Again, this isn’t a lesson. It is the notes from which I will prepare a lesson.\u00a0 Sorry it is so long. (The rabbit trail of the week was related to the killing of Laban, but I don’t plan on discussing that with my class.)<\/p>\n
Does the headnote give us some indication of what the most important events are in this book? If we use the headnote (as opposed to our own estimation of the \u2018highlights\u2019) as a guide, how might we read this book differently?<\/p>\n
CHAPTER 1<\/strong><\/p>\n 1 I, Nephi, having been born of goodly parents, therefore I was taught somewhat in all the learning of my father; and having seen many afflictions in the course of my days, nevertheless, having been highly favored of the Lord in all my days; yea, having had a great knowledge of the goodness and the mysteries of God, therefore I make a record of my proceedings in my days.<\/strong><\/p>\n Feast Wiki:<\/p>\n \u201cAccording to Webster’s 1828, goodly means “Being of a handsome form; beautiful; graceful; as a goodly person; goodly raiment; goodly houses.” In this context it may mean “well-off.” Goodly is used only once more in the Book of Mormon, Mosiah 18:7: there were a goodly number gathered together at the place of Mormon. It is used twice in the Doctrine and Coventants: D&C 97:9 & D&C 99:7. There the meaning is beautiful or fair. It is also used with this same meaning many times in the Old and New Testaments.. . . But if we read goodly as meaning wealthy . . . , we see Nephi recognizing that it was because of his parent’s wealth that he was able to be taught “somewhat in all the learning of [his] father” (emphasis added).\u201d Citation<\/a>.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n More discussion of the idea here<\/a>.\u00a0 If the very first words of the BoM say, in effect, \u201cI was able to get an education because my parents were wealthy,\u201d how does that impact our reading of the rest of the book, particularly, perhaps, the killing of Laban to get the plates?<\/p>\n I wonder if the \u201cgoodly parents\u201d implies \u201cand don\u2019t even think about blaming Lehi and Sariah for how Laman and Lemuel (hereafter L&L) turned out!\u201d Is that what Nephi is trying to emphasize here?<\/p>\n Feast Wiki: suggests a serial structure to this verse:<\/p>\n \u201c(1) having been born of goodly parents I find the \u201chaving\u201d structure interesting, since most of 1 Nephi is about what Nephi has to give up. We would consider (2) a negative; is that how Nephi views it? Have you given much thought to what you “have”?<\/p>\n 1 Ne 1:1, Enos 1:1, and Mosiah 1:2 all refer to value of instruction from their fathers, and all make reference to the language of their fathers. Why is this a theme by which BoM writers introduce their narratives?<\/p>\n \u201ctherefore I make a record\u201d–cf. 1 Nephi 9:5. What do you conclude?<\/p>\n Cf. this to the majority of OT\/NT books where we have no idea who is writing–why did Nephi start here? Why does it matter? What effect does it have on you as a reader?<\/p>\n Jay E. Jensen:<\/p>\n \u201cEvents in the lives of Lehi and Joseph Smith parallel each other: Each has a specific need. Lehi\u2019s is to save himself and his family from Jerusalem\u2019s imminent destruction, and Joseph Smith\u2019s is to know which church is true. Each prays. Each has a vision of the Father and the Son. To each is given a book. Both preach. Each receives revelation from the Holy Ghost and by visions or dreams. Finally, wicked people threaten them. Lehi and his people escape and survive. Joseph is martyred. Is it any wonder that missionaries invite sincere seekers of truth to begin their study of the Book of Mormon in 1 Nephi?\u201d Citation: (Oct 2010 GC).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n What does this pattern teach you about Lehi? About Joseph Smith? About prophets in general? Does it teach you anything about us?<\/p>\n Verse suggests an obligation to teach children. How do we fulfill that?<\/p>\n 2 Yea, I make a record in the language of my father, which consists of the learning of the Jews and the language of the Egyptians.<\/strong><\/p>\n What would \u201cJews\u201d have meant to Nephi? Does he consider himself one? What are the implications of this?<\/p>\n Feast Wiki:<\/p>\n \u201cWhereas Nephi’s first verse opens with the overwhelming announcement of the prophet’s own proper name, the remainder of the three-verse preface to Nephi’s text is, from then on, void of any other proper names for any (earthly) person (“the Lord” might be a proper name, “YHWH”, though it names God; “the Jews” and “the Egyptians” might also be argued to be proper names, but each apparently names a collective–they are both plural). This absence of proper names is most striking in Nephi’s first having, where he makes explicit mention of both his “parents” and his “father”, but without any proper names. The comments above have overlooked this, drawing the names of Lehi and Sariah, of course, from the actual body of the Nephite text. The point raises two questions, one of which cannot be fully examined until after full consideration of Nephi’s autobiographical sketch. This question to be postponed is, indeed, as broad as Nephi’s autobiographical sketch: what does Nephi’s announcement of his proper name accomplish in the text? The other question, to be dealt with presently, concerns rather the unnamed in the text: what does the lack of proper names for Lehi and Sariah in this first having accomplish?\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n 3 And I know that the record which I make is true; and I make it with mine own hand; and I make it according to my knowledge.<\/strong><\/p>\n 4 For it came to pass in the commencement of the first year of the reign of Zedekiah, king of Judah, (my father, Lehi, having dwelt at Jerusalem in all his days); and in that same year there came many prophets, prophesying unto the people that they must repent, or the great city Jerusalem must be destroyed.<\/p>\n David Rolph Seely and Jo Ann H. Seely:<\/p>\n “Besides Jeremiah and Lehi, from this period we know of the prophetess Huldah and the prophets Zephaniah, Habakkuk, and Uriah of Kirjath-jearim (see Jeremiah 26) in Judah, and Ezekiel and Daniel in exile.\u201d Citation<\/a>.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n It is important to remember that the role of prophet in their society was very different from ours: their prophets were outsiders, criticizing the wickedness of the hierarchy. And there was more than one! It is worth thinking about how radically different these prophets\u2019 assignments were, and what an abject failure and waste of time would have ensued if they had all tried to keep up with the Jeremiahs.<\/p>\n 5 Wherefore it came to pass that my father, Lehi, as he went forth prayed unto the Lord, yea, even with all his heart, in behalf of his people.<\/strong><\/p>\n David A. Bednar:<\/p>\n \u201cPlease note that the vision came in response to a prayer for others and not as a result of a request for personal edification or guidance.\u201d Citation: Oct 08 GC.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n 6 And it came to pass as he prayed unto the Lord, there came a pillar of fire and dwelt upon a rock before him; and he saw and heard much; and because of the things which he saw and heard he did quake and tremble exceedingly.<\/strong><\/p>\n Pillar of fire: only OT refs to a \u201cpillar of fire\u201d in the KJV are to Moses\u2019 experience with the burning bush. In the NT (Rev 10:1), an angel in Revelation has feet like pillars of fire. In the BoM, Hel 5:24, 43 refer to pillar of fire. D&C 29:12: \u201cmine apostles, the Twelve which were with me in my ministry at Jerusalem, shall stand at my right hand at the day of my coming in a pillar of fire\u201d These are only scripture refs to \u201cpillar of fire.\u201d What do they suggest is symbolized by the idea of a pillar of fire here? What about the rock?<\/p>\n John Welch:<\/p>\n \u201cGod appeared to Moses in a burning bush (Exodus 3:2) and on a flaming Mount Sinai (Exodus 19:18); he also appeared over the tabernacle at night in a fire (Numbers 9:15) and over the door of the tabernacle by day in a similar “pillar of a cloud” (Deuteronomy 31:15). On some occasions in the Old Testament, fire was associated with God’s messengers, especially those emanating from God’s council (discussed further below; see, e.g., Psalm 104:4), whose fiery description can be compared with the appearance of Moroni in Joseph Smith\u2014History 1:30\u201332; in other ancient accounts, fire was used to combat God’s enemies. Thus, we cannot be certain who or what Lehi saw in the pillar of fire that appeared to him. Lehi could have seen God in this pillar, but since Lehi’s vision of God himself is reported as the next stage of the vision, it seems more likely to me that what he beheld at this time was a messenger of God whose threatening words and presence, perhaps summoning Lehi, caused Lehi to “quake and tremble exceedingly” (1 Nephi 1:6).\u201d Citation<\/a>.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Why fire here, and not some other manifestation?<\/p>\n What emotions do quaking and trembling imply?<\/p>\n 7 And it came to pass that he returned to his own house at Jerusalem; and he cast himself upon his bed, being overcome with the Spirit and the things which he had seen.<\/strong><\/p>\n The only other scriptural cast\/bed combo is Rev 2:22 . . . not exactly parallel. Why would this detail be included?<\/p>\n 8 And being thus overcome with the Spirit, he was carried away in a vision, even that he saw the heavens open, and he thought he saw God sitting upon his throne, surrounded with numberless concourses of angels in the attitude of singing and praising their God.<\/strong><\/p>\n Jim F.: \u201cWhy is that the way that he sees the Celestial Kingdom, as a place of praise rather than a place of celestial work?\u201d<\/p>\n \u201che thought he saw God\u201d In modern English, this phrasing would imply \u201cbut he didn\u2019t\u201d or \u201c but he wasn\u2019t entirely sure\u201d or something similar. What does it mean here?<\/p>\n Blake Ostler shows that Lehi\u2019s experience here fits the pattern for a divine calling of a prophet very well. See here<\/a>, especially the chart on the bottom of p72. The pattern is: historical introduction (v4), intercessory prayer (v4-5), divine confrontation (v6-7), reaction (v6-7), ascension (v8), throne-theophany (v8), descensus (v8), heavenly book (v11-13), songs of praise, (v14), comission (v18-19), rejection and reassurance (v19-20). What does this pattern teach us about prophets and about God\u2019s dealings with prophets? Is this pattern relevant to our own lives?<\/p>\n I’d strongly recommend studying Isaiah 6 to better understand this vision.<\/p>\n 9 And it came to pass that he saw One descending out of the midst of heaven, and he beheld that his luster was above that of the sun at noon-day.<\/strong><\/p>\n Mosiah 13:5 is only other BoM reference to \u201cluster.\u201d<\/p>\n Webster\u2019s 1828 #1 definition of luster is about what we would expect, but here\u2019s the #2 definition: \u201cThe splendor of birth, of deeds or of fame; renown; distinction.\u201d Does that add anything to your reading of this verse?<\/p>\n Royal Skousen reads \u201cone\u201d instead of \u201cOne\u201d as more likely to be original here. D & C 76:109 is interesting here–not what you would expect but only reference besides Abr 3:13 to stars\/firmament.<\/p>\n 11 And they came down and went forth upon the face of the earth; and the first came and stood before my father, and gave unto him a book, and bade him that he should read.<\/strong><\/p>\n We\u2019re in the inaugural passage of the BoM and it is a vision–pretty spectacular stuff–but what is privileged in this text is not the visionary experience (despite its grandiose description!), but a book. That\u2019s a nice nod to the audience, no? Note that the first command is to read a book.<\/p>\n What is this book?<\/p>\n Is there a link between this experience and the book that the angel gave to Joseph Smith? Because that would be pretty recursive.<\/p>\n Merrill J. Bateman:<\/p>\n \u201cAt the beginning of most dispensations, a book is given to the newly called prophet. Moses received tablets (see Ex. 31:18). Lehi was given a book to read concerning the destruction of Jerusalem (see 1 Ne. 1:11\u201314). Ezekiel was given \u201ca roll of a book\u201d (Ezek. 2:9\u201310) containing the Lord\u2019s message for the house of Judah in his day. John the Revelator on the Isle of Patmos was shown a book with seven seals (see Rev. 5; D&C 77:6). Is it any wonder, then, that the Lord would provide a book containing the fulness of the gospel as part of the \u201crestitution of all things\u201d? The Book of Mormon has the power to draw all men and women to Christ. Its references to the Savior\u2019s Atonement are the clearest on record with regard to its purpose and powers.\u201d Citation: Oct 05 GC.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Here\u2019s what I find interesting about this: in other accounts, there is no indication that the people of that prophet\u2019s time were given the book. But the BoM is most definitely not the private possession of Joseph Smith. It is for all people. This seems to fit into the general theme of an expansionist role for \u2018average people\u2019 in the work of the Lord. One of the first things that the BoM teaches you is that if you read the book you have been commanded to read, you will be filled with the Spirit of the Lord.<\/p>\n 13 And he read, saying: Wo, wo, unto Jerusalem, for I have seen thine abominations! Yea, and many things did my father read concerning Jerusalem\u2014that it should be destroyed, and the inhabitants thereof; many should perish by the sword, and many should be carried away captive into Babylon.<\/strong><\/p>\n Is he quoting from the book when he reads the \u201cwo\u201ds, or are the \u201cwo\u201ds a response to what he reads?<\/p>\n Why would the Lord give Lehi a book to read that said these things (whatever it is the book said), instead of just telling Lehi these things?<\/p>\n 14 And it came to pass that when my father had read and seen many great and marvelous things, he did exclaim many things unto the Lord; such as: Great and marvelous are thy works, O Lord God Almighty! Thy throne is high in the heavens, and thy power, and goodness, and mercy are over all the inhabitants of the earth; and, because thou art merciful, thou wilt not suffer those who come unto thee that they shall perish!<\/strong><\/p>\n W1828 \u2018great\u2019: \u201cLarge in bulk or dimensions\u201d<\/p>\n W1828 \u2018marvelous\u2019: \u201c1. Wonderful; strange; exciting wonder or some degree of surprise. 2. Surpassing credit; incredible.3. The marvelous, in writings, is that which exceeds natural power, or is preternatural; opposed to probable.\u201d<\/p>\n In other words, I don\u2019t think those words mean what you think they mean . . . I think most English speakers would probably interpret them to mean something like \u201creally good,\u201d but the biblical and W1828 usage points to something more like \u201cenormous and surprising.\u201d How have you found the works of the Lord to be \u201cenormous and surprising\u201d?<\/p>\n We don\u2019t know all that Lehi read\/saw, but from what we do get here (summarized in v18 as \u2018the destruction of Jrsm\u2019), \u201cmerciful\u201d is probably not the first word that would come to mind. Why does Lehi have this reaction? Do you have any sense of what Lehi experienced that causes him to conclude, \u201cthou wilt not suffer those who come unto thee that they shall perish\u201d?<\/p>\n Grant Hardy:<\/p>\n <\/p>\n \u201cLet’s return to 1 Nephi, chapter 1, where Skousen . . . observes that, grammatically, there are two ways to interpret this phrase: (1) as “a conjoining of the past perfect had read and the simple past-tense saw,” or (2) “as a conjunction of ‘had read’ and ‘had saw’, with ellipsis of the repeated had.” This second reading is implicit in the change in R (= 1920 edition) to the past participle seen, though Skousen does identify a specific case of the nonstandard usage “had saw” in the printer’s manuscript. What difference does this make? The context makes it clear that Lehi saw a vision of God on his throne and then was handed a heavenly book in which he read of the impending destruction of Jerusalem. The sequence of a past perfect tense followed by simple past suggests that after Lehi had finished reading he saw additional, unspecified events (“many great and marvelous things”) in vision, whereas a conjunction of two past perfect forms makes it sound as if the seeing and reading happened at about the same time; that is to say, the “great and marvelous things” were those that Nephi has just reported were contained in the heavenly book. If you are an average reader of the Book of Mormon (or even a way-above-average reader), I would imagine that you have never given a moment’s thought to how 1 Nephi 1:14 might be construed in different ways, unless perhaps you had translated a pre-1920 edition into a foreign language.\u201d\u00a0 Citation<\/a>.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n 15 And after this manner was the language of my father in the praising of his God; for his soul did rejoice, and his whole heart was filled, because of the things which he had seen, yea, which the Lord had shown unto him.<\/strong><\/p>\n Really? His soul rejoiced that people would be captured and killed and the base of the Lord\u2019s operations on earth would be destroyed?<\/p>\n 16 And now I, Nephi, do not make a full account of the things which my father hath written, for he hath written many things which he saw in visions and in dreams; and he also hath written many things which he prophesied and spake unto his children, of which I shall not make a full account.<\/strong><\/p>\n Why tell us this? Isn\u2019t the assumption that no written account is complete made anyway?<\/p>\n 17 But I shall make an account of my proceedings in my days. Behold, I make an abridgment of the record of my father, upon plates which I have made with mine own hands; wherefore, after I have abridged the record of my father then will I make an account of mine own life.<\/strong><\/p>\n Nephi\u2019s own account begins in ch10.<\/p>\n Again, there is never this consciousness of the writing process in the Bible. What would have motivated Nephi to include it?<\/p>\n \u201cwith my own hands\u201d This is not the first time that Nephi mentions this, and we are only 17 verses in! It is theoretically possible (although perhaps unlikely) that not a single biblical author did his or her own writing. Even if the book was written by the person it has been attributed to, it may have technically been written by a scribe. (This certainly seems to be the case with Paul.) Is this comment (and others like it in the BoM) perhaps a criticism of that practice? How else might we understand this emphasis on who is doing the writing–an emphasis completely missing from the Bible?<\/p>\n 18 Therefore, I would that ye should know, that after the Lord had shown so many marvelous things unto my father, Lehi, yea, concerning the destruction of Jerusalem, behold he went forth among the people, and began to prophesy and to declare unto them concerning the things which he had both seen and heard.<\/strong><\/p>\n 19 And it came to pass that the Jews did mock him because of the things which he testified of them; for he truly testified of their wickedness and their abominations; and he testified that the things which he saw and heard, and also the things which he read in the book, manifested plainly of the coming of a Messiah, and also the redemption of the world.<\/strong><\/p>\n What does Nephi mean by \u201cJews\u201d? Does he not consider himself one?<\/p>\n Many prophets are failures if we look at their numbers–neither Noah nor Lehi was able to convince anyone outside of their own families to come along for the ride. How should this fact shape our viewpoint as to what a prophetic mission is? How should it shape how we define \u201csuccess\u201d and missionary work? What else?<\/p>\n What do you make of the \u201csaw-heard-read\u201d sequence here?<\/p>\n Did the things that he saw-hear-read talk about Messiah and redemption, or is that just his prophesying? And why is the Messiah and redemption stuff sprung on us now–why wasn\u2019t it mentioned before?<\/p>\n David R. Seely and Fred E. Woods:<\/p>\n <\/p>\n \u201cAt least six interrelated factors, which will be discussed in this article, contributed to the Judahite belief that Jerusalem could not be destroyed: (1) The historical traditions of the spiritual heritage of Jerusalem, “that great city,” suggested to many that the Lord would naturally preserve this holy place from destruction and desecration by the enemies of the covenant people. (2) The Jews misunderstood some of the Lord’s promises in connection with the covenants that he had made with them. In particular, they misunderstood the promises made to David in the Davidic covenant. (3) The miraculous preservation of Jerusalem and its inhabitants when the Assyrians besieged Jerusalem (2 Kings 18\u201319) in the days of King Hezekiah (701 BC) further reinforced the belief that the Lord would preserve his temple and holy city from the enemy. (4) The city of Jerusalem was fortified and prepared for siege. Hezekiah had heavily fortified the city against the Assyrian siege in 701 BC with massive walls and towers (2 Chronicles 32:2\u20138) and had even prepared a water source inside the city for the inhabitants of the city to endure a long siege (2 Kings 20:20; 2 Chronicles 32:4, 30). Thus the inhabitants of Jerusalem believed they could endure a long siege brought about by their seemingly impregnable walls. (5) The recent reforms of Josiah (640\u2013609 BC), who had cleansed the temple and led his people in a ceremony of covenant renewal (2 Kings 22\u201323), had given certain people of Judah an undue sense of self and community righteousness that they believed would surely preserve them from any threatened destruction. (6) Assurances were given by false prophets, who promised Jerusalem and its inhabitants peace, safety, and preservation from the enemy instead of the destruction and exile prophesied by Jeremiah and Lehi. These false assurances were readily accepted by many since they were the words that they wanted to hear.\u201d Citation<\/a>.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n This is enormously important. The real issue is that these people who rejected Lehi were absolutely sure they understood what the scriptures meant, and they were sure that Lehi was interpreting the scriptures incorrectly. This is more interesting and stickier than our usual reading, which is that they were just stupid. What is the control on our own interpretation of scripture so we don\u2019t find ourselves in this position? How much time do you spend questioning your own interpretations of scripture?<\/p>\n 20 And when the Jews heard these things they were angry with him; yea, even as with the prophets of old, whom they had cast out, and stoned, and slain; and they also sought his life, that they might take it away. But behold, I, Nephi, will show unto you that the tender mercies of the Lord are over all those whom he hath chosen, because of their faith, to make them mighty even unto the power of deliverance.<\/strong><\/p>\n What would have motivated their anger? In what ways might we have a similar reaction today to prophetic speech?<\/p>\n Joe Spencer points out<\/a> that when Lehi preaches (v18-19) that Jrsm will be destroyed, the response is mocking.\u00a0 When he preaches that the Messiah will come (v19-20), the response is anger.\u00a0 He writes, “When Lehi speaks critically of his hearers and threatens them with calamity, they laugh, but when he speaks of a beautiful redemption and the coming of an anointed king, they try to kill him.” \u00a0What do you make of this double message and double response?\u00a0 What does it teach us?\u00a0 How might it be relevant to us today?<\/p>\n Tender mercies: a phrase that has become enormously popular in the Church since Elder Bednar\u2019s talk (Apr 05 GC). I think it resonated with people and was a useful phrase with which to summarize a common experience. Have you experienced any tender mercies of the Lord?<\/p>\n \u201cHath chosen, because of their faith,\u201d is a very interesting phrase–it seems to simultaneously affirm and negate the concept of chosenness.<\/p>\n Does this verse imply that the chosen people are doing the deliverance? Does it imply some requirements for deliverance (i.e., faith, mightiness)?<\/p>\n CHAPTER 2<\/strong><\/p>\n 1 For behold, it came to pass that the Lord spake unto my father, yea, even in a dream, and said unto him: Blessed art thou Lehi, because of the things which thou hast done; and because thou hast been faithful and declared unto this people the things which I commanded thee, behold, they seek to take away thy life.<\/strong><\/p>\n Is this \u2018dream\u2019 different from the \u2018vision\u2019 in 1:8 in some significant way?<\/p>\n 2 And it came to pass that the Lord commanded my father, even in a dream, that he should take his family and depart into the wilderness.<\/strong><\/p>\n What do we learn from the pattern–revelation, fulfillment, blessing, new revelation?<\/p>\n Compare to other departures in the scriptures?<\/p>\n Note that nothing about a promised land is mentioned at this point.<\/p>\n 3 And it came to pass that he was obedient unto the word of the Lord, wherefore he did as the Lord commanded him.<\/strong><\/p>\n What is gained from the redundancy in this verse?<\/p>\n 4 And it came to pass that he departed into the wilderness. And he left his house, and the land of his inheritance, and his gold, and his silver, and his precious things, and took nothing with him, save it were his family, and provisions, and tents, and departed into the wilderness.<\/strong><\/p>\n Was he commanded to leave everything behind? Was it his own decision? Was it pragmatic or dogmatic?<\/p>\n The \u201cnothing, save\u201d is interesting–reminds me of a time when I picked my young son up from a playdate and asked him if he had eaten anything and he said \u201cnothing . . . except for a hamburger. And a hot dog. And three cookies.\u201d Why did Nephi use this odd formulation here?<\/p>\n 5 And he came down by the borders near the shore of the Red Sea; and he traveled in the wilderness in the borders which are nearer the Red Sea; and he did travel in the wilderness with his family, which consisted of my mother, Sariah, and my elder brothers, who were Laman, Lemuel, and Sam.<\/strong><\/p>\n First part of verse is very redundant–why?<\/p>\n Sariah could acted as Lot\u2019s wife, but didn\u2019t. By which I mean that she (and, presumably, L&L) could have chosen to stay home.<\/p>\n No sisters? Were they not yet born? Or just not mentioned here and, if so, why? Cf. 1 Nephi 7:6; 16:7, 2 Nephi 5:6<\/p>\n Interesting note<\/a> on Sariah.<\/p>\n John L. Sorenson examines Sariah\u2019s life in surprising detail here<\/a>.<\/p>\n 6 And it came to pass that when he had traveled three days in the wilderness, he pitched his tent in a valley by the side of a river of water.<\/strong><\/p>\n The most famous three days in scripture is Jesus\u2019 time in the tomb–is that alluded to here? If so, what should you learn from it?<\/p>\n 7 And it came to pass that he built an altar of stones, and made an offering unto the Lord, and gave thanks unto the Lord our God.<\/strong><\/p>\n Other references to altars of stones: Deut 27:5-6, Ex 20:25, Josh 8:31, 1 Kings 18:32, Isa 27:9, Zech 9:15.<\/p>\n David Rolph Seely:<\/p>\n <\/p>\n \u201cDeuteronomy 12 appears to strictly forbid the building of altars and the making of sacrifice outside the place the Lord had chosen for that purpose. The place so designated is usually understood to be the temple in Jerusalem. So the question arises, How could these people who observed the Mosaic law justify building altars and offering sacrifices away from the Jerusalem temple?\u201d Citation<\/a>.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n <\/p>\n He offers three possible explanations: \u201c1. Deuteronomy 12 did not intend to eliminate all sacrifice away from the main sanctuary. 2. Melchizedek Priesthood holders were not bound by the centralization of worship as prescribed by Deuteronomy 12. 3. Deuteronomy 12 may have been interpreted anciently as applying only to the land of Israel.\u201d He goes with the third option, partially based on evidence from the Dead Sea Scrolls, which demarcate \u201cthree days journey\u201d as the distance beyond which one could slaughter animals outside of the temple, which would make sense of the reference in v6.<\/p>\n 8 And it came to pass that he called the name of the river, Laman, and it emptied into the Red Sea; and the valley was in the borders near the mouth thereof.<\/strong><\/p>\n Only refs to river\/names in the OT is Genesis 2–is that alluded to here?<\/p>\n 9 And when my father saw that the waters of the river emptied into the fountain of the Red Sea, he spake unto Laman, saying: O that thou mightest be like unto this river, continually running into the fountain of all righteousness!<\/strong><\/p>\n What is it about the river emptying into the sea that causes Lehi\u2019s reaction?<\/p>\n The Red Sea is, of course, famous for having been parted by Moses. How does that fact play into this passage?<\/p>\n Don\u2019t rivers run OUT OF fountains, not INTO them?<\/p>\n Delbert L. Stapley:<\/p>\n <\/p>\n \u201cMany rivers have their beginning from springs of pure, crystal-clear water gushing forth from a mountainside. As the water wends its way to the sea, there are side tributaries that join the main stream. Some of these tributaries are polluted and contaminate the main stream, which started pure at its source. By the time the river reaches the sea, pollution has occurred in the body of the stream. How much like life this symbolic representation is! \u201c Citation: Oct 1971 GC.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n 10 And he also spake unto Lemuel: O that thou mightest be like unto this valley, firm and steadfast, and immovable in keeping the commandments of the Lord!<\/strong><\/p>\n I\u2019m fascinated by the fact that both \u201ccontinually running\u201d AND \u201cfirm and steadfast\u201d are applauded here–those seem like opposites to me.<\/p>\n Deiter F. Uchtdorf:<\/p>\n <\/p>\n \u201cUltimately, patience means being \u201cfirm and steadfast, and immovable in keeping the commandments of the Lord\u201d every hour of every day, even when it is hard to do so.\u201d Citation: Apr 2010 GC.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The naming is a little weird in that none of the other residents of the area will know these names, so they presumably won\u2019t be used again. Why does Lehi name these things?<\/p>\n Is there anything you see in Lehi\u2019s parenting style here that you should model? Is there anything here that causes you to re-approach your own assumptions about parenting? Given how L&L turn out, might we think that Lehi wasn\u2019t engaging in \u2018best practices\u2019 here? If so, what else might he have done? (Is it fair to read 1 Nephi looking for how Lehi and Sariah \u2018messed up\u2019 as parents?)<\/p>\n 11 Now this he spake because of the stiffneckedness of Laman and Lemuel; for behold they did murmur in many things against their father, because he was a visionary man, and had led them out of the land of Jerusalem, to leave the land of their inheritance, and their gold, and their silver, and their precious things, to perish in the wilderness. And this they said he had done because of the foolish imaginations of his heart.<\/strong><\/p>\n But yet they followed him anyway . . . I dunno, but it seems that Lehi would have been incapable of physically dragging L&L along with him if they had tried to stay home or escape en route. So . . . is this a sort of hedging of bets: \u201cI\u2019ll go, but I\u2019ll whine the whole time\u201d? Do you do that? I do.<\/p>\n Only 3 references to \u201cvisionary\u201d in the canon are here and 2 Ne 5:2, 4. I am fascinated by the uptake of Sariah and Lehi\u2019s words in their children and vice versa.<\/p>\n Why does Nephi (here and elsewhere) include so much of L&L\u2019s complaint? Are we to read it and see if we see ourselves in it?<\/p>\n 12 And thus Laman and Lemuel, being the eldest, did murmur against their father. And they did murmur because they knew not the dealings of that God who had created them.<\/strong><\/p>\n What work does \u201cbeing the eldest\u201d do in this verse?<\/p>\n Nephi points to L&L\u2019s ignorance as the cause of the problem. What should we make of that?<\/p>\n Neal A. Maxwell:<\/p>\n <\/p>\n \u201cLike Laman and Lemuel, we, too, sometimes fail to understand the dealings of our God in our lives and in our times.\u201d Citation: Oct 1989 GC.<\/p>\n Any personal experiences with this principle?<\/p><\/blockquote>\n 13 Neither did they believe that Jerusalem, that great city, could be destroyed according to the words of the prophets. And they were like unto the Jews who were at Jerusalem, who sought to take away the life of my father.<\/strong><\/p>\n Does that mean that they wanted to kill their father?<\/p>\n 14 And it came to pass that my father did speak unto them in the valley of Lemuel, with power, being filled with the Spirit, until their frames did shake before him. And he did confound them, that they durst not utter against him; wherefore, they did as he commanded them.<\/strong><\/p>\n What emotion does shaking indicate?<\/p>\n Only OTs references to confound are Gen 11:7, 9 (languages at Babel) and Jer 1:17.<\/p>\n W1828 confound: \u201c1. To mingle and blend different things, so that their forms or natures cannot be distinguished; to mix in a mass or crowd, so that individuals cannot be distinguished. 2. To throw into disorder.\u201d<\/p>\n I think something like \u201cconfuse\u201d is meant by confound–is that fair? Really–he confused them? Is that the right reaction? Did Lehi do something wrong? (We would consider it a teaching fail to end up with confused students.) But confounding leads to obedience here–is that good?<\/p>\n 15 And my father dwelt in a tent.<\/strong><\/p>\n Feast wiki:<\/p>\n <\/p>\n \u201cStudents of the Book of Mormon have wondered why Nephi so often repeats that \u201cmy father dwelt in a tent.\u201d The exact phrase is found four times in 1 Nephi: 1 Ne 2:15, 1 Ne 9:1, 1 Ne 10:16, and 1 Ne 16:6. Several theories have been advanced for why Nephi might find this fact so significant. Nephi mentions specifically that his father (Lehi) dwelt in a tent. The only person who was designated to go into the most sacred places of the Old Testament temple was the High Priest. . . . As a group of the covenant people being led away by the Lord, they would need a Prophet and High Priest to guide them. We will see that after their arrival in the Promised Land they set about building a temple. . . . Gerald Smith writes, \u201cLehi will walk away from the temple, and return to the ways of Abraham in the wilderness: living in a tent, sacrificing on altars, and living the nomadic life.\u201d Citation.<\/a>\u00a0 So we might see the tent references as an effort to locate Lehi in the tradition of the Genesis patriarchs. Note that throughout the OT, cities are negative space and the righteous are not in them. The tent focus may be to show that Lehi is rejecting the urban tradition. Cities would have represented some degree of comfort, sociality, safety, wealth, access to cool food and items, etc. So: what do you make of all the references to tents in 1 Nephi?<\/p>\n 16 And it came to pass that I, Nephi, being exceedingly young, nevertheless being large in stature, and also having great desires to know of the mysteries of God, wherefore, I did cry unto the Lord; and behold he did visit me, and did soften my heart that I did believe all the words which had been spoken by my father; wherefore, I did not rebel against him like unto my brothers.<\/strong><\/p>\n This is a very interesting description of Nephi–age, size, desires. Why include it here?<\/p>\n Joe Spencer wrote that Nephi\u2019s tendency was \u201cto idealize, to simplify, and to prettify his record. As many readers\u2014those perhaps a bit more skeptical in orientation\u2014have noted, Nephi comes off in his record a little too well. He never doubts or hesitates, and his every action exudes righteous zeal.\u201d Citation<\/a>. Eugene England writes that we are justifying victimization if we say \u201cNephi was a self-righteous prig so no wonder his brothers beat him up.\u201d Citation<\/a>: p40.<\/p>\n The undercurrent here is that Nephi\u2019s heart needed softening and he perhaps did not yet believe all of Lehi\u2019s words before this event, and that without it, he may in fact have joined his brothers in rebelling. What does that suggest? Is it in any way related to the description Nephi gives of himself?<\/p>\n What do you make of Nephi\u2019s portrayal of himself in this book? Do you trust his viewpoint?<\/p>\n 17 And I spake unto Sam, making known unto him the things which the Lord had manifested unto me by his Holy Spirit. And it came to pass that he believed in my words.<\/strong><\/p>\n Why doesn\u2019t Sam have his own experience?<\/p>\n 18 But, behold, Laman and Lemuel would not hearken unto my words; and being grieved because of the hardness of their hearts I cried unto the Lord for them.<\/strong><\/p>\n Wait–when we last left L&L in v14, they were quiet and obedient. What happened?<\/p>\n 19 And it came to pass that the Lord spake unto me, saying: Blessed art thou, Nephi, because of thy faith, for thou hast sought me diligently, with lowliness of heart.<\/strong><\/p>\n 20 And inasmuch as ye shall keep my commandments, ye shall prosper, and shall be led to a land of promise; yea, even a land which I have prepared for you; yea, a land which is choice above all other lands.<\/strong><\/p>\n What does prosper mean?<\/p>\n This must have been mind-blowing, given that they thought they were leaving the promised land. Application?<\/p>\n 21 And inasmuch as thy brethren shall rebel against thee, they shall be cut off from the presence of the Lord.<\/strong><\/p>\n 22 And inasmuch as thou shalt keep my commandments, thou shalt be made a ruler and a teacher over thy brethren.<\/strong><\/p>\n Ruler and teacher is an interesting combination.<\/p>\n In what ways are Nephi and Joseph of Egypt similiar? What does this teach you about Nephi? About Joseph?<\/p>\n 23 For behold, in that day that they shall rebel against me, I will curse them even with a sore curse, and they shall have no power over thy seed except they shall rebel against me also.<\/strong><\/p>\n Does this mean that as of this writing, they hadn\u2019t yet rebelled against the Lord?<\/p>\n Presumably Nephi\u2019s concerns are more immediate–this is a very long-term perspective here.<\/p>\n 24 And if it so be that they rebel against me, they shall be a scourge unto thy seed, to stir them up in the ways of remembrance.<\/strong><\/p>\n W1828: scourge: \u201c1. To whip; a lash consisting of a strap or cord; an instrument of punishment or discipline. 2. A punishment; vindictive affliction.\u201d<\/p>\n I assume the first \u2018they\u2019 is Nephi\u2019s descendants but the second is L&L\u2019s?<\/p>\n I note that the Lord is telling Nephi at this point that there will be a distinction between the descendants, and that they won\u2019t be one people or living the same way. Why is the Lord announcing his plans to treat the two groups differently? In other words, why isn\u2019t there a promise that if L&L\u2019s kids mess up, Nephi\u2019s kids will whip them into shape?<\/p>\n I\u2019m curious about what global principles we might draw from this verse–does it say anything generally applicable about suffering? Sin? Trials? Enemies? Natural consequences?<\/p>\n CHAPTER 3<\/strong><\/p>\n 1 And it came to pass that I, Nephi, returned from speaking with the Lord, to the tent of my father.<\/strong><\/p>\n Why was this verse included?<\/p>\n 2 And it came to pass that he spake unto me, saying: Behold I have dreamed a dream, in the which the Lord hath commanded me that thou and thy brethren shall return to Jerusalem.<\/strong><\/p>\n I wouldn\u2019t be surprised if many readers thought this reflected poor planning on the Lord\u2019s part! What might have been the Lord\u2019s purposes in first taking them out of Jrsm but then having them return?<\/p>\n Why send the kids but not Lehi?<\/p>\n 3 For behold, Laban hath the record of the Jews and also a genealogy of my forefathers, and they are engraven upon plates of brass.<\/strong><\/p>\n Again the obsession with details of the mechanics of writing! You\u2019d think this record had been made by a bunch of humanities professors!<\/p>\n 4 Wherefore, the Lord hath commanded me that thou and thy brothers should go unto the house of Laban, and seek the records, and bring them down hither into the wilderness.<\/strong><\/p>\n Nephi just got done speaking with the Lord, but the Lord commanded his father, not him, in this? Why not go to Nephi directly?<\/p>\n Do you kinda think a little less of Lehi since he went off into the wilderness without a copy of the scriptures?<\/p>\n 5 And now, behold thy brothers murmur, saying it is a hard thing which I have required of them; but behold I have not required it of them, but it is a commandment of the Lord.<\/strong><\/p>\n Does this verse mean that Lehi presented the plan to L&L before Nephi? Why would the Lord ask L&L to go, anyway? Why not just send Sam and Nephi?<\/p>\n There\u2019s an entire sermon in this verse about how we kvetch about \u201cwhat the prophet tells us\u201d when, at its best, it isn\u2019t the prophet telling us anything, but the Lord.<\/p>\n 6 Therefore go, my son, and thou shalt be favored of the Lord, because thou hast not murmured.<\/strong><\/p>\n I can\u2019t help but feel a little squeamish in that this is Nephi making the record and recording this–I can\u2019t think of any other biblical figure who is so self-aggrandizing–even the ones who legitimately could have been, like Jesus, are way more modest than this in their self-portrayal.<\/p>\n 7 And it came to pass that I, Nephi, said unto my father: I will go and do the things which the Lord hath commanded, for I know that the Lord giveth no commandments unto the children of men, save he shall prepare a way for them that they may accomplish the thing which he commandeth them.<\/strong><\/p>\n Is this really true? We are commanded to marry, to have children, to support our families, to serve missions, and to do any other number of things that are literally impossible for some people to do.<\/p>\n Neal A. Maxwell:<\/p>\n <\/p>\n \u201cTheir sad expectation of ease was evident in their bristling over getting the plates from Laban, enduring the harsh wilderness, building a ship, and crossing a vast ocean (see 1Ne. 3\u20134). Dulled and desensitized, Laman and Lemuel simply didn\u2019t share Nephi\u2019s confidence that the Lord would never command His children to do difficult things, except the Lord first prepares the way (see 1 Ne. 3:7).\u201d Citation: Oct 1999 GC.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n When you think about the number of prophets who were called to preach repentance and did not convert many\/any, how do you then read this promise?<\/p>\n 8 And it came to pass that when my father had heard these words he was exceedingly glad, for he knew that I had been blessed of the Lord.<\/strong><\/p>\n Why include Lehi\u2019s reaction?<\/p>\n 9 And I, Nephi, and my brethren took our journey in the wilderness, with our tents, to go up to the land of Jerusalem.<\/strong><\/p>\n Terryl L. Givens:<\/p>\n <\/p>\n \u201cWhy all this redundancy? Why such emphatic insistence on the literal origins of the record, with Nephi’s own hand? Clearly, unlike the impersonal voice with which Genesis opens the biblical account of creation, focusing as it does on cosmic history, epic events, and God’s primal acts of creation, the Book of Mormon’s first named author urgently presses upon his audience the very human, very local, and very historical nature of his narrative. It is as far removed from mythic beginnings and anonymous narratives as he can possibly make it. This is firsthand, eyewitness history of local events (set in 600 BC Jerusalem, we learn shortly). . . In art history, provenance means derivation. More fully, it refers to authenticity that is secured in a particular way, establishing the true origins of an object by verifying its unbroken history of transmission from original owner to the present. In the Book of Mormon, we never lose sight of the links in the chain of transmission. This fact is no coincidence. And it makes sense of the otherwise peculiar series of perfunctory and yet dutiful handoffs that Nephi’s descendents make to each successor. For after Nephi, each inheritor of the plates of ore attests to the unbroken chain of transmission, calling the responsibility to continue the tradition a “commandment” passed on through the generations. The weight of solemn obligation felt by these chroniclers is evident in their clear attestations of a responsibility both executed and then transferred, and explains the curious feature of the Book of Mormon’s structure in which a series of mini-books follows upon the heels of Enos’s record. The accounts of Nephi, Jacob, and Enos are progressively shorter, and that of Enos’s son Jarom is only two pages, making it the shortest of all books named for their authors. (The only exception is the Words of Mormon, but that is more of an explanatory editorial insertion than a chapter proper.) Following Jarom’s brief account, the succeeding chronicles are too short to even constitute books. In one case, that of Chemish, his stewardship takes the form of a single paragraph. I like all of that, but I also have to wonder if, at the very same time, the attention to provenance and autobiography doesn’t serve precisely the opposite function by grounding the record in human fallibility and limitations.\u00a0 Nice trick, that.<\/p>\n 10 And it came to pass that when we had gone up to the land of Jerusalem, I and my brethren did consult one with another.<\/strong><\/p>\n 11 And we cast lots\u2014who of us should go in unto the house of Laban. And it came to pass that the lot fell upon Laman; and Laman went in unto the house of Laban, and he talked with him as he sat in his house.<\/strong><\/p>\n Apparently the command from the Lord didn\u2019t tell them what to do specifically. Interestingly, casting lots seems in the OT to be an approved method of discerning the will of the Lord.<\/p>\n If the casting of lots does express divine will, what are we to make of the fact that Laman goes? Also, L&L are virtually a Greek chorus in the BoM, usually speaking and acting in unison. Is there something significant about the fact that just Laman is acting here?<\/p>\n This verse is an example of Laman\u2019s obedience. Nephi never calls attention to is–but Lehi told Laman to go back to Jrsm and he went.<\/p>\n L. Tom Perry:<\/p>\n <\/p>\n \u201cSeveral decisions faced these young men as they approached Laban to ask for the records. It\u2019s most interesting to me to note the process by which they made those decisions. First, the decision was to leave it to chance. And they cast lots, and the lot fell to Laman. He went to the house of Laban, and as he sat and talked with him, he said he desired the records that were written on the plates of brass. Laban was not too pleased with this request and was angry, and thrust him out of his presence, and would not let him have the record. He said, \u201cBehold thou art a robber, and I will slay thee\u201d (1 Ne. 3:13). That was enough for Laman; he fled and came back and reported to his brothers that leaving the assignment to chance did not work.\u201d Citation: Oct 1979 GC.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n <\/p>\n Interesting that he interprets the casting of lots as \u201cleaving it to chance.\u201d<\/p>\n 12 And he desired of Laban the records which were engraven upon the plates of brass, which contained the genealogy of my father.<\/strong><\/p>\n Why repeat all this? We already know. Despite this unnecessary verbiage, what we really need to know–in order to make sense of the next 2 verses–is what Laman said. But that information is not given us, besides \u201cdesired,\u201d which is very vague. Why?<\/p>\n Why did Lehi and his family think that they had a right to take the plates of brass from Laban? From the perspective of Laban\u2019s family, this is a simple theft (as the next verse suggests). If you want to posit that there is some backstory that would show that Lehi\u2019s family had a right to the plates and that Laban\u2019s possession was the theft, then why isn\u2019t that story included?<\/p>\n 13 And behold, it came to pass that Laban was angry, and thrust him out from his presence; and he would not that he should have the records. Wherefore, he said unto him: Behold thou art a robber, and I will slay thee.<\/strong><\/p>\n Why was Laban angry?<\/p>\n Interesting that we get Laban\u2019s direct speech. Did Laman genuinely appear to him to be a robber, or is that an inaccurate statement?<\/p>\n 14 But Laman fled out of his presence, and told the things which Laban had done, unto us. And we began to be exceedingly sorrowful, and my brethren were about to return unto my father in the wilderness.<\/strong><\/p>\n 15 But behold I said unto them that: As the Lord liveth, and as we live, we will not go down unto our father in the wilderness until we have accomplished the thing which the Lord hath commanded us.<\/strong><\/p>\n How did Nephi reach this decision? In a similar situation, we might say, \u201cWell, I extended the invitation, but everyone has their moral agency, so I can\u2019t force this situation and I have done the best I can.\u201d And then be done with it.<\/p>\n 16 Wherefore, let us be faithful in keeping the commandments of the Lord; therefore let us go down to the land of our father\u2019s inheritance, for behold he left gold and silver, and all manner of riches. And all this he hath done because of the commandments of the Lord.<\/strong><\/p>\n Grant Hardy:<\/p>\n <\/p>\n \u201cAnother example of Skousen’s close analysis concerns 1 Nephi 3:16. The printer’s manuscript and all printed editions state that Lehi “left gold and silver and all manner of riches and all this he hath done because of the commandments of the Lord.” However, the original manuscript has the singular commandment. Skousen believes this is what Joseph Smith originally dictated, and he explains that “the language in 1 Nephi 3:16 implies a specific commandment for Lehi to leave his wealth behind.” This shifts our understanding of the narrative a bit because Nephi now appears to be telling his brothers that God had specifically commanded Lehi to leave behind his moveable property because God knew the brothers would need it later when they returned to Laban and tried to buy the brass plates.\u201d Citation.<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n <\/p>\n And Skousen also has ‘commandment’ at 4:34.<\/p>\n So does this cause us to re-evaluate Lehi\u2019s decision to leave the wealth at home in the first place?<\/p>\n 17 For he knew that Jerusalem must be destroyed, because of the wickedness of the people.<\/strong><\/p>\n 18 For behold, they have rejected the words of the prophets. Wherefore, if my father should dwell in the land after he hath been commanded to flee out of the land, behold, he would also perish. Wherefore, it must needs be that he flee out of the land.<\/strong><\/p>\n This seems to be a rabbit trail, not immediately relevant to the current situation. Why include it?<\/p>\n 19 And behold, it is wisdom in God that we should obtain these records, that we may preserve unto our children the language of our fathers;<\/strong><\/p>\n Why does it matter if their language changes? And did this work–did their language stay the same? Is there an inverse allusion to the Tower of Babel here?<\/p>\n Elaine S. Dalton:<\/p>\n <\/p>\n \u201cNephi was thinking of his future family, even though he had no prospect for marriage. Remember, his family was alone in the wilderness! Nephi not only had a vision of how to return to his heavenly home, but he also had a vision of what he wanted in his earthly home.\u201d Citation: Apr 2003 GC.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n 20 And also that we may preserve unto them the words which have been spoken by the mouth of all the holy prophets, which have been delivered unto them by the Spirit and power of God, since the world began, even down unto this present time.<\/strong><\/p>\n 21 And it came to pass that after this manner of language did I persuade my brethren, that they might be faithful in keeping the commandments of God.<\/strong><\/p>\n 22 And it came to pass that we went down to the land of our inheritance, and we did gather together our gold, and our silver, and our precious things.<\/strong><\/p>\n 23 And after we had gathered these things together, we went up again unto the house of Laban.<\/strong><\/p>\n 24 And it came to pass that we went in unto Laban, and desired him that he would give unto us the records which were engraven upon the plates of brass, for which we would give unto him our gold, and our silver, and all our precious things.<\/strong><\/p>\n No lots this time? Does that mean the initial lots were a bad idea?<\/p>\n 25 And it came to pass that when Laban saw our property, and that it was exceedingly great, he did lust after it, insomuch that he thrust us out, and sent his servants to slay us, that he might obtain our property.<\/strong><\/p>\n Irony: so now he is the robber, and a murderer, too.<\/p>\n 26 And it came to pass that we did flee before the servants of Laban, and we were obliged to leave behind our property, and it fell into the hands of Laban.<\/strong><\/p>\n Oops. Does this negate the grandiosity of Nephi\u2019s plan above? Does it mean he messed up, perhaps because he didn\u2019t cast lots or seek the will of the Lord and instead relied on wealth, hoping that he would manage to use riches to motivate Laban just enough to give him the plates but not enough to rob him? Is this a mistake on Nephi\u2019s part, thinking he can arouse lust and then control it? If he had prayed and\/or cast lots above, would the plan have been different?<\/p>\n L. Tom Perry:<\/p>\n <\/p>\n \u201cNephi had to make another decision on how to obtain the records. He thought of all the wealth they were leaving in their home, the gold and silver and all manner of riches. He thought he would gather up that gold and silver and trust in the things of the world to purchase the records. So they approached the house of Laban and displayed the gold and silver and offered to trade these precious things for the plates of brass. When Laban saw the property and that it was exceedingly great, he did lust after it. Looking at the four boys against all of his servants, it was easy to determine that he could retain the plates and have the wealth also. He sent his servants after the boys to slay them, and they had to flee, leaving their property behind. Things of the world did not produce the records.\u201d Citation: Oct 1979 GC.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n <\/p>\n Interesting that he labels this a spiritual fail on Nephi\u2019s part.<\/p>\n 27 And it came to pass that we fled into the wilderness, and the servants of Laban did not overtake us, and we hid ourselves in the cavity of a rock.<\/strong><\/p>\n Only other scripture ref to \u201ccavity of a rock\u201d is Ether 13.<\/p>\n 28 And it came to pass that Laman was angry with me, and also with my father; and also was Lemuel, for he hearkened unto the words of Laman. Wherefore Laman and Lemuel did speak many hard words unto us, their younger brothers, and they did smite us even with a rod.<\/strong><\/p>\n Why is Laman angry at him? Why is Sam getting beaten?<\/p>\n 29 And it came to pass as they smote us with a rod, behold, an angel of the Lord came and stood before them, and he spake unto them, saying: Why do ye smite your younger brother with a rod? Know ye not that the Lord hath chosen him to be a ruler over you, and this because of your iniquities? Behold ye shall go up to Jerusalem again, and the Lord will deliver Laban into your hands.<\/strong><\/p>\n In the OT, angels usually appear to Good People to give them an Important Preview of Coming Attractions. In the BoM, angels usually appear to Bad People to tell them to Shape Up. Why the difference? Today, we usually assume that the more spiritual manifestations one has, the more righteous one is. Should the pattern of angelic visitations in the BoM cause us to reconsider that?<\/p>\n 30 And after the angel had spoken unto us, he departed.<\/strong><\/p>\n This verse seems to be another one of those completely unnecessary statements, especially given the beginning of the next verse. Why was it included?<\/p>\n 31 And after the angel had departed, Laman and Lemuel again began to murmur, saying: How is it possible that the Lord will deliver Laban into our hands? Behold, he is a mighty man, and he can command fifty, yea, even he can slay fifty; then why not us?<\/strong><\/p>\n They see an angel and their first response is to begin to murmur. What does this teach us about angels? About human nature? About murmuring?<\/p>\n CHAPTER 4<\/strong><\/p>\n 1 And it came to pass that I spake unto my brethren, saying: Let us go up again unto Jerusalem, and let us be faithful in keeping the commandments of the Lord; for behold he is mightier than all the earth, then why not mightier than Laban and his fifty, yea, or even than his tens of thousands?<\/strong><\/p>\n I think the chapter break is pretty unfortunate here–this is clearly a continuation of the thought from the previous verse.<\/p>\n 2 Therefore let us go up; let us be strong like unto Moses; for he truly spake unto the waters of the Red Sea and they divided hither and thither, and our fathers came through, out of captivity, on dry ground, and the armies of Pharaoh did follow and were drowned in the waters of the Red Sea.<\/strong><\/p>\n In what way was Moses strong?<\/p>\n Why \u201chither and tither\u201d?<\/p>\n NB \u201cour fathers.\u201d He\u2019s aiming for common ground with them.<\/p>\n 3 Now behold ye know that this is true; and ye also know that an angel hath spoken unto you; wherefore can ye doubt? Let us go up; the Lord is able to deliver us, even as our fathers, and to destroy Laban, even as the Egyptians.<\/strong><\/p>\n How can they doubt?<\/p>\n What can we glean from the Laban\/Egyptian comparison? Is Laban pharoah? Are the records the things the Israelites \u201cborrow\u201d from the Egyptians–and later use to make\/decorate their tabernacle?<\/p>\n 4 Now when I had spoken these words, they were yet wroth, and did still continue to murmur; nevertheless they did follow me up until we came without the walls of Jerusalem.<\/strong><\/p>\n Again, this idea of murmuring but still following. I think we want to read L&L as \u201cpeople out of the church\u201d but I think the text makes clear that L&L are \u201cpeople in the church who whine a lot.\u201d<\/p>\n Neal A. Maxwell:<\/p>\n <\/p>\n \u201cThis obscure young man apparently paused while translating and dictating to Emma\u2014probably from the fourth chapter of 1 Nephi [1 Ne. 4]\u2014concerning the \u201cwall of Jerusalem\u201d\u2014and said, in effect, \u201cEmma, I didn\u2019t know there was a wall around Jerusalem.\u201d\u201d Citation: Oct 1983 GC.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n 5 And it was by night; and I caused that they should hide themselves without the walls. And after they had hid themselves, I, Nephi, crept into the city and went forth towards the house of Laban.<\/strong><\/p>\n Why did he bring them this far to leave them outside the gates? The only similar scriptural situation I can think of is Jesus leaving his disciples farther away at Gethsemane, but I don\u2019t particularly like that parallel.<\/p>\n Only other references to \u201ccrept\u201d are Jude 1:4 (bad guys) and Ether 7:18, good guys who creep in by night to kill a bad guy. The result is returning the proper king to the throne.<\/p>\n 6 And I was led by the Spirit, not knowing beforehand the things which I should do.<\/strong><\/p>\n An entire sermon in here: we usually don\u2019t know beforehand, do we?<\/p>\n Doesn\u2019t v3 imply that Nephi knew that Laban would be destroyed somehow?<\/p>\n 7 Nevertheless I went forth, and as I came near unto the house of Laban I beheld a man, and he had fallen to the earth before me, for he was drunken with wine.<\/strong><\/p>\n 8 And when I came to him I found that it was Laban.<\/strong><\/p>\n 9 And I beheld his sword, and I drew it forth from the sheath thereof; and the hilt thereof was of pure gold, and the workmanship thereof was exceedingly fine, and I saw that the blade thereof was of the most precious steel.<\/strong><\/p>\n Why all of this description here?<\/p>\n See D&C 17:1.<\/p>\n Brett L. Holbrook:<\/p>\n <\/p>\n \u201cThe sword was revered in Nephite history and preserved until the nineteenth century, which hints at the importance of the blade. . . . The existing theories about the sword of Laban have suggested it as a standard high-quality Near Eastern sword, a sacred implement of war, or a metaphorical symbol for the word of God. As a literary type, some have stated that the sword of Laban was a fixation of the Nephites that took on powerful symbolic importance. That symbolism, though, was of the violent paradigms in the human condition. The sword has also been declared as the only constant in the Book of Mormon: a symbolic reminder and ensign of the Lord’s providence. John Taylor compared the preservation of the sword of Laban and other Nephite artifacts to the memorials found in Israel’s Ark of the Covenant. They were manifestations and types of laws and ordinances belonging to the priesthood and purposes of God.\u201d Citation.<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Is the sword symbolic? (consider Genesis 3:24, Exodus 18:4, Deuteronomy 34:21, 1 Samuel 17:50-51, D & C 27:17)<\/p>\n Assuming the sword is an important relic for the Nephites and, perhaps, for us, why? Is it comparable to the manna and\/or tablets saved in the ark? Wouldn\u2019t the appropriate relic have been the plates themselves, not the sword by which they were obtained?<\/p>\n Can you make a parallel between Nephi and David? See here<\/a> for more.<\/p>\n Probably the most useful insight of this comparison, to me at least, is the sense that it makes of the \u201cit is better for one man to perish\u201d line–it places it in the context of just sending David and Goliath out to battle instead of entire armies. Applying it to this story, it suggests that it is better that Laban and Nephi are the sole strugglers over the plates, than a battle between all of Lehi and all of Laban\u2019s household. But I\u2019m speculating.<\/p>\n 10 And it came to pass that I was constrained by the Spirit that I should kill Laban; but I said in my heart: Never at any time have I shed the blood of man. And I shrunk and would that I might not slay him.<\/strong><\/p>\n Webster\u2019s 1828 \u2018constrained\u2019: \u201cIn a general sense, to strain; to press; to urge; to drive; to exert force, physical or moral, either in urging to action or in restraining it. Hence, 1. To compel or force; to urge with irresistible power, or with a power sufficient to produce the effect.\u201d<\/p>\n Joe Spencer makes<\/a> a big point of the repetition of the word “command[ment]” in this narrative and then contrasts it with the word “constrained” here.\u00a0 Is it significant that the Spirit is speaking by way of constraint and not commandment here?<\/p>\n This is most emphatically NOT how we usually think of the Spirit operating. What does this word mean?<\/p>\n <\/p>\n 11 And the Spirit said unto me again: Behold the Lord hath delivered him into thy hands. Yea, and I also knew that he had sought to take away mine own life; yea, and he would not hearken unto the commandments of the Lord; and he also had taken away our property.<\/strong><\/p>\n Is this just rationalizing?<\/p>\n 12 And it came to pass that the Spirit said unto me again: Slay him, for the Lord hath delivered him into thy hands;<\/strong><\/p>\n 13 Behold the Lord slayeth the wicked to bring forth his righteous purposes. It is better that one man should perish than that a nation should dwindle and perish in unbelief.<\/strong><\/p>\n Does the second phrase mean what we think it means? I\u2019m curious at the repeated use of the word \u201cperish\u201d to describe the fear that Lehi\u2019s group will perish in the wilderness. Maybe those are the passage that need rethinking–maybe that concern is spiritual and not physical. Or maybe here, the idea is that it is better for Nephi to perish for this \u2018crime\u2019 than for his people to perish.<\/p>\n I think what is sticky here is that it isn’t “the Lord” slaying–that’s an entirely different ball of wax.\u00a0 It is “Nephi slaying.”\u00a0 Is the point of this story somehow wrapped up in Nephi’s required identification with the Lord?<\/p>\n L. Lionel Kendrick:<\/p>\n \u201cHe explained: \u201cIt is better that one man should perish than that a nation should dwindle and perish in unbelief.\u201d (1 Ne. 4:13.) In contrast, the Mulekites, who migrated to the American continent shortly after Lehi and his family left Jerusalem, failed to bring with them any sacred scriptures or records. Omni recorded the condition of a nation without scriptures: \u201cThey had had many wars and serious contentions, and had fallen by the sword from time to time; and their language had become corrupted; and they had brought no records with them; and they denied the being of their Creator.\u201d (Omni 1:17.) Even more serious than their continuous contentions and wars and the corruption of their language was the tragedy that they did not know the Savior. The pattern is the same for individuals as it is for nations. Without searching the scriptures, they cease to know the Savior.\u201d Citation: Apr 1993 GC.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Compare Alma 30:47 and 2 Samuel 20 for the same principle being applied.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Is this verse the Spirit speaking, or Nephi?<\/p>\n I think most commenters on this story seem to think that Nephi has to kill Laban so Laban doesn’t kill Nephi.\u00a0 But that isn’t what v13 says–it says that the future nation (which, you know, may not exist if Nephi gets killed tomorrow) will dwindle without the records.<\/p>\n John W. Welch and Heidi Harkness Parker:<\/p>\n <\/p>\n \u201cBased on the New Testament alone, the “one for many” principle in the Book of Mormon might have appeared anachronistic. Yet the fuller picture shows that this principle operated much earlier in Israelite culture, notably in Nephi’s own day. This was something that Joseph Smith would have had no way of knowing, and it is a point that few legal historians are aware of even today.\u201d Citation<\/a>.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The weird thing about this proverb is that it is the absolute basis of Christianity: it is better that Christ should die than that everyone should. So doesn\u2019t Xianity itself require us to assume that the ends justify the means?<\/p>\n So the entire \u201cLehite nation\u201d as it were would perish without these records? Was there no other way?<\/p>\n 14 And now, when I, Nephi, had heard these words, I remembered the words of the Lord which he spake unto me in the wilderness, saying that: Inasmuch as thy seed shall keep my commandments, they shall prosper in the land of promise.<\/strong><\/p>\n Is there any significance in the difference between the Spirit\u2019s words in verse 11 and 12-13? (Note how they trigger different responses in Nephi.)<\/p>\n 15 Yea, and I also thought that they could not keep the commandments of the Lord according to the law of Moses, save they should have the law.<\/strong><\/p>\n This doesn\u2019t make sense–there isn\u2019t a single other copy they could have begged, borrowed, copied, memorized, etc.?<\/p>\n This strikes me as quite the condemnation against The Unwritten Order of Things.<\/a><\/p>\n
\nand
\n(2) having seen many afflictions in the course of my days
\nnevertheless
\n(3) having been highly favored of the Lord in all my days
\nyea
\n(4) having had a great knowledge of the goodness and the mysteries of God\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n
\n10 And he also saw twelve others following him, and their brightness did exceed that of the stars in the firmament.<\/strong><\/p>\n
\n
\n12 And it came to pass that as he read, he was filled with the Spirit of the Lord.<\/strong><\/p>\n
\n1. The phrase is a literary ending point. The words are used to signal a culmination of one thought or story and the beginning of another.
\n2. Since Lehi was a well-to-do man of some importance in the land of Jerusalem, Nephi was impressed by the fact that he would leave his riches and take nothing into the desert except his family, provisions, and tents. . . .
\n3. It is a note to indicate that they have adopted a nomadic style of life. This was not simply a temporary situation, but a commitment to leave their permanent home and travel into the unknown.
\n4. It is an expression of the father\u2019s tent as the hub of everything. It is the official center of all administration and authority, the center of their universe. 1 Ne 3:1; 1 Ne 4:38; 1 Ne 5:7; 1 Ne 7:5; 1 Ne 7:21-22; 1 Ne 15:1 and 1 Ne 16:10 speak of the tent as the headquarters for all activities, discussions, and decisions.
\n5. Another possibility is that Lehi\u2019s tent might be symbolic of the temple. . . . The temple at the time of Moses\u2019 exodus was the portable tabernacle. The tabernacle was the center place of Israel\u2019s worship activities during the wanderings and until the building of the temple in Solomon\u2019s day.<\/p>\n
\nThe passages in which we find the phrase \u201cmy father dwelt in a tent\u201d lend themselves to temple symbolism. In addition, see comments on Abraham dwelling in his tent in Abr 2:16. This comparison likewise links tent and temple, and may also relate Lehi to Abraham as a founding patriarch of a covenant lineage.
\nHowever, in 1 Ne 2:7, Lehi builds an altar and offers a sacrifice. Generally sacrifices are associated with the temple, but in 1 & 2 Nephi they tend to be associated with stone altars rather than with Lehi’s tent per se.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\nHe says that some readers see Nephi as a jerk, and his brothers as at least somewhat justified in their treatment of him. (Sorry, but I can\u2019t help thinking of Mr. No Skinny Jeans here.) Joe suggests that we could read it as \u201can indication that Nephi was naively baffled at others\u2019 lack of zeal. I think Orson Scott Card in his Homecoming series (a sci-fi series the first four volumes of which are drawn from the story of Nephi in the Book of Mormon) has more or less nailed Nephi\u2019s character: he was someone who just couldn\u2019t see why the will of God didn\u2019t immediately draw uncompromised obedience from others.\u201d (Which still means that he is naive.) He sees Nephi as \u201ca Nephi who eventually saw that his earliest manifestations of zeal were manifestations of zeal without knowledge that had caused irreparable damage to the relationship he hoped to have with his brothers.\u201d It is good to remember that Nephi doesn\u2019t write the record until much later in life–he isn\u2019t writing as he goes along but reflecting with hindsight, including of the terrible division between his people and his brothers\u2019 people.<\/p>\n
\nThis perfunctory brevity and the self-confessed wickedness of authors like Omni make the whole section seem, somehow, too mechanical\u2014almost pointless. Why do they so dutifully fill their roles when their hearts seem so little invested in record keeping, and why do editors Nephi and Mormon alike leave their portions intact? A terribly important point hinges on those questions. For it is precisely this very brevity, it is the dutiful but soulless nature of some of these entries, that points all the more powerfully to the intimidating magnitude of the obligation the authors have inherited to maintain intact the line of transmission, the authentication of the provenance, of the sacred records. This is the message conveyed loudly and clearly by the economical Chemish: “Now I, Chemish, write what few things I write in the same book with my brother; for behold, I saw the last which he wrote, that he wrote it with his own hand; and he wrote it in the day that he delivered them unto me. And after this manner we keep the records, for it is according to the commandments of our fathers. And I make an end” (Omni 9).
\nSo, that is the first detail of the Book of Mormon that draws attention: the authorial preoccupation\u2014almost obsessive concern\u2014with authenticating the record’s provenance. We are never permitted to lose sight of a documented genealogy that extends back in time\u2014not to an anonymous author, or an implied Moses or even pseudepigraphal writer\u2014but through a meticulously documented lineage to a historical personage of flesh and blood, who fashioned with his own hands the very materials on which the record was engraven. And from those hands, going forward, through a thousand years to Moroni. And one can now see the bridge from Moroni to Joseph Smith, attested to by the sworn affidavits of eleven men, as following in this same path, of confirming with legalistic documentation the still unbroken history of the record’s provenance. That is why, even though the final form those plates take is a printed volume and is now mass produced, each copy nonetheless inherits the same pedigree, and each volume can therefore function as a sacred artifact, a holy icon, from the moment the first copy came off the Palmyra press. This is the final meaning of the book’s ironclad guarantee of provenance. Aaron’s budding rod was not a horticultural treasure, the pot of manna was not a culinary relic, and the Book of Mormon’s primary function has never been textual. It is oracular. . . . In its own self-portrayal, the Book of Mormon functions as that silk twist let down from heaven.\u201d Citation<\/a>.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n1. sword of mighty and bad man (Laban, Goliath)
\n2. owner decapitated by faithful youth
\n3. unusual sword in appearance (iron=Philistines, bronze=Israel)
\n4. sword revered by people, used to lead them
\n5. symbol of authority and kingship<\/p>\n