Orson F. Whitney

Lehi’s final counsel in the Book of Mormon is to his son Joseph makes an interesting literary link between Joseph in Egypt, Joseph the son of Lehi and Joseph Smith, Jr. But, LDS authors have largely ignored this link, especially before 1900, when any mention of Joseph was usually a reference to Joseph Smith, Jr. But I did manage to find an exception in Orson F. Whitney’s epic, Elias.

As far as I can tell, other than general righteousness, the only real link between these three is that they happen to have the same name. Their histories aren’t really comparable in any way that I can see. Still, Whitney at least mentions the prophecy of Joseph’s name, and connects it to Joseph in Egypt.

While perhaps overly turgid in his prose, Whitney is as or more sophisticated in his imagery than any of his poetic Mormon predecessors that I’ve read. To me the oblique references made to biblical, book of Mormon and mythological elements are fascinating.

The six stanzas I’ve chosen below (starting with the 30th stanza in Canto six) cover the Book of Mormon from its beginning to Lehi’s death, although the vast majority of the story is left out in favor of examining Lehi’s family’s importance to the overall narrative. I’ve left in Whitney’s explanatory footnotes verbatim.

Joseph

from Canto Six, Out of the Dust, from Elias, An Epic of the Ages

by Orson F. Whitney

Again, athwart the wilderness of waves
Surging old East and older West between,
Where the lone sea a flowery southland laves,
And Zarahemla reigns as ocean queen,
Braving the swell, a storm-tossed bark is seen.
From doomed Jerusalem, to Jacob dear,
Albeit a leper[fn1], groping, blind, unclean,
Goes forth Manasseh’s prophet pioneer[fn2],
Predestined to unveil the hidden hemisphere.

.

His lot to reap and plant on this rare shore
The promise of his fathers: Joseph’s bough[fn3],
From Jacob’s well, the billowy wall runs o’er;
Abides in strength the archer-stricken bow,
Unto the utmost bound prevailing now,
Of Hesper’s heaven-upholding hills. Bend, sheaves
Of Israel, as branches bend with snow,
Unto his sheaf grown mightiest! Here, as leaves
For multitude, the son the great sire’s glory weaves.

.

[fn1] A Leper. Jerusalem in her degenerate state.

[fn2] Prophet Pioneer. Lehi, a descendant of Joseph, through Manasseh, with a colony from Jerusalem, succeeds the all but extinct Jaredites upon the Land of Promise, where they extend the glory of their great ancestor.

[fn3] Joseph’s Bough. “Joseph is a fruitful bough.” (Gen. 49:22).

[fn4] Chosen Seer. Lehi predicts the coming of ” a choice seer” who is to be a lineal descendant of Joseph. The name of that seer is also to be Joseph, and it is to be the name of his father—a prophecy fulfilled in Joseph Smith, Jr. (II Nephi 3.)

[fn5] Buried Lore. The Book of Mormon.

[fn6] Favored Son. Nephi, who succeeded his father Lehi, and against whom his brothers Laman and Lemuel rebelled, thus dividing the nation into Nephites and Lamanites.

[fn7] Heavy Rod. The Lord used the savage Lamanites to scourge the enlightened yet ofttimes disobedient Nephites.

******

As we all know, one of our primary responsibilities as teachers is to create an atmosphere where members of the class can commune with the spirit and receive revelation. One of the most important ways I’ve seen this done is by doing what God and angels are continually doing in the scriptures: asking questions.[fn1] Here are some tips about asking questions from my experience as a teacher.

1. Interrogate people. Literally. But in a kind way.

1A. Follow up questions are really, really important, particularly if we want to get beyond worn out Sunday School answers, or help people see anew the profundity of the worn out Sunday School answers. Example:

You: What should we do when, like happened to Nephi, even those we look to for answers don’t seem to have the answers?

Student: Pray

You: Why should you pray?

Student: Because God knows what you should do.

You: Ok, but I’ll just be honest, there are times when I wasn’t sure what to do, and I prayed, and I still didn’t know what to do. Was praying still the right thing?

Student: Yes.

You: Why?

The problem with the worn out Sunday School answers is that they’re robotic and are often offered without any attempt to account for the complexities of real life. Asking questions can help force people to either give different, more thoughtful answers, or think all over again about their robotic answers.

1B. Helping people clarify their comments is crucial – not only does it help them think carefully through their first answer and share additional insight, but helps everyone else to do the same.

1C. Interrogation can also be a safe or non-confrontational means of downplaying questionable answers. Sometimes the follow up questions can be posed to everyone. You don’t have to say, “Huh, I think that’s wrong.” Instead, you can just give opportunity for different viewpoints to be shared. Follow up questions can also make the person who gave the questionable answer rethink a bit. Further questions can be an excellent way of guiding the discussion away from whatever you felt was questionable. Remember, when people give questionable answers, the goal is not to call them out and denounce them, but to help them and everyone else think through the issues more carefully.

2. Don’t ask obvious/Sunday School questions: they make people freeze; they’re awkward; no one wants to answer them; and they waste time.

2A. If you feel it’s important, than ask and answer it quickly yourself, or else break the ice by saying something like, “Ok, obvious question but important to get straight before we go on: what was Nephi’s reaction here?”

Obvious questions are best when they are set-up for deeper level follow up questions.

2B. Another option is to ask it in a new way: “Ok, so one obvious point here is that we need to be willing to follow the prophet. But we all know that blind obedience isn’t the answer. So how is it that we can be immediately willing like Nephi without voiding our agency to someone else?”

3. Give people time to think about and answer the question. Teachers feel very uncomfortable when someone doesn’t answer right away – 3 seconds feels like 30 seconds. But this is the time that the question works on people. Don’t be afraid of silence! This is especially true when you’ve just asked a tough question (which is something else you should do!).

Sometimes people really do need a chance to think about the question for a minute before answering. Hence, one good method is to ask the question beforehand. For example:

3A. Priming them with the question before reading a scripture is an excellent way to get people both to pay attention to what comes next and also think seriously about the question. “As we read this passage I want you to think about how it is that our homes relate to the temple.”

3B. Similarly, you can ask important questions that really get to the heart of your lesson upfront. “I want to hear about experiences that you’ve had where paying tithing brought about blessings or spiritual growth. That’s really what this lesson is all about. So think about that while we go through the lesson, and at the end I would like for some of you to share your experiences.”

3C. You answer first. “Most of us believe in reading the scriptures, but that doesn’t mean we get it done. What is it that makes reading the scriptures difficult to do on a daily basis? I’ll go first, but then I want to hear your experiences.”

4. Ask questions without having a specific answer in mind. It’s human nature to fish for answers, and sometimes this is appropriate. But tough questions that don’t have an immediate answer can also be powerful. Sometimes these will be questions that have occurred to you that you really don’t have an answer for. For example I recently asked our Gospel Doctrine class why God gave Lehi a Liahona in I Ne 16:10, when in the proceeding verse he just spoke directly to Lehi sans magical object. The Liahona seems totally superfluous. Why did God give it to them? This was a question that jumped out at me during my own study. I still don’t have a satisfactory answer, but we had a terrific discussion that focused not only on Lehi’s family but on our own lives, personal revelation and the need for various kinds of concrete “Liahonas.”

5. Ask questions that will help the class to see things in a new light. Some of our most powerful learning moments are when we see things differently than we have before.

6. Ask really specific questions that acknowledge the variety of experiences and backgrounds in the room: “How can we be a good father when – like some of us in this room – we have to be away from our families for months or even years at a time?” or “I want to hear from one of our single sisters about what motherhood means;” or “I know there are people in this room who read this verse about Nephite government, and draw political conclusions totally opposite to those that I do. Does this mean that one of us is right and the other wrong? What does this say about the scriptures and our political life?” or “Testimony is not an all-or-nothing sort of thing. Rather, as Alma tells us here, it is something that grows and develops. How can we spiritually contribute to others even when we have doubts?”

******

fn1: For those interested, I found Dennis Rasmussen’s book on the way that God’s questions to humans are transformative a worthwhile read.

Opposition in All Things by Ben Crowder, ©Ben Crowder. CC Share Alike license Some rights reserved

One of the fascinating things that happen in Lehi’s fatherly advice to Jacob in 2 Nephi 1 and 2 is that he tries to put together an overall philosophical basis for the gospel. Here the war in Heaven is related to our ability to choose, the fall is related to the atonement, and our choices are related to the very nature of existence, which, Lehi says, requires that there be an “opposition in all things.”

I think that Mormons have perhaps not explored what Lehi’s statements mean as thoroughly as we could–I find them leading to all sorts of philosophical questions, few of which I can even approach answering. [Julie's post earlier today mentions the kinds of questions that arise.]

Still, the ideas here are core to most conceptions of Mormon theology, and his teachings therefore resonate with most Mormons. The many ideas have given rise to Mormon literary works, including parts of the best known works, such as Nephi Anderson’s Added Upon, Orson F. Whitney’s Elias and even Saturday’s Warrior, as well as many, many additional works that are much less well known.

But the poem I chose for today is one that tries to cover many of the issues Lehi brings up.

Man’s Free Agency

by James H. Wallis

Before the depths of chaos felt

The touch of gods divine,

Or mortal man on earth had dwelt,

Or at Eloheim’s throne had knelt

To worship at his shrine;

 

Ere planets in their courses ran,

Or moon gave forth her light,

Ere earth received the heat of sun,

Or vegetation had begun

To weave her mantle bright;

 

Ere corner stones of earth were laid,

Or stars together sang;

Ere trees, or herbs, or shrubs were made,

Or fountains of the deep were staid,

Or Nature’s music rang;

 

Before a mountain, hill or vale,

Had in its order stood;

Or earth had been kissed by the gale,

Or courted by the nightingale,

In moonlights solitude;

 

A council of the gods was held,

Jehovah, President-

One third of whom were hence expelled,

For Satan had, with them, rebelled

Against Omnipotent.

 

And there the laws for man were framed,

Each had his own free will,-

For all the gods at freedom aimed,

And each desired all men reclaimed,

From wickedness and ill.

 

They saw the future-for the vail

Was rent before their gaze-

They saw dark sin with men assail,

They saw the darkened powers prevail,

All earth with crime ablaze.

 

Therefore, when Jove proposed the plan,

And put it ‘fore the gods,

To give free agency to man,

A vote was called, and as it ran

It passed by mighty odds.

 

But Satan, with ambition filled,

Opposed the heaven-born law,

And held one third of heaven so drilled,

That ‘t mattered not what he had willed,

They did not dare withdraw.

 

Therefore they all rebelled ‘gainst God-

They fought against the right,

The gates were ope’d, and with the rod,

They were smote down to earth’s dark sod,

To dwell in endless night.

 

Their mission was to trouble men-

To help fulfill the law

They had opposed and fought at, when

They lost all hopes for aye to win

A glory as before.

 

True to that mission, they are now

Enticing men to deeds

That take away from manhood’s brow

All honor destined to endow

A noble spirit’s needs.

 

And, as at first, they still oppose

The agency of man,

And would-had they the power-impose

The tyrant’s chains, and discompose

Our noble spirit’s plan.

 

But God has given to every race

The freedom for to choose

A future, lasting dwelling place,

Either with glory or disgrace,-

A gift dare we abuse?

 

If we the path of glory tread,

All honor to our name;

But if by powers of darkness led,

Much better had we never sped

To earth to win deep shame.

 

And yet some men would dare make laws

To tell us what to do,

Would pinch us in their puny claws,-

To us not more than rotten straws,

Or filthy, watery glue.

 

They dare before the Priesthood’s power

To chain us to their whims,

They dare its links upon us shower,

And weld them ’round us, as a tower,

To strengthen their own limbs.

 

But oh! look through the vista’s gloom,

And see the victory!

Weep, weep, ye fiends! dark is your doom,

‘Twill sink you in oppression’s tomb,-

The grave dug out by thee!

 

But Saints immortal-gods-shall rise,

And scale the worlds on high;

They’ll fill the earth, and rend the skies,

With sweet hosannah’s, for their prize,

Shall every boon outvie.

 

Eternal ages shall roll ’round;

The night of time will pass;

And endless righteousness abound,

And shouts of glory shall resound

From ‘mongst the heavenly mass.

The Contributor 4 (1882-1883)

I found several things about this poem fascinating. Wallis’ conception of the war in Heaven is a bit different from my own—he seems to see those following Lucifer as bound to him as leader rather than any belief or idea, which is something I hadn’t considered. Lucifer is therefore more charismatic than I had assumed.

And I like that Wallis has connected the idea of choice and opposition to current political issues, suggesting that laws can take away our ability to choose. In a sense that is true, at least for those who wish to follow the law or not face whatever penalties may be given. What I think is interesting is connecting this idea so clearly to current politics—its not something we do very often in the Church because it can easily be used to support a particular political position. Likely, Wallis was referring to the U.S. anti-polygamy laws of the 1880s and before, which is when this poem was published.

In addition to this poem, one hymn, Know This, That Every Soul Is Free (#240), is enough on topic that it might be used in conjunction with this lesson.

FWIW, Wallis was the author of many more poems, and one hymn in our current hymnal. You can read a little about him here.

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.

While the lesson to be faithful and diligent is certainly good, there is another lesson that can be found in the poem I’ve selected for this week:

Trials

by J. L. Townsend

Thank God for our trials, they come and they go,

Like the sharp biting frost or the tempest of snow,

And as frost to the dew or as snow to the rain,

But changing the form while the blessings remain;

So ever our trials, are changes that bring,

A blessing in sorrow, though deadly the sting.

 

Thank God for our trials, what though they may be,

As wide and as deep as the waves of the sea,

For the winds of the sea must in time cease to blow,

And the waters must rest in the calm that’s below,

And the bark that has rode on the wild dashing tide,

By outriding the blast, to its harbor shall glide.

 

Thank God for our trials, O! who has not found

That the sun and the cloud bring the fruits of the ground,

Were it sunshine forever, what joy have we won?

Were it cloudy forever, we’d sigh for the sun!

As an aid to our lives that would surfeit with joy.

Come tl1e trials of life other thoughts to employ.

 

Thank God for our trials, adverse though they seem

To the joys of prosperity whereof we dream,

For the soul that is pampered in wealth from its birth,

Is the soul that of all has the least show of worth;

And the passions untamed, he indulges with zest,

Shall entail their diseases to rob him of rest.

 

Thank God for our trials, perfection the goal

That is reached by the trials that burn in the soul;

Be the trial a love, unrequited and scorned,

Or the longing for one whom in death we have mourned;

Let the daggers of pain pierce the heart in its woe.

Yet still must the trial a blessing bestow.

 

Thank God for our trials, in them we must find

Just the training that’s needed to balance the mind;

For the sin and the pride to humanity yield,

And our hearts are made warm where before they congealed;

And we turn to mankind, for our trials have proved,

That the soul must be tried who can love and be loved.

 

Thank God for our trials, yes, thank Him to day.

While the laws that He gives we will strive to obey;

For the purpose of life on the earth where we live,

Is to learn good from bad, and learn to forgive!

And the time of each birth is propitious for all,

In events that shall try, as successive they fall.

From The Contributor, December 1881, p. 89

Of course, like the idea that we should be faithful and diligent, this sentiment is not new in Mormonism. Still, Townsend’s expression is kind of nice. It really seems like the kind of poem that gets quoted in General Conference all the time — a clear, unambiguous message presented in a fairly memorable (some would call it sing-song like) form.

In addition to the subject of trials, I tried to find works that referenced other events in this week’s lesson, but I wasn’t able to find anything in the public domain among the poems I have access to that referred to the Liahona, or to Ishmael, or to the incident of the broken bow, or to Nephi’s constructing a ship. I’m not sure why those subjects weren’t seen as attractive topics for poetry then. I suspect more recent (and therefore not in the public domain) Mormon poetry may have taken on these subjects. If not, Mormon poets here’s your chance!!

Trials are, I think, a fairly common subject in Mormon poetry. Love of God by W. L. (Times and Seasons, January 1, 1841) and There’s a Bow in the Cloud (Millennial Star, December 1, 1845) both carry nice messages about dealing with trials. In addition, our hymnal is far from silent on this subject, the Church’s topical guide lists 28 hymns (if I’ve counted correctly) under the topic “trials.”

Am I Siamese?  How many conjoin me? How many compose me? How many do I host? How many have I colonized? How wide does my cheesecloth interviduality spread?

It’s pretty clear, I think, that my “individual” self is largely a story I’m selling myself. Jesus wants me to lose this self and get on with life, but it’s hard. I find that I love this story more than life. At least, I choose the one over the other again and again.

My “self” is a shadow that my multitude casts. The shadow is simple, clean, flat, and black. That simplicity is a fiction. Given where my multitude stands, the cant of the sun, the shape I’m bodying, my shadow may give an accurate adumbration – but the adumbration hides more than it shows.

There’s nothing wrong with shadows. Shadows are real shadows. The trouble starts when, instead of just casting a shadow, I try to identify with it. (O’ that I were my shadow!) The trouble starts when I try to bottle its simplicity, its clean-cut individuality, as the truth about what I really am. Sin is this compulsive attempt to forget the unruly multitudes that compose me and to finally, successfully sync with my shadow. Hell is succeeding.

The main characters in Steven Peck‘s novel, The Scholar of Moab, all display this kind of messy irreducibility. (Read BHodges excellent BCC review here). Here’s the book’s official synopsis:

What happens when a two-headed cowboy, a high school dropout who longs to be a scholar, and a poet who claims to have been abducted by aliens come together in 1970’s Moab, Utah? The Scholar of Moab, a dark-comedy perambulating murder, affairs, and cowboy mysteries in the shadow of the La Sal Mountains.

Young Hyrum Thane, unrefined geological surveyor, steals a massive dictionary out of the Grand County library in a midnight raid, startling the people of Moab into believing a nefarious band of Book of Mormon assassins, the Gadianton Robbers, has arisen again.

Making matters worse, Hyrum’s illicit affair with Dora Tanner, a local poet thought to be mad, ends in the delivery of a premature baby boy who vanishes the night of its birth. Righteous Moabites accuse Dora of its murder, but who really killed their child? Did a coyote dingo the baby? Was it an alien abduction as Dora claims? Was it Hyrum? Or could it have been the only witness to the crime, one of a pair of Oxford-educated conjoined twins who cowboy in the La Sals on sabbatical?

How many is a two-headed cowboy? Riding under the open sun, the cowboy and his horse cast just one (three-headed) shadow.

At one point, early in the novel, the Oxford-educated conjoined twins are in Paris attending a lecture given by the brilliant French obscurantist Gilles Deleuze. Deleuze, working to explain what he calls the Virtual, spots the twins and seizes the illustration:

Suddenly, Delueze pointed at us with his long-nailed finger and said, “There! There is repetition caught in the moment between virtuality and actuality, between possibility and the unification of multiplicity, between the qualitative and the quantitative. There! There is ‘différance’ screaming towards existence, existence sluicing through potentiality, and potential itself skating unforgivingly toward emergent unity.” Thom called us a topological manifold of singularity, a “projection” resisting reduction in complementary planes of asymmetry. (32-33)

Conjoined twins are an easy target if you’re talking about “a topological manifold of singularity” or a “projection resisting reduction in complementary planes of asymmetry,” but Peck’s novel presses the point that the twins are not unique in this respect. Rather, they dramatize for us a general truth about the human condition. To be a human being is to exist simultaneously on complementary but asymmetrical planes. Who doesn’t feel like a repetition caught between virtuality and actuality?

The human way of being is split, composite, spread, distributed, and open-ended. The human way of being is to be of two minds, to depend on bodies we can influence but not control, to think thoughts we don’t understand, to repeat words that are not our own, and to pursue goals we’re not sure we want.

For the conjoined twins, things are even more complex than Deleuze imagined. Doctors discover that the twins have a “third mind” – affectionately referred to by the twins as Marcel – a “neural mass” that is at once a hub, a relay, and something independent of either of its heads. An abstract of the doctor’s report indicates that

at times, the neural mass acts according to the desires of neither twin – e.g., to run from ambiguous danger (one, say, that neither twin has noticed) or to seek out sexual activity. Some activities require coordination of both the neural mass and the twins. For example, bathroom functions require the integration of all three personalities with the neural mass alone detecting, for instance, the need of urination. . . . However, the mass can make decisions independent of either. What this implies about the nature of consciousness is discussed, including whether this neural mass is an independent and separate consciousness. Thoughts on what this means for personhood are explored. (58-59)

What have you named your neural mass? Your third mind? Your fourth one? What New Year’s resolutions have you made to better integrate the assemblage that you are? What rogue parts of you probably need more compassion rather than more discipline?

Hyrum Thane, the novel’s main character, suffers a more subtle version of interviduality than the conjoined twins. Fresh from the trailer park, he works as a hired-hand for geology PhDs surveying desert strata and he feels pretty keenly his “ignorance” in relation to them. One day, the butt of a joke, one of them says to Hyrum: “Man! What a Dickensian life you lead” (19). Hyrum, however, doesn’t know what this means and, as a result, it drives him crazy. This comment, Hyrum says, “got under my skin & started Itching so bad it wouldn’t go away until I got it Scratched” (25).

Here, rather than having two heads, Hyrum gets something stuck in his head, a unknown word, a foreign phrase, that lodges itself there, takes root, colonizes his mind, and hacks his attention. It shapes him and compels him. He can’t stop repeating it back to himself and ends up with a big pile of rocks. That first day, he says,

I started counting & every time I thought it I threw a rock at a tree. When it was time to head down I just walked over to the tree & counted up the rocks. That is exactly how many times I thought it between the time I ate my lunch & the time we packed up to go back to the base camp. I wanted to let you get a feel for my afternoon ruminations. (19)

To give you a feel for the force of it’s self-replication, Peck then fills five pages with “Man! What a Dickensian life you lead. Man! What a Dickensian life you lead. Man! What a Dickensian life you lead,” to the exact number of rocks (118!) Hyrum counted himself as having thrown that first afternoon.

I am Hyrum, except that rather than a foreign phrase colonizing my mind, I’ve got a whole book. The Book of Mormon, lodged like an eccentric body between my ears, spools in an endless loop. Like Hyrum, I didn’t ask for it,  suspect it may be an insult, and don’t know what it means.

Still, it composes me, conjoins me, compels me, and overwrites me as literally as any third-wheel neural mass could. The Book of Mormon is a life-sized brain hack spanning my years, itching under my skin, interrupting my story, deforming my shadow. The Book of Mormon exists in a complementary but asymmetrical plane. It’s an irrational number, a tangent reorienting my bundle of divergent lines.

What the Book of Mormon is meant to do or mean, I am not sure. But to what it does do, I can attest: it keeps me up at night, it wakes me early in the morning, it keeps me from folding in on myself, from coinciding with the shadow I work to project, from imploding into a vacuum-packed hell where my “self” and my life become one and the same.

This is a little bit crazy, but it saves me from being completely sane.

In fact, Mormon poets have composed epics poetry, despite its length. Perhaps the best known Mormon epic is Orson F. Whitney’s Elias: an epic of the ages (text here), which seems to have been fairly popular at the time it was written. More recently, Michael Collins published The Nephiad, which, through its name, invites comparison with classic epic poetry like the Illiad, the Aeneid and the Lusiad. Beyond these, many other Mormons poets have produced epics that retell everything from the history of the Church to the Mormon Trek to the Book of Mormon. [I compiled a list in my post There is Mormon Epic Poetry? (and comments on that post added many additional Mormon epics)].

Perhaps the most significant element of Nephi’s vision of the future is the restoration of the gospel. While it is somewhat difficult to find poetry and other literature that take the other elements of the vision as a subject, the Restoration is one of the most visited (if not simply most important) themes of Mormon literature. The poem below is just such a work. And I selected it for this post because, unlike the many others I found, it shares a bit of an epic view with what Nephi saw:

On the Latter-day Dispensation

by James H. Hart

When Zion’s long appointed time, foretold in sacred pages,

Had come, by faith and promise, as looked for through the ages,

Then came the Eternal Father, in plenitude of power,

And revealed Himself in person, in this the eleventh hour.

His royal Son was present on that eventful day,

And pointing, said, “Behold my Son, hear Him and Him obey.”

Thus spake the great Jehovah, as man would speak to man,

And thus the Church of Jesus Christ in latter-days began.

Not only these great Potentates of everlasting fame,

But Moses and Elijah and other Prophets came.

Thus blending frail humanity, with all the name implies,

With Rulers of the Universe, and Legates of the skies.

Three witnesses were chosen, and unto them was given

To see the great Moroni, a messenger from heaven,

Who showed them the engravings, and plates of golden hue,

And bade them handle, and to bear a record, strange, but true.

As they were so directed, they saw, and felt, and knew,

The records and the messenger were genuine and true.

Nor did they ever waver midst all the scenes of strife,

But testified persistently throughout their checkered life.

The honored Seer was but a boy-had seen but fourteen years-

To whom the future was portrayed through both the hemispheres;

‘Twas shown that ‘mongst the nations he would form a brotherhood,

His name be known in every land for evil and for good.

They told him not to fraternize with any sect or creed,

That all were vague and spurious, and led by selfish greed;

They had neither Faith nor Priesthood, nor Gospel that could save

Themselves and those that slumber in dark and silent grave.

They gave the tyro keys and powers to formulate the scheme

Devised to found a Kingdom and every soul redeem;

E’en every son of Adam who would subjugate his will,

In this or in the spirit world, and righteous laws fulfill.

The record he translated by gift, and power, and grace

Of God, th’ Eternal Father of all the human race.

And those who will may read and learn the history sublime

Of nations on this continent, down from remotest time.

He organized the Church of Christ as ’twas in days of yore,

Its officers and rites complete, no fewer, and no more;

Its faith and gifts and miracles were thus restored again,

And with the Church of latter days forever will remain.

He taught mankind to worship the true and living God,

Who in the form of perfect man the earth again has trod.

He taught the only Gospel the Gods have ever given,

To elevate the sons of men from earth to reign in heaven.

Among our great reformers he stands without a peer,

Combining all the qualities of Prophet, Priest and Seer;

And in the role of statesman prescribed a plan to save

Thousands who now lie mouldering in fratricidal grave.

He urged upon philanthropists, by sale of lands to raise

Wherewith to buy the negroes, and let them end their days

With slavish bonds unshackled, and thus avert the day

When the gory field of battle would be the only way.

In eighteen hundred thirty-two he told the name of State

In which the dread rebellion would surely culminate;

That in the bloody conflict the slaves would marshalled be

Against their masters, and ‘twould end in death and misery.

The counsel was unheeded, as now is known, too well,

For in the great rebellion legions of warriors fell,

And untold lives and treasure was e’en the costly price

Of failure in observing the Prophet’s sound advice.

He taught sincere repentance, that men should all obey

The everlasting Gospel, restored in God’s own way.

He guaranteed the sacred gifts that man could not bestow,

E’en gifts that from the Source of Truth in heaven can only flow.

Refusal by Jehovah to verify the bond,

A failure to bestow the gifts on those who did respond,

Would have solved the “Mormon problem,” and ended all its strife,

When no one would have wished to take the great Apostle’s life.

But every word and prophecy were backed with vital power,

His work has been triumphant in every trying hour;

With this eternal Priesthood there’s no such thing as fail,

For, guided by Omnipotence, they must and will prevail.

They grapple with emergencies and breast the surging wave,

And some o’er death have triumphed, and rest in silent grave;

They’re uncompromising heroes, ‘mid scenes of Gentile strife,

And fight for truth and liberty in jeopardy of life.

No greater revolution on earth was e’er begun;

More splendid victories for truth the Prophets never won.

They’ve gathered ransomed legions from far and distant lands,

Dispelled the fogs of ages, and broke the tyrant bands.

And this is but commencement, a beginning of the plan,

Projected in eternity before the world began,

To found a righteous Kingdom, whose power will never end,

Where every man will meet in peace a brother and a friend.

The ultimatum of the Saints will be supremely great,

And Utah, now oppressed, will be the great Millennial State.

‘Tis futile for despotic fiends to play their venal game,

For Zion will eclipse her foes, and put them all to shame.

No grasping tyrant then will seek his fellow to oppress,

Nor dare to subjugate the weak, and place him in duress;

The Saints must have their heritage, and hinder it, who can?

Since Heaven has vested power on earth to execute the plan.

‘Tis folly and presumption for mortals to contend

Against the Priest or Prophet the Lord may choose to send;

No matter if the chosen one should be the merest youth,

He’s bound to win the battle when vested with the truth.

‘Twere better men had ne’er been born, than human tyrants be;

And better with a millstone be cast into the sea,

Than harm the Lord’s Anointed, or least of all His Saints,

For retribution follows a righteous man’s complaints.

The tempest and tornado, and e’en the dread cyclone,

Are ministers to execute fiats from the Unknown.

And lightnings, plagues and pestilence are also held in store,

To waste besotted nations till the wicked rule no more.

Then rally all ye noblemen from every sect and creed,’

And help us fight the battles ‘gainst tyranny and greed,

Nor rest upon our armor till human rights shall be

O’er all the earth extended, and every soul be free.

 

From The Contributor 4 (1882-1883)

In fact, there is so much Mormon poetry that discusses the restoration it is a little hard to point to additional individual works that may be of interest. The current LDS hymnal, for example, has no less than 30 hymns about the restoration, beginning with the first hymn in the book, The Morning Breaks, The Shadows Flee (which, I might add, was written by Parley P. Pratt as the introductory hymn for the 1840 English hymnal).

In addition, Pratt’s collection, The Millennium, the first published book of Mormon poetry, includes his Dispensation of the Fullness of Times, which covers the restoration. Eliza R. Snow twice wrote about the history of the Church, first in a poem titled The Gathering of the Saints, and second in her Two Chapters of the Life of President Joseph Smith, which were published in her book Poems, religious, historical and political. More recently, General Authority S. Dilworth Young published his poetic look at Church history, The Long Road, in 1967.

Somehow, all these poems are long, which really makes it seem like addressing the epic events in this vision and in the restoration requires long works. So, if you’re looking for something short, perhaps you should stick with the hymns.

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?

James Taft “Jimmer” Fredette began 2011 leading BYU’s basketball team to the NCAA championships, leading many to expect that the team might make the later rounds of the playoffs. While those hopes were unrealized (in part due to the sudden withdrawal of BYU’s next most important player, Brandon Davies), BYU’s performance in the tournament set a high point that hasn’t been rivaled by a BYU team since 1981, and Jimmer earned every major National Player of the Year honor, including the Wooden Award, the Naismith Award, the Adolph Rupp Trophy, and the Oscar Robertson Trophy.

After finishing the season and graduating, Fredette was drafted by the Milwaukee Bucks, who promptly traded him to the Sacramento Kings as part of a previously arranged deal. Although his first season was cut short by the basketball strike this past year, Fredette played his first game December 17th. He is currently the only Mormon playing in the NBA.

Central to Fredette’s impact is his popularity among Mormons, which was so strong that it attracted national attention, coining terms like “Jimmermania.” Particularly fascinating, in our social-networking informed world, were the reactions to an early February Facebook post attacking Jimmermania, which extended to something like 600 comments in less than 10 hours (250 in one hour alone — see the archive here – no, I didn’t count them). The thread itself was mentioned on ESPN, CBS Sports, NBC Sports, Yahoo, the Deseret News and dozens of sports websites and blogs.

Like our selection of Elizabeth Smart last year, Jimmer is still young and has many years ahead of him. While his performance in the NBA hasn’t gained him much of a following outside of BYU fans, he can reasonably be expected to play in the NBA for years to come.

The Mormon of the Year designation is a recognition of the effect that a person or group has had during the past year. It is not a prize or award, so nothing of value is being given to anyone as a result of this designation, and it is not necessarily meant to honor the person or persons recognized, so no effort will be made to contact or notify Jimmer.

We were very pleased by the interest in selecting the Mormon of the Year. Times and Seasons readers nominated 21 possible candidates in addition to the original 5. We learned a lot from those nominations, especially the range of our readers’ beliefs and feelings. Some of the Mormons we learned have done significant things and deserve to be on a list of possible Mormons of the Year.

The LDS Church’s First Presidency (including the Prophet) and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles were excluded from nominations.

We also appreciate those who participated in our online vote or commented on the nominations, which taught us a lot about the passion that many people have for those that they admire. Nearly 600 people voted in our poll (up substantially from last year), including many readers new to Times and Seasons. We hope that those who dropped by enjoyed Times and Seasons and will visit us again.

Please plan on participating in next year’s Mormon of the Year nominations. I’m sure that many of the nominees will show up next year, and those of us who were unfamiliar with some of the nominees can use that time to become more familiar with them. Certainly we will re-nominate some of them next year. And, as we discovered this year, the changing nominations make the selection process very different each year.

Hymn of Praise

Wide is the gate and broad the way

That leadeth unto death and sin;

Protect us, Father, night and day

Lest, thither lured, we venture in.

Oh, may we make the Lord our friend.

And choose the narrow path made plain.

And live for light to comprehend

How we may life eternal gain.

Lord, grant us grace that we may cling

With ardor to the Iron Rod;

And should the effort suffering bring.

Still give us strength to honor God.

Rock of our refuge, hallowed be

Thy holy name. Thine arm is sure;

From time to all eternity

Who trust in Thee may rest secure.

Our bosom friends may turn aside

And scorn the paths of truth and right;

The wicked virtue may deride

And blackness lend to error’s night.

But Thou, O God, art still the same;

Changeless Thy laws, boundless Thy love;

All truth is written on Thy name,

All power in earth or heaven above.

by J. C.; from Juvenile Instructor v24 n13, July 1, 1889, p. 320

There are many other works that mention the Iron Rod, including Hymn #274, The Iron Rod (aka To Nephi, Seer of Olden Time), which the lesson mentions as an additional teaching aid because it talks so much about the vision. Hymn #254, True to the Faith, also mentions the Iron Rod, although as an admonition, not as a description of the vision.

I get a kick out of LDS Artist James Christensen’s image, The Iron Rod, which can be seen as part of an interview with him in the periodical Mormon Artist #13, which explains why so many people have trouble holding on to the Iron Rod. It may be possible to somehow display that image as part of the lesson, but care must be made to not violate the copyright law.

I think it is worth mentioning that the Iron Rod symbol is also a part of Richard Poll’s potent Iron Rod/Liahona dichotomy, as explained in his 1967 Dialogue essay, What the Church means to people like me. However, I can’t really figure out any way to work that into this lesson.

[fn1] General Conference talks have mentioned the Iron Rod increasingly in recent decades, 19 times in the 1980s, 23 in the 1990s and 41 times in the 10 years starting in 2000. But before 1980, it was never mentioned more than 10 times in a decade, and sometimes not at all.