<\/p>\n
CHAPTER 7<\/strong><\/p>\n 1 And now I, Moroni, write a few of the words of my father Mormon, which he spake concerning faith, hope, and charity; for after this manner did he speak unto the people, as he taught them in the synagogue which they had built for the place of worship.<\/strong><\/p>\n What does “after this manner” mean? \u00a0Would it be fair to read it as “I don’t claim to remember his exact words, but this is the gist”? \u00a0Or is there a better way to read it?<\/p>\n Is it significant that we get Moroni recording these words and not Mormon? \u00a0Assuming that (1) Mormon wasn’t inspired to include them and (2) Moroni was inspired to include them, why might the Lord have inspired the son to record the words of the father instead of having Mormon do his own writing? \u00a0(Is there any link here to Moroni’s kvetching in Ether 12 about being a weak writer?)<\/p>\n The faith, hope, and charity trifecta was, of course, made famous by Paul. \u00a0(More on that later.) \u00a0Why do you think it ends up here as well? \u00a0Is there an inherent relationship between these three items?<\/p>\n It is pretty rare for an editor or writer to give us such a concise summary of a coming sermon as “concerning faith, hope, and charity.” \u00a0Why do you think Moroni chose to go against the grain and do that here?<\/p>\n Is it significant that these things were spoken “unto the people”?<\/p>\n Jim F. has a great outline of the sermon here<\/a>.<\/p>\n Why does Moroni bother mentioning the synagogue? \u00a0Why does he explain to us what a synagogue is? \u00a0Is it significant that he uses the word synagogue and not church here? \u00a0How does the setting affect your interpretation of the sermon?<\/p>\n Does 6:9 (“And their meetings were conducted by the church after the manner of the workings of the Spirit, and by the power of the Holy Ghost; for as the power of the Holy Ghost led them whether to preach, or to exhort, or to pray, or to supplicate, or to sing, even so it was done.”)\u00a0set the stage for this sermon? \u00a0In other words, did Moroni include this sermon as an example of how preaching\/exhorting should be done?<\/p>\n Thoughts on possible chronology here<\/a>.<\/p>\n \u00a02 And now I, Mormon, speak unto you, my beloved brethren; and it is by the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, and his holy will, because of the gift of his calling unto me, that I am permitted to speak unto you at this time. <\/strong>What does “grace” mean in this verse?<\/p>\n In “his holy will,” is the antecedent of “his” the Father or the Son? \u00a0Does it matter?<\/p>\n This sounds a little more like a letter opener than a sermon opener. \u00a0Can you imagine someone getting up and saying, “Now, I, Brother Jones, speak unto you . . .”? \u00a0It seems a little weird.<\/p>\n This verse almost makes it sound as if “his holy will” is a separate-but-equal entity from the Father and the Son. \u00a0Is that the best way to understand this verse?<\/p>\n What does this verse suggest about the relationship between grace and gifts? \u00a0Gifts and callings? \u00a0How might this be relevant to your life?<\/p>\n What do you make of “permitted to speak unto you”? \u00a0Do you think this is just boilerplate, or was he speaking in unusual circumstances (persecution?) or what?<\/p>\n Again thinking about the last verse, do you think this verse likely represents the specific words of Mormon verbatim (perhaps Moroni had a written record or notes?), or a likely reconstruction, or what?<\/p>\n 3 Wherefore, I would speak unto you that are of the church, that are the peaceable followers of Christ, and that have obtained a sufficient hope by which ye can enter into the rest of the Lord, from this time henceforth until ye shall rest with him in heaven. Thinking about the word synagogue in v1, what do you make of the word “church” in this verse?<\/p>\n Does this verse imply that there were non-members in the congregation? \u00a0Does it matter to your interpretation of what Mormon is preaching?<\/p>\n Is Mormon defining all church members as the peaceable followers of Christ, or referring to a subset of church members who are peaceable followers, or what? \u00a0And: \u00a0when he talks about those with a sufficient hope, does that mean a subset of church members or all church members? \u00a0(Does v4 help you answer these questions?) Does it matter to your interpretation of what Mormon is preaching?<\/p>\n Why do you think he modified “followers” with “peaceable”? \u00a0Does it hint that there is a danger faced by those trying to follow Christ of being “unpeaceable” (warlike? \u00a0contentious?)? \u00a0If so, what might that look like? \u00a0How might it be a danger to us today?<\/p>\n Does this verse suggest a relationship between being a peaceable follower and having hope? \u00a0If so, how would that work; why would these two items be related?<\/p>\n What does the word “obtained” teach you about hope?<\/p>\n Why does he say “hope by which ye can enter” and not “faith by which” or “works by which” or “ordinances by which”? \u00a0What exactly is hope? \u00a0How does it differ from faith?<\/p>\n What is “the rest of the Lord”? \u00a0If it is just a circumlocution for “heaven,” why was it used? \u00a0Does it teach us something about heaven? \u00a0(Note the use of heaven at the end of the verse–does that help you think about these questions?)<\/p>\n What does the juxtaposition of the words “hope” and “rest” suggest to you?<\/p>\n What does “from this time . . .” modify? \u00a0Obtained? Hope? Rest? \u00a0Something else? \u00a0What work is it doing in the sentence?<\/p>\n \u00a04 And now my brethren, I judge these things of you because of your peaceable walk with the children of men.<\/strong><\/p>\n Note “my beloved brethren” in v2. \u00a0Is it significant that Mormon is repeating this address? \u00a0Is it significant that “beloved” has dropped out?<\/p>\n What exactly had Mormon been judging? \u00a0(I am thinking that they had sufficient hope that they would rest in the Lord, but I am not entirely sure.)<\/p>\n Does this verse mean that all of the items mentioned in v3 are things that Moroni thinks are already true of the audience? \u00a0If so, how does that affect your interpretation of this sermon, knowing it was being delivered to a spiritually mature group of people?<\/p>\n How does “peaceable walk” relate to “peaceable followers”? \u00a0Does the repetition of “peaceable” imply that this was a key concept for Mormon? \u00a0If so, how does it relate to the faith\/hope\/charity business? \u00a0Also, given the context of Mormon’s life (=a very war-filled time), how does all of this emphasis on peace play out?<\/p>\n What does the word “walk” suggest to you about following Christ?<\/p>\n 5 For I remember the word of God which saith by their works ye shall know them; for if their works be good, then they are good also. Is “I remember” a throw-away line, or is Mormon doing something significant here by mentioning it?<\/p>\n What does “I remember the word of God” suggest to you about Moroni’s use of and relationship to scripture\/revelation?<\/p>\n Notice the “for.” \u00a0How does this verse relate to the one before it?<\/p>\n I’m curious about the relationship between hope (an internal state) and works (obviously, external) that Mormon is working on here.<\/p>\n Is it true that if someone’s works are good, they are good? \u00a0(Think about a mafia boss who donates to orphans.) \u00a0Does this verse conceptualize “goodness” as a binary state? \u00a0(Is it?) \u00a0Does this verse think of works as the only measure of goodness? \u00a0(Is it?) \u00a0Does this verse imply that someone’s works are consistently good or bad? \u00a0(Are they?)<\/p>\n Does this verse imply that people are NOT their works? \u00a0(I think you have to read it that way.) \u00a0What are the implications of that idea?<\/p>\n 6 For behold, God hath said a man being evil cannot do that which is good; for if he offereth a gift, or prayeth unto God, except he shall do it with real intent it profiteth him nothing. Note “word of God” in v5 versus “God hath said” in this verse. \u00a0Is that a significant difference?<\/p>\n What does it mean for a man to be evil? \u00a0Does that apply to all people? \u00a0(Does it mean “evil because of the fall”?) Or just some people? \u00a0Is it true that an evil person cannot do any good? \u00a0(I don’t think we really believe that. \u00a0It would force us to conclude that a pedophile who writes a check to a charity is not evil. \u00a0On the other hand, maybe that is the point of this verse: \u00a0no one, including the pedophile, is pure evil.)<\/p>\n How does this verse define “good”?<\/p>\n Does everything after the “for if . . .” consist of Mormon’s commentary, or is it still what “God hath said”?<\/p>\n Why are offering gifts and praying the two examples used here? \u00a0What does that suggest to us about this verse’s definition of “good”?<\/p>\n What does it mean to offer a gift “with real intent”?<\/p>\n Does the “except” leave open the possibility that an evil person can pray\/offer a gift with “real intent”?<\/p>\n Does this verse imply that the definition of “good” means that it profits you? \u00a0(I think it kind of sounds like it is suggesting that, but that doesn’t sound quite right.)<\/p>\n Isn’t it possible for an evil (whatever that means) person to offer a gift “with real intent”? \u00a0(Again I am struggling with the binary presentation of this section. \u00a0It seems to be that I might be evil in some areas of my life but honestly be good in other areas, but this verse doesn’t seem to allow for that possibility.)<\/p>\n What does it mean to pray with real intent? \u00a0Intending what?<\/p>\n In what situations might we be tempted to pray or offer gifts without real intent?<\/p>\n Let’s say that I am aware that my intent is lacking. \u00a0Is it better then not to pray\/offer a gift, or to offer it with muddled intent?<\/p>\n 7 For behold, it is not counted unto him for righteousness.<\/strong><\/p>\n <\/strong>Is it fair to say that v6-7 imply that an act doesn’t count as “righteous” unless it is done with real intent? \u00a0If so, what does that suggest to you about righteousness? \u00a0What are the implications of this idea?<\/p>\n Why the “behold” here?<\/p>\n What does “counted” suggest to you?<\/p>\n What does “for righteousness” mean? \u00a0Does it mean “as being a righteous act”? \u00a0Could it mean something else?<\/p>\n Here’s the thing bugging me about v6-7: \u00a0I think you have to conclude that if you had a basically evil person considering donating a chunk of change to your charity (not that he gave a rat’s patoot about the poor, mind you), v6-7 tell him not to donate because he won’t get anything out of it. \u00a0Well . . . the poor still will get something out of the donation, though, right? \u00a0So isn’t it still better that he donate?<\/p>\n 8 For behold, if a man being evil giveth a gift, he doeth it grudgingly; wherefore it is counted unto him the same as if he had retained the gift; wherefore he is counted evil before God. Is it possible that the definition of good is “does stuff with real intent” and the definition of evil is “does stuff grudgingly”? \u00a0That is, that maybe global evaluations of a person are not being made, but just good and evil with respect to the particular situation? \u00a0(Or is that too apologetic?)<\/p>\n It seems to me that he’s just giving an example here, of an evil person who gives a gift grudgingly. \u00a0It seems that there are all sorts of other wrong ways that an evil person could give a gift–such as with an eye to praise, etc.<\/p>\n Does this verse define retaining a gift as evil? \u00a0How else could you read it?<\/p>\n Note that doing stuff with real intent is placed in opposition to doing stuff grudgingly. \u00a0What can you learn from this opposition? \u00a0Also note that “not doing stuff” doesn’t seem to be an option.<\/p>\n In what situations might we be tempted to do things grudgingly?<\/p>\n Is it better to do something grudgingly or not to do it at all? \u00a0(Or does this verse imply that there is no difference between these options?)<\/p>\n Is everything counted as either evil or righteous? \u00a0Are there other options?<\/p>\n I’d rather my kids did their chores grudgingly than didn’t do them at all. \u00a0Is that wrong? \u00a0(Is the difference here because we are talking about prayer and gifts?)<\/p>\n 9 And likewise also is it counted evil unto a man, if he shall pray and not with real intent of heart; yea, and it profiteth him nothing, for God receiveth none such.<\/strong><\/p>\n Why do you think the gift issue was dealt with in v8 and the prayer issue here if they are basically the same?<\/p>\n What does it mean to have real intent when you pray?<\/p>\n Is it better to not pray if you don’t have real intent?<\/p>\n Is the point of praying to profit yourself?<\/p>\n Why might someone pray if they didn’t have real intent? \u00a0What might we learn from this?<\/p>\n And this verse is why I do not support prayer in schools or other similar settings. \u00a0(That and the ones about praying in your closet.)<\/p>\n How do you reconcile what Mormon is saying with what Brigham Young said:<\/p>\n If I do not feel like praying, and asking my Father in heaven to give me a morning blessing, and to preserve me and my family and the good upon the earth through the day, I should say, “Brigham, get down here, on your knees, bow your body down before the throne of Him who rules in the heavens, and stay there until you can feel to supplicate at that throne of grace erected for sinners.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n 10 Wherefore, a man being evil cannot do that which is good; neither will he give a good gift. Again, is this really true? \u00a0Is it really so binary and clearly demarcated?<\/p>\n 11 For behold, a bitter fountain cannot bring forth good water; neither can a good fountain bring forth bitter water; wherefore, a man being a servant of the devil cannot follow Christ; and if he follow Christ he cannot be a servant of the devil. Skousen reads “being the servant” here.<\/p>\n In what ways are people like fountains? \u00a0In what ways are they different?<\/p>\n Can you make a useful comparison between this verse and Revelation 3:15-16:<\/p>\n I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.\u00a0So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n And yet again, the idea in this verse just doesn’t seem to ring true to me: \u00a0aren’t we all a combination of some good and some evil? \u00a0Aren’t even the most evil people capable of doing some good, and even the most good (except the perfect!) capable of doing evil? \u00a0Or am I missing something basic here? \u00a0Is this just hyperbole?<\/p>\n Does the servant thing help us better understand how this passage is defining good and evil?<\/p>\n What does the servant imagery suggest to you? \u00a0(Note that not being a servant doesn’t appear to be an option.)<\/p>\n General: \u00a0remember that Moroni introduced this passage by telling us that Mormon had taught about faith, hope, and charity. \u00a0In what ways does all of this good\/evil, gifts\/prayers stuff have to do with faith, hope, and charity?<\/p>\n 12 Wherefore, all things which are good cometh of God; and that which is evil cometh of the devil; for the devil is an enemy unto God, and fighteth against him continually, and inviteth and enticeth to sin, and to do that which is evil continually. Does this verse help us define good and evil? \u00a0(My kids are always asking me why God created roaches and ants. \u00a0According to this verse, would those be evil or good? \u00a0What does that tell you about the definitions?)<\/p>\n Does this verse imply that the devil is a creator? \u00a0If so, how might that nuance our understanding of creation? \u00a0Of evil?<\/p>\n What does “enemy” mean in this verse?<\/p>\n Notice the verbs: \u00a0fight, invite, entice. \u00a0Conclusions?<\/p>\n Are “invite” and “entice” two different things or two ways of saying the same thing?<\/p>\n 13 But behold, that which is of God inviteth and enticeth to do good continually; wherefore, every thing which inviteth and enticeth to do good, and to love God, and to serve him, is inspired of God. Compare with v12–note that sin and “do good” appear to be put into opposition. \u00a0What might you conclude from this? \u00a0Is sin just the opposite of “doing good”?<\/p>\n Is “to love God and to serve him” a different way of saying “inviteth and enticeth to do good” or does it further limit “inviteth and enticeth to do good” or what?<\/p>\n Are loving God and serving God the same thing in this verse?<\/p>\n Is this verse tautological?<\/p>\n V12-13 kind of bug me because they make things sound so simple (v14 only makes it worse) when it feels like in real life there is just a ton more ambiguity than this.<\/p>\n 14 Wherefore, take heed, my beloved brethren, that ye do not judge that which is evil to be of God, or that which is good and of God to be of the devil. Note the “wherefore”; how does this verse relate to what has come before it?<\/p>\n In what ways might we be tempted to judge evil to be from God, or vice versa? \u00a0Is there specific guidance in this passage for avoiding this situation?<\/p>\n 15 For behold, my brethren, it is given unto you to judge, that ye may know good from evil; and the way to judge is as plain, that ye may know with a perfect knowledge, as the daylight is from the dark night. This verse sounds as if it is echoing the language of the creation\/fall story. \u00a0Is it? \u00a0If so, what might we learn from that? \u00a0More generally, how does this discussion about good and evil in this section affect our interpretation of the concept of a tree of knowledge of good and evil?<\/p>\n If the way to judge is plain\/obvious\/etc., then why were we warned in the last verse about the dangers of judging wrongly? \u00a0Wouldn’t that be a non-issue? \u00a0Also, in my experience, it isn’t always obvious which is the right\/moral decision in a given situation. \u00a0Does this verse imply that I am thinking about things wrong? \u00a0Or what?<\/p>\n What does “it is given unto you to judge” mean? \u00a0Does it mean that the ability to judge is a gift or a blessing or a right or something? \u00a0is this related to the story of the fall?<\/p>\n Does “that ye may know good from evil” imply that when you judge (repeatedly, and gain experience) that that process helps you learn good from evil? \u00a0Or is there a better way of understanding the logic of this verse?<\/p>\n What does it mean to say that the way to judge is plain? \u00a0Does it mean that every decision should have an obvious choice? \u00a0(Not in my world it doesn’t.)<\/p>\n Does “that ye may know with a perfect knowledge” mean that when you judge (and it is plain), you gain a perfect knowledge? \u00a0Or is there a better way to understand what is going on here?<\/p>\n Do we ever have a perfect knowledge of anything in this life? \u00a0If not, what does this phrase mean? \u00a0If so, how exactly do we gain this perfect knowledge? \u00a0From experience? \u00a0Or something else?<\/p>\n Does “perfect knowledge” imply a binary? \u00a0(I am thinking that that is what the day\/night thing implies.) \u00a0Is it always that way?<\/p>\n What does the day\/night thingie teach you about the concept of “perfect knowledge”? \u00a0Or does the day\/night analogy apply to “plain” and not “knowledge”?<\/p>\n How do you mesh this verse with the “judge not, that ye be not judged” verses?<\/p>\n What kinds of situations do you think Mormon was envisioning with what he is saying in this verse? \u00a0Because my life feels more complicated than this.<\/p>\n 16 For behold, the Spirit of Christ is given to every man, that he may know good from evil; wherefore, I show unto you the way to judge; for every thing which inviteth to do good, and to persuade to believe in Christ, is sent forth by the power and gift of Christ; wherefore ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of God. What is “the Spirit of Christ”? \u00a0Is it the same as the Holy Ghost? \u00a0Or different? \u00a0How do you know? \u00a0When\/how\/why does every person get the Spirit of Christ?<\/p>\n How does the Spirit of Christ make it possible for people to know good from evil? \u00a0What, if anything, does this have to do with the fall? \u00a0(You might be able to read it as saying that the Spirit of Christ is what you get if you eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, which kind of doesn’t sound right but then kind of sounds right at the same time.)<\/p>\n Are “power” and “gift” the same thing? \u00a0Two different things?<\/p>\n Notice the similarities and differences between this verse and v15. \u00a0What do you make of the comparison?<\/p>\n I’m hung up again on the perfect knowledge thing–is that really something humans can have? \u00a0It seems that thinking you could have it might lead to hubris and a lack of teachability.<\/p>\n 17 But whatsoever thing persuadeth men to do evil, and believe not in Christ, and deny him, and serve not God, then ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of the devil; for after this manner doth the devil work, for he persuadeth no man to do good, no, not one; neither do his angels; neither do they who subject themselves unto him. Are (1) persuade to do evil, (2) believe not in Christ, (3) deny Christ, and (4) serve not God four different things, four ways of saying the same thing, or something in between?<\/p>\n What is the manner after which the devil works?<\/p>\n Does the devil have angels?<\/p>\n 18 And now, my brethren, seeing that ye know the light by which ye may judge, which light is the light of Christ, see that ye do not judge wrongfully; for with that same judgment which ye judge ye shall also be judged. How does this verse help you understand what the light of Christ is?<\/p>\n We talk about the light of Christ as distinct from the Holy Ghost, as something given to all people. \u00a0If that is the case, then why don’t all people judge with perfect knowledge?<\/p>\n Why is Mormon warning us about judging wrong when it is supposed to be a night\/day thing? \u00a0Whoever says it is night when it is day?<\/p>\n Why are we judged with the same judgement we judge? \u00a0Doesn’t this bind God? \u00a0What happened to God’s mercy? \u00a0Wouldn’t it put God in the position of being forced to judge unfairly if we had judged unfairly? Wouldn’t the cynic decide to judge really leniently on everyone else so God would be forced to judge her really leniently?<\/p>\n 19 Wherefore, I beseech of you, brethren, that ye should search diligently in the light of Christ that ye may know good from evil; and if ye will lay hold upon every good thing, and condemn it not, ye certainly will be a child of Christ. If the light of Christ has this day\/night, very-obvious, thing going on, then why do we need to search diligently?<\/p>\n How does this passage nuance your understanding of what happened in the fall? \u00a0Why is Mormon exhorting us to be able to know good from evil–didn’t the fall take care of that?<\/p>\n What does “lay hold” suggest to you?<\/p>\n Does this verse imply that the status of being a child of Christ is conditional? \u00a0Is it? \u00a0What is the relationship between a child of Christ and a child of God?<\/p>\n 20 And now, my brethren, how is it possible that ye can lay hold upon every good thing? Is it possible to lay hold upon _every_ good thing? \u00a0(See v22 for more on this.) Don’t we have to pick and choose?<\/p>\n Why does Mormon ask a (rhetorical?) question here?<\/p>\n 21 And now I come to that faith, of which I said I would speak; and I will tell you the way whereby ye may lay hold on every good thing. This verse sounds to me as if the previous (almost) two dozen verses have been a long wind-up and this is the pitch. \u00a0Why did Mormon feel the need to give us all of that material as a build-up to a discussion about faith? \u00a0 How do you read the material differently knowing that Moroni summarized these teachings as being about faith, hope, and charity and Mormon used these verses as ground work for a discussion about faith? \u00a0Why did we need to know all that about choosing good versus evil as backdrop?<\/p>\n I don’t remember him saying that he would speak about faith–I remember Moroni telling us that as a summary of the sermon. \u00a0Either we have a slip-up here, or we have evidence that Moroni has (sloppily) edited Mormon’s sermon. \u00a0Are there other possibilities for what is going on here?<\/p>\n 22 For behold, God knowing all things, being from everlasting to everlasting, behold, he sent angels to minister unto the children of men, to make manifest concerning the coming of Christ; and in Christ there should come every good thing. What are the implications of believing that God knows _all_ things? \u00a0How literally do you take this statement?<\/p>\n In what way does “being from everlasting to everlasting” impact God’s ability to know all things? \u00a0(I think this verse implies that these two ideas are related.)<\/p>\n Why is God’s omnipotence the background to the sending of angels?<\/p>\n What does “minister” mean in this verse?<\/p>\n Is “children of men” related to the recent reference to “children of Christ”?<\/p>\n If “every good thing” came in Christ, then what does “every good thing” mean in this verse?<\/p>\n 23 And God also declared unto prophets, by his own mouth, that Christ should come. What work is “by his own mouth” doing in this verse?<\/p>\n Thinking about v22 and this verse, is there a message about different kinds of revelation here? \u00a0Is one kind privileged over another kind? \u00a0(See v24 for more on this idea.)<\/p>\n 24 And behold, there were divers ways that he did manifest things unto the children of men, which were good; and all things which are good cometh of Christ; otherwise men were fallen, and there could no good thing come unto them. Was it really necessary to say that all the ways God communicates were good? \u00a0Isn’t that kind of a given?<\/p>\n I like the emphasis on the idea that divine communication comes in a variety of ways. \u00a0And they are all good.<\/p>\n A wooden reading of this verse would conclude that all the ways that God communicates come from Christ, but that doesn’t sound quite right. \u00a0What is going on here?<\/p>\n Wait–aren’t men fallen now? \u00a0What does “otherwise men were fallen” mean? \u00a0It seems to imply that men aren’t fallen, but that doesn’t sound quite right. \u00a0Even aside from that, what is the “otherwise” doing–what is the other hypothetical condition that Mormon is talking about here? \u00a0Does this verse imply that if men are fallen, no good can come to them? \u00a0Is this true? \u00a0(I really don’t understand what is going on in this verse–I’m lost at several points.)<\/p>\n 25 Wherefore, by the ministering of angels, and by every word which proceeded forth out of the mouth of God, men began to exercise faith in Christ; and thus by faith, they did lay hold upon every good thing; and thus it was until the coming of Christ. What is this verse (and the previous ones about God’s messages to humans) imply about the relationship of revelations and faith? \u00a0(My thought is that it suggests that revelations come _before_ faith and _cause_ faith, but we usually think of the arrow as pointing in the other direction, don’t we?)<\/p>\n Did we ever decide what “every good thing” means in this passage?<\/p>\n This verse and the next imply that things change with the coming of Christ. \u00a0What changes?<\/p>\n 26 And after that he came men also were saved by faith in his name; and by faith, they become the sons of God. And as surely as Christ liveth he spake these words unto our fathers, saying: Whatsoever thing ye shall ask the Father in my name, which is good, in faith believing that ye shall receive, behold, it shall be done unto you. Skousen reads “became” instead of “become” here.<\/p>\n Skousen reads “assuredly as Christ” instead of “as surely as Christ” here.<\/p>\n Does this verse imply that a child\/son of God is something you inherently are or something that you become? \u00a0Either way, what are the implications of this idea?<\/p>\n Are there any parameters of limitations on “whatsoever things” here? \u00a0Should there be?<\/p>\n See “child of Christ” in v19–is that the same as or different from “sons of God” in this verse?<\/p>\n What would you say to something who says, “I prayed that her life would be spared . . . I prayed with faith, and it absolutely would have been a good thing . . . but it didn’t happen”?<\/p>\n Is there a point where your “faith believing that ye shall receive” can turn the corner into being demanding of God or arrogant?<\/p>\n 27 Wherefore, my beloved brethren, have miracles ceased because Christ hath ascended into heaven, and hath sat down on the right hand of God, to claim of the Father his rights of mercy which he hath upon the children of men? How does this verse relate to the one before it?<\/p>\n Why is Mormon asking a (rhetorical?) question here? \u00a0How does it relate to the last rhetorical question he asked?<\/p>\n Was Mormon worried that his audience would think that miracles had ceased? \u00a0Why might they have thought this? \u00a0Why might we think this?<\/p>\n This verse could have made the point of the rhetorical question had it ended with the word “heaven.” \u00a0So why do you think the rest of the verse is here? \u00a0It kind of reads as if Mormon is trying to sneak a few items into the record, despite the fact that they aren’t germane to his argument. \u00a0How do you understand what is happening here?<\/p>\n What did Christ claim from the Father? \u00a0“Claim” kind of makes it sound as if the Father didn’t want to give it, or maybe gives it grudgingly only because Christ is entitled. \u00a0Why do you think this word was used?<\/p>\n Does “to claim of the . . . mercy” mean that Christ was claiming mercy for himself (I can’t think why he would need it?) or claiming it to give to other people? \u00a0(If so, why did the Father have it and why did Christ take it?)<\/p>\n 28 For he hath answered the ends of the law, and he claimeth all those who have faith in him; and they who have faith in him will cleave unto every good thing; wherefore he advocateth the cause of the children of men; and he dwelleth eternally in the heavens. How does the “claim” in this verse relate to the claim in the previous verse?<\/p>\n Note how what seemed like a tangent circles back to faith . . .<\/p>\n Why “cleave”? \u00a0(I hate words with two opposite meanings.)<\/p>\n What does “advocate” suggest to you?<\/p>\n What is “the cause of the children of men” in this verse?<\/p>\n Is “children of men” the same as or different from “child of Christ” and “sons of God” in recent verses?<\/p>\n Why mention that he dwells eternally in heaven? \u00a0It doesn’t seem to fit the context of the verse.<\/p>\n 29 And because he hath done this, my beloved brethren, have miracles ceased? Behold I say unto you, Nay; neither have angels ceased to minister unto the children of men. Why is Mormon repeating his rhetorical question here?<\/p>\n Is Mormon implying a relationship between miracles and angelic ministry here? \u00a0How are these ideas related?<\/p>\n Why is the issues of whether miracles have ceased relevant to a discussion of faith, hope, and charity?<\/p>\n 30 For behold, they are subject unto him, to minister according to the word of his command, showing themselves unto them of strong faith and a firm mind in every form of godliness. Why emphasize that angels are subject to Christ here?<\/p>\n We know from Laman and Lemuel that not everyone who sees an angel has strong faith and a firm mind. \u00a0So how do you understand what Mormon says here?<\/p>\n Are strong faith and a firm mind two different things or two ways of saying the same thing?<\/p>\n What does it mean to have a firm mind in every form of godliness? \u00a0What is a form of godliness anyway?<\/p>\n 31 And the office of their ministry is to call men unto repentance, and to fulfil and to do the work of the covenants of the Father, which he hath made unto the children of men, to prepare the way among the children of men, by declaring the word of Christ unto the chosen vessels of the Lord, that they may bear testimony of him. What does “office” mean in this verse? \u00a0What about “ministry”?<\/p>\n Do you normally think of the primary role of angels as calling people to repentance? \u00a0Is it?<\/p>\n Given the definition here, does this change your perception of the relationship between angels and miracles from v29?<\/p>\n Do “fulfil” and do the work” mean the same thing or two different things here? \u00a0What does it mean to “do the word of the covenants”?<\/p>\n What does “chosen vessels” suggest to you? \u00a0Do only chosen vessels have angels visit them?<\/p>\n Is the “they” in “that they may bear testimony” referring to the angels or the chosen vessels?<\/p>\n As compared with the other ways in which God might communicate with humans, why might angels be used in some circumstances?<\/p>\n 32 And by so doing, the Lord God prepareth the way that the residue of men may have faith in Christ, that the Holy Ghost may have place in their hearts, according to the power thereof; and after this manner bringeth to pass the Father, the covenants which he hath made unto the children of men. What effect does “residue” have on you? \u00a0Why isn’t it everyone?<\/p>\n What power is in mind here?<\/p>\n What manner is he talking about?<\/p>\n 33 And Christ hath said: If ye will have faith in me ye shall have power to do whatsoever thing is expedient in me. How does faith lead to power? \u00a0Can there be power without faith? \u00a0Why is there a link between faith and power?<\/p>\n How does this verse compare with v26?<\/p>\n 34 And he hath said: Repent all ye ends of the earth, and come unto me, and be baptized in my name, and have faith in me, that ye may be saved. In this verse, repent + baptism + faith = salvation. \u00a0What do you make of this formula? \u00a0Anything missing? \u00a0Is the order of elements significant?<\/p>\n 35 And now, my beloved brethren, if this be the case that these things are true which I have spoken unto you, and God will show unto you, with power and great glory at the last day, that they are true, and if they are true has the day of miracles ceased? Is Mormon speaking here, or is this still Christ? \u00a0How do you know?<\/p>\n Why does he phrase this as a conditional (“if this be . . .”)?<\/p>\n Are power and glory two different things or two ways of saying the same thing?<\/p>\n Does this verse imply that there are things that we are not shown until “the last day”? \u00a0Does it imply that we aren’t shown anything until the last day?<\/p>\n This is our third rhetorical question about the end of miracles . . . in a discourse that we were told was going to be about faith, hope, and charity. \u00a0What’s going on here? \u00a0What is Mormon trying to do? \u00a0What is he concerned about? \u00a0(My thought: \u00a0given that this is the real ending of the BoM, and given that one of the primary issues a new reader of the BoM is considering is whether Joseph Smith really did receive divine communications and participate in miracles, these seem like very appropriate questions to be considering.)<\/p>\n 36 Or have angels ceased to appear unto the children of men? Or has he withheld the power of the Holy Ghost from them? Or will he, so long as time shall last, or the earth shall stand, or there shall be one man upon the face thereof to be saved? What do you make of this onslaught of rhetorical questions?<\/p>\n 37 Behold I say unto you, Nay; for it is by faith that miracles are wrought; and it is by faith that angels appear and minister unto men; wherefore, if these things have ceased wo be unto the children of men, for it is because of unbelief, and all is vain. Does this verse imply that faith is a prerequisite for miracles? \u00a0For angelic visitations? \u00a0(If so, how do you explain the one to Laman and Lemuel?)<\/p>\n But note that this verse locates the power to produce miracles and angels in the hands of the person of faith.<\/p>\n Would you say that “these things” _had_ ceased in Mormon’s time, or is he speaking hypothetically?<\/p>\n What is the link between unbelief and vanity?<\/p>\n 38 For no man can be saved, according to the words of Christ, save they shall have faith in his name; wherefore, if these things have ceased, then has faith ceased also; and awful is the state of man, for they are as though there had been no redemption made. I presume that “these things” refers to miracles. \u00a0If that is right, then is this verse saying that if miracles have ceased, it is because faith has ceased? \u00a0Is this true? \u00a0How often do you see miracles in your life and does that track your level of faith?<\/p>\n What links is this verse making between miracles, faith, and redemption?<\/p>\n Is there a link between “words” and “name” in this verse?<\/p>\n Interesting: \u00a0Christ performs the redemption, but our decision re having faith determines if the redemption exists for us.<\/p>\n 39 But behold, my beloved brethren, I judge better things of you, for I judge that ye have faith in Christ because of your meekness; for if ye have not faith in him then ye are not fit to be numbered among the people of his church.<\/strong><\/p>\n What does “I judge better things of you mean”? \u00a0That Mormon is saying that their faith _isn’t_ dead? \u00a0Is there any relationship between this statement of judgment and what the previous verses were saying about judging between good and evil?<\/p>\n What does “because of your meekness” imply? \u00a0What is the relationship between meekness and faith? \u00a0Is the implication that meekness is the best evidence of faith?<\/p>\n Does this verse conceptualize being numbered among the church as a privilege? \u00a0Right? \u00a0Gift? Reward? \u00a0Natural consequence? \u00a0Something else?<\/p>\n Would you agree with a reading of this verse that concluded that people who lack faith should be excommunicated? \u00a0Why or why not?<\/p>\n We don’t normally think of Mormon’s time–when the entire Nephite nation was at war and being destroyed–as a time when there were just buckets of faith. \u00a0Of course, he is only speaking to (a subset of the people) in the synagogue. \u00a0But I think it noteworthy that even during this terrible time, there were still people who had faith.<\/p>\n I’m curious about Mormon’s use of “judge” here, given the earlier discussion of judging. \u00a0How do the two relate?<\/p>\n 40 And again, my beloved brethren, I would speak unto you concerning hope. How is it that ye can attain unto faith, save ye shall have hope? Does this verse mean that he had spoken of hope previously in this discourse, or on a previous occasion? \u00a0In other words, what is the “again” doing?<\/p>\n Does this verse teach that hope is a prerequisite for faith? \u00a0Is it? \u00a0What is the relationship between faith and hope? \u00a0Is hope just weak faith? \u00a0Or “pre-faith”? \u00a0Or what?<\/p>\n Why does Mormon use a rhetorical question here? \u00a0How does it compare with the other rhetorical questions that he has used? \u00a0What effect should it have on the reader?<\/p>\n 41 And what is it that ye shall hope for? Behold I say unto you that ye shall have hope through the atonement of Christ and the power of his resurrection, to be raised unto life eternal, and this because of your faith in him according to the promise. Is this the same stuff you should have faith in? \u00a0(How does that help us understand the relationship between hope and faith?)<\/p>\n Does “through the atonement” mean having hope regarding the topic of the atonement, or that something about the atonement makes it literally possible to have hope?<\/p>\n Do “atonement of Christ” and “power of his resurrection” mean the same thing, or is that two different things?<\/p>\n What does this verse say about the relationship between hope and faith?<\/p>\n What work is “according to the promise” doing here? \u00a0What promise? \u00a0How does it relate to faith?<\/p>\n Mormon begins this verse by asking what you should hope for. \u00a0But the answer to that question, despite the “behold,” is not entirely clear to me, \u00a0because he says “hope THROUGH” in his answer, making me think that hope is possible because of the atonement, so the atonement isn’t the thing that we are supposed to have hope IN. \u00a0Maybe the thing we are supposed to have hope IN is “to be raised unto life eternal.” \u00a0Does that work?<\/p>\n 42 Wherefore, if a man have faith he must needs have hope; for without faith there cannot be any hope. What does this verse teach about the relationship of hope and faith? \u00a0I think this one (especially the second half) makes faith sound like a prerequisite to hope, but v40 made it sound as if hope were a prerequisite to faith. \u00a0What’s going on here?<\/p>\n 43 And again, behold I say unto you that he cannot have faith and hope, save he shall be meek, and lowly of heart. What’s the relationship between faith, hope, and meekness? \u00a0Why do you need to be meek to have faith and hope?<\/p>\n Do “meek” and “lowly of heart” mean the same thing or two different things here?<\/p>\n 44 If so, his faith and hope is vain, for none is acceptable before God, save the meek and lowly in heart; and if a man be meek and lowly in heart, and confesses by the power of the Holy Ghost that Jesus is the Christ, he must needs have charity; for if he have not charity he is nothing; wherefore he must needs have charity. Skousen reads “lowly of heart” here.<\/p>\n I see v43 as talking about a lack of hope\/faith but this verse as talking about a vain hope\/faith. \u00a0Is that the same thing? \u00a0Is there some tension here?<\/p>\n In “none is acceptable before God,” none what? \u00a0Is the reference to un-meek hope or something else?<\/p>\n Does this verse nuance your previous understanding of the relationship between hope\/faith and meek\/lowly?<\/p>\n Does this verse see “by the power of the Holy Ghost” as a certain kind of confession or as a characteristic of all confessions?<\/p>\n Does “he must needs have” mean (1) he is morally obligated to have or (2) he will of necessity possess? \u00a0Does the phrase beginning with “for if he have not . . .” help you answer that question?<\/p>\n 45 And charity suffereth long, and is kind, and envieth not, and is not puffed up, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil, and rejoiceth not in iniquity but rejoiceth in the truth, beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.<\/strong><\/p>\n Here’s the NET for the parallel passage in 1 Corinthians:<\/p>\n Love\u00a0is patient,\u00a0love\u00a0is kind,\u00a0it is\u00a0not\u00a0envious.\u00a0Love does\u00a0not\u00a0brag,\u00a0it is\u00a0not\u00a0puffed up.\u00a0\u00a0It is\u00a0not\u00a0rude,\u00a0it is\u00a0not\u00a0self-serving,\u00a0it is\u00a0not\u00a0easily angered\u00a0or resentful.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n How does this verse relate to Mormon’s larger argument here?<\/p>\n So Mormon clearly would not have had access through Paul’s letter to the Corinthians through normal challenges. \u00a0Do you think he received this material by special revelation? \u00a0(If so, why aren’t we told that?) \u00a0Or perhaps both Paul and Mormon are both quoting from an older, otherwise unknown text? \u00a0Or perhaps Joseph Smith was translating loosely to language he was already very familiar with? \u00a0Are there other possibilities for understanding this text? \u00a0Exploration of the issues here<\/a>.<\/p>\n Reflections on charity here<\/a>.<\/p>\n 46 Wherefore, my beloved brethren, if ye have not charity, ye are nothing, for charity never faileth. Wherefore, cleave unto charity, which is the greatest of all, for all things must fail\u2014 What does it mean to say that love never fails?<\/p>\n What does it mean to say that all things except charity will fail? \u00a0Is this literally true?<\/p>\n 47 But charity is the pure love of Christ, and it endureth forever; and whoso is found possessed of it at the last day, it shall be well with him. Why do you think he defines charity at the end of his argument and not at the beginning?<\/p>\n Is it fair to read this verse to conclude that as long as you are full of the love of Christ, nothing else matters at the judgment?<\/p>\n Brant Gardner:<\/p>\n Mormon concludes the arguments of his discourse by emphasizing charity as the love of Christ. Of course the need for this definitional statement is directly related to the way in which the Greek was translated by the KJV translators. Other English translations do use the word\u00a0love\u00a0<\/em>here instead of Charity. Therefore, this specific sentence must be included as a clarification of the English text, not part of a translation of a plate text. Citation\u00a0<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n 48 Wherefore, my beloved brethren, pray unto the Father with all the energy of heart, that ye may be filled with this love, which he hath bestowed upon all who are true followers of his Son, Jesus Christ; that ye may become the sons of God; that when he shall appear we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is; that we may have this hope; that we may be purified even as he is pure. Amen.<\/strong><\/p>\n Note the “wherefore.” \u00a0How does this verse relate to the verse before it?<\/p>\n What does an energetic prayer look life?<\/p>\n Does this verse imply that love is something God just gives you? \u00a0Or is it something you cultivate? \u00a0Or what?<\/p>\n Why would love be something God bestows on Jesus’ followers?<\/p>\n What are the implications of Mormon saying that you can _become_ a son of God?<\/p>\n Is the idea of being like him related to the idea of seeing him as he is? \u00a0Does any of this relate to the experience of bJared?<\/p>\n What does “like him” mean in this verse? \u00a0(Appearance? \u00a0Character?) \u00a0How does it relate to the idea of “we shall see him as he is”?<\/p>\n What does “that we may have this hope” do in this sentence?<\/p>\n What does purification have to do with the main idea of this verse? \u00a0What purifies in this context?<\/p>\n CHAPTER 8<\/strong><\/p>\n 1 An epistle of my father Mormon, written to me, Moroni; and it was written unto me soon after my calling to the ministry. And on this wise did he write unto me, saying:<\/strong> Now, do you treat this chapter as an entirely different universe from chapter 7, sort of as if each were a different appendix after a book, with no link between the two, since one was a sermonish thing and this is a letter? Or do you look at the fact that Moroni chose to include them in the record back-to-back and conclude that they should be read juxtaposed against each other?<\/p>\n Note “an epistle OF my father.” \u00a0We’ll soon get clarification that “of” means “by,” but this still interests me for some reason.<\/p>\n Does “on this wise” mean “here’s the letter verbatim” or does it mean “here’s the gist as best I remember it”? \u00a0How do you know?<\/p>\n What is “soon after my calling” doing? \u00a0(Is it an apology for the fact that his father is about to call him out on the carpet for a huge doctrinal mistake: \u00a0“hey, I was new when this happened!”)<\/p>\n 2 My beloved son, Moroni, I rejoice exceedingly that your Lord Jesus Christ hath been mindful of you, and hath called you to his ministry, and to his holy work.<\/strong> If we were to compare this chapter to the last one, the first thing I’d note is that he uses the same address (“beloved”) on his son as he did for the random people that he was preaching to in the last chapter.<\/p>\n I like “your” as a modifier for “Lord Jesus Christ.”<\/p>\n Are “ministry” and “holy work” the same thing or two different things in this verse?<\/p>\n 3 I am mindful of you always in my prayers, continually praying unto God the Father in the name of his Holy Child, Jesus, that he, through his infinite goodness and grace, will keep you through the endurance of faith on his name to the end.<\/strong> What point is Mormon making by saying in the last verse that Jesus is mindful of Moroni and saying in this verse that he is mindful of Moroni?<\/p>\n Acts 4:30 is only other scriptural use of “Holy Child.” \u00a0Why do you think this unusual moniker was used here?<\/p>\n Are “goodness” and “grace” two different things or two ways of saying the same thing here?<\/p>\n Does “through the endurance of faith” mean Mormon’s faith or Moroni’s faith or something else? \u00a0What does the phrase teach you about the idea of God “keeping” you?<\/p>\n 4 And now, my son, I speak unto you concerning that which grieveth me exceedingly; for it grieveth me that there should disputations rise among you.<\/strong> Now that you see Moroni getting down to business in this verse, does it change how you understand the previous verses of this letter? \u00a0(We don’t know what Nephite letter-writing conventions were, so it is hard to know if what we just read was nothing more than a pro forma introduction or if it was an effusive statement of love and faith.)<\/p>\n Do you grieve when there are disputes? \u00a0Should you? \u00a0Why do you think Mormon had this reaction?<\/p>\n Who is the “you” in this verse? \u00a0Is this letter a rebuke of something that Moroni had been doing? \u00a0How else can you read it?<\/p>\n Brant Gardner:<\/p>\n Disputations are differences of opinion inside the church. In the Book of Mormon,\u00a0contentions<\/em>\u00a0were differences of opinion between believers and non-believers in Nephite society. When internal\u00a0contentions\u00a0<\/em>disrupted Nephite society, the causes were conflicts between the traditional Nephite religion and the \u201coutside\u201d religions of the non-Nephites (and typically of some form of Nehorite religion).\u00a0In contrast to\u00a0contentions,<\/em>\u00a0disputations<\/em>\u00a0occur completely internal to the church. These are arguments within the church, that may or may not have any relation to the outside religion. There is no direct competition with a foreign religion, even though some of the ideas from the foreign religion might be entering Nephite faith. Citation\u00a0<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n <\/p>\n 5 For, if I have learned the truth, there have been disputations among you concerning the baptism of your little children.<\/strong> I like his careful phrasing here–he leaves open the possibility that he might have been misinformed.<\/p>\n Again, does “your” mean Moroni’s personal children, or the children of the community, or what?<\/p>\n 6 And now, my son, I desire that ye should labor diligently, that this gross error should be removed from among you; for, for this intent I have written this epistle.<\/strong> Note the emphasis on laboring\u00a0diligently. \u00a0What does that suggest to you? \u00a0Anything here that might be relevant to your life?<\/p>\n Even if you don’t read Moroni as in the wrong on the child-baptism issue, I think you could read this verse as something of a criticism of him for not working hard enough to stamp out this incorrect practice.<\/p>\n 7 For immediately after I had learned these things of you I inquired of the Lord concerning the matter. And the word of the Lord came to me by the power of the Holy Ghost, saying:<\/strong> What work is “immediately” doing here?<\/p>\n Does “of you” mean “that you were doing these things” or “that you were involved in this controversy” or “that you told me these things”?<\/p>\n Did he inquire because he wasn’t sure what the correct policy was? \u00a0Or because he wasn’t sure how best to correct the problem? \u00a0Given what he writes later in the chapter, shouldn’t he have been able to reason his way to the correct answer and not really need to pray about this? \u00a0What are we to learn from the fact that he prayed about it?<\/p>\n What does “by the power of the Holy Ghost” mean? \u00a0Does the word of the Lord always come this way, or is it a subset?<\/p>\n 8 Listen to the words of Christ, your Redeemer, your Lord and your God. Behold, I came into the world not to call the righteous but sinners to repentance; the whole need no physician, but they that are sick; wherefore, little children are whole, for they are not capable of committing sin; wherefore the curse of Adam is taken from them in me, that it hath no power over them; and the law of circumcision is done away in me.<\/strong> Note how this verse begins with a command to listen. \u00a0Presumably, Mormon was already doing that.<\/p>\n Why the multiple titles for Jesus in the first sentence?<\/p>\n Does this verse imply that Christ is God? \u00a0Is he?<\/p>\n What can you learn from comparing Jesus to a physician?<\/p>\n Note the “wherefore.” \u00a0How does the material before it relate to the material after it?<\/p>\n This verse seems to define “whole” as “without sin.” \u00a0It also seems to define “righteous” as without sin. \u00a0Are those fair statements? \u00a0What are the implications? \u00a0I’m curious about the idea that sin makes you something-other-than-whole. \u00a0What would that be? \u00a0Partial (in the sense of “in parts”)? \u00a0Broken? Empty?<\/p>\n Why aren’t little children capable of sinning? \u00a0What does that teach us about the definition of sin?<\/p>\n What is “the curse of Adam”? \u00a0How is it related to sin? \u00a0Is the implication that the fall made sin possible?<\/p>\n Does this verse imply that little children _are_ under the curse of Adam, but the atonement somehow covers that? \u00a0Is it then fair to say that they _do_ actually sin, but the sins don’t “count” in some sense?<\/p>\n If the curse of Adam can be taken from little children by Christ, why can’t the same thing happen for adults?<\/p>\n What effect does the “curse of Adam” have on adults?<\/p>\n I think the reference to the law of\u00a0circumcision\u00a0kind of feels like it comes out of left field. \u00a0What is it doing here? \u00a0(Note that this is the only reference to circumcision in the entire BoM.) \u00a0Circumcision is an interesting topic to mention in this context, since in the OT it was performed, obviously on little children. \u00a0How does circumcision (and the age at which it was practiced) relate to baptism? \u00a0I’m wondering if maybe the “disputers” thought that little children needed baptism because little children had been circumcised. \u00a0(Of course, we don’t actually know that the did circumcise in the BoM–presumably they did as a part of the Law of Moses, but there is absolutely no reference to it–literal or symbolic.) \u00a0If so, what is it that we are supposed to see here about the difference between baptism and circumcision as an entry-in-the-covenant rite? \u00a0(And, of course, I can’t help but mention the feminist element.) \u00a0And shouldn’t we be a touch more sympathetic to people who argued by analogy to\u00a0circumcision\u00a0for child baptism, given that they are making a logic argument and their hearts are in the right place, even if they are wrong?<\/p>\n 9 And after this manner did the Holy Ghost manifest the word of God unto me; wherefore, my beloved son, I know that it is solemn mockery before God, that ye should baptize little children.<\/strong> What does “after this manner” mean?<\/p>\n Does the “wherefore” begin what Mormon says to Moroni? \u00a0(I think that is the best way to read it.)<\/p>\n Note the “wherefore.” \u00a0That sounds to me like Moroni’s conclusion based on his revelation. \u00a0But, honestly, I don’t think the rhetorical intensity of this conclusion is justified by the revelation.<\/p>\n Does this verse imply that Mormon was told other things that aren’t included in this letter?<\/p>\n What in the last few verses led him to the “solemn mockery” formulation? \u00a0(Because I didn’t see that. \u00a0I saw “unnecessary,” but I didn’t see “mockery.”)<\/p>\n “Solemn mockery” sounds like a self-contradictory phrase. \u00a0What does it mean? \u00a0Is it deliberately weird?<\/p>\n Brant Gardner:<\/p>\n The reason that it is \u201csolemn mockery\u201d is that it is well-intentioned, but it denies the true nature of the atonement. The \u201csolemn\u201d refers to the righteous\u00a0intent<\/em>, and the \u201cmockery\u201d to the fact that baptizing infants denies the essential agency involved in the baptismal covenant. Citation<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n I don’t think I agree with Gardner on this one–it is an interesting proposal, but if solemn means that their intent was good (and when does the word “solemn” ever mean that?) then I don’t know how you end up sending people with good intentions to hell.<\/p>\n Given that the revelation to Mormon taught doctrine (and not a particular method for correcting the heresy), do you think it is fair to conclude that Mormon’s reason for praying about it was to find out for himself what the doctrine was. \u00a0(I think that is the best way to read this, but even if you think that Mormon was clear on the teaching, I think it is reasonable to conclude that Moroni wasn’t. \u00a0It seems like a pretty big lacuna, then, that’s he’s been called to a ministry but isn’t clear on this pretty basic and important issue. \u00a0What’s going on here?)<\/p>\n 10 Behold I say unto you that this thing shall ye teach\u2014repentance and baptism unto those who are accountable and capable of committing sin; yea, teach parents that they must repent and be baptized, and humble themselves as their little children, and they shall all be saved with their little children.<\/strong> Does it seem that Mormon has authority over what Moroni teaches? \u00a0What might this suggest about Nephite organization here?<\/p>\n Are “accountable” and “capable of committing sin” two ways of saying the same thing or two different things?<\/p>\n Why do you think Mormon starts talking about the parents in the middle of this discussion about children?<\/p>\n When you read “teach parents that they must repent,” I think the natural assumption is that the “they” refers to the children, but when you get to “humble themselves as their little children,” I think there is room to wonder whether the “they” who needed to repent meant the parents. \u00a0If so, it is sort of interesting that Mormon thinks the solution to this false teaching is for the parents to repent and be baptized. \u00a0Weird, because I don’t know that the parents are the disputers. \u00a0(This is the first mention of the parents as a group.) \u00a0Also because the end of the verse makes the focus on the salvation of the parents.<\/p>\n I like the idea in this verse that if the doctrine of repentance is emphasized, then the problem about who should (not) be baptized would\/should pretty much take care of itself.<\/p>\n Why are little children taken as the model for humility?<\/p>\n 11 And their little children need no repentance, neither baptism. Behold, baptism is unto repentance to the fulfilling the commandments unto the remission of sins.<\/strong> How do you mesh the idea of Jesus being baptized with what is taught in this verse?<\/p>\n 12 But little children are alive in Christ, even from the foundation of the world; if not so, God is a partial God, and also a changeable God, and a respecter to persons; for how many little children have died without baptism!<\/strong> What does “alive” mean in this verse? \u00a0What does it teach us about children?<\/p>\n What work is “even from the foundation of the world” doing here?<\/p>\n Are partial\/changeable\/respecter three different things or three ways of saying the same thing?<\/p>\n Is “respecter TO persons” different from a “respecter OF persons”?<\/p>\n Why would God be partial if little children were not alive in Christ? \u00a0What’s the logic here? \u00a0(Wouldn’t it be less partial to have one standard for all of humanity instead of dividing them up by age?)<\/p>\n Well, Mormon, a lot of adults have died without (access to) baptism, too. \u00a0What about them? \u00a0Wasn’t God partial in their cases?<\/p>\n 13 Wherefore, if little children could not be saved without baptism, these must have gone to an endless hell.<\/strong> For hundreds of years, Christians had no problem with the hypothetical in this verse: \u00a0they assumed that a child who died without baptism had been “chosen” to occupy that position in life, so no harm, no foul. \u00a0Why is that an inadequate solution?<\/p>\n What about adults who didn’t have access to baptism? \u00a0In other words, it seems that the solution to Mormon’s problem is proxy work, not the lack of necessity of baptism for children, because the former solves the problem for adults as well as for children, but Mormon’s formulation still leaves us in a pickle with respect to adults.<\/p>\n 14 Behold I say unto you, that he that supposeth that little children need baptism is in the gall of bitterness and in the bonds of iniquity; for he hath neither faith, hope, nor charity; wherefore, should he be cut off while in the thought, he must go down to hell.<\/strong> Does the faith\/hope\/charity trifecta encourage us to read this chapter in light of the last chapter?<\/p>\n Shouldn’t it make a difference as to _why_ a person thinks that children need baptism?<\/p>\n Did Jesus “need” baptism?<\/p>\n This verse is . . . somewhat harsh. \u00a0Not just in the extreme language, but it is the only verse I can think of that presents eternal damnation as the consequence for a thought. \u00a0It also seems to exclude the possibility of post-mortal repentance for a thought. \u00a0Frankly, I think Mormon has overplayed his hand here (that is, gone well beyond the revelation he had, which was just–see v8–that kids didn’t need to be baptized, but then in v16, to be fair, he does claim authority for this). \u00a0I posted about it once here<\/a>; some of the comments are excellent but I am not sure if I agree with myself anymore.<\/p>\n Note that both this verse and the one before it end with references to going to hell. \u00a0Is that significant? \u00a0What should you learn from the parallel?<\/p>\n 15 For awful is the wickedness to suppose that God saveth one child because of baptism, and the other must perish because he hath no baptism.<\/strong> This verse seems to assume that post-death baptism isn’t an option on the table. \u00a0It also seems to forget the problem of adults with no access to baptism. \u00a0It also seems to assume an entire theology behind the practice of young-child baptism that may or may not be accurate. \u00a0For example, I think many people who practice infant baptism today see it more as a symbol of the child’s entry into the community–much the way we see a baby blessing–and then they consider another ritual (First Communion for Catholics) to symbolize the child’s personal accountability–much the way we view baptism. In other words, to the extent that the practice of infant baptism might be wrong, I think it is a really, really, really minor wrong–a very subtle mistake that could very easily be made by a good-hearted, faithful person. \u00a0It isn’t worth mentioning in the same breath as, you know, child prostitution or slavery or whatever. \u00a0So I fail to understand why Mormon is making such a big stinking deal about it. \u00a0Perhaps I am over-reading this: \u00a0perhaps the infant-baptizers in Moroni’s association were personally and willfully and specifically wicked, and that the only problem is that we want to apply these verses to infant-baptizers today who are doing it for entirely different reasons and therefore don’t come under the condemnation that Mormon sees here.<\/p>\n 16 Wo be unto them that shall pervert the ways of the Lord after this manner, for they shall perish except they repent. Behold, I speak with boldness, having authority from God; and I fear not what man can do; for perfect love casteth out all fear.<\/strong> Does this verse indicate a slight retreat from v15, since it suggests the possibility of repentance?<\/p>\n What does “boldness” mean here?<\/p>\n What authority does he have?<\/p>\n Where does the fear\/love business come from? \u00a0Why is it relevant here?<\/p>\n 17 And I am filled with charity, which is everlasting love; wherefore, all children are alike unto me; wherefore, I love little children with a perfect love; and they are all alike and partakers of salvation.<\/strong> Are we supposed to find irony in the claims of everlasting love coming so hard on the heels of his condemning some people to hell for certain thoughts?<\/p>\n Why does Mormon mention charity here? \u00a0(Especially his own–this comes off, I think, as a little arrogant.)<\/p>\n Is it possible for any human to love with a perfect love?<\/p>\n Why does he mention 2x how alike children are? \u00a0Why is that even relevant here? \u00a0(Especially because his larger point is that they are not like adults.)<\/p>\n 18 For I know that God is not a partial God, neither a changeable being; but he is unchangeable from all eternity to all eternity.<\/strong> Are there any ways in which this statement is not true? \u00a0To what extent does it apply to Jesus?<\/p>\n In the context of v18, how do you understand God weeping?<\/p>\n 19 Little children cannot repent; wherefore, it is awful wickedness to deny the pure mercies of God unto them, for they are all alive in him because of his mercy.<\/strong> Why can’t little children repent?<\/p>\n General question on this section: \u00a0given the importance that Mormon obviously places on this issue, why do you think he doesn’t define the age at which one is no longer a “little child”?<\/p>\n What work does “pure” do here?<\/p>\n Is there a theology of little-child baptism that doesn’t deny the mercy of God? \u00a0Could there be?<\/p>\n Thinking about v17-19, what do you see here that should shape how you parent?<\/p>\n 20 And he that saith that little children need baptism denieth the mercies of Christ, and setteth at naught the atonement of him and the power of his redemption.<\/strong> 21 Wo unto such, for they are in danger of death, hell, and an endless torment. I speak it boldly; God hath commanded me. Listen unto them and give heed, or they stand against you at the judgment-seat of Christ.<\/strong> Are death\/hell\/torment three different things or three ways of saying the same thing?<\/p>\n How literally do you take the death\/hell\/torment?<\/p>\n General question: \u00a0if you read this letter as a dressing down of Moroni, the only comparable BoM text would be Corianton’s lecture. \u00a0How do these two texts compare?<\/p>\n Who is the “them”\/”they” that he is supposed to listen to?<\/p>\n 22 For behold that all little children are alive in Christ, and also all they that are without the law. For the power of redemption cometh on all them that have no law; wherefore, he that is not condemned, or he that is under no condemnation, cannot repent; and unto such baptism availeth nothing\u2014<\/strong> Does “all they that are without the law” apply to any person of any age? \u00a0If so, how does that nuance Mormon’s presentation here? \u00a0Why is this the first time Mormon mentions this group?<\/p>\n What does “without the law” mean?<\/p>\n Does this verse imply that there are people who would not be benefited by baptism because they are without the law? \u00a0If so, who are these people?<\/p>\n The cynic says: \u00a0shouldn’t we _not_ being doing missionary work, since people are better off without the law?<\/p>\n 23 But it is mockery before God, denying the mercies of Christ, and the power of his Holy Spirit, and putting trust in dead works.<\/strong> How do “dead works” fit into all of this? \u00a0(Is this a reference back to the circumcision issue?)<\/p>\n 24 Behold, my son, this thing ought not to be; for repentance is unto them that are under condemnation and under the curse of a broken law.<\/strong> What work is “my son” doing here? \u00a0(I think this verse kind of makes it sound as if Moroni thought little kids should be baptized, but the text admittedly never comes right out and says that.)<\/p>\n What does “broken law” mean? \u00a0(Why would people be under a broken law?) \u00a0How is a broken law a curse? \u00a0(Doesn’t this whole thing kind of make it sound as if God has messed up?)<\/p>\n 25 And the first fruits of repentance is baptism; and baptism cometh by faith unto the fulfilling the commandments; and the fulfilling the commandments bringeth remission of sins;<\/strong> What does the concept of repentance bearing fruit suggest to you about repentance?<\/p>\n 26 And the remission of sins bringeth meekness, and lowliness of heart; and because of meekness and lowliness of heart cometh the visitation of the Holy Ghost, which Comforter filleth with hope and perfect love, which love endureth by diligence unto prayer, until the end shall come, when all the saints shall dwell with God.<\/strong> Why would remitted sins lead to meekness? \u00a0How does this relate to the idea in the last chapter that meekness was a prerequisite for faith\/hope? \u00a0How does that relate to the idea in this chapter that meekness leads to visits from the Holy Ghost? \u00a0Why do we get “hope and perfect love” instead of hope\/faith here?<\/p>\n Are “meekness” and “lowliness of heart” two different things or two ways of saying the same thing?<\/p>\n Why is meekness a prereq to a visit from the Holy Ghost?<\/p>\n What does the word “Comforter” suggest to you about the Holy Ghost?<\/p>\n Why would prayer help love endure?<\/p>\n Article about the structure of this passage here<\/a>.<\/p>\n 27 Behold, my son, I will write unto you again if I go not out soon against the Lamanites. Behold, the pride of this nation, or the people of the Nephites, hath proven their destruction except they should repent.<\/strong> Why does Mormon mention pride here?<\/p>\n What does “or the people of the Nephites” suggest to you here? \u00a0Did Mormon think his son wouldn’t be clear as to who “this nation” was? \u00a0If not, then why the “or” phrase?<\/p>\n Why would pride lead to destruction?<\/p>\n 28 Pray for them, my son, that repentance may come unto them. But behold, I fear lest the Spirit hath ceased striving with them; and in this part of the land they are also seeking to put down all power and authority which cometh from God; and they are denying the Holy Ghost.<\/strong> Once again, I am impressed by how much effort BoM figures put in to reclaiming the lost sheep.<\/p>\n Is repentance something that comes to you?<\/p>\n What does “striving” suggest to you about the acts of the Spirit?<\/p>\n What does the phrase “pull down” imply about power?<\/p>\n 29 And after rejecting so great a knowledge, my son, they must perish soon, unto the fulfilling of the prophecies which were spoken by the prophets, as well as the words of our Savior himself.<\/strong> Is “knowledge” (not faith) significant here?<\/p>\n 30 Farewell, my son, until I shall write unto you, or shall meet you again. Amen.<\/strong><\/p>\n Well. \u00a0That’s a depressing letter. \u00a0Why do you think Mormon chose to include this in the record? \u00a0Is it significant that it come nearly at the end? \u00a0Would you read it differently in an earlier context?<\/p>\n CHAPTER 10<\/strong><\/p>\n 1 Now I, Moroni, write somewhat as seemeth me good; and I write unto my brethren, the Lamanites; and I would that they should know that *more than four hundred and twenty years have passed away since the sign was given of the coming of Christ.<\/strong> Remember that we just skipped chapter 9, since that was in a previous lesson.<\/p>\n Does “seemeth me good” mean “not specifically by revelation” or “I was inspired to do this” or “I’m lonely and bored and just killing time” or what?<\/p>\n Interesting that he’s willing to call the Lamanites his brethren. . .<\/p>\n Why does Moroni give the date here? \u00a0Is it significant? \u00a0Is the point to call our attention to the sign and\/or to Christ?<\/p>\n 2 And I seal up these records, after I have spoken a few words by way of exhortation unto you.<\/strong> Does “seal up” mean bury or something more?<\/p>\n “Spoken” is pretty awkward since he’s writing. \u00a0Why does he use it here? \u00a0(Or is this just an example of his famed weakness in writing?)<\/p>\n 3 Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, that ye would remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time that ye shall receive these things, and ponder it in your hearts.<\/strong> What do you do with the “if it be . . . read them” phrase? \u00a0I mean, obviously, if you are reading this then . . . you are reading this?<\/p>\n Does this verse imply that every reader of this verse is reading it because of a specific act of God’s wisdom? \u00a0Or is that overreading?<\/p>\n Note that the primary thing Moroni wants of his audience is to remember, and the primary thing he wants them to remember is the Lord’s mercy. \u00a0How does this statement influence your reading of the BoM? \u00a0If I asked you in the abstract what the main message of the BoM is, I doubt “the mercy of the Lord” would be in your top five (you’d probably mention things like Jesus Christ, the pride cycle, covenants, pride, etc.). \u00a0So should we be thinking differently?<\/p>\n Is the reference to Adam just because Adam is the starting point, or is something else going on? \u00a0(Particularly since the BoM doesn’t begin with Adam.)<\/p>\n I like how this verse links the reader to the creation, and shows that God is the same all the way through.<\/p>\n What does “ponder” mean in this verse? \u00a0What exactly is there to ponder here?<\/p>\n In the OT, heart usually means mind. \u00a0It would be interesting if we read this verse as counsel to “think about these things.”<\/p>\n We usually focus on v4-5 in this chapter; how does v3 shape the context of v4-5?<\/p>\n 4 And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.<\/strong> Why the _not_ before true? \u00a0Is that significant?<\/p>\n Moroni puts three qualifiers in here: \u00a0sincere heart, real intent, and faith. \u00a0Why these three? \u00a0(Are these three different things or three ways of saying the same thing?) How do they relate to each other? \u00a0Why are they prerequisites to learning the truth?<\/p>\n How universal do you think this promise is? \u00a0Are there limits?<\/p>\n What does “true” mean? \u00a0Is it necessarily the same as “historical” and\/or “accurate”? \u00a0(I don’t think so.)<\/p>\n Brant Gardner:<\/p>\n We know that Moroni does not consider\u00a0true<\/em>\u00a0to mean an absence of errors. In the Title Page, Moroni tells us: \u201cAnd now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men.”\u00a0It is also doubtful that Moroni considered\u00a0true<\/em>\u00a0to mean historically accurate. There is no doubt that he would have assumed that his recordwas<\/em>\u00a0historically accurate, but that would not be the thrust of the account. Should we find historical errors, and we do find some discernible historical errors of interpretation in Mormon\u2019s writings, that still does not constitute making the text\u00a0false<\/em>\u00a0in the way that Moroni is indicating. \u00a0Citation<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Our critics point to the use of this verse in missionary contexts and say, “sure, they say if you pray about it, you’ll know it is true, but if you pray and don’t learn that, they’ll blame you for lacking faith.” \u00a0How might you respond to this?<\/p>\n What does this verse suggest to you about the role of the Holy Ghost?<\/p>\n What effect does “manifest” have on you?<\/p>\n What role does the Holy Ghost play here?<\/p>\n I don’t know if I fully agree with his conclusion, but there are some interesting observations about this passage here<\/a>. \u00a0And another article here<\/a>.<\/p>\n 5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.<\/strong><\/p>\n What does “all things” mean in this verse? \u00a0Is this hyperbole? \u00a0Why does the Holy Ghost have a special role in knowing truth?<\/p>\n 6 And whatsoever thing is good is just and true; wherefore, nothing that is good denieth the Christ, but acknowledgeth that he is.<\/strong> How does this verse relate to the verse before it?<\/p>\n Is this verse saying that good = just + true? \u00a0Is that always, er, true? \u00a0What are the implications of this formula?<\/p>\n 7 And ye may know that he is, by the power of the Holy Ghost; wherefore I would exhort you that ye deny not the power of God; for he worketh by power, according to the faith of the children of men, the same today and tomorrow, and forever.<\/strong>
\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
\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
\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