It was snowing when I drove to the hospital, and it wouldn’t be daylight for another hour at least. The only person in the lobby was the woman at the information desk. She directed me to the laboratory down the hall, where I handed over my paperwork and sat down in the empty waiting room. On the wall-mounted TV, a news reporter announced that an escaped convict had been captured. He’d broken out of federal prison to visit his terminally ill mother.

The tech called my name and motioned me to the blood-draw chair. She asked what procedure would be having that morning. I looked over my shoulder; the waiting room was still empty. “Tubal ligation,” I said.

The end of an era. My entire post-pubescent life thus far had revolved around my reproductive ability, and could be separated into stages based on my maternal status. When I was single, I was desperately wanted and needed to not be pregnant. After my wedding, I desperately (and shockingly) wanted and needed to be pregnant—and I was for the better part of a decade thanks to six effortless conceptions. And when a miscarriage at age 33 triggered a year of mysterious infertility, I desperately wanted and needed to be pregnant again. Never did I know panic until I realized I might not bear the seventh child I sensed was mine. Never did I guess that within seconds of the birth of that seventh child, I would come full circle in my vow to evade future pregnancy at any cost.

I’d asked one thing of God throughout the long years of creating and producing and nourishing many babies: Please let me know when I’m done. I took the Mormon charge to multiply very seriously. The ferocious hunger to bear fruit, which suddenly surfaced just months after my wedding, was more potent and real than anything I’d felt. I was ravenous, and each baby that came was desired completely. But as I produced a passel of infants one by one, I began to wonder if the hunger would ever be sated. And as the demands of caring for these children exponentially increased, I began to worry that it wouldn’t. I couldn’t decide which was more terrifying: having more children than I could care for, or not having more children despite continuing hunger. Please, I prayed. Let me know.

And I did. I’d heard other women describe the phenomenon and, truth be told, I’d doubted its veracity. Truth be told, I’d figured it was just an excuse employed when a woman didn’t want any more children: “I feel my family is complete.” But when it happened to me, I understood. Before we knew the baby had Down syndrome, before we knew if he’d survive his 10-week premature birth, before we knew if he could even draw a breath, I knew it was over. The message to stop having babies was as overwhelmingly real and potent as the message to start.

But far more complicated.

I didn’t know what to do with this intuitive knowledge that my body could not and would not create any additional bodies. What action did that indicate on my part: a strict regimen of birth control? A strict regimen of faith that God would render me barren? I’d heard the folk doctrine more times than I could count: fertility was a function of God’s will. To the reckoning of some, it followed that birth control signaled a damning lack of faith. But the prospect of pregnancy had become so horrifying—so strangely horrifying, given how I’d long treasured that very capacity—that for the first time in my life, I didn’t care about anyone’s reckoning but God’s and my husband’s and my own.

It seemed simple enough: figure out what you want, seek confirmation from God, and if it comes, proceed. But I wanted something ludicrous. I didn’t just want to go on the pill or get an IUD or begin some other mostly-reliable method of birth control—I wanted to utterly obliterate my ability to reproduce. I wanted a permanent sterilization procedure: partial hysterectomy or tubal ligation. Maybe both, just to be safe.

At the same time, I was wary of my willingness—my eagerness—to gain that safety by surgically altering my reproductive organs, even if God approved. Especially if God approved. His permission to do something so drastic and controversial in Mormon practice felt suspect. So I waited, and prayed, and counseled with my husband. And I resolved to avoid any irreversible moves until I received an unimpeachable sign from God that I had his blessing.

It came months later on an ordinary evening, during the ordeal of getting a large quantity of small children ready for bed. Thomas, the youngest, was about nine months old.  I was carrying him from my bedroom to the changing table in his bedroom, feeling exhausted by the demands of the day and defeated by the prospect of days upon days upon days of similar demands yet to come. I was utterly spent. In terms of my singularly female abilities, I’d given everything I had to give. Even if God commanded me to give more, I could not.

As I laid Thomas on the changing table, I laid out this truth for God to see, silent and wordless and humble.  I have nothing left, I told him, nothing remaining inside to sacrifice or consecrate on the altar of maternity. And I needed to know if my offering was accepted. I needed to know the way the priests of Aaron knew that the slaughtered animal on the altar stones made a fitting sacrifice, the way the first apostles knew that their faith was not in vain: I needed to see my offering ignited by divine fire. I needed a body—my body—to burn.

And it did. With Thomas squirming half-naked on the table before me, I received an ineffable and indisputable witness: the fiery furnace of the presence of God. The heat of every nucleus of every cell bursting into flame.

Ask, and ye shall receive. I had the confirmation I wanted—not that God was directing me to have sterilization surgery, but that if I chose to do so he wouldn’t object. Even so, I waited several years to make that choice. At one point I let my doctor talk me out of a tubal ligation and into a vasectomy for my husband (less pain, less risk, less cost); I drove Reed home from the urologist with an ice pack between his legs, and tried to dismiss the nightmares that persisted even after he was certified sterile—nightmares of my womb swelling and splitting, of children I couldn’t love emerging from my body, red-faced and squalling. I stalled for years, afraid to make a mistake.

Then came the month that my period was late. Very late. I was irrationally and implacably terrified that Reed was one of the scant handful of men who reverted to fertility post-vasectomy. He was worried too, but far more calm.  It’s obviously not what we planned, he said, but a baby is a good thing, right?

No. Not for me, not anymore. I took a pregnancy test: negative. I took another. I didn’t stop agonizing until the overdue bleeding finally began.

Not long afterward, I consulted another doctor. A woman, this time. She gave me my options, including a non-surgical in-office procedure. As she described it in detail, I saw myself on the exam table, feet in stirrups, groggy from valium as she forced my cervix open and pushed small metallic coils into my fallopian tubes. The scene made me shake. For its entire adult life, my body had turned itself inside out in the service of humankind—it would no longer tolerate such invasion, not even in a semi-conscious state.

Laparoscopy, then, the doctor said. A small incision through the abdomen. General anaesthesia.

Relief steadied my hand on the steering wheel when I drove home that afternoon, and again on my surgery date a few weeks later, when I drove to the hospital through the pre-dawn snow. It was a week after the death of my Yia Yia Christine, and a week before her name day on Christmas—a celebration of the birth of the Christ child as well as the births of all Greeks named for him. When I’d scheduled the procedure, I didn’t know that a phone call would soon summon me to the funeral of my last living grandparent. There, I heard the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom as I sat at the feet of the Theokotos, the Virgin Mother who carried Christmas in her womb.

Through you, pure and blessed Theotokos, may we find paradise.

Later that morning I donned a surgical gown, laid on a gurney, and closed my eyes as the nurse started an IV line. Once the drip started, she handed me a metal clipboard of release forms to sign. I paused, pen in hand. My first pregnancy had begun nearly two decades before, soon after I turned 21; my adult self was born in a birthing room nine months later.  So, too, was my Mormon identity. Motherhood was the essence of Godhood. In the aftermath of my first miscarriage, I stood in the baby care aisle at Target prayed.  I want to be a mother again, I begged over and over and over. I want to be a mother forever. As I prayed I clutched a fleece baby blanket from one of the displays, divinely soft and cotton-candy pink, which I later bought as a token of hope.

The top release form was the same color as that blanket. Permanent sterilization, the heading warned. I signed my full name in consent. Then I waited for the nurse to leave so I could weep in private. I’d wanted to cry ever since that TV news clip about the escaped convict who needed to see his mother before she died. After his last goodbye, he surrendered to the authorities.

I was thoroughly damp when the nurse returned twenty minutes later to lift the brakes on the gurney wheels and guide me feet-first toward the operating room. She parked me in an alcove outside the OR and summoned the anesthesiologist. He asked me some questions and I nodded my head in response, unable to speak. At first he made a futile attempt to pretend I wasn’t crying. Finally he paused and asked if I was okay, and I nodded some more. I was definitely okay. And definitely not okay. But there was nothing to say about it—not to him, at least. I tried the prayer I’d offered from the beginning: Tell me if I’m done. Tell me it’s enough. I didn’t need the full fiery furnace in response, just a single lick of flame. One last confirmation. Please.

Nothing.

The nurse returned. “Ready?” she asked. I nodded, still weeping. She wheeled me into the operating room, parallel to the cold steely surface of its table. After locking the brakes, she turned to look me straight in the eye. You don’t have to do this, she said.

But I did. I knew what was at stake, and it was more than the emotional or mental or physical health I’d likely lose if I got pregnant again. It was something even weightier: my faith. Not my faith in God, which would remain in any case. Rather, faith in a stewardship fulfilled. Faith in the ability to choose wisely and well. Faith in myself.

I woke in the recovery room to the beeping of a heart monitor. My pierced navel was stitched shut and seeping blood—a maternal stigmas. No angels sang with cloven tongues; no devils laughed. The only still, small voice was my own. In the silence it spoke itself into being. It spoke of hearts redeemed, of bodies consumed and then glorified. It spoke of paradise, where the souls of mothers multiply and replenish themselves forever in the white flames of eternal burnings.

Let the incense burn in every room
See the fullness of time in the empty tomb
Feel the future kicking in your womb.
~John Darnielle

First, a tighter definition of verisimilitude [Note 1]:

The semblance of truth or reality in literary works; or the literary principle that requires a consistent illusion of truth to life. The term covers both the exclusion of improbabilities (as in realism and naturalism) and the careful distinguishing of improbabilities in non-realistic works. As a critical principle, it originates in Aristotle’s concept of mimesis or imitation of nature.

The verisimilitude issue presents two questions, one for the author of a text and one for its readers.

The Problem for Authors and Historians

To what extent does an author intend for the text to offer “truth to life” or an “imitation of nature”? At first glance, this question seems more pressing for fictional works: some genres by convention allow departures from the real world known by the author (science fiction, magic realism) while mainstream fiction typically presents events and characters that are true to life in the sense that they are not out of place in the reader’s world or, for historical fiction, in the period depicted. But journalists and historians face the issue as well. How does a journalist report an observer’s experience of a UFO sighting or a seemingly miraculous recovery? How does a historian deal with historical sources that report events that conflict with the historian’s understanding of the real world?

Historical sources cannot be accepted at face value. Historians must weigh and evaluate the value of any historical source, determine whether it is reliable, and attempt to compensate for any bias in that source. The older the source, the more likely it recounts events that the modern historian will not consider plausible. The issue is particularly pressing for modern scholars of religion who use ancient religious texts. When should a modern commentator dismiss a reported event (say the discussion Balaam had with his donkey at Number 22:28-30), accept an event as reported but not necessarily the interpretation offered in the source (perhaps dreams recounted by many biblical writers), or accept an event more or less as reported (the narrative in 2 Kings recounting the Babylonian conquest of Jerusalem and deportation of the leading citizens)?

The Problem for Readers

Just as an author of fiction or nonfiction has choices to make, so too does the reader make an implicit evaluation of any book, story, or article. If a novel introduces too many coincidences, the reader might at some point dismiss the events. Even genres that allow departures from reality will lose a reader if the departures are inconsistent or do violence to the plot or story. Readers evaluate nonfictional narratives as well. If the content of a news report appears to reflect a journalist’s bias rather than the actual events, a reader rebels. If a historical account appears to accept questionable sources, ignore credible sources, or accept the occurrence of events that a reader refuses to accept as plausible, a reader may dismiss the history as lacking credibility.

What about religious texts? Does a reader evaluate a biblical passage with respect to the real world as a secular observer would understand it in 2012? As a religious believer would understand it in 2012? As the original author of the text appears to have understood it? What rules should a modern reader apply when evaluating ancient texts, in particular the Bible? This really is the key question for modern readers of the Bible.

A secular reader may simply dismiss events recounted in the Bible that are inconsistent with his scientific or naturalistic understanding of the world as of 2012. But a believing reader has trickier choices to make. Even modern readers who accept the biblical account of events as stated have a hard time accepting the biblical three-tier view of the cosmos: waters above the dome of the sky or firmament, our earthly landscape in the middle, and sheol and more waters below. What do we make of the “windows of heaven” if there are no windows and there is no dome? How do modern readers understand accounts of demonic possession and healing by exorcism when the symptoms described appear to be a case of epilepsy rather than possession? Were there demons?

These examples are given simply to point out that verisimilitude is a complicated issue for a modern believing reader of an ancient religious text. Which departures from “truth to life” do we allow, and why? In terms of verisimilitude, what world is a scriptural narrative true to?

The Problem for You

You are a modern reader. You read the Bible and the Book of Mormon. To what world do you relate these texts? What world do you live in? We relate texts to our world (or to some world) without thinking about it much. Here is a passage from Robert Alter that sketches out the magnitude of the task we unwittingly perform when we read and understand ancient religious texts. His comments are aimed at literature but can be profitably applied to historical texts and religious narrative. [Note 2]

Literature is a representational art, but the relation between the literary text and the world it represents has always been something of a puzzle, and recent trends in literary theory have compounded the puzzlement. The objects of literary representation belong to a wide range of heterogeneous categories, material, conceptual, emotional, relational, personal, and collective. They include states of feeling, moments of perception, memories …; buildings, neighborhoods, industrial processes, social institutions …; world-historical forces and theological ideas ….

Fictional character is probably the crucial test case for the link between literature and reality. Very few people will take the trouble to read a novel or story unless they can somehow “identify” with the characters, live with them inwardly as though they were real at least for the duration of the reading.

You might reject the three-tier conceptual scheme of the cosmos presented in the Bible yet accept Genesis 1 as a claim that God created the cosmos as we now view it. You likely identify with some of the individuals you encounter in the scriptures, even if you don’t identify with how they saw the world in some of the ways Alter notes above. I think we do a lot more work when reading the scriptures than we generally recognize.

The World of the Book of Mormon

So, to now return to the opening question, how do we describe the “truth to life” or “imitation of nature” that Book of Mormon narratives undertake? My suggestion is that the primary reference world for Book of Mormon narratives is not the natural world of 2012 or the natural world of 1830 but the world of the Bible. Jaredite barges are plausible not because of maritime technology but because Noah had his ark, so it makes perfect sense that Jared can have his barges. The descent from the sky of Jesus Christ narrated in Third Nephi is plausible in view of his ascent into the sky and his promised return “in like manner” at Acts 1:9-11. Nephi and Lehi’s prison narrative in Helaman 5 is plausible because of a similar narrative concerning Paul and Silas in Acts 16, and so forth. The fact that about ten percent of the Book of Mormon is textual quotation from various biblical texts only highlights the tight link between the world of the Book of Mormon and the world of the Bible. They are the same world.

For the first generation of Book of Mormon readers, that relation was entirely natural. Those first readers were much more familiar with the Bible than modern readers of the Book of Mormon. Those first readers lived before critical reflection on the Bible had matured, so they likely read the Bible in a more straightforward fashion than we do. Not all of those first readers accepted the Book of Mormon as divine or authentic, of course, but those who accepted the Bible were unlikely to reject the Book of Mormon because of implausibility. A reader who accepts biblical accounts of floating axe heads, God stopping the Earth’s rotation for a few hours so the Israelites could win a battle, and young Jews thrown into a hot furnace later emerging unscathed is unlikely to reject the Book of Mormon for containing implausible or impossible events.

But the second decade of the 21st century is a much different world than the fourth decade of the 19th century. How do we modern readers relate the world of the Book of Mormon to the world of the Bible or to our own world of 2012? Or do we perform that operation in reverse, instead relating the events of our own world of 2012 to the world of the Book of Mormon? Does a deeper understanding of biblical books and events change our reading of Book of Mormon events? Or does the Book of Mormon commit readers to a fixed and unchanging traditional view of the Bible?

Earlier posts in this series:

• Which Book of Mormon?
• The Book of Mormon: What has it done for you lately?
• The Book of Mormon as Narrative

Notes

1. “Verisimilitude,” in Chris Baldick, Oxford Concise Dictionary of Literary Terms, OUP, 2d ed., 2001.

2. Robert Alter, The Pleasures of Reading in an Ideological Age, Simon and Schuster, 1989, p. 49.

Captain Moroni?

I returned yesterday from attending the 3rd annual conference of the Associação Brasileira de Estudos Mórmons (Brazilian Mormon Studies Association) inspired with the fascinating subjects covered during the conference and ready to dive into another year of research in preparation for next year’s conference. In particular, one presentation was groundbreaking, changing the perception of Mormonism in Mexico before WWII.

A total of six presentations were made, ranging from discussions of tolerance and apologetics to freemasonry and visions. Two presentations were given by teleconference, and to an audience made up principally of Brazilians. Only one presentation was given in another language (Spanish) and interpreted into Portuguese.

Here are a few notes on the presentations made, in the order that they were given:

Religião Salva? (Does Religion Save?)

Beginning the conference, Marcelo Ponciano discussed the contradictions inherent in the existence of many religions, and in particular the difficulties that arise because of intolerance. Ponciano sees an improvement in human values accompanying the globalization of information which permits a rise in understanding and empathy for those of other religions. In particular, Ponciano notes that the Mormon belief that other religions may have some truths that Mormonism doesn’t yet understand and suggests that Joseph Smith’s teaching of universal friendship means that mormons should be part of the effort for tolerance.

A relação entre mormonismo e maçonaria (The Relationship of Freemasonry and Mormonism)

The next presentation, by Luciano Lucas, looked at the history of Freemasonry in Mormonism in an attempt to clear up many of the prejudices that exist among Mormons in Brazil against Freemasonry. While English-speaking Mormon historians may be well acquainted with Joseph Smith’s participation in Freemasonry and Spencer W. Kimball’s clarification that Mormons are not prohibited from becoming masons, Lucas, himself a freemason, discussed a 2004 incident in Brazil in which an active LDS Church member was denounced to the Area Presidency for promoting freemasonry on the Internet. While the Area Presidency sent a letter, to be read in all wards and branches in Brazil, clarifying the Church’s position, it was not read in many wards and a significant portion of Brazilian members remain with the impression that freemasonry is incompatible with Mormonism.

A visão de Henry B. Moyle no Brasil (The Brazilian Vision of Henry B. Moyle)

Justin Bray, a preservation specialist on the Joseph Smith Papers project, gave the next presentation, an account of a vision given to Apostle Henry B. Moyle on his trip to South America in 1956. Then a recent member of the Quorum of the Twelve, Moyle was told by President David O. McKay that he would have a vision when he arrived there, which preoccupied Moyle during his trip to South America and first few days there. The promised vision then came, somewhat unexpectedly, while Moyle was giving his first talk, at a missionary conference in Brazil, and Moyle related what he saw immediately to the missionaries. The vision was, according to Bray, “detailed and specific” and led many missionaries to describe the experience in their diaries. Among the predictions in the vision was the promise that Brazilians would begin to see visions of missionaries and LDS meetinghouses in Brazil. Bray’s presentation gave examples of how this was fulfilled. Especially interesting was the inclusion of a white hat on missionaries, which sometimes had the appearance of a halo, in some of the visions. The mission president had earlier required that missionaries all wear white fedoras to help them stand out in public. Bray’s presentation was, in my view, one of the highlights of the conference.

O papel da apologetica sud no século XX (The role of LDS Apologetics in the 20th Century)

Returning presenter Marcelo Silva traced the history of Apologetics from Origenes and Tertulian to C. S. Lewis and modern practitioners among various Christian religions, as well as, briefly, the history of Mormon apologetics and of Mormon apologetics in Brazil (which, he claimed, began with the translation into Portuguese and xerox-copy distribution of Melvin McDonald’s Day of Defense). He then proceeded to make a case for apologetics as a kind of check on scholarship, suggesting that the inherent bias in apologetics is necessary to provide that check. Personally, I was very pleased at this presentation, since I’m not aware of any other attempt to describe the history and role of apologetics–something that might be useful for cases when apologetics goes too far, as has occurred on occasion.

 Zapatismo e mormonismo na região dos vulcões (Zapatism and Mormonism in the Volcano Region)

This presentation by Mexican historian Moroni Spencer Hernandez de Olarte was probably the most important given at the conference and one that will significantly change our perception of Mormon history in Mexico. The two book-length histories of the Church in Mexico both cover the effect of the Mexican Revolution on the Mormon colonies in northern Mexico, which led to many Mormons fleeing for their lives and a couple of martyrs, but ignore the interaction in the southern portion of the country. Hernandez looked at the participation of the mormon converts in the area southwest of Mexico City, where the church had flourished in the last years of the 19th century and first decade of the 20th century. Unlike those in the colonies, these converts, who generally had Indian blood,  saw in the southern leader, Emilio Zapata, “a man of God” and in his cause a “standard of liberty” that would free the oppressed, including the Indians or Lamanites. Hernandez documents the participation of these church members in the revolution, including, in one case, virtually an entire branch of 200 people, and in another case, a Zapatista military leader who was married to a Mormon and who joined the LDS Church after the revolution. The presentation went on to indicate that the same members who participated in the Mexican Revolution went on to join the Tercera Convencion scism of 1936-1946.

Estudos Mórmons no Brasil: esboço de um guia (Mormon Studies in Brazil: outline of a guide)

This last presentation was my own, cut short significantly because delays from previous presentations left me with half the time allotted. I was able to make two points: First, that Mormon Studies has benefited significantly from the efforts of volunteers and amateurs, and this is especially true in Brazil, which has just a few trained academics in the fields that involve Mormon Studies. This means that the field of Mormon Studies will continue to depend on the efforts of amateurs, and indeed, amateurs have an important role to play in the study of Mormonism. Second, I pointed out that Mormons in Brazil who don’t speak English largely don’t have access to the Church’s documentation for their own history, let alone that of the Church in general, so their efforts are best employed in two areas–original research into Mormonism in Brazil (where they can find local resources, such as materials produced by outsiders and the resources of individual members) and, for those who read English, the presentation, through translation, summation and analysis, of the work already done in English.

The quality of this conference has, I think, improved each year, and may attract more attention when the papers presented are published, as the Association plans to do later this year. Like the older and larger European Mormon Studies conference, this is a welcome effort to emphasize the international in Mormonism and expand Mormon Studies to a wider audience.

I. Tools part I

We went over a handout about language and dictionaries, talked about why Webster’s modern dictionary isn’t useful, how to use Strong’s Concordance, where to get it for free, and what’s wrong with it, then some resources that you can use once you understand Strong’s and have the number for a word.

Here’s the handout (ask if something isn’t clear), which came with some relevant sample pages from Strong’s, where we looked at “abide” as exemplar (those pages not uploaded) and the relevant chapters from Jim Faulconer’s excellent short Scripture Study: Tools and Suggestions “English Historical Dictionaries” for D&C/Book of Mormon/Pearl of Great Price; Here’s his chapter for dealing with Greek and Hebrew, “Doing Bible Research Without Knowing Greek or Hebrew.” Now, I go beyond Faulconer, and suggest using great caution with Strong’s. It’s very outdated, and doesn’t give useful definitions as much as short translational equivalents. So, I provided a sheet with other resources keyed to Strong’s that are better. Here are samples. Vines; Mounce; TWOT; TLOT; NIDOTTE (Thanks to a fellow Logos user for providing me with samples from the resources I don’t own.)

Several students, as it turned out, were already familiar with and used Strong’s.

We then turned to Genesis 1 and Enuma Eliš.

II. Enuma Eliš and Genesis

Enuma Eliš is often called the Babylonian Creation Account or Epic, but that misleads into thinking that its purpose was simply to convey information about creation. (This assumption is likely carried over from assuming the same thing about Genesis, and is equally false.) Enuma Eliš, rather, explains how Marduk became the chief deity of the Babylonian pantheon.

When first published, the similarities between Enuma Eliš and Genesis 1 were so obvious that (combined with other reasons), some claimed that Israelites simply borrowed Genesis from Enuma Eliš. Since then, more nuanced views have prevailed. While there is still no real consensus on the relationship, three things are commonly agreed upon; The roots of Enuma Eliš long predate the Israelite version, one cannot study Genesis seriously without taking Enuma Eliš into account, and at the very least, Genesis and Enuma Eliš  “breathe the same air.”Here is  Enuma Eliš from the Context of Scripture (You can see the cuneiform of one version here in pdf, with explanation of the first few lines.  (I used to have a nice Enuma Eliš mug from Eisenbrauns…)

We did a very selective summary of Enuma Eliš, and pointed out that the pre-creation combat with the watery chaos/deity/sea monsters therein is also found in the Bible. (Handout of passages taken from this post.) We then looked at Genesis 1 and saw that although multiple elements of Enuma Eliš are found there in the same order, there is very clearly NO pre-creation battle, and those things which are warring deities in Enuma Eliš are simply creations of Israel’s God in Genesis 1. Specifically (and selectively), we begin with temporal clauses (“When on high…” and “When God began creating the heavens and the earth), pre-existent cosmic waters (Tiamat/salt water, tehom/”the deep”), darkness, and wind/spirit. The waters are then separated, a solid roof (Tiamat’s hide, the raqiya/firmament) put on to keep out and restrain those waters from entering into this space, and this is the general conception of the universe or cosmic geography among both Israelites and their neighbors.

(Edit: Even Deseret Book on Genesis obliquely mentioned Enuma Eliš, in Jehovah and the World of the Old Testament.

“the power and significance of these stories [of creation in Genesis] can be best appreciated when they are compared with the ancient creation stories that were known in cultures surrounding ancient Israel. In the last 150 years, archaeologists working in the Near East have uncovered hundreds of thousands of records from the ancient world.  Scholars have identified in these records many examples of creation stories from Mesopotamia, Egypt, and Canaan that give us insight and understanding of the ancient worldviews about creation.”

What is the doctrine here? From an Israelite perspective, especially one living in or under Babylonian rule and influence, the doctrine was that Israel’s God was The God, that these other things were not gods at all. This was Doctrine with a Capital D, centrally important to their concerns. Especially when Israel had been subued by Babylon and the temple destroyed, it was a real theological challenge. Had Marduk defeated Yahweh? Was Yahweh indeed God? What had happened? We tend not to understand the attraction of polytheism, or the illogic of monotheistic religion then, since it is mostly what westerners encounter today, sohere is a brief defense of polytheism. Today, polytheism doesn’t make a lot of sense to us because we live in a different culture. So here’s a useful analogy. You all use certain services and functions in your daily life. You have water. You have your recycling pickup. You have your electricity, you have your plumber, you have your car mechanic, your cable TV, your Internet access, your handyman. Now, imagine that you move into a new house. And the same guy comes and hooks up all of these services. Imagine that every service in your new house came from the same company. And not only the same company, but the same guy. And that this guy was the local mechanic, grocer, policeman, garbage service, and doctor. You would have trouble believing that one person could do all these things. And that is basically the situation of ancient near Eastern people. We think of the cosmos as a machine that God runs or set up. Ancient near Eastern people, by contrast, associated a different god with each service, function or aspect. The deity was the function, and vice versa. Ra/Re is both the Sun and Sun God. There were weather gods, fertility gods, local regional gods, etc. How could one deity be in charge of everything? And what if he really wasn’t? What if your child died or your crops failed because you’d failed to appease some other God? (Think of Paul and the altar to the Unknown God here.)

Some of this is reflected in the Bible. It might surprise you to find out that a volume called Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible (a prominent academic reference volume) runs to nearly 1000 pages. It was inconceivable to think of one God performing every function, but that is what the Israelites proclaimed, even though many of them couldn’t quite maintain that exclusivist faith at times.

We talked of this more in depth, and in several other ways. I’ll try to get my notes back up to snuff next week.

How much of me is not-me? How much of my own flesh is dark? How much of my own mind is a black box?

How much of me is broken and passed around like bread for others to live on? How much of me is gathered from the multitude like leftover loaves they were too full to eat?

It’s this kind of thinking that gets Mormons pinched as “not really Christian.” The problem for Mormons is that we think this margin of error may itself be made in the image of God.

As Blake Ostler points out in the first chapter of the first Exploring Mormon Thought:

Perhaps the greatest distinction between Mormonism and the Christian tradition is that for Mormons the persons of the Godhead are genuinely “other” even to each other. That is, they are “distinct” and “separate” in the sense that they have unique personalities. They are persons having full cognitive and conative faculties. They are separate “wills” and “centers of cognitive awareness” who do not reduce to just one will or one personality; rather, they are genuinely separate with respect to their persons. They have distinct spatio-temporal identity – they are not identical in substance to the extent that the substance referred to is something they are made out of. The bodies of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost are distinct from one another. (7-8)

There are thirty fingers and thirty toes. The divine plurality of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost cannot be reduced. No matter how penetrating their union, there is always a remainder that cannot be assimilated, a remnant that cannot be incorporated, a chased-tail that cannot be caught. Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are translucent but not transparent. “The persons of the Godhead are genuinely ‘other’ even to each other.”

Ostler, however, does also claim that, for the members of the Godhead, their divine interpenetration is still

so profound and the unity so complete that the persons who share this unity have identical experiences, know exactly the same things, agree perfectly with the decisions by all others sharing this unity and always act in complete unison. This unity is so perfect that it is improper to think of one person in this unity acting without the others. In this sense, there is a single agency exercised by these beings. (10-11)

These two claims seem like a poor fit. How, given their (±) personhood, can the Godhead’s unity be “complete” or their experiences “identical”?

I don’t know what Ostler has in mind, but I will speculate that part of what they share involves the margins themselves. Their inassimilable remainders do themselves circulate.

Part of the Father is indigestible by the Son, part of the Son is indigestible by the Holy Ghost, part of the Holy Ghost is indigestible by the Father. Fine. But we must also remember that Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are only Father, Son, and Holy Ghost in their divine relationship with each other.

Part of them remains withdrawn from absorption in their divine dance but part of them is constituted by that same perechoresis. Part of each is given to them by what is other than them. This is a gift they can absorb in part, but not in whole.

The Father gives all of himself to the Son, even the parts that the Son cannot receive. And the Son gives all of himself to the Father, even the parts that the Father cannot receive.

The Son is constituted as a son by what the Father gives him – perhaps especially by the given parts he cannot digest. The Son bears within him the whole of the Father and the character of his sonship hinges on how he will bear within himself those parts of the Father that will always remain “other” to him. The Father, likewise, bears within himself the whole of the Son and the character of his fatherhood hinges on how he will bear within himself those parts of the Son that will always remain “other” to him.

Father and Son, bound to one another in an eternal embrace by their willingness to share what they cannot give and by their willingness to bear what they cannot receive.

(Forgive me. I am writing, of course, about my own father and my own son.)

What makes their relation divine is not the absence of this margin but their faithful relation to it. They do not save each other by mastering it, but by pledging themselves to caring for it. They don’t erase the margin of error, they live in it.

The Father: always ± the Son.

The notion of an apostasy from the primitive gospel and the original church has been a key animating feature in Mormonism since its inception and in other “religions of the book.” However, the concept of apostasy has proven to be tremendously fluid, with individual, institutional, communal, and historical meanings and applications all proliferating in religious thought throughout the ages. Fifteen faithful Mormon scholars from many scholarly backgrounds and methodologies will explore the concept of apostasy in various historical and religious contexts as we consider how to narrate apostasy in ways that remain historically authentic and cohere with Mormon theology.

The conference schedule and location information are available at the conference website.

The conference is organized by Miranda Wilcox, Assistant Professor of English at Brigham Young University, with financial assistance from an Eliza R. Snow Faculty Grant.

—posted on behalf of the conference organizer, Miranda Wilcox.

I confess that I wasn’t familiar with Lomax until after I got married. The long and the short of it: Alan Lomax was a folklorist and an ethnomusicologist. He took his recording equipment around, and recorded people performing the music they performed. He recorded them talking. He taped their dancing. He worked to document and preserve cultures, both within and without the U.S.

His prodigious legwork provided the first recordings of, among others, Woody Guthrie and Muddy Waters. He met and recorded Leadbelly in jail. He didn’t really create folk music culture, but he certainly introduced it to those of us who otherwise wouldn’t know it. In the end, the New York Times tells me, he collected 5,000 hours of sound recordings, 400,000 feet of film, 3,000 videotapes, 5,000 photographs, and all sorts of memoirs.

—

The Church is amazing (though not unique) in its attraction of people from all sorts of cultures, countries, and regions. In my ward, we have Utahns, Idahoans, Midwesterners, Easterners, Californians. We have immigrants from Central America, refugees and immigrants from West Africa, members from Korea and Mongolia. We have people whose history intersects with the Church for generations, and people whose history intersects for months.

In 1997, speaking at BYU, President Hinckley said, “Bring all the good that you have and let us see if we can add to it.” It seems to me that this is a call for us, as church members, to become amateur folklorists and ethnomusicologists. Through our fellow-saints, we can learn and experience other cultures, and in our ward families, we can preserve the cultures the mix by virtue of geographic, and not self-selected, boundaries. And, by doing so, we can benefit from the good that people bring with them on Sundays.

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.