<\/p>\n
Before we begin: \u00a0here’s a post<\/a> on how to read Isaiah.<\/p>\n CHAPTER 16<\/strong><\/p>\n 1 And verily, verily, I say unto you that I have other sheep, which are not of this land, neither of the land of Jerusalem, neither in any parts of that land round about whither I have been to minister.<\/strong> Note that because of the way the chapters were divided into lessons, we have lost the context. \u00a0(The 1830 edition did not even have a chapter break here, so the additional separation is particularly problematic.) Here is the material that came right before this verse:<\/p>\n And behold, this is the\u00a0land\u00a0of your inheritance; and the Father hath given it unto you.\u00a0And not at any time hath the Father given me commandment that I should\u00a0tell\u00a0it unto your brethren at Jerusalem.\u00a0Neither at any time hath the Father given me commandment that I should tell unto them concerning the\u00a0other\u00a0tribes of the house of Israel, whom the Father hath led away out of the land.\u00a0This much did the Father\u00a0command\u00a0me, that I should tell unto them:\u00a0That other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one\u00a0shepherd. \u00a0. . .\u00a0And verily I say unto you, that ye are they of whom I said: Other\u00a0sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one\u00a0shepherd. \u00a0. . .But behold, ye have both heard\u00a0my\u00a0voice, and seen me; and ye are my sheep, and ye are numbered among those whom the Father hath\u00a0given\u00a0me.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Does this verse assume that Jesus has already visited other people besides the Nephites?<\/p>\n Remember that “verily, verily I say unto you” is a way of underlining the importance of what is next said. \u00a0Why might Jesus have used this formula at this point?<\/p>\n Why is sheep\/shepherd a good metaphor for our relationship with Jesus? \u00a0(At what point does the metaphor break down?)<\/p>\n What is accomplished by referring to “Jerusalem” as opposed to any of a number of other ways that Jesus could have referred to that part of the world?<\/p>\n We get “land” where we would have expected “fold.” \u00a0Why?<\/p>\n What does the existence of all of these other sheep imply for our understanding of the role of the house of Israel? \u00a0Or of the idea of covenant people?<\/p>\n Notice the many repetitions of “land” in this verse; what effect does that have on the reader?<\/p>\n The last phrase of this verse is super-vague. \u00a0Why? \u00a0(I think it implies that Jesus has ministered to other people, but isn’t going to give these people [or us!] any details, which is pretty loaded since Jesus just explained that people in Jrsm didn’t get any details about the Nephites because they were obtuse and unrighteous!)<\/p>\n There’s that word “minister” again: \u00a0what does it mean? \u00a0In what ways did Jesus “minister” to people?<\/p>\n 2 For they of whom I speak are they who have not as yet heard my voice; neither have I at any time manifested myself unto them.<\/strong> What’s interesting about this is that the last chapter gave the impression that the “other sheep” were the Nephites but this sounds as if the “other sheep” are yet another group.<\/p>\n So . . . who are they, and why don’t we learn more about them? \u00a0Why did the Nephites–and we–just learn this little bit?<\/p>\n “They of whom I speak” is a fairly awkward phrase that is, I think, used to avoid giving them a specific name. \u00a0Why are we not given a name (or names) for this group.<\/p>\n Do you read this verse to imply that Jesus was going to a group that had absiposilutely no experience with the gospel–no revelation whatsoever? \u00a0Interesting to think about how that would play out if a group that had had no preparation for the gospel whatsoever suddenly gets visited by Jesus. \u00a0(“Hi. \u00a0I have a lot of explaining to do. \u00a0You should get comfortable.”)<\/p>\n Is this verse making a distinction between hearing Jesus’ voice and Jesus manifesting himself unto people? \u00a0Are those two different things or two ways of saying the same thing?<\/p>\n 3 But I have received a commandment of the Father that I shall go unto them, and that they shall hear my voice, and shall be numbered among my sheep, that there may be one fold and one shepherd; therefore I go to show myself unto them.<\/strong> Note again how frequently the BoM portrays Jesus as doing things (even in his resurrected state) at the command of the Father. \u00a0What does that teach us about the relationship of Jesus and God? \u00a0How is it relevant to our lives?<\/p>\n So they are “other sheep” but not yet numbered among his sheep. \u00a0What does this mean exactly?<\/p>\n Did they have another shepherd?<\/p>\n What does the fold symbolize here?<\/p>\n There’s a neat way in which Jesus’ uniting of people from geographically\/culturally diverse locations mirrors or explains or illustrates his work to unite all people.<\/p>\n Does “but I have received a commandment” kind of make it sound like it wasn’t \u00a0his inclination to go? \u00a0That doesn’t sound quite right, but I’m trying to figure out how to make sense of the “but” at the beginning of this verse.<\/p>\n 4 And I command you that ye shall write these sayings after I am gone, that if it so be that my people at Jerusalem, they who have seen me and been with me in my ministry, do not ask the Father in my name, that they may receive a knowledge of you by the Holy Ghost, and also of the other tribes whom they know not of, that these sayings which ye shall write shall be kept and shall be manifested unto the Gentiles, that through the fulness of the Gentiles, the remnant of their seed, who shall be scattered forth upon the face of the earth because of their unbelief, may be brought in, or may be brought to a knowledge of me, their Redeemer.<\/strong> Interesting that nowhere in the NT does Jesus command people to write (maybe sorta in Revelation).<\/p>\n Is “after I am gone” significant? \u00a0(In other words, would it have been wrong for them to make the record while he was still there?)<\/p>\n Would they not have written anything if he hadn’t commanded them?<\/p>\n Does this verse imply that all scripture is written by way of direct commandment, or not?<\/p>\n Note the conditionals in this verse: \u00a0do you think Jesus in genuinely unaware whether the people in Jrsm will ask about the other sheep, and so he’s preparing for various eventualities, or do you think he just doesn’t want to reveal the answer to that question, so he requires them to prepare for various eventualities? \u00a0Either way, what does this verse suggest to you about the foreknowledge of God and the pre-determined (or not) nature of human actions?<\/p>\n So were the people in Jrsm supposed to be praying about what “other sheep” meant? \u00a0And are we to presume that they didn’t, and that that is why they never learned about the Nephites?<\/p>\n What I find interesting about this is that it reads as if Jesus, while there and preaching about “other sheep,” is fully aware that they are mis-interpreting his words and yet he does not correct them. \u00a0That is a \u00a0big deal. \u00a0How might that be relevant to us today?<\/p>\n What work does “they who have seen me and been with me in my ministry” do in this verse?<\/p>\n Why was it even important in the first place for the Jrsm disciples to know about the other sheep?<\/p>\n What does “the fulness of the Gentiles” mean in this verse?<\/p>\n Does this verse suggest the same future for the people in Jrsm as the lost tribes have experienced? \u00a0Or is it different? \u00a0If it is the same, how does that impact how you think of the lost tribes and how you think of the Jews?<\/p>\n Note that this verse turns knowledge of the “other sheep” from a “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin” type of trivia question to something that makes it possible for people to be brought to their Redeemer. \u00a0How does the work exactly?<\/p>\n What does this verse suggest to you about the purposes of the BoM?<\/p>\n Like with the Fall and Judas’ betrayal, this verse puts us in the uncomfortable position of being grateful that someone messed up (listened to Satan, betrayed Jesus, didn’t pray about the other sheep) because of the blessings that it brought to others (mortality, resurrection, the Book of Mormon) down the road.<\/p>\n 5 And then will I gather them in from the four quarters of the earth; and then will I fulfil the covenant which the Father hath made unto all the people of the house of Israel.<\/strong><\/p>\n Is there a sense in which the earth literally has four quarters? \u00a0 (It would be fun to imagine Jesus visiting the next group of people and saying, “I told them I’d be gathering people from the four quarters of the earth, but they thought it was a metaphor, so they didn’t bother to pray about it and learn that Jrsm was one quarter, the Nephites were the second, y’all are the third, and in two more days, I’m off to the fourth.”)<\/p>\n What does “gathering” mean in this verse?<\/p>\n What is the relationship between gathering and covenants in this verse?<\/p>\n Notice that Jesus is fulfilling a covenant that the Father made. \u00a0In what ways might that be significant?<\/p>\n Modern LDS thought pictures Jesus as the God of the OT; does this verse picture the Father as the covenant partner?<\/p>\n What work is “all” doing in this verse?<\/p>\n 6 And blessed are the Gentiles, because of their belief in me, in and of the Holy Ghost, which witnesses unto them of me and of the Father.<\/strong><\/p>\n This is boilerplate to us, but the idea of blessing the Gentiles is a pretty big deal.<\/p>\n I’m a little unclear about the grammar of this sentence: \u00a0are the Gentiles blessed because of their belief in the Holy Ghost?<\/p>\n What does “in and of” mean in this verse?<\/p>\n (How) does this verse relate to the one before it?<\/p>\n 7 Behold, because of their belief in me, saith the Father, and because of the unbelief of you, O house of Israel, in the latter day shall the truth come unto the Gentiles, that the fulness of these things shall be made known unto them.<\/strong> I think Jesus is speaking in the voice of the Father in this verse. \u00a0Why might he have chosen to do that at this point?<\/p>\n What are the implications of Jesus speaking in the voice of the Father? \u00a0Does it suggest to you a little daylight between Jesus’ other words and the words of the Father?<\/p>\n V6 was about belief in Jesus; this verse is about belief in the Father. \u00a0How do these verses compare?<\/p>\n This verse is rather shocking, inasmuch as it sets the Gentiles up as the faithful people and the house of Israel as the unfaithful.<\/p>\n How do you reconcile the picture of the unfaithful house of Israel in this verse with the fulfilled covenant with the house of Israel in v5? \u00a0In other words, why\/how is the covenant fulfilled if the people are so unfaithful?<\/p>\n Is the immediate audience of Nephites supposed to be thinking of themselves as Gentiles or as the house of Israel when they read this? \u00a0What about the modern reader?<\/p>\n Does this verse imply that the only reason that the truth comes to the Gentiles is because the house of Israel was unbelieving? \u00a0If so, what are the implications of this idea?<\/p>\n What are the “these things” to which this verse refers?<\/p>\n Was the immediate audience for Jesus’ words supposed to be understanding themselves as unfaithful?<\/p>\n 8 But wo, saith the Father, unto the unbelieving of the Gentiles\u2014for notwithstanding they have come forth upon the face of this land, and have scattered my people who are of the house of Israel; and my people who are of the house of Israel have been cast out from among them, and have been trodden under feet by them;<\/strong> What does “wo” mean \u00a0here?<\/p>\n Note again the signalling that this is the words of the Father.<\/p>\n Compare v6. \u00a0Do you read the blessing of the Gentiles and the wo to the Gentiles as references to two different groups of Gentiles, or two moments in time, or what?<\/p>\n Brant Gardner:<\/p>\n The themes and the structural reversals are indications of the plate text. Unfortunately, the English text appears to obscure some of this, and is probably due to Joseph\u2019s understanding of this complex structural arrangement of themes. At one point in this set, Joseph as translator appears to lose control of the direction of his sentence, and creates some of our comprehension difficulties with an aside that follows the structure, but is couched in terms that create a branch that is never completely restored. In verse 8 we have the antithetical wo to the unbelieving Gentiles. Right after that we have an aside that begins with \u201cfor notwithstanding\u2026\u201d That conjunction would indicate a type of relationship of the following material to the previous material that simply never materializes. In the process of translation, Joseph has come upon a complex section in the plate text, and his English rendition of that complexity becomes even more complex as he attempts to make sense of the meaning from the plates. The \u201cwandering sentence\u201d structure here would appear to be related to Joseph\u2019s Smith\u2019s translation attempt rather than the underlying text. The discernible structure of that text suggests that there was a more concise text on the plates that lost some clarity in the translation. Citation<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n What point in time does this verse refer to? \u00a0(I think the knee-jerk interpretation is that it refers to future European settlers of the New World who are unbelieving, but then what of “they have come forth” instead of “they will come forth”? \u00a0But then, which Gentiles would have scattered the Nephites at the time of this writing?)<\/p>\n Going with the idea that this verse describes future European settlers in the New World: \u00a0what does this verse teach us about them? \u00a0How does it mesh with what Nephi saw way back when? \u00a0(My thought: \u00a01 Nephi 13 reads like a 1930s US history book [that is to say, excessively pro-American–unless you parse that chapter with exceeding care], while this verse, and the next, reads like Howard Zinn.)\u00a0Is there anything here that is particularly relevant to us?<\/p>\n Note that this section began with Jesus telling them that the Holy Ghost witnesses to the Father and the Son and then we get the words of both. \u00a0The text is enacted in the life of the reader as she reads.<\/p>\n Note that v6 referred to believing Gentiles, v7 to unbelieving members of the house of Israel, and this verse to unbelieving Gentiles. \u00a0Why doesn’t Jesus say anything to the believing members of the house of Israel?<\/p>\n 9 And because of the mercies of the Father unto the Gentiles, and also the judgments of the Father upon my people who are of the house of Israel, verily, verily, I say unto you, that after all this, and I have caused my people who are of the house of Israel to be smitten, and to be afflicted, and to be slain, and to be cast out from among them, and to become hated by them, and to become a hiss and a byword among them\u2014<\/strong><\/p>\n Interesting juxtaposition of mercy and judgment in this verse . . .<\/p>\n I’m having a little trouble following the logic of this verse: \u00a0do the mercy and judgment lead to the smiting (perhaps logical, but the grammar doesn’t quite support it) in this verse, or do they lead to the commandment in the next verse?<\/p>\n In what ways did the Father show mercy to the Gentiles? \u00a0(It is very interesting in this regard that the very previous verse just showed the Father pronouncing a “wo” upon the Gentiles! \u00a0That isn’t what we normally think of as a mercy, but perhaps this passage is asking us to reconsider.)<\/p>\n Note that this verse sets up mercies to the Gentiles and judgments to the house of Israel–that’s quite an inversion.<\/p>\n Why is the emphasizing phrase “verily, verily, I say unto you” used at this point?<\/p>\n This verse implies that God “caused” the house of Israel to suffer. \u00a0What are we to take from this? \u00a0How might it be relevant to our lives?<\/p>\n Going with the likely reading that this verse describes the state of the Native Americans under European colonization, what do you see here that might affect how you interpret that history? \u00a0Do those lessons apply to similar situations that are not specifically mentioned in the scriptures (such as, say, Aborigines and English settlers in Australia)?<\/p>\n 10 And thus commandeth the Father that I should say unto you: At that day when the Gentiles shall sin against my gospel, and shall reject the fulness of my gospel, and shall be lifted up in the pride of their hearts above all nations, and above all the people of the whole earth, and shall be filled with all manner of lyings, and of deceits, and of mischiefs, and all manner of hypocrisy, and murders, and priestcrafts, and whoredoms, and of secret abominations; and if they shall do all those things, and shall reject the fulness of my gospel, behold, saith the Father, I will bring the fulness of my gospel from among them.<\/strong><\/p>\n What effect does it have on the audience when Jesus announces that he is saying something to them because the Father commanded him to?<\/p>\n Is there a difference between Jesus saying something because the Father commanded him to say it (as happens in this verse) and Jesus speaking the words of the Father (as in verses 7 and 8)? \u00a0(Note the “saith the Father” at the end of the verse–does that imply that these are the same thing?<\/p>\n Does “at that day” picture one very specific instance, or is it more general?<\/p>\n Is sinning against the gospel and rejecting the fulness of the gospel two different things or two ways of saying the same thing?<\/p>\n What is “the fulness of my gospel” in this verse?<\/p>\n “Bring” (at the very end of the verse) strikes me as somewhat out of place. \u00a0Is this word doing something that “take” would not have done?<\/p>\n Why is losing the gospel the appropriate response to these sins? \u00a0(I’m serious. \u00a0If they were your kids, you’d want the bishop and the missionaries to give them *more* attention, not less.)<\/p>\n Does this verse position the fulness of the gospel as a reward for righteous living? \u00a0What exactly does “the gospel” mean in this verse?<\/p>\n 11 And then will I remember my covenant which I have made unto my people, O house of Israel, and I will bring my gospel unto them.<\/strong><\/p>\n It’s kind of weird that God is going to use the Gentiles to punish the house of Israel but then when the Gentiles get too wicked, the house of Israel will get the covenant back. \u00a0 (Let me just say that if a parent ever allowed Child A to beat up Child B because Child A needed to be punished or allowed Child B to have a new car only if\/when Child A had wrecked her car, we wouldn’t look too kindly on those parenting techniques.)<\/p>\n What does “remember” mean in this verse? \u00a0(It clearly must not be carrying its normal meaning here.)<\/p>\n Does this verse picture a particular historical moment? \u00a0How do you know?<\/p>\n 12 And I will show unto thee, O house of Israel, that the Gentiles shall not have power over you; but I will remember my covenant unto you, O house of Israel, and ye shall come unto the knowledge of the fulness of my gospel.<\/strong> Why “show” in this verse? \u00a0Is it different from “tell”?<\/p>\n Note the multiple repetitions of “O house of Israel” in this passage (v11-v15). \u00a0What effect do they have on the reader?<\/p>\n What do you learn about power from this verse?<\/p>\n What relationship does the verse posit between power and remembering? \u00a0Between remembering and knowledge? \u00a0Between covenants and knowledge?<\/p>\n 13 But if the Gentiles will repent and return unto me, saith the Father, behold they shall be numbered among my people, O house of Israel.<\/strong> Are “repent” and “return” two different things or two ways of saying the same thing?<\/p>\n We’re using the “numbering” metaphor again. \u00a0What should we learn from this that is relevant to us today?<\/p>\n Is numbered “among people” significantly different from the more typical “numbered among sheep”?<\/p>\n Note how this verse breaks down the house of Israel versus Gentile dichotomy that has been the organizing key to the passage up to this point. \u00a0(Is it also true that individually righteous members of the house of Israel will have the same benefits at times when the Gentiles are ascendant, or not?)<\/p>\n 14 And I will not suffer my people, who are of the house of Israel, to go through among them, and tread them down, saith the Father.<\/strong> What does “to go through among them” mean? \u00a0(Is it the same as treading them down, or is it something different?) What might that look like in real life?<\/p>\n We’ve had several “saith the Father”s in this passage, but the fact that this one comes at the end of the verse means that we didn’t know who was speaking (or, at least, it wasn’t entirely clear). \u00a0Why might the verse have been structured this way?<\/p>\n I think the initial assumption going in to v14 is that it refers to the penitent Gentiles, but v15 complicates that picture. \u00a0So to whom does this verse refer?<\/p>\n 15 But if they will not turn unto me, and hearken unto my voice, I will suffer them, yea, I will suffer my people, O house of Israel, that they shall go through among them, and shall tread them down, and they shall be as salt that hath lost its savor, which is thenceforth good for nothing but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of my people, O house of Israel.<\/strong> Skousen reads “return” instead of “turn” here.<\/p>\n Does this verse help you understand what precisely it means to say that salt has lost its savor?<\/p>\n If we take “suffer” to have its usual meaning of “allow,” note that this verse supports the idea that the “default setting” is awful and it is only the help of the Lord that makes things decent.<\/p>\n 16 Verily, verily, I say unto you, thus hath the Father commanded me\u2014that I should give unto this people this land for their inheritance.<\/strong> What time period is referred to here? \u00a0Is it the immediate audience? \u00a0(Didn’t they already have that land for their inheritance?) \u00a0Or some future point? \u00a0(If so, when?) \u00a0Who are “this people”?<\/p>\n 17 And then the words of the prophet Isaiah shall be fulfilled, which say:<\/strong> Skousen reads “when the words” instead of “then the words.”<\/p>\n General question: \u00a0Considering what happens in v16 alongside the Isaiah quotation, what do you learn from this passage about the best way to understand Isaiah and what to expect in terms of what kinds of fulfillment\/meaning the words of Isaiah have?<\/p>\n What does it mean, in general, for words to be fulfilled? \u00a0Do all scriptures have a fulfillment? \u00a0Do all of Isaiah’s words have a fulfillment?<\/p>\n Why do you think Jesus chose to quote Isaiah here?<\/p>\n 18 Thy watchmen shall lift up the voice; with the voice together shall they sing, for they shall see eye to eye when the Lord shall bring again Zion.<\/strong><\/p>\n <\/strong>This verse quotes Isaiah 52:8. \u00a0It is identical (save punctuation).\u00a0Here’s a modern translation (NET) of the verse:<\/p>\n Listen,\u00a0<\/sup>your watchmen\u00a0shout;<\/p>\n in unison\u00a0they shout\u00a0for joy,<\/p>\n for\u00a0they see\u00a0with their very\u00a0own eyes\u00a0<\/sup><\/p>\n the\u00a0Lord\u2019s\u00a0return\u00a0to Zion.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The picture here is that the watchmen (the literal kind, who would stand on the wall that surrounds a city and watch for invaders) are shouting for joy because they see the Lord coming. \u00a0It is kind of a crazy picture: \u00a0imagine a bunch of army guys carefully watching their radar screens. \u00a0We expect them to either continue in tense, careful watching or to deliver to us some very bad news of an approaching enemy. \u00a0Instead, they break out in cheers because they see Jesus coming!<\/p>\n How does this verse relate to the last thing that happened in the chapter before the Isaiah quotation, which was Jesus’ promise to give them the land of their inheritance? \u00a0(I wonder if that setting makes the watchmen-looking-for-invaders imagery even more rich.)<\/p>\n 19 Break forth into joy, sing together, ye waste places of Jerusalem; for the Lord hath comforted his people, he hath redeemed Jerusalem.<\/strong> This verse quotes Isaiah 52:9. \u00a0It is identical save punctuation. \u00a0Here is a modern (NET) translation:<\/p>\n In unison\u00a0give a joyful\u00a0shout,<\/p>\n O ruins\u00a0of Jerusalem!<\/p>\n For\u00a0the\u00a0Lord\u00a0consoles\u00a0his people;<\/p>\n he protects [or: redeems]\u00a0<\/sup>Jerusalem.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Now we don’t normally picture wasted places being joyful, but this verse is picturing an inversion. \u00a0(It is therefore a subtle testimony of the power of the atonement.)<\/p>\n In the last verse, we saw the joy of the watchmen, but we only had their word to go on, and it might have been reasonable for us to wonder if the Lord was coming with a beneficial mission or coming to attack us. \u00a0In this verse, we, so to speak, gain our own testimony of the fact that the Lord is coming to console\/comfort\/redeem\/protect his people, and so we, too, are able to join in the happy choir.<\/p>\n If you put church leaders into the role of the watchers on the tower, what then do v18-19 suggest to you about church leaders and members? \u00a0(My thought: \u00a0their stewardship implies that the leaders might know about upcoming events first [v18], but v19 implies that we are to get our own knowledge of them.)<\/p>\n Notice how the comforting power of the Lord changes Jrsm from wasted to redeemed.<\/p>\n 20 The Lord hath made bare his holy arm in the eyes of all the nations; and all the ends of the earth shall see the salvation of God.<\/strong><\/p>\n This verse quotes Isaiah 52:10, which has “our” before the word God. \u00a0Modern (NET) translation:<\/p>\n The\u00a0Lord\u00a0reveals\u00a0<\/sup>his royal power\u00a0<\/sup><\/p>\n in the sight\u00a0of all\u00a0the nations;<\/p>\n the entire\u00a0<\/sup>earth\u00a0sees<\/p>\n our God\u00a0deliver.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n (The first line recognizes that “arm” is a symbol for “power,” and translates accordingly.)<\/p>\n Note the structure of the verse: \u00a0the 2nd and 3rd line are thematically identical, which suggests the same relationship between the 1st and 4th line, which means that God’s revealing of power is the same thing as God delivering us. \u00a0God demonstrates power not in the ways that worldly forces demonstrate power (in the context of this quote, that would be by attacking the city), but by delivering the people. \u00a0This is a powerful commentary on the righteous use of power.<\/p>\n General question: \u00a0Why did Jesus recite this quotation from Isaiah? \u00a0How does it relate to the topic of this chapter, which is the inter-relationship of various groups (Gentiles, house of Israel, other sheep) in the playing out of salvation history?<\/p>\n Does the reference to the ends of the earth relate to the reference to the four quarters of the earth earlier in this chapter?<\/p>\n Note that if we were reading the chapters in context, this would be the moment where Jesus recognized that they were weak and didn’t understand him and so he was going to send them home to think for awhile.<\/p>\n V17-20 are an Isaiah quotation. \u00a0If you assume that v10-16 cover the same material, but in Jesus’ owns words, then what does this suggest to you about the best way to read Isaiah? \u00a0(My thought: \u00a0Isaiah expresses things poetically and symbolically, not literally. He says things in an evocative, not a specific, manner. I also like the idea that the confusing Isaiah stuff is made clear in the presence of the Savior–literally.)<\/p>\n CHAPTER 20<\/strong><\/p>\n 1 And it came to pass that he commanded the multitude that they should cease to pray, and also his disciples. And he commanded them that they should not cease to pray in their hearts.<\/strong> Remember that we just skipped a bunch of chapters: \u00a0in 3 Nephi 19, there was a whole bunch of serious praying going on.<\/p>\n Why do you think the multitude and the disciples were called out as separate groups here?<\/p>\n What does it mean to pray in your heart? \u00a0(Is it the same thing as to pray, just silently? \u00a0Or is it something else–more attitudinal?)<\/p>\n Note that there was no chapter break here in the 1830 BoM.<\/p>\n 2 And he commanded them that they should arise and stand up upon their feet. And they arose up and stood upon their feet.<\/strong> I suspect the repetition in this verse is meant to emphasize the idea that the people were perfectly obedient.<\/p>\n Is it significant that Jesus wanted them to be standing for what happened next? \u00a0(In other words, why was this verse included in the record?)<\/p>\n Sheri L. Dew:<\/p>\n \u00a0For we have all been admonished to \u201cstand up\u201d (2 Ne. 8:17<\/a>) and to stand as a witness (see\u00a0Mosiah 18:9<\/a>) so that we may \u201cstand blameless before God at the last day\u201d (D&C 4:2<\/a>). I can find absolutely no scriptural injunction to slouch in Zion. Instead, we are repeatedly told to get on our feet, to \u201carise and stand up\u201d (3 Ne. 20:2<\/a>). \u00a0Oct 2000 GC<\/p><\/blockquote>\n 3 And it came to pass that he brake bread again and blessed it, and gave to the disciples to eat.<\/strong> Does this scene picture what we would call the sacrament? \u00a0(See v8.) If so, didn’t they just do this? \u00a0If they are doing it again, why? \u00a0If not, then what precisely is this scene?<\/p>\n Why do the disciples eat first? \u00a0Is that symbolic or just a logistical thing?<\/p>\n 4 And when they had eaten he commanded them that they should break bread, and give unto the multitude.<\/strong> Why doesn’t Jesus break the bread for everyone? \u00a0Is this symbolic or logistical?<\/p>\n 5 And when they had given unto the multitude he also gave them wine to drink, and commanded them that they should give unto the multitude.<\/strong> Is precisely the same procedure followed for the wine as for the bread (and it was just abbreviated in the re-telling) or are there some differences? \u00a0(Note that the part about the disciples actually drinking the wine is not mentioned as it was in the last verse where we read specifically that the disciples ate the bread.)<\/p>\n 6 Now, there had been no bread, neither wine, brought by the disciples, neither by the multitude;<\/strong><\/p>\n <\/strong>Notice again (as with the praying issue in v1) that the multitude and the disciples are separated.<\/strong><\/p>\n 7 But he truly gave unto them bread to eat, and also wine to drink.<\/strong> Do you interpret this as a “miracle of the loaves and fishes” type situation, or is there something else going on here? \u00a0If it is a Nephite version of a feeding miracle, what effect does it have on the reader not to have the story set up as a feeding miracle (as they are in the NT) but for it to become one after the fact? \u00a0What impact would a conjoined sacrament\/feeding miracle have on the reader that the separate stories of the NT do not have? \u00a0How might you interpret these events differently? \u00a0Why does Jesus (apparently) use miraculous powers to procure bread and wine here instead of sending his disciples out to get some? \u00a0(Presumably, given their location, it would have been possible for the Nephite Twelve to do this, unlike their NT brethren, who were way out in the middle of nowhere with a huge multitude.)<\/p>\n Note that in the NT feeding miracles, they always have something (like a few loaves) to start with. \u00a0Is it significant that here they start with nothing.<\/p>\n In the NT feeding miracles, food (bread or bread and fish) is multiplied. \u00a0Here, it is bread and wine. \u00a0Why the wine? \u00a0Perhaps that suggests a parallel to turning the water to wine at the wedding at Cana. \u00a0If so, what can we learn from comparing these stories?<\/p>\n Why is v7 in the record? \u00a0(It seems like one of those totally unnecessary wink-and-nod things that makes the reader go, ‘what, did you think I was stupid? you made your point in v6.’)<\/p>\n 8 And he said unto them: He that eateth this bread eateth of my body to his soul; and he that drinketh of this wine drinketh of my blood to his soul; and his soul shall never hunger nor thirst, but shall be filled.<\/strong> In the LDS tradition, we do not interpret this literally. \u00a0How do we know when we should (or should not) be interpreting things literally?<\/p>\n We are perhaps so familiar with the sacrament that it is a little hard to really think about it. \u00a0Pretend that you have never even heard of Christianity (you can pretend to be a green Martian–I won’t tell) and ask yourself: \u00a0what is the symbolism of eating and drinking the body and blood of a god?<\/p>\n Is the use of the word “soul” (as opposed to body or something else) significant in this verse, particularly given that we are also talking about Jesus’ body in this verse?<\/p>\n Why do Jesus’ body and blood each get their own symbol? \u00a0(This<\/a> might be useful here.)<\/p>\n Given that we are supposed to take the sacrament every week, what do you make of “never hunger or thirst” in this verse? \u00a0That is to say, what does “never” mean here?<\/p>\n 9 Now, when the multitude had all eaten and drunk, behold, they were filled with the Spirit; and they did cry out with one voice, and gave glory to Jesus, whom they both saw and heard.<\/strong> Do you see the unified cry as a ritual, or something else? \u00a0(And why don’t we get to do that after the sacrament?)<\/p>\n What does it mean to give glory to Jesus?<\/p>\n Note that “whom they both saw and heard” is technically unnecessary–it is obvious from the story. \u00a0But I think it was included to emphasize their witness and testimony of this event.<\/p>\n Dallin H. Oaks:<\/p>\n When the Savior introduced the sacrament in the New World, He promised, \u201cHe that eateth this bread eateth of my body to his soul; and he that drinketh of this wine drinketh of my blood to his soul; and his soul shall never hunger nor thirst, but shall be filled\u201d (3 Ne. 20:8<\/a>). The meaning of that promise is evident: \u201cNow, when the multitude had all eaten and drunk, behold, they were filled with the Spirit\u201d (3 Ne. 20:9<\/a>). Oct 98 GC<\/p><\/blockquote>\n 10 And it came to pass that when they had all given glory unto Jesus, he said unto them: Behold now I finish the commandment which the Father hath commanded me concerning this people, who are a remnant of the house of Israel.<\/strong> Again, what does it mean to “give glory” to Jesus? \u00a0What might that have looked like, and why aren’t we given specifics as to what happened here?<\/p>\n What does “commandment” mean in this verse? \u00a0(We usually think it means rules, but given the fact that it is singular here and that Jesus wasn’t–and won’t–be talking about specific rules, I think it might mean something else. \u00a0Maybe it is just the idea that Jesus was commanded to teach them. \u00a0That would be interesting, since this chapter up to this point has been filled with Jesus’ commands to the people.)<\/p>\n Why did this sacrament\/feeding miracle interrupt what Jesus was teaching? \u00a0How does the ordinance relate to the teaching?<\/p>\n Does “I finish the commandment” refer to what just happened (the presentation of the sacrament) or what is about to happen (more teachings about the house of Israel)? \u00a0It almost makes it sound as if this feeding miracle\/sacrament was *not* according to the commandment of the Father. . .<\/p>\n Why does Jesus say “who are a remnant . . .”? \u00a0Does it imply that they did not know this? \u00a0If they did know it, why might he have said this?<\/p>\n 11 Ye remember that I spake unto you, and said that when the words of Isaiah should be fulfilled\u2014behold they are written, ye have them before you, therefore search them\u2014<\/strong> This explicit recognition of the fact that they had the words of Isaiah makes Jesus’ quotations of them all the more interesting . . .<\/p>\n Does this verse imply that Jesus did not think that they would be able to understand everything that he was teaching? \u00a0(It certainly seems that the previous Isaiah reference at the end of 3 Nephi 16, followed by Jesus’ words about them being weak at the beginning of ch17 and his telling them to go home and ponder would support that idea.) \u00a0If that is the case, then what do you learn about pedagogy from Jesus here? \u00a0Is it OK therefore to teach people things that they can’t immediately understand? \u00a0(My guess is that in the church today we tend to err on the side of being sure that every single thing we teach is completely understandable to the newest member and we end up boring everyone to tears and not leaving most people with anything to chew on and ponder later. \u00a0I can think of some interesting exceptions to this–usually conference talks that demanded more thought later . . .)<\/p>\n What does “search” mean? \u00a0Is it the same as “read”? \u00a0“Ponder”?<\/p>\n Does this verse suggest that what Jesus said matched their written version of Isaiah precisely (therefore making it easy to go home and study more on the passages Jesus had just shared with them) or that the differences between what Jesus said and their written copies were just not significant? \u00a0It seems that either way, there are profound implications for how we think about texts and translations\u00a0and such.<\/p>\n 12 And verily, verily, I say unto you, that when they shall be fulfilled then is the fulfilling of the covenant which the Father hath made unto his people, O house of Israel.<\/strong> Note again that the Father (not the Son) is shown to be the covenant partner of the house of Israel.<\/p>\n Why is there a link between the fulfilling of Isaiah’s words and the fulfilling of the covenant?<\/p>\n 13 And then shall the remnants, which shall be scattered abroad upon the face of the earth, be gathered in from the east and from the west, and from the south and from the north; and they shall be brought to the knowledge of the Lord their God, who hath redeemed them.<\/strong> What does the word “remnants” suggest to you? \u00a0(Usually, I think, it is used in the singular.)<\/p>\n What is the link between physical gathering and increasing in knowledge? \u00a0Does this idea have any relevance to us today?<\/p>\n What does it suggest to say that someone (a group, actually) can be “brought” to knowledge? \u00a0(Is there a journey metaphor hiding in here? \u00a0Is it suggesting that gathering or community or something is a pre-requisite for knowledge?)<\/p>\n Does this verse picture Jesus as “the Lord their God” or does it imply that God the father “redeemed” them? \u00a0Or is there another way to read it?<\/p>\n Does this verse suggest that gathering comes before an increase in knowledge? \u00a0If so, how might that work out (if you are reading literally) or what might that mean (if you are reading more symbolically)?<\/p>\n 14 And the Father hath commanded me that I should give unto you this land, for your inheritance.<\/strong> Note how this chapter is repeating material from ch16 above. \u00a0(Also, we saw the repetition–with some variations–of the sacrament.) Why?<\/p>\n This iteration (unlike the ch16 version) seems to apply to Jesus’ present tense. \u00a0In that context, what does it mean for Jesus to give these Nephites this land? \u00a0Didn’t they already have it? \u00a0Or is this somehow related to the fact that they all ended up in Zarahemla and not the land of Nephi? \u00a0(If that is the case, then isn’t it weird to be promised a land you are already inhabiting, that you chose instead of getting sent to?)<\/p>\n It is kind of weird to think of there being more than one promised land . . .<\/p>\n 15 And I say unto you, that if the Gentiles do not repent after the blessing which they shall receive, after they have scattered my people\u2014<\/strong> Wait–the Gentiles get blessings BEFORE they repent?<\/p>\n Notice the link the verse makes between getting blessings and scattering people–is that just accidental or what?<\/p>\n 16 Then shall ye, who are a remnant of the house of Jacob, go forth among them; and ye shall be in the midst of them who shall be many; and ye shall be among them as a lion among the beasts of the forest, and as a young lion among the flocks of sheep, who, if he goeth through both treadeth down and teareth in pieces, and none can deliver.<\/strong> This verse quotes Micah 5:8, although that verse has a few differences:<\/p>\n And the remnant of Jacob shall be among the Gentiles in the midst of many people as a lion among the beasts of the forest, as a young lion among the flocks of sheep: who, if he go through, both treadeth down, and teareth in pieces, and none can deliver.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Note that the addition of “go forth among them” changes this, I think, from a prophecy to more of a commandment. \u00a0(Although I suppose that is somewhat ambiguous.)<\/p>\n And in the NET translation:<\/p>\n Those survivors\u00a0from Jacob\u00a0will live among the nations,<\/p>\n in the midst\u00a0of many\u00a0peoples.<\/p>\n They will be\u00a0like a lion\u00a0among the animals\u00a0of the forest,<\/p>\n like a young lion\u00a0among the flocks\u00a0of sheep,<\/p>\n which\u00a0attacks when it\u00a0passes\u00a0through;<\/p>\n it\u00a0rips\u00a0its prey\u00a0and there is no\u00a0one to stop it.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Why do you think Jesus began quoting scripture here, without introducing the author (which he did when he quoted Isaiah in ch16)? \u00a0 \u00a0(Many scholars think that at least part of the Micah was written after the exile; if that is correct, it would mean that Micah wasn’t on the brass plates and would have been therefore unknown to the Nephites. \u00a0That may explain why Jesus doesn’t give the author’s name–it wouldn’t have meant anything to them.)<\/p>\n Why doesn’t Jesus or Nephi or whoever ever tell them to ponder Micah?<\/p>\n In what ways are the Nephites (and their descendants?) going to be like lions? \u00a0Is that a good or a bad thing?<\/p>\n Why is there no one to stop it\/deliver them? \u00a0Why doesn’t the Lord intervene?<\/p>\n This verse pictures a future time when the people of Jacob will be very powerful. \u00a0How do you think Jesus’ audience reacted to this promise (especially given their current situation)? \u00a0Has this prophecy been fulfilled yet? \u00a0If not, what kind of events might signal its fulfillment?<\/p>\n 17 Thy hand shall be lifted up upon thine adversaries, and all thine enemies shall be cut off.<\/strong> This verse quotes Micah 5:9, which is identical in the KJV.<\/p>\n NET translation:<\/p>\n Lift\u00a0your hand\u00a0triumphantly\u00a0against your adversaries;\u00a0\u00a0<\/sup><\/p>\n may all\u00a0your enemies\u00a0be destroyed!<\/p><\/blockquote>\n What do you make of this image of Jesus, who was just comparing himself to a mother hen, telling the people to go destroy their enemies?<\/p>\n 18 And I will gather my people together as a man gathereth his sheaves into the floor.<\/strong><\/p>\n This verse quotes Micah 4:12, but with some changes:<\/p>\n But they know not the thoughts of the\u00a0Lord, neither understand they his counsel: for he shall gather them as the sheaves into the floor.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n NET translation:<\/p>\n But they\u00a0do not\u00a0know\u00a0what the\u00a0Lord\u00a0is planning;<\/p>\n they do not\u00a0understand\u00a0his strategy.<\/p>\n He has gathered\u00a0them like stalks of grain\u00a0to be threshed\u00a0at the threshing floor.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Note that Micah is describing a situation where the people do not understand the Lord but that part isn’t quoted here. \u00a0Does the exclusion mean that we are to assume it, or rather to assume that it was not the case? \u00a0(Or just that it wasn’t part of the thought, despite being part of the verse?)<\/p>\n Why is gathering sheaves a good image here? \u00a0What does it suggest? \u00a0What will the Lord do exactly?<\/p>\n 19 For I will make my people with whom the Father hath covenanted, yea, I will make thy horn iron, and I will make thy hoofs brass. And thou shalt beat in pieces many people; and I will consecrate their gain unto the Lord, and their substance unto the Lord of the whole earth. And behold, I am he who doeth it.<\/strong><\/p>\n This verse quotes Micah 4:13, with some changes:<\/p>\n Arise and thresh, O daughter of Zion: for I will make thine horn iron, and I will make thy hoofs brass: and thou shalt beat in pieces many people: and I will consecrate their gain unto the Lord, and their substance unto the Lord of the whole earth.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n And the NET translation:<\/p>\n \u201cGet\u00a0up and thresh,\u00a0Daughter\u00a0Zion!<\/p>\n For\u00a0I will give you iron\u00a0horns;<\/p>\n I will give you bronze\u00a0hooves,<\/p>\n and you will crush\u00a0many\u00a0nations.\u201d<\/p>\n You will devote\u00a0to the\u00a0Lord\u00a0the spoils you take from them,<\/p>\n and dedicate\u00a0their wealth\u00a0to the sovereign Ruler\u00a0<\/span>of the whole\u00a0earth.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n This verse probably pictures an oz given metal hooves, which would make it super-good at threshing. \u00a0If that is correct, then how does this relate to the idea of Jesus gathering in the previous verse?<\/p>\n Why do you think the final sentence was included in this verse (especially since there is no parallel in Micah)?<\/p>\n Does this verse imply that the people are the iron–is that why the verse begins “I will make my people” and then turn to “I will make thy horn”? \u00a0If not, how do you understand the grammar of this verse?<\/p>\n Why is the “thy” in “thy horn”?<\/p>\n This is a very interesting verse–the people will have a victory, but only because the Lord prepared them, and so to the Lord–and not the people–goes the spoils. \u00a0In what situations might the same principle apply in our own lives?<\/p>\n Brant Gardner:<\/p>\n In the process of molding Micah into this discourse, the translation manages to create an awkward shift from discourse to citation. The first clause is \u201cFor I will make my people\u2026.\u201d The verb\u00a0make<\/em>\u00a0in English requires a direct object in this clause, and there is none in the sentence. What becomes the object of \u201cmake\u201d is the entire citation, which is given as a description of what the Lord will\u00a0make<\/em>\u00a0the Israelites do. The meaning is discernable, but the translation itself is weak. This is only further evidence that the process of translation was not one of rote copying of text seen on the interpreters, but required Joseph\u2019s mental participation. As with all humans and language, Joseph would sometimes begin a complex construction and not finish it correctly. This has nothing to do with the plate text, but is simply further evidence for the nature of the translation process. Citation<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n 20 And it shall come to pass, saith the Father, that the sword of my justice shall hang over them at that day; and except they repent it shall fall upon them, saith the Father, yea, even upon all the nations of the Gentiles.<\/strong><\/p>\n Note that this is the Father speaking again (something we saw a lot of in chapter 16). \u00a0Why might that be? \u00a0Is it significant that the words of the Father are interwoven with scriptural quotations? \u00a0Why doesn’t Jesus speak just on his own authority instead of speaking for the Father and quoting scriptures?<\/p>\n Why is a sword a good symbol for justice?<\/p>\n Brant Gardner:<\/p>\n That the sword of justice should hang over the people is an image that has appeared before in the Book of Mormon (Alma 54:6; Alma 60;29). The ultimate reference, however, must be to the Sword of Damocles, that famous reference to a Greek story of a sword hanging by a thread over the king\u2019s throne. This phrasing is most likely coming from Joseph\u2019s cultural background rather than the plate text. Mesoamerican swords might have had points, but were typically slicing weapons. Hanging one would be the equivalent of hanging a club, and not nearly as dangerous as the pointed sword in the reference. Citation<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n 21 And it shall come to pass that I will establish my people, O house of Israel.<\/strong> What does it mean for a people to be established? \u00a0(Does the next verse answer this question? \u00a0Is it just about land?)<\/p>\n Why the reference to house of Israel when the last reference was to Jacob and the next is to him as well?<\/p>\n 22 And behold, this people will I establish in this land, unto the fulfilling of the covenant which I made with your father Jacob; and it shall be a New Jerusalem. And the powers of heaven shall be in the midst of this people; yea, even I will be in the midst of you.<\/strong> What work is the “behold” doing at the beginning of this verse?<\/p>\n In what ways does establishing the house of Israel in the New World fulfill the covenant made with Jacob? \u00a0(Did Jacob himself have any idea that that was what the covenant entailed?)<\/p>\n What does it mean for something to be a New Jerusalem? \u00a0Is this a literal city or more metaphorical? \u00a0How does it relate to the city pictured at the end of the Book of Revelation? Does the final sentence of the verse explain what it means for something to be a New Jrsm?<\/p>\n What are the powers of heaven? \u00a0Does this verse suggest that “powers of heaven” is another way of saying “Jesus”? \u00a0Or is it something else?<\/p>\n 23 Behold, I am he of whom Moses spake, saying: A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you. And it shall come to pass that every soul who will not hear that prophet shall be cut off from among the people.<\/strong> This verse quotes Acts 3:22-23<\/p>\n For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you. \u00a0And it shall come to pass,\u00a0that\u00a0every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n . . . which is quoting Deuteronomy 18:15 and 19:<\/p>\n The\u00a0Lord\u00a0thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken . . .\u00a0And it shall come to pass,\u00a0that\u00a0whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require\u00a0it of him.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n So Jesus is quoting Peter quoting Moses who was talking about Jesus. \u00a0A few things:<\/p>\n –Should this attribution affect whether we think Moses actually wrote Deuteronomy?<\/p>\n –Do you attribute a high level of inspiration to Peter’s words (and\/or a high level of accuracy to the text of Acts) given that Jesus quotes it?<\/p>\n –What do you make of the change from “destroyed” to “cut off”?<\/p>\n What do you think was Jesus’ purpose in sharing this statement of Moses’ with the Nephites? \u00a0(Did he think that they might not have made the connection?)<\/p>\n 24 Verily I say unto you, yea, and all the prophets from Samuel and those that follow after, as many as have spoken, have testified of me.<\/strong><\/p>\n This verse quotes Acts 3:24:<\/p>\n Yea, and all the prophets from Samuel and those that follow after, as many as have spoken, have likewise foretold of these days.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Why do you think Jesus added the “verily I say unto you” in the middle of the quotation from Acts?<\/p>\n Why the change from “foretold of these days” to “have testified of me”? \u00a0Does that mean that the prophets didn’t foretell “these days”? \u00a0(Maybe they did for the Old World but not the New?) \u00a0Or are these two different ways to say the same thing? \u00a0Or what?<\/p>\n (Remember that this is OT Samuel, not Samuel the Lamanite.)<\/p>\n Why focus on Samuel? \u00a0(Did earlier prophets testify of Jesus? \u00a0If so, then why mention Samuel in particular? Given that the last verse mentioned Moses, was the point to minimize Joshua for some reason?)<\/p>\n Is it literally true that all prophets have testified of Jesus? \u00a0(If so, then were their prophecies of Jesus lost from the record, or are they in the record but opaque?)<\/p>\n 25 And behold, ye are the children of the prophets; and ye are of the house of Israel; and ye are of the covenant which the Father made with your fathers, saying unto Abraham: And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed.<\/strong><\/p>\n <\/strong>This verse quotes Acts 3:25:<\/p>\n Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n . . . which quotes Genesis 22:18:<\/p>\n And in thy\u00a0seed\u00a0shall all the nations of the earth be\u00a0blessed; because thou hast\u00a0obeyed\u00a0my voice.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Why do you think Jesus added the “behold”?<\/p>\n What does it mean to be children of the prophets? \u00a0Are we children of prophets? \u00a0What does it suggest about our relationship to the prophets?<\/p>\n Why does Jesus add “and ye are of the house of Israel”?<\/p>\n Note “the Father” and “your fathers” in this verse–how do those terms relate? \u00a0 (And, you know I have to ask: \u00a0Where are the women?)<\/p>\n
\n <\/strong><\/p>\n
\n <\/strong><\/p>\n
\n <\/strong><\/p>\n
\n <\/strong><\/p>\n
\n <\/strong><\/p>\n
\n <\/strong><\/p>\n
\n <\/strong><\/p>\n
\n <\/strong><\/p>\n
\n <\/strong><\/p>\n
\n <\/strong><\/p>\n
\n <\/strong><\/p>\n
\n <\/strong><\/p>\n
\n <\/strong><\/p>\n
\n <\/strong><\/p>\n
\n <\/strong><\/p>\n
\n <\/strong><\/p>\n
\n <\/strong><\/p>\n
\n <\/strong><\/p>\n
\n <\/strong><\/p>\n
\n <\/strong><\/p>\n
\n <\/strong><\/p>\n
\n <\/strong><\/p>\n
\n <\/strong><\/p>\n
\n <\/strong><\/p>\n
\n <\/strong><\/p>\n
\n <\/strong><\/p>\n
\n <\/strong><\/p>\n
\n <\/strong><\/p>\n
\n <\/strong><\/p>\n
\n <\/strong><\/p>\n
\n <\/strong><\/p>\n
\n <\/strong><\/p>\n