keeping a list of Nephi’s divergences from the Law of Moses, but this is a lie.

24 And I also spake unto him that I should carry the engravings, which were upon the plates of brass, to my elder brethren, who were without the walls.

‘Cause everyone wants to read a little scripture after a night on the town–what’s going on here?

25 And I also bade him that he should follow me.

26 And he, supposing that I spake of the brethren of the church, and that I was truly that Laban whom I had slain, wherefore he did
follow me.

Church?

27 And he spake unto me many times concerning the elders of the Jews, as I went forth unto my brethren, who were without the walls.

28 And it came to pass that when Laman saw me he was exceedingly frightened, and also Lemuel and Sam. And they fled from before my presence; for they supposed it was Laban, and that he had slain me and had sought to take away their lives also.

29 And it came to pass that I called after them, and they did hear me; wherefore they did cease to flee from my presence.

30 And it came to pass that when the servant of Laban beheld my brethren he began to tremble, and was about to flee from before me and return to the city of Jerusalem.

This is almost comic . . .

31 And now I, Nephi, being a man large in stature, and also having received much strength of the Lord, therefore I did seize upon the servant of Laban, and held him, that he should not flee.

32 And it came to pass that I spake with him, that if he would hearken unto my words, as the Lord liveth, and as I live, even so that if he would hearken unto our words, we would spare his life.

33 And I spake unto him, even with an oath, that he need not fear; that he should be a free man like unto us if he would go down in the wilderness with us.

34 And I also spake unto him, saying: Surely the Lord hath commanded us to do this thing; and shall we not be diligent in keeping the commandments of the Lord? Therefore, if thou wilt go down into the wilderness to my father thou shalt have place with us.

35 And it came to pass that Zoram did take courage at the words which I spake. Now Zoram was the name of the servant; and he promised that he would go down into the wilderness unto our father. Yea, and he also made an oath unto us that he would tarry with us from that time forth.

36 Now we were desirous that he should tarry with us for this cause, that the Jews might not know concerning our flight into the wilderness, lest they should pursue us and destroy us.

Won’t they know anyway, when they find the headless Laban, the missing treasury dude, and the missing plates?

37 And it came to pass that when Zoram had made an oath unto us, our fears did cease concerning him.

38 And it came to pass that we took the plates of brass and the servant of Laban, and departed into the wilderness, and journeyed unto the tent of our father.

David A. Bednar:

 

“The gradual increase of light radiating from the rising sun is like receiving a message from God “line upon line, precept upon precept” (2 Nephi 28:30). Most frequently, revelation comes in small increments over time and is granted according to our desire, worthiness, and preparation. Such communications from Heavenly Father gradually and gently “distil upon [our souls] as the dews from heaven” (D&C 121:45). This pattern of revelation tends to be more common than rare and is evident in the experiences of Nephi as he tried several different approaches before successfully obtaining the plates of brass from Laban (see 1 Nephi 3–4). Ultimately, he was led by the Spirit to Jerusalem, “not knowing beforehand the things which [he] should do” (1 Nephi 4:6).” Citation: Apr 2011 GC.

CHAPTER 5

1 And it came to pass that after we had come down into the wilderness unto our father, behold, he was filled with joy, and also my mother, Sariah, was exceedingly glad, for she truly had mourned because of us.

2 For she had supposed that we had perished in the wilderness; and she also had complained against my father, telling him that he was a visionary man; saying: Behold thou hast led us forth from the land of our inheritance, and my sons are no more, and we perish in the wilderness.

3 And after this manner of language had my mother complained against my father.

4 And it had come to pass that my father spake unto her, saying: I know that I am a visionary man; for if I had not seen the things of God in a vision I should not have known the goodness of God, but had tarried at Jerusalem, and had perished with my brethren.

5 But behold, I have obtained a land of promise, in the which things I do rejoice; yea, and I know that the Lord will deliver my sons out of the hands of Laban, and bring them down again unto us in the wilderness.

He hasn’t obtained any land yet . . .

6 And after this manner of language did my father, Lehi, comfort my mother, Sariah, concerning us, while we journeyed in the wilderness up to the land of Jerusalem, to obtain the record of the Jews.

7 And when we had returned to the tent of my father, behold their joy was full, and my mother was comforted.

8 And she spake, saying: Now I know of a surety that the Lord hath commanded my husband to flee into the wilderness; yea, and I also know of a surety that the Lord hath protected my sons, and delivered them out of the hands of Laban, and given them power whereby they could accomplish the thing which the Lord hath commanded them. And after this manner of language did she speak.

She doesn’t really believe Lehi until the boys come back, does she?

Luke is known for writing a gospel filled with “gender pairs”: paried stories with similar events happening to a woman and a man. Is this story of Sariah’s complaining a gender pair with Lehi’s story in 1 Nephi 16:20 (=complaining over the broken bow)? If so, what can you learn from comparing them?

Camille Fronk:

“When her sons failed to return, Sariah feared, giving evidence that her present faith, though admirably strong, was not yet strong enough to continue the difficult journey, let alone to establish a God-fearing family in a new land. The content of 1 Nephi 5 is therefore especially significant because it shows how crucial a mother’s preparation is to the Lord. God desired not only that the family possess the brass plates for the journey, but also that both the mother and the father have unshakable faith before they continued. In her fear, Sariah “complained against” her husband, calling him a “visionary man” and blaming him for leading their family to “perish in the wilderness” (1 Nephi 5:2). Lehi did not argue Sariah’s accusation but validated the force that propelled him to act in total faith. Lehi responded to his wife: “I know that I am a visionary man; for if I had not seen the things of God in a vision I should not have known the goodness of God, but had tarried at Jerusalem, and had perished with my brethren” (1 Nephi 5:4; 19:20). He continued his witness, “I know that the Lord will deliver my sons out of the hands of Laban, and bring them down again unto us in the wilderness” (1 Nephi 5:5). Nephi relates that “after this manner of language did my father, Lehi, comfort my mother, Sariah,” suggesting that this type of interchange occurred a number of times during the sons’ absence. But the fact that Sariah desired repeated reassurance indicates that Lehi’s powerful testimony, though comforting, was not enough to deal with the threat of the potential loss of her sons (see 1 Nephi 5:1, 3, 6).

Sariah must have begun to pray more fervently than ever before during her sons’ absence—not only for their safety but also for a confirmation that their journey was of great importance to the Lord. One can imagine Sariah gazing longingly toward the horizon several times a day, hoping for some sign of her sons’ return, all the while pleading with God.

Nephi gives us a glimpse of the emotional reunion with his parents when he and his brothers returned from Jerusalem. “And it came to pass that after we had come down into the wilderness unto our father, behold, he was filled with joy, and also my mother, Sariah, was exceedingly glad, for she truly had mourned because of us” (1 Nephi 5:1). Doughty described a similar return of a son to his mother: Sariah’s reunion with her sons was additionally charged with the spiritual witness and stronger faith she received as a result of her trial. At that moment Sariah gained a deeper testimony than she had previously known. Notice the power and assurance in Sariah as she bore witness to her reunited family: “Now I know of a surety that the Lord hath commanded my husband to flee into the wilderness; yea, and I also know of a surety that the Lord hath protected my sons, and delivered them out of the hands of Laban, and given them power whereby they could accomplish the thing which the Lord hath commanded them” (1 Nephi 5:8). Sariah’s expressions of faith continued, for Nephi added, “And after this manner of language did she speak” (1 Nephi 5:8). Sometime, either then or later, she or Lehi must have given an account of her crisis, including her fears while the sons were gone and how she complained to their father. Nephi was not personally present to witness Sariah’s fears, but he recorded her experience as among those “things which are pleasing unto God” (1 Nephi 6:5). Obviously Sariah’s witness communicated a vital truth to Nephi, one that carried a message for generations to follow. Furthermore, Sariah’s now firm personal testimony would bless Lehi. When periodic moments of discouragement pulled at his faith, Sariah could reaffirm God’s promises to him as Lehi had done for her during her crisis.

Appreciating Sariah’s epiphany also gives greater meaning to her subsequent act of sacrifice. “And it came to pass that they did rejoice exceedingly, and did offer sacrifice and burnt offerings unto the Lord; and they gave thanks unto the God of Israel” (1 Nephi 5:9). Notice that Nephi reported that “they” offered the sacrifice. Since Nephi was writing in first person, he tells us that he was not included as a primary participant in the ordinance. The context suggests that Lehi and Sariah together performed this sacred act of worship. One can feel the renewed personal commitment that Sariah reverently placed on the altar alongside the animal sacrifice. And—most important—there is no indication that Sariah ever murmured again.” Citation.

Grant Hardy points out that Sariah is a “dynamic, changing” character. (Citation.) It is important that she isn’t just one dimensional, or a stock character, or a baby factory and cook, but someone capable of insight and growth.

Why are there so few stories of women in the BoM?

Note that there isn’t a narrated reception when Nephi returns with the plates and the tale of killing Laban. Grant Hardy writes, “It is difficult to avoid the suspicion that something is being supressed here.”