This is what President Nelson shared on his Facebook page today:
My dear sisters, you may remember that during the October general conference, I extended four invitations to you:
1. Participate in a 10-day fast from social media and any other media that bring negative and impure thoughts to your mind.
2. Read the Book of Mormon by the end of 2018.
3. Establish a pattern of regular temple attendance.
4. Participate fully in Relief Society.
I hope that each of these invitations has brought you closer to the Savior. If you have struggled with any of them, please don’t be hard on yourself. You can start today. The Lord is happy with any effort we make to draw closer to Him.
I promise that as you prayerfully study the Book of Mormon, the heavens will open for you. The Lord will bless you with increased inspiration and revelation.
As we begin our home-centered, Church-supported curriculum in 2019, you sisters are a key to the success of this new, balanced, and coordinated gospel-teaching effort. Please teach those whom you love what you are learning from the scriptures. Teach them how to turn to the Savior for His healing and cleansing power when they sin. And teach them how to draw upon His strengthening power every day of their lives.
I am eager to hear about what you have learned as you have focused on these four invitations. I invite you to please leave me a comment below about your experiences.
***
This is my comment which is now lost in a sea of comments. I'll never find it again unless I share it here:
I decided to highlight all the references to Jesus Christ in pink. Even though I'm sure I didn't do a perfect job, there were many references and it was sometimes difficult to disambiguate! I also decided to do the same highlighting plan through reading the entire standard works. I was already reading the Old Testament, so I started this highlighting pattern in Hosea, where I already was.
I had to research who the LORD (Jehovah) is and how we know that it is Jesus Christ. I became very interested in discovering more about how many references to him there are in the Old Testament. I downloaded a tool called Wordcruncher. It allows you to search the scriptures with statistics and computer algorithms. There are over 6,400 references to the LORD in the Old Testament. That's an average of about six per page!
Ezekiel had been really difficult to read and understand, but with this new understanding of who the LORD is, suddenly Hosea became rich and full of meaning.
I also read the book of Mormon aloud in Czech, the language of my ancestors, which I am learning. I did my same highlighting plan there, and will continue to do so through the standard works. I am a much better Czech reader now than I was in September. I frequently noticed different and interesting points from reading it in Czech. It was deeply valuable to me personally.
I also wrote down questions and observations on index cards. There are enough questions that I can answer one/day for the next year. I decided to do so and write my answers on my blog so my friends can read about what I'm learning.
I am very sad that the Czech text of the Bible is not available digitally through the church website or apps. I want a Czech language Bible with all the McKonkie chapter headings and all the same footnotes. When will this finally come? There aren't a lot of Czech speaking latter-day saints, but they would surely treasure this. I would.
What I would treasure even more is to own and read a copy of the same translation of the Bible which my Czech ancestors knew. It is surprisingly difficult to discover which one that is. The best guess of about 20 different native Czechs who I've asked is Bible svatováclavská. I will keep looking.
(I feel like there's no way it'll be possible for you to actually read this comment. I also feel like my comment is nowhere near as heart-wrenchingly moving as the other thousands - and perhaps it will be millions - of comments. It was a deeply valuable experience for me to follow your invitation. It caused me to really feel that there is a place for me in the church. It wasn't something I mentally doubted, but emotionally it can be really difficult to feel that I am allowed to be free to be my nerdy researcher self. This experience showed me that not only is there a place, but there are actually others like me who are passionately interested in searching the scriptures in similar ways to me. I discovered a completely new passion and deep, nerdy interest. I also discovered the field of study I think I want to pursue for my advanced degree someday: corpus linguistics.
There were many other blessings in my family. My children saw me reading the scriptures. There was less contention. My husband and I had many long discussions about the scriptures. He listened to the book as an audio book. I could continue to echo what others have said already, but I'll let you or your assistants get to the next comment. Thank you for this challenge.)
Monday, December 31, 2018
Sunday, December 30, 2018
Is "the Father" Jesus Christ? 1 Nephi 14:17
Is "the Father" Jesus Christ? 1 Nephi 14:17
This verse describes how when wrath of God is poured out upon the great and abominable church (i.e. any church/institution which is not led by Jesus Christ) "the work of the Father shall commence in preparing the way for the fulfilling of his covenants, which he hath made to his people who are of the house of Israel."
Who makes the covenants?
The covenant is with "God", and I believe this is with God the Father. See Mosiah 5:8.
If we read this verse with the understanding that "the Father" is God the Father, then it becomes apparent that the plan of salvation is planned, designed, implemented, and controlled by Heavenly Father.
Jesus Christ is described as the Father in many places in the scriptures. He is the Father of our salvation. He is also literally the creator of the physical earth.
If we read this verse with the understanding that "the Father" is Jesus Christ, then it also makes some sense because Jesus Christ's atonement is the way that Heavenly Father's covenants are fulfilled. His atonement can be described as his work. Jesus Christ covenanted with us in the pre-mortal existence that he would come down and be our savior. Without his participation in the plan, it would not work at all.
A covenant is a sacred agreement between God and a person (or a group of people). The conditions are set by God. It is a two-way promise: if we keep our end, we are promised blessings.
The covenants God has made with the house of Israel are all throughout the ancient scriptures, especially the Old Testament. They are a major theme of the scriptures.
The TLDR version is that God promises to gather his people when they accept him and keep his commandments, and that through the house of Israel all the children of the earth will be blessed.
Answer:
In this verse and context "the Father" most likely refers to Heavenly Father, because he is the one who makes the covenants. Inasmuch as Jesus Christ is the way that our covenants with God the Father are fulfilled, it is not wrong to consider him as the Father of our salvation.
This verse describes how when wrath of God is poured out upon the great and abominable church (i.e. any church/institution which is not led by Jesus Christ) "the work of the Father shall commence in preparing the way for the fulfilling of his covenants, which he hath made to his people who are of the house of Israel."
Who makes the covenants?
The covenant is with "God", and I believe this is with God the Father. See Mosiah 5:8.
If we read this verse with the understanding that "the Father" is God the Father, then it becomes apparent that the plan of salvation is planned, designed, implemented, and controlled by Heavenly Father.
Jesus Christ is described as the Father in many places in the scriptures. He is the Father of our salvation. He is also literally the creator of the physical earth.
If we read this verse with the understanding that "the Father" is Jesus Christ, then it also makes some sense because Jesus Christ's atonement is the way that Heavenly Father's covenants are fulfilled. His atonement can be described as his work. Jesus Christ covenanted with us in the pre-mortal existence that he would come down and be our savior. Without his participation in the plan, it would not work at all.
A covenant is a sacred agreement between God and a person (or a group of people). The conditions are set by God. It is a two-way promise: if we keep our end, we are promised blessings.
The covenants God has made with the house of Israel are all throughout the ancient scriptures, especially the Old Testament. They are a major theme of the scriptures.
The TLDR version is that God promises to gather his people when they accept him and keep his commandments, and that through the house of Israel all the children of the earth will be blessed.
Answer:
In this verse and context "the Father" most likely refers to Heavenly Father, because he is the one who makes the covenants. Inasmuch as Jesus Christ is the way that our covenants with God the Father are fulfilled, it is not wrong to consider him as the Father of our salvation.
Why does Nephi ask his father where to obtain food and not the Lord? 1 Nephi 16:23
Why does Nephi ask his father where to obtain food and not the Lord? 1 Nephi 16:23
Answer:
I don't think there is a way to definitively answer this question, but here are two guesses:
Nephi's words compelled Lehi and the rest of his family to pray.
That my words would compel others to pray!
Answer:
I don't think there is a way to definitively answer this question, but here are two guesses:
- Nephi was showing his father Lehi, the patriarch of the group, respect.
- This was a passive-aggressive way for Nephi to get his father to pray.
Nephi's words compelled Lehi and the rest of his family to pray.
That my words would compel others to pray!
Why was seeing the destruction of his people such a huge affliction for Nephi? 1 Nephi 15:5
Why was seeing the destruction of his people such a huge affliction for Nephi? 1 Nephi 15:5
Nephi is really depressed after his vision because it includes seeing his great great great great great x grandchildren die out.
I've never experienced that. But I find it really hard to imagine caring so vividly and intently about my great x grandchildren.
However, I would of course care about my grandchildren. If I saw all of my grandchildren brutally murdered in the Holocaust, I could understand how that would be horrifying. Basically, Moroni 9 is the story of a Holocaust which occurred on the American continent. A Jewish-turned-Christian people was brutally murdered in ways that I do not want to repeat because they're so scary and horrifying until they were completely exterminated.
I guess the main difference between my grandchildren and my great great great great great great great great great x grandchildren is this one thing: whether or not I will get to see them and know them.
Nephi got to see them. So it makes sense that seeing their destruction would really suck, enough for him to describe it this way: "I considered that mine afflictions were great above all."
Answer:
Nephi really loved his family. It is horrible to see the people you love tortured and murdered. It is even more horrible to know that their destruction was due to their own wickedness.
Nephi is really depressed after his vision because it includes seeing his great great great great great x grandchildren die out.
I've never experienced that. But I find it really hard to imagine caring so vividly and intently about my great x grandchildren.
However, I would of course care about my grandchildren. If I saw all of my grandchildren brutally murdered in the Holocaust, I could understand how that would be horrifying. Basically, Moroni 9 is the story of a Holocaust which occurred on the American continent. A Jewish-turned-Christian people was brutally murdered in ways that I do not want to repeat because they're so scary and horrifying until they were completely exterminated.
I guess the main difference between my grandchildren and my great great great great great great great great great x grandchildren is this one thing: whether or not I will get to see them and know them.
Nephi got to see them. So it makes sense that seeing their destruction would really suck, enough for him to describe it this way: "I considered that mine afflictions were great above all."
Answer:
Nephi really loved his family. It is horrible to see the people you love tortured and murdered. It is even more horrible to know that their destruction was due to their own wickedness.
What exactly separates the wicked from the saints of God, and who are the wicked? 1 Nephi 15:28
What exactly separates the wicked from the saints of God, and who are the wicked? 1 Nephi 15:28
Nephi's vision of the tree of life is one of the most beautiful parts of the Book of Mormon which everybody should know about. It's a great allegory which you can read about in many different places, so I will not repeat it here.
In this vision there is "an awful gulf which separated the wicked from the tree of life, and also from the saints of God."
The angel told Nephi that the gulf is, "a representation of that awful hell...prepared for the wicked."
I recently realized that "hell" doesn't necessarily refer to the place you go after final judgment. I strongly believe that it includes our current state.
By this understanding, the "wicked" are people who choose to separate themselves from God.
Basically, you're either holding on to the iron rod (which is the word of God) or you are wicked.
I want to continually try to hold onto the word of God. I want to continually repent of my sins so that I do not have to endure the kind of mental torment that comes from choosing spiritual death. I want to make and keep covenants with God. I want to be a "saint." In fact, this is precisely the language that Christ used when he was on the earth to describe his followers (see Acts 9:13, 32, 41; Rom. 1:7; 1 Cor. 1:2; Philip. 1:1; 1 Pet. 1:14–15).
It is also the language which we use to describe his followers today. That is why it is part of the restored church: the church of Jesus Christ of latter-day saints.
Nephi's vision of the tree of life is one of the most beautiful parts of the Book of Mormon which everybody should know about. It's a great allegory which you can read about in many different places, so I will not repeat it here.
In this vision there is "an awful gulf which separated the wicked from the tree of life, and also from the saints of God."
The angel told Nephi that the gulf is, "a representation of that awful hell...prepared for the wicked."
I recently realized that "hell" doesn't necessarily refer to the place you go after final judgment. I strongly believe that it includes our current state.
By this understanding, the "wicked" are people who choose to separate themselves from God.
Basically, you're either holding on to the iron rod (which is the word of God) or you are wicked.
I want to continually try to hold onto the word of God. I want to continually repent of my sins so that I do not have to endure the kind of mental torment that comes from choosing spiritual death. I want to make and keep covenants with God. I want to be a "saint." In fact, this is precisely the language that Christ used when he was on the earth to describe his followers (see Acts 9:13, 32, 41; Rom. 1:7; 1 Cor. 1:2; Philip. 1:1; 1 Pet. 1:14–15).
It is also the language which we use to describe his followers today. That is why it is part of the restored church: the church of Jesus Christ of latter-day saints.
What is the "great church" in 1 Nephi 13:5? Is it the Catholic church?
What is the "great church" in 1 Nephi 13:5? Is it the Catholic church?
I have struggled to find a way to answer this question in a way that isn't painful to people I love. It is one that I have been asking myself for a long time.
But first, some context.
Nephi sees a vision (or perhaps a night dream?) in which he is shown "the formation of a great church which is most abominable above all other churches, which slayeth the saints of God, yea, and tortureth them and bindeth them down, and yoketh them with a yoke of iron, and bringeth them down into captivity." The founder of this church is the devil.
Nephi sees this church set up among the Gentiles. In his vision he also sees the discovery and colonizing of America, the loss of many plain and precious parts of the Bible, the state of gentile apostasy, the restoration of the gospel, the coming forth of latter-day scripture like the Book of Mormon, and the building of Zion on the earth.
Answer:
1 Nephi 14:10-11 has the answer to this question:
"There are save two churches only; the one is the church of the Lamb of God, and the other is the church of the devil; wherefore, whoso belongeth not to the church of the Lamb of God belongeth to that great church, which is the mother of abominations; and she is the whore of all the earth.
And it came to pass that I looked and beheld the whore of all the earth, and she sat upon many waters; and she had dominion over all the earth, among all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people."
There is some rich doctrine in this verse. It also happens to be totally unpopular doctrine today, in a world where truth is assumed to be subjective. "Discover your truth" is quite literally a popular message that bombards us on a daily basis. It's just hedonism wrapped in shiny new paper, basically.
The doctrine is this: there can only be one true church.
"Church" here is a little hard to define. Is the church the people who make the church, or is it something else? The definition of "church" in English is an institutionalized religion, a hierarchy of clergy of a Christian organization, a particular Christian organization typically with its own clergy, buildings, and distinctive doctrine. It can also refer to the church building itself. By the way, other languages have multiple different words to disambiguate the building from the institution, which makes sense.
Let me make it crystal clear to whoever might be reading this: I do not think that being Catholic makes one evil. I do not think that being Catholic makes someone either a literal or a metaphorical whore. I do not personally have strong anti-Catholic thoughts or feelings. Most of my impressions and feelings about Catholicism are quite positive. I recognize that devout Catholics are more similar in lifestyle to me than anybody else I know, followed closely by devout Muslims. I treasure the relationships I have with devout Catholics. I want to support them in their search for faith. I do not want to tear anybody's faith down with the words that I write.
A fundamental latter-day saint doctrine is that Jesus Christ has a church. He leads it. It is the church of Jesus Christ. The reason why "of latter-day saints" is part of the name is to distinguish us from the church he founded while he was alive.
If Jesus Christ has a church which he leads, it means that he cannot lead all churches. While all churches contain some true doctrine, they cannot all be true. Their doctrine conflicts with each other.
Joseph Smith noticed this. He lived in Palmyra, New York which was part of the "burned-over district" of the Second Great Awakening. He often felt like he was in the middle of a "war of words and opinions." He asked himself, "Who of all these parties are right; or, are they all wrong together? If any one of them be right, which is it, and how shall I know it?"
We live in a time that is similar to that, only now the common idea is that "rightness" doesn't matter. That whatever you believe is right.
2 Nephi 28 (the whole chapter, but especially verses 21-22) has the answer to this question in more depth. It explores the idea of the falseness of most churches and it describes in detail why they are false. Here is a list of some of the hallmarks of false churches:
Does this list exclusively describe the Catholic church? No!
Jesus Christ has a church on the earth today. It is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
I have struggled to find a way to answer this question in a way that isn't painful to people I love. It is one that I have been asking myself for a long time.
But first, some context.
Nephi sees a vision (or perhaps a night dream?) in which he is shown "the formation of a great church which is most abominable above all other churches, which slayeth the saints of God, yea, and tortureth them and bindeth them down, and yoketh them with a yoke of iron, and bringeth them down into captivity." The founder of this church is the devil.
Nephi sees this church set up among the Gentiles. In his vision he also sees the discovery and colonizing of America, the loss of many plain and precious parts of the Bible, the state of gentile apostasy, the restoration of the gospel, the coming forth of latter-day scripture like the Book of Mormon, and the building of Zion on the earth.
Answer:
1 Nephi 14:10-11 has the answer to this question:
"There are save two churches only; the one is the church of the Lamb of God, and the other is the church of the devil; wherefore, whoso belongeth not to the church of the Lamb of God belongeth to that great church, which is the mother of abominations; and she is the whore of all the earth.
And it came to pass that I looked and beheld the whore of all the earth, and she sat upon many waters; and she had dominion over all the earth, among all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people."
There is some rich doctrine in this verse. It also happens to be totally unpopular doctrine today, in a world where truth is assumed to be subjective. "Discover your truth" is quite literally a popular message that bombards us on a daily basis. It's just hedonism wrapped in shiny new paper, basically.
The doctrine is this: there can only be one true church.
"Church" here is a little hard to define. Is the church the people who make the church, or is it something else? The definition of "church" in English is an institutionalized religion, a hierarchy of clergy of a Christian organization, a particular Christian organization typically with its own clergy, buildings, and distinctive doctrine. It can also refer to the church building itself. By the way, other languages have multiple different words to disambiguate the building from the institution, which makes sense.
Let me make it crystal clear to whoever might be reading this: I do not think that being Catholic makes one evil. I do not think that being Catholic makes someone either a literal or a metaphorical whore. I do not personally have strong anti-Catholic thoughts or feelings. Most of my impressions and feelings about Catholicism are quite positive. I recognize that devout Catholics are more similar in lifestyle to me than anybody else I know, followed closely by devout Muslims. I treasure the relationships I have with devout Catholics. I want to support them in their search for faith. I do not want to tear anybody's faith down with the words that I write.
A fundamental latter-day saint doctrine is that Jesus Christ has a church. He leads it. It is the church of Jesus Christ. The reason why "of latter-day saints" is part of the name is to distinguish us from the church he founded while he was alive.
If Jesus Christ has a church which he leads, it means that he cannot lead all churches. While all churches contain some true doctrine, they cannot all be true. Their doctrine conflicts with each other.
Joseph Smith noticed this. He lived in Palmyra, New York which was part of the "burned-over district" of the Second Great Awakening. He often felt like he was in the middle of a "war of words and opinions." He asked himself, "Who of all these parties are right; or, are they all wrong together? If any one of them be right, which is it, and how shall I know it?"
We live in a time that is similar to that, only now the common idea is that "rightness" doesn't matter. That whatever you believe is right.
2 Nephi 28 (the whole chapter, but especially verses 21-22) has the answer to this question in more depth. It explores the idea of the falseness of most churches and it describes in detail why they are false. Here is a list of some of the hallmarks of false churches:
- they fight with each other
- they teach with their own learning, not the power of God
- they deny the Holy Ghost
- they deny the power of God
- they say that God is not a God of miracles today
- they teach, "eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die, and it shall be well with us." In other words, they teach, "discover your own truth."
- they teach, "a little bit of sin is not that bad - you can twist someone's words, you can take advantage of your neighbor - don't worry; God will just beat us a little bit and then we will be saved in the end."
- they teach other false, vain, foolish doctrines
- they are puffed up in their hearts
- they seek to hide their counsels from the Lord
- their work is in the dark
- the blood of the saints cries against them
- they have gone astray
- they are corrupt
- they rob the poor
- they have rich, fine church buildings
- they have rich, fine clothing
- they persecute the meek, poor, and humble
- they are proud
- they have stiff necks and high heads
- they commit whoredoms, aka sexual perversions for financial gain
- they revile things that are good and say that they are worthless
- the devil rages in their hearts
- they are angry about true doctrine
- they are lulled into carnal security, saying, "everything is awesome! No need to worry about religion."
- they are flattered into believing hell doesn't exist
- they don't believe the devil is real
- they listen to the philosophies of men
- they say, "We have received enough doctrine; we don't need any more!"
- they reject scripture
- they tremble and are angry because of the truth of God
- they put trust in human ideas and philosophies
Does this list exclusively describe the Catholic church? No!
In my opinion, this list describes a huge number of organizations, many of which are not actually religious at first glance, but are political.
If I take a good, hard, honest look at my own church, I have to admit that I do not see these attributes. Sure, I see flaws with some aspects of my church's culture. But these flaws are almost exclusively related to my United States culture, and are not explicit doctrine or teachings. When you experience the restored church in other places of the world, these flaws aren't there (and other ones are). Humans are flawed. Inasmuch as humans "are" the church, the church will have flaws. Inasmuch as the church is a foundation led by God, the doctrine it teaches must also be fully true.
If I take a good, hard, honest look at my own church, I have to admit that I do not see these attributes. Sure, I see flaws with some aspects of my church's culture. But these flaws are almost exclusively related to my United States culture, and are not explicit doctrine or teachings. When you experience the restored church in other places of the world, these flaws aren't there (and other ones are). Humans are flawed. Inasmuch as humans "are" the church, the church will have flaws. Inasmuch as the church is a foundation led by God, the doctrine it teaches must also be fully true.
I think that you'd be hard-pressed to deny that the Catholic church has historically been involved in a serious number of things on this list, even if you are a devout Catholic. For example, the historic practice of indulgences.
Personally, I like to believe that most devout people of all creeds are, "the humble followers of Christ." I think this includes some (perhaps most) of my Catholic ancestors. I know that many of them wanted to be members of the church of the Lamb of God. I know that in many cases they sacrificed greatly to practice their faith. I know that many of my ancestors knew at least some true doctrine and believed it. I do not have any known non-Christian ancestors, but even if I did, I am confident that these statements would apply to them, too (except I guess they wouldn't explicitly be "followers of Christ").
This is why it is so important to me to get them the opportunity to actually become members of the true church of the Lamb of God. I have been told repeatedly in the temple by various temple presidents that the majority of people whose temple work we do will accept the ordinances we perform for them. It's their choice. I don't know how this works, but I have faith that it does. I do know that you can't force someone to believe anything.
In a recent Facebook exchange with a kind, polite person of a different faith, I was deeply bothered by the idea that it doesn't really matter which baptism you have; that they are all valid. I want to affirm that one's baptism does matter. It must be performed by someone who has the proper authority from God to do so, by the immersion of a physical body either in person or by proxy. Baptism is the only way to become a member of the church of the Lamb of God. It is for sure a weird, physical ritual, but Jesus Christ himself was baptized (by immersion in the river Jordan, which I have visited multiple times - it's muddy and gross) so why should we think we need it any less than he does? Are we any better than him?
TLDR: The "great church" includes the institution of the Catholic church but it is not exclusive to it, and many (maybe most?) individual people within the Catholic church want (and have long wanted) to be members of the church of the Lamb of God, including the majority of my known Czech ancestors.
Jesus Christ has a church on the earth today. It is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
It isn't my place to determine who is and isn't a "humble follower of Christ." It is my place to be sure that I, myself, am one. It is my place to try to help other people become one. By far the least stressful way for me to do this is to research my dead ancestors and perform temple work for them.
Saturday, December 29, 2018
Is the day when the "wrath of God is poured out upon the mother of harlots" already passed? Was it ca 1820-1830? 1 Nephi 14:17
Is the day when the "wrath of God is poured out upon the mother of harlots" already passed? Was it ca 1820-1830? 1 Nephi 14:17
Answer:
Ish?
The footnote leads to a reference about the "Last Days." There's like...a big long list of scriptures describing the last days and all the events that will come, which I will spare you from pasting here.
Basically, it's the TLDR version of all the Ancient scriptures! Ha!
Answer:
Ish?
The footnote leads to a reference about the "Last Days." There's like...a big long list of scriptures describing the last days and all the events that will come, which I will spare you from pasting here.
Basically, it's the TLDR version of all the Ancient scriptures! Ha!
And some of those things have happened, some are happening, and some have not yet happened.
I guess "day" here could mean a collection of days.
I guess if it refers to a single day, then it could also mean that literally, God's wrath has started to be poured out already. The "work of the Father" has already commenced. The covenants are that Israel will be remembered and gathered. This message is totally laced all throughout the entire Old Testament, and you can see that it is starting to happen today. By the way, I have strong feelings about the gathering of Israel not meaning the creation of the modern state of Israel, but that is a subject for another post. Or perhaps a previous one that I wrote while living in the middle east and cannot dig up right now.
In a nutshell: the house of Israel is a metaphor for God's children - for everyone. We are actually all welcome in the house of Israel. When we keep God's commandments and make covenants that we will follow him, we are adopted into the house of Israel.
What are these "other books" referred to in 1 Nephi 13:39, how do they "come forth", and is it possible for me to write one of them?
What are these "other books" referred to in 1 Nephi 13:39, how do they "come forth", and is it possible for me to write one of them?
The footnote leads to Doctrine and Covenants 9:2 and specifically says this refers to: "An allusion to additional translation activity, i.e., the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible and the Book of Abraham, in which Oliver Cowdery assisted as a scribe. See also BD Joseph Smith Translation."
However, is that exclusively what this is referring to? I am not sure. Very often in the scriptures the prophecies refer to multiple specific things. Isaiah did this a lot of times, actually.
How revealed books have "come forth" to people like Joseph Smith is described in detail in Chapter 6 of Saints. It is pretty weird - and cool - if you ask me. I don't feel like I know enough to write about it in any kind of detail.
By the way, this is a book basically takes the prize for having the largest gulf between love of the content and hatred of the cover, for me. Number two might be the new "Come, Follow Me for Individuals and Families" which is the new church curriculum that we will be implementing in our home starting...actually, it starts tomorrow!
The final question about writing "other books" is...complicated.
First, are the "other books" all scriptures? I don't know.
Can scriptures be written by people like me? I don't know. Scriptures in the past have mostly been written by men. Actually, a big theme for me in reading the Book of Mormon in 2018 was noticing how often the scriptures are defined, as well as defining the authors of the scriptures, which I guess are generally the prophets - but not always? I cannot answer this question quickly, either, so I'll leave it alone for a while.
My gut says: why not? If it's God's will for people like me to write scripture, why not. I know that God reveals his word through his servants the prophets. I know that this includes modern revelation. Latter-day saints treat general conference talks as scripture. They aren't quite the same as the ancient records of scripture - except...well...except they kind of are. If you look at the Pauline epistles, a whole bunch of them are just transcriptions of talks he gave at what could be perceived as the equivalent of general conferences of the Church of Jesus Christ (of Middle Day Saints?).
The more personal implied question, is this something for me to do - well, that's deeply personal and obviously not something I have the answer for.
I guess the best way for me to answer it at this time is like this:
I am willing to fulfill the mission that God sent me to do on this earth.
I don't necessarily know all of the things that it entails.
I do feel like I have had some strong directions given to me, usually in the form of impressions or feelings. These are not whims or fancies merely from my heart. They usually make sense in my mind as well. They are often things that I don't tend to share with others (except Danny) because they are private, spiritual things that I hold sacred.
However, there are a few of them that I can share. They are pretty obvious to anybody who has known me for any amount of time:
My most important work in this life is being a wife and mother. These roles are deeply intertwined for me. I find deep joy in teaching my children the gospel. That's actually not a joke or understatement or a canned response. It is totally true. I have not discovered a way to explain this feeling with words to other people, and most of the time when I am writing, it's not about that but other interests and plans I have.
I am willing to accept whatever church callings I am given. Right now I am the Temple and Family History Consultant - Lead (ohhhh man. I challenge you to find a calling with more syllables than that!) as well as the Teacher Council (or is it counsel? I never know which is which) Facilitator.
I love finding my ancestors. I love preparing their names for proxy temple work. I love doing that temple work. I really, really love this. It is one of the most fulfilling things I can do with my time.
It's important for me to learn Czech.
Whether or not I will be involved in writing "other books" that testify of Jesus Christ and help influence the world in a positive way to come to him, I certainly feel deeply drawn towards the act of writing itself. Writing fiction. Writing non-fiction. Writing reference books. Writing short stories. Writing facebook updates. Writing soooo many letters. Writing texts and messages to friends. Writing stupid poetry. Writing my testimony. Writing my thoughts and feelings. I think that is part of my "calling" on this earth.
So...unsatisfactory answer. I will have to set this particular question aside to study for later.
The footnote leads to Doctrine and Covenants 9:2 and specifically says this refers to: "An allusion to additional translation activity, i.e., the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible and the Book of Abraham, in which Oliver Cowdery assisted as a scribe. See also BD Joseph Smith Translation."
However, is that exclusively what this is referring to? I am not sure. Very often in the scriptures the prophecies refer to multiple specific things. Isaiah did this a lot of times, actually.
How revealed books have "come forth" to people like Joseph Smith is described in detail in Chapter 6 of Saints. It is pretty weird - and cool - if you ask me. I don't feel like I know enough to write about it in any kind of detail.
By the way, this is a book basically takes the prize for having the largest gulf between love of the content and hatred of the cover, for me. Number two might be the new "Come, Follow Me for Individuals and Families" which is the new church curriculum that we will be implementing in our home starting...actually, it starts tomorrow!
The final question about writing "other books" is...complicated.
First, are the "other books" all scriptures? I don't know.
Can scriptures be written by people like me? I don't know. Scriptures in the past have mostly been written by men. Actually, a big theme for me in reading the Book of Mormon in 2018 was noticing how often the scriptures are defined, as well as defining the authors of the scriptures, which I guess are generally the prophets - but not always? I cannot answer this question quickly, either, so I'll leave it alone for a while.
My gut says: why not? If it's God's will for people like me to write scripture, why not. I know that God reveals his word through his servants the prophets. I know that this includes modern revelation. Latter-day saints treat general conference talks as scripture. They aren't quite the same as the ancient records of scripture - except...well...except they kind of are. If you look at the Pauline epistles, a whole bunch of them are just transcriptions of talks he gave at what could be perceived as the equivalent of general conferences of the Church of Jesus Christ (of Middle Day Saints?).
The more personal implied question, is this something for me to do - well, that's deeply personal and obviously not something I have the answer for.
I guess the best way for me to answer it at this time is like this:
I am willing to fulfill the mission that God sent me to do on this earth.
I don't necessarily know all of the things that it entails.
I do feel like I have had some strong directions given to me, usually in the form of impressions or feelings. These are not whims or fancies merely from my heart. They usually make sense in my mind as well. They are often things that I don't tend to share with others (except Danny) because they are private, spiritual things that I hold sacred.
However, there are a few of them that I can share. They are pretty obvious to anybody who has known me for any amount of time:
My most important work in this life is being a wife and mother. These roles are deeply intertwined for me. I find deep joy in teaching my children the gospel. That's actually not a joke or understatement or a canned response. It is totally true. I have not discovered a way to explain this feeling with words to other people, and most of the time when I am writing, it's not about that but other interests and plans I have.
I am willing to accept whatever church callings I am given. Right now I am the Temple and Family History Consultant - Lead (ohhhh man. I challenge you to find a calling with more syllables than that!) as well as the Teacher Council (or is it counsel? I never know which is which) Facilitator.
I love finding my ancestors. I love preparing their names for proxy temple work. I love doing that temple work. I really, really love this. It is one of the most fulfilling things I can do with my time.
It's important for me to learn Czech.
Whether or not I will be involved in writing "other books" that testify of Jesus Christ and help influence the world in a positive way to come to him, I certainly feel deeply drawn towards the act of writing itself. Writing fiction. Writing non-fiction. Writing reference books. Writing short stories. Writing facebook updates. Writing soooo many letters. Writing texts and messages to friends. Writing stupid poetry. Writing my testimony. Writing my thoughts and feelings. I think that is part of my "calling" on this earth.
So...unsatisfactory answer. I will have to set this particular question aside to study for later.
Saturday, December 22, 2018
Why was it important for Nephi to talk to the Spirit "as a man speaketh" in 1 Nephi 11:11? Is it possible for me to speak to him this way, and if so, how?
Why was it important for Nephi to talk to the Spirit "as a man speaketh" in 1 Nephi 11:11? Is it possible for me to speak to him this way, and if so, how?
It was important for Nephi to learn something about the nature of God. I think it might have been a surprise for him to learn that the godhead his made of three separate personages.
It's definitely possible for me to "cry unto God with my heart." (see Hosea 7:14) This is called prayer.
It's definitely possible for God to speak to me. I don't feel very confident that he will speak to me in this exact way, "as a man speaketh." I think that would be incredible, but it's very probably not going to happen.
I take a lot of comfort in the words of Alma, where he talks about people (like me) whose witness of God comes from the scriptures rather than from miraculous visitations and visions. He says they are blessed for humbling themselves because of the word. He says they are blessed for believing in the word of God by faith and not by knowledge. I like that scripture a lot. It makes sense to me.
It was important for Nephi to learn something about the nature of God. I think it might have been a surprise for him to learn that the godhead his made of three separate personages.
It's definitely possible for me to "cry unto God with my heart." (see Hosea 7:14) This is called prayer.
It's definitely possible for God to speak to me. I don't feel very confident that he will speak to me in this exact way, "as a man speaketh." I think that would be incredible, but it's very probably not going to happen.
I take a lot of comfort in the words of Alma, where he talks about people (like me) whose witness of God comes from the scriptures rather than from miraculous visitations and visions. He says they are blessed for humbling themselves because of the word. He says they are blessed for believing in the word of God by faith and not by knowledge. I like that scripture a lot. It makes sense to me.
Is the "judgment seat of God" Heavenly Father's or Jesus Christ's? 1 Nephi 10:21
Is the "judgment seat of God" Heavenly Father's or Jesus Christ's? 1 Nephi 10:21
From this recent talk by Brian K. Ashton (and lots of other places throughout the scriptures including 3 Nephi 24:5 and Malachi 3:5 etc.) we learn unambiguously that Jesus Christ is the judge.
Since he is the judge, I guess it is his judgment seat.
From this recent talk by Brian K. Ashton (and lots of other places throughout the scriptures including 3 Nephi 24:5 and Malachi 3:5 etc.) we learn unambiguously that Jesus Christ is the judge.
Since he is the judge, I guess it is his judgment seat.
How do you prevent yourself from heeding the pride of the world referred to in 1 Nephi 8:34?
How do you prevent yourself from heeding the pride of the world referred to in 1 Nephi 8:34?
Nephi is seeing the vision of the tree of life. In it there is a big group of people in a great and spacious building who are mocking the people who are holding onto the rod that leads to the tree of life.
The fruit of the tree of life is the love of God.
The iron rod leading to the tree is the word of God.
The great and spacious building and the people in it represent the pride of the world.
"As many as heeded [the multitude in the great and spacious building] had fallen away."
So the question is, how to prevent yourself from doing that. The first non-corpus linguistics questions so far, by the way. A personal question.
I asked my husband and kids at breakfast what they thought. They had these ideas:
- focus on holding onto the rod, i.e. reading your scriptures and saying your prayers
- don't worry about what other people think of you
How do you just not worry?
It is kind of like when Danny went on his mission. I remember I was sobbing huge crocodile tears of sadness. I called Danny's dad and talked to him on the phone. "What am I going to do?" His dad said, somewhat coldly, "well...suck it up!"
I wrote that on an index card. Because I'm a dork. It became a bookmark in my scriptures.
Actually, that advice, as cold as it sounds, was great. Suck it up.
Something that significantly helps me to care less about what other people think is to consistently read the scriptures. The scriptures are totally full of the message that every knee will bow, every tongue will confess that Jesus is the Christ. They testify that God loves his children. They testify that we are important to him. They testify of justice and mercy. They testify of the ability for us to repent when we screw up. They are a very strong source of positive motivation to keep living righteously and to keep the covenants I've made. I really value them, very deeply. There's no coincidence that the iron rod is a representation of the word of God. It is steadfast, sure, unwavering.
Nephi is seeing the vision of the tree of life. In it there is a big group of people in a great and spacious building who are mocking the people who are holding onto the rod that leads to the tree of life.
The fruit of the tree of life is the love of God.
The iron rod leading to the tree is the word of God.
The great and spacious building and the people in it represent the pride of the world.
"As many as heeded [the multitude in the great and spacious building] had fallen away."
So the question is, how to prevent yourself from doing that. The first non-corpus linguistics questions so far, by the way. A personal question.
I asked my husband and kids at breakfast what they thought. They had these ideas:
- focus on holding onto the rod, i.e. reading your scriptures and saying your prayers
- don't worry about what other people think of you
How do you just not worry?
It is kind of like when Danny went on his mission. I remember I was sobbing huge crocodile tears of sadness. I called Danny's dad and talked to him on the phone. "What am I going to do?" His dad said, somewhat coldly, "well...suck it up!"
I wrote that on an index card. Because I'm a dork. It became a bookmark in my scriptures.
Actually, that advice, as cold as it sounds, was great. Suck it up.
Something that significantly helps me to care less about what other people think is to consistently read the scriptures. The scriptures are totally full of the message that every knee will bow, every tongue will confess that Jesus is the Christ. They testify that God loves his children. They testify that we are important to him. They testify of justice and mercy. They testify of the ability for us to repent when we screw up. They are a very strong source of positive motivation to keep living righteously and to keep the covenants I've made. I really value them, very deeply. There's no coincidence that the iron rod is a representation of the word of God. It is steadfast, sure, unwavering.
What does it mean by the virgin was "extremely fair and white" in 1 Nephi 11:13?
What does it mean by the virgin was "extremely fair and white" in 1 Nephi 11:13?
In Czech, the word they use is "bělostná" which apparently means snow-white, lily-white, pure white, alabaster.
Going from the Czech meaning, I think it's pretty obvious to say that Mary, the mother of God, was white more of a symbolic way than a literal way. I guess she could have been albino. Huh.
As Semites, neither Mary nor Jesus were probably very white-skinned, despite what millennia of western art might have you think. But then again, they didn't wear Renaissance-era clothing, either. I guess artists typically personalize their versions of Jesus. And I guess that makes sense, even though it's really annoying.
This is the kind of question which I have less than zero interest researching online. It is like, pure fodder for anti literature. I really like Hugh Nibley (and by the way, according to my brother, Nibley's interpretation of the word "white" in the Book of Mormon is that it has little to nothing to do with race or skin), but I'm not an apologist. I hate conflict. It is kind of...hard enough to write any of this at all.
I think in order to study this in any amount of satisfaction, I would want to search the scriptures - mostly the Book of Mormon - for instances of the use of the word "white." I would want to see how often they definitely refer to skin color or race, how often they refer to "the mark", how often they refer to something else.
But that does not sound like a particularly instructive, useful way to spend my time, and a really great way to invite critics of the Book of Mormon to do their thing.
I have no personal problem with believing or accepting that the Nephites might have been racist. I think racism is terrible. I don't want to be racist.
Answer:
Mary was definitely a really righteous woman who was foreordained to be the mother of Jesus Christ. It seems she may have had remarkably pale skin, but maybe that is just a reference to her personal purity. Basically, I don't know and I don't think it's super important.
In Czech, the word they use is "bělostná" which apparently means snow-white, lily-white, pure white, alabaster.
Going from the Czech meaning, I think it's pretty obvious to say that Mary, the mother of God, was white more of a symbolic way than a literal way. I guess she could have been albino. Huh.
As Semites, neither Mary nor Jesus were probably very white-skinned, despite what millennia of western art might have you think. But then again, they didn't wear Renaissance-era clothing, either. I guess artists typically personalize their versions of Jesus. And I guess that makes sense, even though it's really annoying.
This is the kind of question which I have less than zero interest researching online. It is like, pure fodder for anti literature. I really like Hugh Nibley (and by the way, according to my brother, Nibley's interpretation of the word "white" in the Book of Mormon is that it has little to nothing to do with race or skin), but I'm not an apologist. I hate conflict. It is kind of...hard enough to write any of this at all.
I think in order to study this in any amount of satisfaction, I would want to search the scriptures - mostly the Book of Mormon - for instances of the use of the word "white." I would want to see how often they definitely refer to skin color or race, how often they refer to "the mark", how often they refer to something else.
But that does not sound like a particularly instructive, useful way to spend my time, and a really great way to invite critics of the Book of Mormon to do their thing.
I have no personal problem with believing or accepting that the Nephites might have been racist. I think racism is terrible. I don't want to be racist.
Answer:
Mary was definitely a really righteous woman who was foreordained to be the mother of Jesus Christ. It seems she may have had remarkably pale skin, but maybe that is just a reference to her personal purity. Basically, I don't know and I don't think it's super important.
Was Nephi actually physically present or was it a vision just in his mind in 1 Nephi 11:11?
Was Nephi actually physically present or was it a vision just in his mind in 1 Nephi 11:11?
He was "caught away in the Spirit of the Lord."
It seems to imply that he was literally in an exceedingly high mountain. But maybe that was just part of the vision.
He was not in his father's tent, as we learn in 1 Nephi 15:1.
Answer: I do not know. Maybe he was literally carried away. Maybe it was just in his mind. It could be either. I don't know from personal experience how visions work. They could work in a variety of ways. I guess it's not that important.
He was "caught away in the Spirit of the Lord."
It seems to imply that he was literally in an exceedingly high mountain. But maybe that was just part of the vision.
He was not in his father's tent, as we learn in 1 Nephi 15:1.
Answer: I do not know. Maybe he was literally carried away. Maybe it was just in his mind. It could be either. I don't know from personal experience how visions work. They could work in a variety of ways. I guess it's not that important.
Is Jesus Christ ever referred to as "the Most High God"? 1 Nephi 11:6
Is Jesus Christ ever referred to as "the Most High God"? In 1 Nephi 11:6 it seems to be referring to Heavenly Father.
This question goes with all the other questions about "which God" is it.
So I used Wordcruncher and discovered that there are 22 instances of the exact phrase "most high God" in the standard works, and I'm also counting Luke 8:28 which has "Jesus, thou Son of God most high."
OT : 9 in Genesis, Psalms and Daniel
NT : 4 in Mark, Luke, Acts and Hebrews
BoM : 6 in 1 Nephi, Alma and 3 Nephi
D&C : 3 in sections 36, 39 and 45
I discovered it's really hard to know exactly which member(s) of the godhead are being referenced. I also was strict, in that I only allowed myself to assign them to one category. These are the categories:
Jesus Christ
Heavenly Father
Holy Ghost
All Three At The Same Time
Jesus Christ and Heavenly Father
Heavenly Father and the Holy Ghost
Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost
AMBIGUOUS <-- I did not allow any of them to stay in this category, even though that is where I put a lot of them at first.
Here's a list of all the instances of "most high God":
This question goes with all the other questions about "which God" is it.
So I used Wordcruncher and discovered that there are 22 instances of the exact phrase "most high God" in the standard works, and I'm also counting Luke 8:28 which has "Jesus, thou Son of God most high."
OT : 9 in Genesis, Psalms and Daniel
NT : 4 in Mark, Luke, Acts and Hebrews
BoM : 6 in 1 Nephi, Alma and 3 Nephi
D&C : 3 in sections 36, 39 and 45
I discovered it's really hard to know exactly which member(s) of the godhead are being referenced. I also was strict, in that I only allowed myself to assign them to one category. These are the categories:
Jesus Christ
Heavenly Father
Holy Ghost
All Three At The Same Time
Jesus Christ and Heavenly Father
Heavenly Father and the Holy Ghost
Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost
AMBIGUOUS <-- I did not allow any of them to stay in this category, even though that is where I put a lot of them at first.
Here's a list of all the instances of "most high God":
And here is my biased, opinionated judgment about how many times they refer to whom:
Jesus Christ: 11
Heavenly Father: 5
All Three At The Same Time: 6
Answer: Yes. Here are the other eleven references to Jesus Christ as "the most high God":
Genesis 14:18
Genesis 14:22
Acts 16:17
Hebrews 7:1
Alma 26:14
3 Nephi 4:32 (twice)
3 Nephi 11:17
Doctrine and Covenants 36:3
Doctrine and Covenants 39:19
Doctrine and Covenants 45:66
The Holy Ghost is never referred to as "the most high God."
Friday, December 21, 2018
Who are the covenant people of the Lamb referred to in 1 Nephi 14:14?
Who are the covenant people of the Lamb referred to in 1 Nephi 14:14?
"I, Nephi, beheld the power of the Lamb of God, that it descended upon the saints of the church of the Lamb, and upon the covenant people of the Lord, who were scattered upon all the face of the earth;"
Who are the covenant people of the Lamb?
Are they the saints of the church of the Lamb?
The covenant people of the Lord (is the Lord here God the Father?) are definitely descendants of the House of Israel, including descendants of Lehi in the Americas as 2 Nephi 29:2 points out. I am pretty sure this is repeated over and over and over and over and over throughout the other books of scripture. It would be interesting to know how often the scriptures refer to the covenant people.
The covenant is with "God" (see Mosiah 5:8 which to me seems to be a reference to God the Father).
Answer:
Yes and no.
The covenant people are both those people who actively make covenants (i.e. saints of the church of the Lamb, like for example, yours truly!) and their descendants.
You know, I have often thought about what it means for there to be just one family that is called the "covenant people." It seems to me that if this is taken literally, at some point, this will include every single human being on the face of planet earth. At least, this is how I felt when I saw that my DNA test had "2% Eastern European Jewish" ancestry (before the recent big update which removed all trace of Jewish heritage for me).
But I guess that is a deep hypothesis for another day.
The scriptures seem to be pretty clear, though, that people who are members of the Lord's church are also "covenant people." When we make covenants with God, what else could we be?!
The question I think I was trying to ask, but didn't, is to what extent is it possible for people who are not members of the Lord's restored church to make covenants with him and follow him? I am not sure about that. I don't think we have a monopoly on striving to follow God. I do think my church is literally the only church on the earth today to have the correct authority from God to administer specific ordinances like baptism. Ordinances are covenants. So...
...so temple work is really important.
If Jesus Christ is the "Lord God" then was he raising himself up in 1 Nephi 10:4? Or does this imply that the "Lord God" is Heavenly Father?
If Jesus Christ is the "Lord God" then was he raising himself up in 1 Nephi 10:4? Or does this imply that the "Lord God" is Heavenly Father?
The next related question I have is who made the covenant with Lehi in 1 Nephi 13:30 that, "the land which is choice above all other lands...his seed should have for the land of their inheritance"? This is another reference to the "Lord God."
In the temple today, I learned that without any shadow of a doubt, the word "Lord" can refer to God the Father. So, yes, it is plausible that here "Lord God" could refer to God the Father.
So these are just a handful of examples of how the words "Lord God" could mean either Jesus Christ or Heavenly Father or perhaps both. Agh!
I think the only way to get any kind of satisfactory answer about this is by gathering some data from searching the scriptures with a computer. I'm really glad I have this wordcruncher tool. I wish that I also had all of the standard works in one big, fat corpus so I could use other tools. But at least it allows me to do case-sensitive searches in word cruncher.
Search for 'Lord God'
Search for 'LORD'
Search for 'Lord' - not 'lord'
Perhaps cases of '. Lord' will really refer to lord and not Lord. Hmm.
There are probably other terms like Lord Omnipotent, Lord Almighty - I have not thought of all of them; maybe they are covered in 'Lord'.
There's also 'Lord ... God' - usually my/his/their/our etc.
It is going to take some work to try to figure out how to solve this problem. It is also going to require creating (i.e. getting my husband to create) a tool that exports the data into a spreadsheet. It is going to take some time.
So, to answer the question I was originally asking:
Probably in this particular verse "Lord God" refers to God the Father. Certainly the words "Lord God" elsewhere in the scriptures do refer to multiple members of the godhead. There are really only seven possibilities:
- God the Father
- Jesus Christ
- the Holy Ghost
- God the Father and Jesus Christ
- God the Father and the Holy Ghost
- Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost
- All of them at the same time
The eighth possibility is unsatisfactory, and that is that the reference is ambiguous. It's unsatisfactory because:
- Ambiguity = unknowable. God is not unknowable. He is also not ambiguous. He is real.
- My understanding of God should not be ambiguous!
- Is it the understanding of the writer that makes it ambiguous?
- Is it the language of whatever translation that makes it ambiguous?
The final question is this: does it matter? Does it matter which specific member of the godhead is acting, being referenced or described since they are all perfectly united in harmony of purpose - since they are all "one" in this way?
Whether or not it matters to you, it deeply matters to me. I think it matters a lot. I really, really, really, really want to know the actual nature of God.
I know this is not the only way to discover it. I know it is not a perfect way to discover it. I know it is not a complete way to discover it.
But it is a way.
The next related question I have is who made the covenant with Lehi in 1 Nephi 13:30 that, "the land which is choice above all other lands...his seed should have for the land of their inheritance"? This is another reference to the "Lord God."
In the temple today, I learned that without any shadow of a doubt, the word "Lord" can refer to God the Father. So, yes, it is plausible that here "Lord God" could refer to God the Father.
1 Nephi 14:8 asks, "Rememberest thou the covenants of the Father unto the house of Israel?" This seems to imply that God the Father made the covenants with the house of Israel, therefore it's reasonable that God the Father could mean the "Lord God."
1 Nephi 20:16 says, "Come ye near unto me; I have not spoken in secret; from the beginning, from the time that it was declared have I spoken; and the Lord God, and his Spirit, hath sent me." Here Nephi is quoting Isaiah who is speaking Messianically, i.e. as if Jesus Christ is speaking. It seems pretty clear that Jesus Christ is referring to the other members of the godhead here, so the "Lord God" as Heavenly Father, and the Spirit as the Holy Ghost.
2 Nephi 6:9 says, "Nevertheless, the Lord has shown unto me that they [those who were at Jerusalem] should return again. And he also has shown unto me that the Lord God, the Holy One of Israel, should manifest himself unto them in the flesh; and after he should manifest himself they should scourge him and crucify him, according to the words of the angel who spake it unto me." This is Jacob, Nephi's little brother, prophesying. It's very unambiguous here that the "Lord God" refers to Jesus Christ.
Then there's these verses in 1 Nephi 21:22-23 which exactly the same as Isaiah 49:22-24, which both start, "Thus saith the Lord God:" and later it is clarified that it is talking about the LORD, so Jehovah. Jehovah is always, always Jesus Christ. At least as far as I understand.
So these are just a handful of examples of how the words "Lord God" could mean either Jesus Christ or Heavenly Father or perhaps both. Agh!
I think the only way to get any kind of satisfactory answer about this is by gathering some data from searching the scriptures with a computer. I'm really glad I have this wordcruncher tool. I wish that I also had all of the standard works in one big, fat corpus so I could use other tools. But at least it allows me to do case-sensitive searches in word cruncher.
Search for 'Lord God'
Search for 'LORD'
Search for 'Lord' - not 'lord'
Perhaps cases of '. Lord' will really refer to lord and not Lord. Hmm.
There are probably other terms like Lord Omnipotent, Lord Almighty - I have not thought of all of them; maybe they are covered in 'Lord'.
There's also 'Lord ... God' - usually my/his/their/our etc.
It is going to take some work to try to figure out how to solve this problem. It is also going to require creating (i.e. getting my husband to create) a tool that exports the data into a spreadsheet. It is going to take some time.
So, to answer the question I was originally asking:
Probably in this particular verse "Lord God" refers to God the Father. Certainly the words "Lord God" elsewhere in the scriptures do refer to multiple members of the godhead. There are really only seven possibilities:
- God the Father
- Jesus Christ
- the Holy Ghost
- God the Father and Jesus Christ
- God the Father and the Holy Ghost
- Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost
- All of them at the same time
The eighth possibility is unsatisfactory, and that is that the reference is ambiguous. It's unsatisfactory because:
- Ambiguity = unknowable. God is not unknowable. He is also not ambiguous. He is real.
- My understanding of God should not be ambiguous!
- Is it the understanding of the writer that makes it ambiguous?
- Is it the language of whatever translation that makes it ambiguous?
The final question is this: does it matter? Does it matter which specific member of the godhead is acting, being referenced or described since they are all perfectly united in harmony of purpose - since they are all "one" in this way?
Whether or not it matters to you, it deeply matters to me. I think it matters a lot. I really, really, really, really want to know the actual nature of God.
I know this is not the only way to discover it. I know it is not a perfect way to discover it. I know it is not a complete way to discover it.
But it is a way.
Coming to know God
How to express the feelings in my heart? I'm not sure that it's possible.
Today I went to the temple. The kind of worship in the temple is not the same as the kind of worship in church buildings. Anyone can enter into the church building when it's open (unlike some extremely beautiful Catholic cathedrals and churches in France, for example, which are open all the time). To enter a dedicated temple you must qualify to have a temple recommend. It's a piece of paper that is signed by both your bishop and your stake president after being interviewed separately by them. The first and most important requirement to enter is to have faith in the Lord, Jesus Christ. Other requirements include being baptized, paying a full and honest tithe, keeping the dietary/health code, and following the law of chastity (abstinence before marriage, total fidelity after).
At church, we worship God in these ways:
- we sing hymns
- someone says an opening and closing prayer to Heavenly Father in the name of Jesus Christ, and we end by collectively saying, "amen."
- we listen to people share their testimony and when they close in the name of Jesus Christ, we collectively say "amen" again.
- There is one ritualistic, symbolic practice: the sacrament. A priest prays to Heavenly Father in the name of Jesus Christ to ask him to bless and sanctify the bread and the water to the souls of all those who partake or drink of it. We do this to remember the body and blood of Jesus Christ which was shed for us, and it's a symbolic witness that we are willing to take upon ourselves his name. We are promised that if we do this, we will always have the holy ghost with us.
- we separate into classes which are divided by age and/or gender and the singing, prayers, and teaching continue.
Inside the temple it's not like that at all.
In the temple, you present your recommend at the front desk. An officiater scans it. If it's valid, they let you enter. You go to a changing room. You change into white clothes: a white dress with long sleeves (and pockets) for women, white pants, white shirt, white tie for men. White socks, white slippers. If you are doing baptisms, you actually get changed into a thick, white jumpsuit which the temple launders. Usually when we go to the temple we do endowments or sealings.
The temple endowment is totally full of symbolism and ritual. Basically, you sit in a room and watch a film for about half of it. It's a participatory film which occasionally stops for you to do various things which are all pretty simple, but loaded with symbolism. At one point, you go into a new room. I am not sure how much of it I'm allowed to talk about so I'll err on the side of less.
The film is a narrative story about the creation of the earth and the point of human existence. Some big takeaways from the endowment ceremony are these:
- Jesus Christ is completely, perfectly obedient to the Father
- Adam and Eve's story is at least in part symbolic
- It was always the plan that we would need a Savior
Today there was a deaf woman in the room so the endowment ceremony had a film playing the entire time with actors signing the words as well as close captions.
And this is what really deeply touched me: I realized because of the deaf film that at the very end of the ceremony, the final reference to the Lord, it's actually about God the Father, not Jesus Christ. That... Completely changed my perspective about the entire endowment ceremony.
Beyond that, it changed my perspective about the word "Lord."
Actually, it very deeply bothers me - something about it, but I can't exactly explain what.
I had previously assumed that the word Lord was almost always Jesus Christ in the scriptures. I know that LORD in the Old Testament refers to Jehovah, who is Jesus Christ.
The first page of 1 Nephi has a reference to praying to "the Lord." I assumed that as Jews, maybe they were misguided in their understanding of the identity of God. That seems like a very reasonable assumption, one that I share with all Christian faiths, I guess.
The last page of 2 Nephi is a reference to calling on God the Father in the name of Jesus Christ. This is how I worship God. I just assumed Nephi learned more about the nature of God as he got older and finished the record.
Turns out, the Lord can refer to God the Father. It is unambiguously a reference to God the Father in the temple. Therefore, mightn't it be similar elsewhere in the scriptures?
Ergo: I made mistakes in my interpretation of the scriptures. In my search to highlight parts of the scriptures that refer to Jesus Christ, I sometimes highlighted the wrong thing.
THAT BOTHERS ME. A LOT.
So here's the possibilities I came up with for what the words about God in the scriptures could refer to:
- God the Father
- Jesus Christ
- the Holy Ghost
- both God the Father and Jesus Christ
- both Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost
- both God the Father and the Holy Ghost
- All Three At The Same Time
(Oh how the medieval numerologists are shouting with joy to see there are seven possibilities.)
The eighth: it could be ambiguous.
I am really unsatisfied with the idea of worshipping and learning about an ambiguous, unknowable God. It actually...the feeling in my heart when I consider that as a possibility is complete incredulity and dissatisfaction. It neither fits with what I believe and feel to be true nor with any shred of logical reasoning in my head. Meaning: if God is ambiguous and unknowable, why should I worship him at all.
This new idea (to me) that the word Lord can refer to a member of the godhead that isn't necessarily Jesus Christ doesn't compel me to despair and give up my faith - ha! No.
But it does make me yearn with every piece of my soul to study this very carefully and thoroughly - and a highlighter, a book, and lots and lots of time is NOT going to be the most successful method to do that. It will take too long and be too subjective.
I need to find a way to search the scriptures for all references to all the names of God (including pronouns - eghh), export them into a spreadsheet including the verse in which they fall, label them as being one of the eight possible cases, and then study hard the ambiguous examples until I understand which "God" they actually mean.
I could spend my entire life doing this.
But though it seems daunting, I know it would be incredibly worthwhile. What is more worthwhile to study in the scriptures beyond the nature of God?
Just as ASL shed a whole lot of light on my understanding of this topic, so will studying the scriptures in other languages/translations. The word cruncher app I've been playing around with gets me all the scriptures in English, the Old Testament in Hebrew, and the New Testament in Greek.
How I wish it could also have a parallel translation of the Bible - the whole Bible, not a dumbed-down abbreviated version - in Czech. I don't get why my church doesn't have its own digital version of the Bible in languages other than English; there has to be a way to get this thing I crave. But how?!
Today I went to the temple. The kind of worship in the temple is not the same as the kind of worship in church buildings. Anyone can enter into the church building when it's open (unlike some extremely beautiful Catholic cathedrals and churches in France, for example, which are open all the time). To enter a dedicated temple you must qualify to have a temple recommend. It's a piece of paper that is signed by both your bishop and your stake president after being interviewed separately by them. The first and most important requirement to enter is to have faith in the Lord, Jesus Christ. Other requirements include being baptized, paying a full and honest tithe, keeping the dietary/health code, and following the law of chastity (abstinence before marriage, total fidelity after).
At church, we worship God in these ways:
- we sing hymns
- someone says an opening and closing prayer to Heavenly Father in the name of Jesus Christ, and we end by collectively saying, "amen."
- we listen to people share their testimony and when they close in the name of Jesus Christ, we collectively say "amen" again.
- There is one ritualistic, symbolic practice: the sacrament. A priest prays to Heavenly Father in the name of Jesus Christ to ask him to bless and sanctify the bread and the water to the souls of all those who partake or drink of it. We do this to remember the body and blood of Jesus Christ which was shed for us, and it's a symbolic witness that we are willing to take upon ourselves his name. We are promised that if we do this, we will always have the holy ghost with us.
- we separate into classes which are divided by age and/or gender and the singing, prayers, and teaching continue.
Inside the temple it's not like that at all.
In the temple, you present your recommend at the front desk. An officiater scans it. If it's valid, they let you enter. You go to a changing room. You change into white clothes: a white dress with long sleeves (and pockets) for women, white pants, white shirt, white tie for men. White socks, white slippers. If you are doing baptisms, you actually get changed into a thick, white jumpsuit which the temple launders. Usually when we go to the temple we do endowments or sealings.
The temple endowment is totally full of symbolism and ritual. Basically, you sit in a room and watch a film for about half of it. It's a participatory film which occasionally stops for you to do various things which are all pretty simple, but loaded with symbolism. At one point, you go into a new room. I am not sure how much of it I'm allowed to talk about so I'll err on the side of less.
The film is a narrative story about the creation of the earth and the point of human existence. Some big takeaways from the endowment ceremony are these:
- Jesus Christ is completely, perfectly obedient to the Father
- Adam and Eve's story is at least in part symbolic
- It was always the plan that we would need a Savior
Today there was a deaf woman in the room so the endowment ceremony had a film playing the entire time with actors signing the words as well as close captions.
And this is what really deeply touched me: I realized because of the deaf film that at the very end of the ceremony, the final reference to the Lord, it's actually about God the Father, not Jesus Christ. That... Completely changed my perspective about the entire endowment ceremony.
Beyond that, it changed my perspective about the word "Lord."
Actually, it very deeply bothers me - something about it, but I can't exactly explain what.
I had previously assumed that the word Lord was almost always Jesus Christ in the scriptures. I know that LORD in the Old Testament refers to Jehovah, who is Jesus Christ.
The first page of 1 Nephi has a reference to praying to "the Lord." I assumed that as Jews, maybe they were misguided in their understanding of the identity of God. That seems like a very reasonable assumption, one that I share with all Christian faiths, I guess.
The last page of 2 Nephi is a reference to calling on God the Father in the name of Jesus Christ. This is how I worship God. I just assumed Nephi learned more about the nature of God as he got older and finished the record.
Turns out, the Lord can refer to God the Father. It is unambiguously a reference to God the Father in the temple. Therefore, mightn't it be similar elsewhere in the scriptures?
Ergo: I made mistakes in my interpretation of the scriptures. In my search to highlight parts of the scriptures that refer to Jesus Christ, I sometimes highlighted the wrong thing.
THAT BOTHERS ME. A LOT.
So here's the possibilities I came up with for what the words about God in the scriptures could refer to:
- God the Father
- Jesus Christ
- the Holy Ghost
- both God the Father and Jesus Christ
- both Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost
- both God the Father and the Holy Ghost
- All Three At The Same Time
(Oh how the medieval numerologists are shouting with joy to see there are seven possibilities.)
The eighth: it could be ambiguous.
I am really unsatisfied with the idea of worshipping and learning about an ambiguous, unknowable God. It actually...the feeling in my heart when I consider that as a possibility is complete incredulity and dissatisfaction. It neither fits with what I believe and feel to be true nor with any shred of logical reasoning in my head. Meaning: if God is ambiguous and unknowable, why should I worship him at all.
This new idea (to me) that the word Lord can refer to a member of the godhead that isn't necessarily Jesus Christ doesn't compel me to despair and give up my faith - ha! No.
But it does make me yearn with every piece of my soul to study this very carefully and thoroughly - and a highlighter, a book, and lots and lots of time is NOT going to be the most successful method to do that. It will take too long and be too subjective.
I need to find a way to search the scriptures for all references to all the names of God (including pronouns - eghh), export them into a spreadsheet including the verse in which they fall, label them as being one of the eight possible cases, and then study hard the ambiguous examples until I understand which "God" they actually mean.
I could spend my entire life doing this.
But though it seems daunting, I know it would be incredibly worthwhile. What is more worthwhile to study in the scriptures beyond the nature of God?
Just as ASL shed a whole lot of light on my understanding of this topic, so will studying the scriptures in other languages/translations. The word cruncher app I've been playing around with gets me all the scriptures in English, the Old Testament in Hebrew, and the New Testament in Greek.
How I wish it could also have a parallel translation of the Bible - the whole Bible, not a dumbed-down abbreviated version - in Czech. I don't get why my church doesn't have its own digital version of the Bible in languages other than English; there has to be a way to get this thing I crave. But how?!
Just as strongly as I believe that God could, if he wanted to, make himself known to me through a visitation of an angel, or a clear vision, or any number of miraculous ways - I understand that one of the main purposes of this life is to try to walk by faith. It would defeat the purpose if I had the answers given to me. I believe that the promise repeated in the scriptures is true: if I ask, if I knock, if I search, if I ponder, if I pray - I can come to know God.
But there is within me still a deep feeling of terrible loneliness that it has to be this way, that I have to be separated from God at all. I do not like it. It is so unsatisfying in a way that words don't come close to describing.
Also, it's kind of like researching my ancestors. I really enjoy hearing people describe my great grandparents. I enjoy reading the stories. I enjoy collecting the records. I feel a lot closer to them as I hear their words describe these dead people.
But I never fully believe anything that is said or written about these dead ancestors of mine, at least completely. Like, I always have somewhere in my consciousness an understanding that all the records, all the memories of these people contain blatant biases. All of the records are flawed. I am certain that the scriptures - and certainly many or perhaps most of the interpretations of them! - are flawed. It definitely does not make it worthless to search these extant records meticulously. I don't even care that it's a weird approach to spirituality, to try to use computers to come closer to God.
But won't it be so great when we finally, finally get to meet our ancestors and actually know them? Far better than that - won't it be incredible to meet God and talk to him face to face?
He feels so far away to me sometimes.
And even at the times when I feel closest to him, it is still farther than I want it to be.
I believe and trust that there are multiple epistemologically valid ways to get closer to him. For example, trying to keep the commandments as I understand them. Trying to be like him, even if I fail. Just because I personally feel very little confidence that asking a simple, humble prayer will get me the closeness and the answers I seek doesn't mean I won't try it.
As with all of my really, truly deep interests, a thorough, thoughtful analytical treatment is probably my favorite way to try to come to know something because I probably overvalue facts and logic. I hypothesize that as I search the scriptures, there will be less cases of "ambiguous God" than I thought, and that the cases that are ambiguous will bother me less the more I study them. I also hypothesize that the ones that do bother me might be solvable through reading other scriptures (or perhaps even nonscriptural texts). Or perhaps answers will emerge through searching the scriptures through a different translation in a different language. We will see.
Sunday, December 16, 2018
Did Lehi see Jesus Christ or Heavenly Father in 1 Nephi 1:8?
When he is praying "to the Lord" he sees a pillar of fire.
He was freaked out.
He goes home.
He lies in his bed.
He was "carried away in a vision."
He "thought he saw" God sitting upon his throne, surrounded by numberless concourses of angels.
He saw "One" who was really bright come out.
Twelve others followed the "One."
The "One" gave Lehi a book and told him to read it.
As he read he felt the Holy Ghost.
...and his dream continues, but that's enough for now.
Some observations:
It is ambiguous from the language whether or not the person on the throne is the same as the person who comes down. It could have just been a scene change in his vision.
But it kind of seems unlikely, because the word "One" seems to differentiate the bright person coming down from God sitting upon his throne.
If they were the same person - if Lehi recognized them as the same person - then I guess it would be much more likely for him to describe it differently.
Also, I've always thought it was kind of weird that Nephi says that his dad "thought he saw." In English, the pragmatic meaning of that is often, "...but he didn't really." Is Nephi saying that his father Lehi was wrong?
From what I understand, the Jews at that time were worshiping Jehovah - though I am pretty sure they did not call him that. I think there is something about the holiness of the name of God that made it need to be substituted with the vowels from the Hebrew word for lord, adonai, and when you mix that together with yhwh you get Yahowah and then there is a shift in the pronunciation of these letters in English to Jehovah. The King James translators used the word LORD in all caps when they translated this word. Jehovah is just the proper name of the God of Israel in English. He is the premortal Jesus Christ.
Huh. In Czech it is translated as Hospodin?!
Which is not the same as Pán. To me, it seems to evoke some kind of meaning of like, one who gives or saves. Hospoda is a pub, a hospodář is one of the 23 jillion Czech words for farmer (sort of, more like a bailiff I guess), hospodárný is someone who is economical/frugal/saves, hospodárnost is frugality, hospodářství is administration, or a homestead.
Side note: I am really sad that the Bible is not included in the LDS library (and thus in the wordcruncher library). I really wish I could search the word of God in Czech the same way. Also, my understanding is that Bible kralická was translated earlier than KJV from some of the same source text? I guess? So yeah, like...reading it in Czech will definitely be interesting!
I discovered that the article I read yesterday and posted about is actually wrong. The word Jehovah shows up 9 times (not 7 times) in the Old Testament.
OT : 9
NT : 6
BoM : 13
D&C : 9
PGP : 5 <-- which is significant because this book is super short.
Meanwhile, I did a search for "LORD" in all caps:
OT : 6,468
NT : 5
...and that's it. When Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon, he did not put LORD in all caps.
My understanding is that Judaism has always been extremely strictly monotheistic. It would have been majorly shocking for Lehi to see two different members of the Godhead.
I know that even very righteous prophets of old didn't have a perfect understanding of our relationship to God. For example, the brother of Jared in the book of Ether is scared out of his wits when he sees Jesus Christ's finger reaching out to touch the stones to give them light on their journey across the ocean. He never knew or even imagined that God had a body - I think he was even surprised to see God in a human form at all.
I think it still took a while before Lehi and his family understood the godhead and our relationship to God. And that is okay.
I also know that we have been told that we live in a time when we have the fullness of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ. This means we might have access to knowledge about God's nature that previous generations, including Lehi, maybe didn't.
It was sort of part of the Law of Moses to pray to Jehovah, though surprisingly less than I though. The Bible Dictionary has this to say:
Before the first generation of mankind had passed away, men began to call upon the name of the Lord (Gen. 4:26; Moses 5:4). Prayers, whether with (Gen. 12:8; 13:4) or without (Gen. 20:7; 32:9–11) sacrifice, were constantly offered by the patriarchs to God. The efficacy of the intercession of good men was recognized (Gen. 18:23; 20:7; Ex. 32:11).Prayer is nowhere specifically commanded as a duty in the law, and prayers were not prescribed at the sacrifices except on two occasions: a confession of sin on the Day of Atonement (Lev. 16:21) and a thanksgiving when offering the firstfruits and tithes (Deut. 26:3, 13). It is, however, certain from the nature of things, and from the custom in later times, that prayer accompanied sacrifice.
and later:
As soon as we learn the true relationship in which we stand toward God (namely, God is our Father, and we are His children), then at once prayer becomes natural and instinctive on our part (Matt. 7:7–11). Many of the so-called difficulties about prayer arise from forgetting this relationship. Prayer is the act by which the will of the Father and the will of the child are brought into correspondence with each other. The object of prayer is not to change the will of God but to secure for ourselves and for others blessings that God is already willing to grant but that are made conditional on our asking for them. Blessings require some work or effort on our part before we can obtain them. Prayer is a form of work and is an appointed means for obtaining the highest of all blessings.Jews like Lehi didn't understand that Jehovah and the Messiah are the same person, and they believe that the Messiah 1. has not come and 2. will be totally human, not divine. They also did not really pray to God the same way as we do today at all. Remember that the word "Christ" is just Greek for "Messiah", which means "the anointed one."
To Lehi, it would have been really surprising to learn that the godhead is made up of three separate beings, all of whom might be mentioned in this vision: God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost. He would have been really overwhelmed. And he was.
There was a really inspiring talk given at last general conference about the nature of God the Father. It was literally just doctrine, doctrine, doctrine, and very positive doctrine at that.
Here is a very short excerpt with gajillions of links:
During mortality, Heavenly Father provides us with the conditions we need to progress within His plan. The Father begot Jesus Christ in the flesh14 and provided Him with divine help to fulfill His mortal mission. Heavenly Father will likewise help each of us if we will strive to keep His commandments.15 The Father gives us agency.16 Our lives are in His hands, and our “days are known” and “shall not be numbered less.”17 And He ensures that eventually all things work for the good of those who love Him.18It is Heavenly Father who gives us our daily bread,19 which includes both the food we eat and the strength we need to keep His commandments.20 The Father gives good gifts.21 He hears and answers our prayers.22 Heavenly Father delivers us from evil when we let Him.23 He weeps for us when we suffer.24 Ultimately, all of our blessings come from the Father.25
So here's what I think:
I think the bright "One" that Lehi saw was Jesus Christ. It seems like he did not yet know who Jesus was. I think it's possible that God sitting on the throne who Lehi saw was either Jesus Christ or Heavenly Father if his vision were some kind of nocturnal thing where he wasn't actually physically transported somewhere. Elsewhere in the scriptures, people have to be transfigured in order to endure the presence or glory of heavenly beings like God the Father. I think it would be super unlikely for Lehi to have been transfigured at this point in his ministry; that seems to be an end-of-one's-mortal-mission event, therefore Lehi's vision here was more likely some kind of nocturnal vision.
I think it's possible that Lehi and Nephi disagreed about who Lehi saw. Perhaps Nephi thought it was more likely that he saw Jesus Christ sitting on the throne. There are lots of examples of the LORD sitting on his throne in the Old Testament (and a few in the New Testament). Jesus Christ definitely has a throne.
In the end, I think it's not super important; I'd probably side with Nephi more than Lehi, but that's because I'm totally biased and have been reading his words my entire life, so I feel like he's an old friend. What do you think?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)