What do the teil and oak trees have to do with anything? 2 Nephi 16:13 and Isaiah 6:13

What do the teil and oak trees have to do with anything? 2 Nephi 16:13 and Isaiah 6:13

Isaiah is talking to Jesus Christ in the temple. He asks, "How long [will people fail to see, hear, understand, and be healed]?"

The Lord answers something like, "Until everything is destroyed - all the people wasted, the houses empty, the land desolate, and people removed far away, and a great forsaking. But even though almost everybody will forsake me, a tenth part will return to me. Like a big tree stump that seems dead, but then a branch springs out of it and revives the tree's seed."

I had to go to a non-Latter-day-saint source to find anything written about this, which is kind of odd because to me it really seems to be a clear prophesy about the apostasy and the restoration. But hey, there are a lot of those, and this one is a little bit veiled in parable language.

I learned through reading this that the Catholic translations of the Bible get the tree name correct, while the King James Version generally doesn't. A teil tree is actually a linden tree which does not grow in that part of the world, apparently. But sometimes the translators (including Joseph Smith here. Hmm!) mixed up teil trees and terebinth trees.

Apparently terebinth trees had some kind of special connection to idolatry. Hmm.

Some guy named Elliott has this to say about these verses:

(13) But yet in it shall be a tenth . . .--Better, And though there should be a tenth in it, yet this shall be again devoured (with fire). What the prophet is led to expect is a series of successive chastisements sifting the people, till the remnant of the chosen ones alone is left. (Comp. the same thought under a different imagery in Ezekiel 5:12 : Zechariah 13:8-9.) The "tenth" is taken, as in Leviticus 27:30, for an ideally consecrated portion.

As a teil tree.--Better, terebinth; and for "when they cast their leaves" read, when they are cut down. The "teil tree" of the Authorised Version is probably meant for the "lime" (tilier, tilleul). The thought of this verse is that embodied in the name of his son Shear-jashub (see Note on Isaiah 7:3), and constantly reappears (Isaiah 1:27; Isaiah 4:2-3; Isaiah 10:20; Isaiah 29:17; Isaiah 30:15, &c). The tree might be stripped of its leaves, and its branches lopped off, and nothing but the stump left; but from that seemingly dead and decayed stock, pruned by the chastisements of God (John 15:2), a young shoot should spring, holy, as consecrated to Jehovah, and carry on the continuity of the nation's life. The same thought is dominant in St. Paul's hope for his people. At first the "remnant," and then "all Israel," should be saved (Romans 11:5; Romans 11:26). In Isaiah 10:33 to Isaiah 11:1 the same image is specially applied to the house of David, and becomes, therefore, essentially Messianic.

From a Latter-day Saint perspective, this looks like a metaphor for the apostasy and the restoration of the gospel. The church is the tree. It grows and grows but then it dies. The leaves fall off. The branches are lopped off. Then it is cut down. It seems like it is impossibly dead - nothing but a stump. But then a young shoot grows out of that stump and preserves the tree's original seed, saving the entire fate of the tree.

I really love this metaphor.

Why does Isaiah make it so confusing who is speaking? Isaiah chapters 8-12, 2 Nephi Chapters 18-22

Why does Isaiah make it so confusing who is speaking? Isaiah chapters 8-12, 2 Nephi Chapters 18-22

Here are some of the voices that Isaiah uses in his writing:
himself
Heavenly Father
Jesus Christ, the Lord
The unborn Lord about himself <--- which is definitely odd

I think there are almost certainly multiple reasons for why Isaiah doesn't have quotation marks, so please note that this answer is not intended to be all inclusive.

Jesus Christ appeared to the Nephites in America and he himself commanded them to "search these things diligently; for great are the words of Isaiah" (3 Nephi 23:1).

It's always so much nicer to search things when they are a little bit of a challenge.

I guess that is one reason why I love the temple endowment. It has a lot of layers to think about.

Similarly, by not being totally transparent with the layers, Isaiah draws in the reader to think about it more deeply and make judgments about it themselves.

What does verse 10 mean? Why would the Lord say he does not want us to be healed? 2 Nephi 16:10

What does verse 10 mean? Why would the Lord say he does not want us to be healed? 2 Nephi 16:10

This is Nephi quoting Isaiah speaking Messianically, again. In this verse he says:

Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed.

Obviously, the Savior wants to heal us. He wants us to see with our eyes and hear with our ears and understand with our hearts and be healed. 

It is similar to when Jesus calls Nathanael in John 1:43-47. The encounter goes something like this:

Jesus goes to Galilee and finds Philip.

Philip is from the same place as Andrew and Peter (Bethsaida). He goes and finds Nathanael and tells him he found the Messiah who Moses and all the prophets wrote about, and that his name is Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.

Nathanael says, "Can anything good come out of Nazareth?"

Philip says, "Come and see!"

Jesus sees Nathanael coming and says, "There's a Jew who tells it like it is!" ("Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile!")

It's not quite sarcasm, but it is definitely humor. This part of the scriptures always cracks me up. I think it's the same kind of humor when Jesus says something like, "Look, I've already bought your salvation. I'm standing right here. All you have to do is look at me. But no - no, instead, I think you should get lazy, slothful, bored, and tired - since otherwise you would see with your eyes, hear with your ears, and understand with your heart and actually be healed!"

It's like when my kids are whining and to get them to stop I say, "Hey! Can you please say that in a more whiny voice?"

Answer:
I think that Jesus Christ had a sense of humor, and that this verse is said - not quite sarcastically, but also not with the surface-level, obvious meaning.

Who is talking, "Go and tell this people - Hear ye indeed, but they understood not; and see ye indeed, but they perceived not"? (2 Nephi 16:9)

Who is talking, "Go and tell this people - Hear ye indeed, but they understood not; and see ye indeed, but they perceived not"? (2 Nephi 16:9)

(I must have had some major issues with this chapter. So far every single question this week has been from there!)

This is exactly comparable to Isaiah 6:9.

I really love how sometimes Jesus Christ speaks plainly about the fulfillment of prophecies in the Old Testament. In Matthew 13:14-15, Jesus explains why he teaches in parables. One reason is to fulfill "the prophecy of Esaias" (aka Isaiah).

Answer:
In this verse Isaiah was speaking Messianically, meaning as if he were Jesus Christ.

The Lord says, "Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?" Is the "us" here Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost? 2 Nephi 16:8

The Lord says, "Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?" Is the "us" here Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost? 2 Nephi 16:8

Answer:
Yes, I think so. Who else could it be?

How can you purge iniquity/sin with a live coal from the altar? 2 Nephi 16:6

How can you purge iniquity/sin with a live coal from the altar? 2 Nephi 16:6

See this post and this post about what is going on here.

Answer:
One way to sterilize a needle is to put it into a flame. Apparently this kind of dry heat burns or oxidizes the bacteria. The seraphim in this scene is similarly sterilizing or purifying Isaiah's mouth.

Why would/should Isaiah feel sad or upset about having unclean lips and seeing "the King, the Lord of Hosts"? 2 Nephi 16:5

Why would/should Isaiah feel sad or upset about having unclean lips and seeing "the King, the Lord of Hosts"? 2 Nephi 16:5

For a description of what is going on in this verse, see this post.

I have noticed a theme laced throughout the Old and New Testament having to do with the importance of words and language. Obviously, this is super interesting to me.

For example, Isaiah says (speaking as Jesus Christ): "I have graven thee upon the palms of my hands" (Isaiah 49:16). This seems to be an obvious reference to Jesus Christ's crucifixion, in which nails were driven through his hands. It's as though the marks from the nails were our sins and pains written into his body.

John the Beloved (JST version) says, "In the beginning was the gospel preached through the Son. And the gospel was the word, and the word was with the Son, and the Son was with God, and the Son was of God." (JST, John 1:1) This seems to be another obvious reference to the Savior and Heavenly Father in the premortal existence as creators of the world, and somehow their power is connected with words. 

I've been trying to gather a big giant pile of my words to create the "Kate Corpus." In so doing, I've made a list of all the places where I might find my typed words. There is no hope that I will be able to find everything that I have ever typed on a computer - but I definitely will be able to gather a lot of it, perhaps even most of it. Certainly most of the recent (in the past 2 years) writing.

In so doing, I've thought about how records are kept on the other side of the veil. Perfect records, without error. I wonder what that looks like. I imagine all of our thoughts and actions being recorded somewhere, somehow. I wonder if somehow, after we die, these "words" will be examined with some kind of tool that can see all the connections between all the words. Will we be judged on the frequency with which our lives were made of good? 

I started to shudder a bit. There's...stuff in my life that I don't want to be visible in any kind of divine concordancer tool. I just want to erase it.

But when you put something online, you pretty much accept that you no longer have control of it. Your writing is gone forever, if you ever really own your words at all. Or your DNA, for that matter.

This caused me to think about the scripture in Doctrine and Covenants 58:42: "Behold, he who has repented of his sins, the same is forgiven, and I, the Lord, remember them no more."

Basically, Jesus Christ's atonement works like an eraser - a permanent delete button - in my Kate-as-a-person Corpus. 

Answer:

When Isaiah is bemoaning the fact that he has "unclean lips" it is the same worry and self-loathing that I understand. He doesn't want to be unclean before God, but his "words" (including, I think, his thoughts, his actions) were painfully obvious in their flaws. 

Yes. That sounds pretty upsetting.

What does "a cloud of smoke by day and the shining of a flaming fire by night" mean? 2 Nephi 14:5

What does "a cloud of smoke by day and the shining of a flaming fire by night" mean? 2 Nephi 14:5

This by far was my favorite question to answer this week. I thought of the answer as I was sitting in church behind the organ, taking the sacrament. It was a really good feeling.

Nephi is quoting his younger brother Jacob who is quoting Isaiah 4. They are discussing the millennial day - when Jesus Christ will return to earth again.

The promise is that the Lord will create a cloud and smoke in the daytime and a shining flame of fire in the night to belong on every home in mount Zion, and that this will be a defense.

I was confused about the smoke and the flame metaphor, but I thought about it a little bit. This answer comes from my thoughts, not from searching other scriptures and concordances. It would be interesting to study this that way eventually.

Smoke and flames have a physical presence. At night, a fire illuminates darkness and is visible from very far away. Meanwhile, smoke during the day is also visible from a great distance.

What would being visible from a great distance have to do with defending the homes of those who have made covenants with God - with the saints of Zion?

I wonder if this could be a metaphor for communication across impossibly great distances. This world of instant communication in which we live definitely has some specific digital tools that are highly strengthening to the spirituality of saints - and all people in general.

Whatever the metaphor symbolizes specifically, it is clearly about constant visibility, a constant, steady presence - something that is tangible, powerful, and clear. You can't miss a flaming fire when you walk by it. You can't miss a giant cloud of smoke, either. Ever see a forest fire? I have. You can't avoid the smoke.

Something about the people who live on mount Zion will be visible, powerful, clear, and undeniable. I guess the next question is who lives on mount Zion, where is it, and how can I get there?

The answer to what Zion is and who lives there is in Latter-day scripture:
Doctrine and Covenants 97:21 clearly says that Zion is the pure in heart.

I am not sure I know exactly what that means yet, but I will try to find out.

Addendum: this is also a reference to the Lord leading the Israelites out of Egypt.

Is Jesus Christ the "God of my Salvation"? 2 Nephi 9:44

Is Jesus Christ the "God of my Salvation"? 2 Nephi 9:44

Jacob is pleading with his children and future readers of the Book of Mormon to remember his words.

First he uses a really weird metaphor that I don't understand: "I take off my garments and I shake them before you." From a Latter-day Saint perspective, that sounds a lot like taking off the physical representations of his covenant to obey and follow God. I don't get why he would do that, but maybe it's like what a person might do if he is reading a good book and wants to really emphasize and point out how good it is - he might take the book, show it to someone in their face, and point at a specific passage which he cares about. That might be what Jacob is doing here, except with clothing that symbolizes covenants with God?

Then he says, "I pray the God of my salvation that he view me with his all-searching eye." This is a bit clearer in Czech: "modlím se k Bohu spasení svého, aby na mne pohlédl všepronikajícím okem svým."

Clearly he is praying TO God.

This is probably what caught my eye. Is he praying to Heavenly Father or Jesus Christ?

Answer: I think I have already talked at length about this in the past several weeks. It's the idea that God is three separate, distinct personages that work together so unitedly that it doesn't often matter (and it isn't often possible) to disambiguate them from one another. God the Father in a way could be considered the God of my Salvation - without the design of the plan, there'd be no salvation. Jesus Christ is the executor of the Atonement, so obviously he could be considered the God of my Salvation. The Holy Ghost is the way that we can know any of it, so without him we couldn't be saved either.

Basically: yes, but probably not exclusively.

I believe that Heavenly Father knows our thoughts and our hearts - even better than we ourselves know them. It is interesting to me that Jacob seems to want him to know them. Sometimes (okay, quite often) I feel like hiding them, because of shame or whatever other bad feeling. I have to constantly remind myself that they aren't really hidden - not fully, not ever. It is comforting but also super disturbing. It makes me highly grateful that I have the chance to purge myself from them each week when I take the sacrament and renew my baptismal covenant. What a relief that I can become clean again. The weight of having to worry about my thoughts is pretty heavy. I can turn them over to God and feel much better.

It would probably be agony to not be able to experience this. I don't really know. I haven't.

Why does Jacob care about "wine and milk without money and without price"? 2 Nephi 9:50

Why does Jacob care about "wine and milk without money and without price"? 2 Nephi 9:50

Jacob, Nephi's younger brother, gives a powerful sermon about the Atonement of Jesus Christ. He implores his family to, "come...every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters; and he that hath no money, come buy and eat; yea, come buy wine and milk without money and without price." This is a quote from Isaiah 55:1.

Boyd K. Packer and Weatherford T. Clayton referenced this verse from 2 Nephi in talks in General Conference. Clayton's was quite recent, in 2017.

Apparently, around 1990, there was a huge change in the way the church was run (cough cough this seems super relevant to my own life right now, nearly 30 years later). In January 1990, the church announced that activities and operation expenses of the local units were going to be paid from tithes and offerings, and Packer explained that, "It will not be possible to do all of the things we have been doing in the same way we have been doing them. It will bring an inevitable reduction in programs. That was intended." Basically - no more ridiculous roadshows. The promise was that while the change in budgets and assessments and fundraising would seem to be a temporal matter, "the effect of it will be spiritual."

He promises to families who are burdened with the cost of paying for a missionary. This change allowed it to be possible for ward members to anonymously help finance missions of people serving in their ward, using the bishop as an intermediary, and thus removing the problems that come with freeloading. Self-reliance is a huuuuuuge thing in my church.

Apparently, people at that time in the church felt like maybe we needed, "more impressive activities and more meetings, rather than fewer." But Packer assured church members that the budget change would set a better balance between the church and families.

Which is literally the exact same thing we are doing now.

Packer then urges people to spread word of the budget changes (I guess yeah, the 90's didn't have facebook or email so much, so this news would have mostly been spread by word of mouth in person or via the telephone). He tells them to remind them what Isaiah and Jacob quoting Isaiah said, that wine and milk without money and without price are available to everyone that thirsteth (and I guess, to those that are also hungry).

I can't help but be reminded of the story of the woman at the well in John 4:14-26. Jesus came to a well. There a Samaritan woman at the well - someone who would have been a pariah to Jews.

Jesus: "Give me a drink."

Woman: "Um...you're a Jew. Why are you asking me to give you a drink? Jews and Samaritans don't mix."

Jesus: "If you knew the gift of God, and who was asking you for a drink, you would have asked him for a drink instead, and he would have given you living water."

Woman: "But you have nothing to draw with and the well is deep; where are you going to get this living water? Do you think you're better than our ancestor, Jacob, who made this well for himself, his children, and his cattle?"

Jesus: "Anybody that drinks the water of this well will thirst again. But anybody who drinks the water that I have to give will never thirst, but the water will become a well inside of them, springing up to everlasting life."

Woman: "Sir, give me this water, to quench my thirst, and relieve me from drawing from the well."

Jesus: "Go get your husband."
Woman: "I don't have one."

Jesus: "That's right, you don't. You've had five husbands, and the man who you're currently living with is not your husband."

Woman: "Sir, I can tell that you can see/know things by the power of God. So, why is it that both of our ancestors worshiped here, and yet you Jews say that Jerusalem is the only place to worship?"

Jesus: "Someday worshiping won't happen here or in Jerusalem, actually. You don't know what you worship, and we Jews do - but someday all true believers will worship the Father, because the Father is looking and wanting them to worship him. God is a spirit, and true worshippers must worship in both spirit and truth."

Woman: "I know that the Messiah, the anointed one, will come, and when he does, he will tell us all things."

Jesus: "I am he."

This is one of my absolute favorite stories in the New Testament. I love it so much, I painted it and the painting is on the wall in my front room.

I can relate to this woman.

And I feel like it's not a coincidence that Jesus is using this metaphor that was also found in the Old Testament, of a free thirst-quenching liquid.

When Clayton quotes this verse, he says simply, "There is so much more to our existence than just what happens between birth and death. I invite you to come and follow Christ."

Isaiah 55:1 is referenced an impressive 39 times, also sometimes recently, by the following:

Dieter F. Uchtdorf - 2012
Jeffrey R. Holland - 2012
George A. Smith
Orson F. Whitney
Moses Thatcher
Orson Pratt
Erastus Snow
Wilford Woodruff
Daniel H. Wells
Charles C. Rich
Brigham Young
George Q. Cannon
Daniel H. Wells
John Young

Uchtdorf is talking during the 2012 priesthood session and says:

The priesthood of Almighty God is available to worthy men wherever they may be—no matter their ancestry, no matter how humble their circumstances, in the nearest or farthest reaches of the globe. It is available without money or any worldly price. To paraphrase the ancient prophet Isaiah, everyone who is thirsty can come to the waters, and no money is required to come and eat!

I understand this to mean that the priesthood power is available to me, and all worthy women, too - though we do not hold or exercise it in quite the same way because hey, our role and contribution to the plan of humankind really is different from that of men. I certainly felt longings to participate in scouting activities, but I can sincerely say I've never felt feelings of exclusion from the priesthood power - I'm not ordained to an office in the priesthood, but I have the same access to the power itself. Also, I'm quite confident women will hold specific priesthood offices later. But I also know some women don't feel the same way as I do, and find this to be a huge frustration.

When I have issues or questions about the way the church works, or something that is in the scriptures or church history, I try to emulate that Samaritan woman. She had clearly thought about things before this conversation with Jesus. She was also perceptive to subtle signals he was sending in the way he asked questions. She was also apparently very eager and willing to believe him.

Jesus promised that those who hunger and thirst after righteousness will be filled. I love this promise, because it describes how I feel quite often.

Answer:
Jacob was quoting Isaiah. He loved the words of Isaiah. He related to them. He also had a firm testimony that Jesus Christ could be the ultimate source for filling the empty pieces of his soul. He testified that the answers and fulfillment would be diverse by not just limiting the thirst quenching liquid to water, but also including wine and milk. He testified that they would be free - and I think saying they were without price also implies that the worth of the gospel of Jesus Christ is beyond human quantification.

Why should the fear of the Lord "smite" thee? 2 Nephi 12:10

Why should the fear of the Lord "smite" thee? 2 Nephi 12:10

This chapter is comparable to Isaiah 2. Nephi is quoting Jacob who is quoting Isaiah 2.

In this chapter, the last days are described in some detail. He paints a picture of what it will be like right before the second coming of Jesus Christ.

"O ye wicked ones, enter in to the rock, and hide thee in the dust, for the fear of the Lord and the glory of his majesty shall smite thee."

This is a little bit clearer than Isaiah 2 because it specifies that the addressee is "ye wicked ones" and what exactly the fear of the Lord is going to do.

It's going to smite.

In vernacular, it could be rephrased like this:

"Hey, all you wicked people, you should go hide in a cave or under the ground because the fear of the Lord and the glory of his majesty is going to get you!"

Except, get is the wrong word.

As usual, this experience is a big giant juggling of semantics. So, what better tool to juggle word meanings than corpus linguistics!?

I'm using this wordcruncher tool (which I don't especially love, I have to say). I discovered that the word "smite" occurs this many times:

OT : 432 
NT : 32
BoM : 139
D&C : 20
PGP : 4

I looked at these occurrences of the word "smite" in Isaiah. Then I looked one of them up in Isaiah in a Hebrew language source (I am not quite sure if this is a great source, but it looked okay).

Here's Isaiah 9:12 (it is 9:13 in the KJV)

12 Yet the people turneth not unto Him that smiteth them, neither do they seek the LORD of hosts. {S}

{יב  וְהָעָם לֹא-שָׁב, עַד-הַמַּכֵּהוּ; וְאֶת-יְהוָה צְבָאוֹת, לֹא דָרָשׁוּ.  {ס

I chucked the Hebrew into google translate to figure out which word is "smite."

I think this is smite:
הַמַּכֵּהוּ

But I think it is probably like Arabic (and Czech) - there's a word for it that escapes me at the moment - where the word gets extra stuff like pronouns attached to it, but remains as one single word.

I am guessing this is actually "smite":
הַמַּכֵּה

I tried to look it up in a Hebrew corpus using a really cool corpus exploration tool called Sketch Engine but the beta version I am testing out has some errors with reading Hebrew, it seems. It didn't work.

Hmm.

When I play around with these letter combinations on google translate, adding or removing front or end letters, I get this root:

מַּכֵּה

I am guessing this is how Hebrew works - I guess it is probably like Arabic, where words are made up of mostly consonants that form a root, and then little vowels are added above and below a word to change what part of speech they are, how they function, etc. Know the root, unlock deeper layers of meaning - for all kinds of things. It's similar in all languages, honestly, but it's markedly like this in Arabic. Like, it's very, very easy to start guessing what a word will be if you know the root. Usually the root is three consonants or long vowels.

I guess if this really is the Hebrew root for this word, synonyms (according to google translate, so...) are:

blow, hit, stroke, plague, and...a machete. Haha.

Sometimes I think this word has come to mean something like "kill." When I look it up on an online dictionary, the definition is always closer to "hit" - "strike with a firm blow", "defeat or conquer (a people or land)", "(especially a disease) attack or affect severely."

The "fear of the Lord" is not the same as fear born out of anxiety and worry - synonyms for it could be dread, honor, obedience, respect, reverence, and even worship.

Answer:
In the last days, when all people will see and be forced to admit that God is real, his promises are real, the scriptures are true, the prophets were right - and you were wrong - this realization and knowledge will feel like being hit with something very powerful, something unavoidable. 

I say "you" but I should have said "we." It is explicitly stated that "the lofty looks of man" and "the haughtiness of men" shall be humbled and bowed down. I guess that includes me, unfortunately. I will continue to try to divest myself of my pride, so maybe that blow won't be so painful.

Does Nephi believe that Isaiah, Nephi, and Jacob were the three witnesses of Isaiah's words? 2 Nephi 11:3

Does Nephi believe that Isaiah, Nephi, and Jacob were the three witnesses of Isaiah's words? 2 Nephi 11:3

Answer:
Yes.

When Nephi says he saw his Redeemer as Isaiah and Jacob saw him, what did he mean? 2 Nephi 11:2

When Nephi says he saw his Redeemer as Isaiah and Jacob saw him, what did he mean? 2 Nephi 11:2

Nephi is about to quote the words of Isaiah, whose words he cherishes. He explains that the reason why he loves the words of Isaiah is because he likens (points out the resemblance of something, compares, equates, sees a parallel, correlates, matches, draws an analogy) Isaiah's words to his people. Nephi wants to send Isaiah's words to all of his children (and grandchildren, etc. I guess) because Isaiah saw the Redeemer, Jesus Christ, the way that Nephi saw him. And the way that Jacob saw him, too.

I think this was not a night vision or a dream. I think Isaiah really did see Jesus Christ while in the temple, as well as these super strange alien things called seraphim, with six wings.

Earlier I wondered if Nephi was actually physically present or if it were a thing that happened in his mind in 1 Nephi 11. My answer was that I don't know.

But if I think that Isaiah literally saw Jesus Christ in the temple, then that suggests that Nephi also literally was taken away to an exceedingly high mountain, where he literally saw an angel, and then was literally taken to the future to see and be a witness of the Savior's birth in Bethlehem.

Implications: time travel could be a real thing. Whoaah.

Answer: I think it's possible that Nephi really did see Jesus Christ - and maybe more often than just in this vision in 1 Nephi 11. I guess it's not super important for us to definitely know for these reasons:

1. The way we know Nephi (and Isaiah, and Jacob) is through writing
2. Writing always feels a level removed from the actual experience it is describing.
3. The words and witness these men give of Jesus Christ is not significantly different if it was a mind-experience or a physical-experience. I mean, it would take just about the equal amount of faith to believe either
4. The important part of these visions is the message that Jesus Christ hold power to purify, heal, and fill us with joy. The angel describes the love of God to Nephi as "the most desirable above all things." Isaiah describes the angel as taking effort to descend to his level, physically alter him, and then say, "thine iniquity is taken away, and thy sin purged." 

I know that Jesus Christ has this power. I did not see these miraculous visions. My witness is not with my physical eyes. It is with my heart and my mind. I know that we can draw upon the Savior's strengthening and healing power every day of our lives by approaching him in sincere prayer. 

I also know that it does not take a lot of time. Turning your heart to the Savior is not some kind of gargantuan effort that requires years of practice before getting right, especially if you have lived your whole life believing that it's all lies and nonsense. I know that Jesus Christ is basically pleading with us, wanting us to turn our hearts to him, wanting us to allow him to fix our pain. Because of the atonement, he really knows all of our unique, individual pain and sorrow. This gives him the power to fix them. When we metaphorically lay our pride and unbelief on an imaginary altar, he will immediately bless us for it. 

I often wish that I had a way to compel people I care about to do just this. 

There is no substitute for the kind of love and understanding that can come from this source. It is real, and I know it is real because it is my own experience - some kind of Cartesian logic statement should be inserted here. Someday I will die and be resurrected, and the experience of knowing God will move from the intellectual and emotional space in my mind and heart to a physical one - I will get the opportunity to see God with my own eyes, and feel his hands with my own hands. Until then, one of the best ways I know of to come to know God is through earnestly searching the scriptures and striving to live well. 

Whose voice cried? 2 Nephi 16:4

Whose voice cried? 2 Nephi 16:4

Nephi's younger brother Jacob is quoting Isaiah in this chapter. It is comparable to Isaiah 6.

I really, really love the words of Isaiah.

Isaiah saw the Lord sitting upon a throne "in the year that king Uzziah died" - which is probably sometime around 740/739 BC from that really valid and useful source known as Wikipedia, which here is quoting some guy named Edwin R. Thiele who I don't really want to spend a lot of time figuring out whether or not I think he's a valid source because honestly, it doesn't really matter much to me exactly what year this thing happened - a really long time ago.

Isaiah describes what he sees. It was something like this, I guess:

The Lord was sitting on a throne, high and lifted up, his robes(?) filling the temple.

Above (the robes? the temple?) were seraphim - multiple heavenly beings that, by all accounts, sound super alien and strange: they each have six wings. I don't know how many there were.

One seraphim says to the other: "holy, holy, holy, is the Lord of hosts, the whole earth is full of his glory."

The door posts moved when he (the seraphim) cried, and the entire place was full of smoke.

Then Isaiah freaks out and basically says, "crap, I suck. I am totally unworthy to see any of this." Specifically, he mentions that his mouth is unclean.

Then one of the seraphim takes a hot coal from the altar and puts it on Isaiah's mouth, purifying him.

Obviously, there's a lot of symbolism here that is difficult to understand through the veil of modern times and culture. Like, a whole lot. For example, when I think of a live coal, I don't think of purification. I think of intense, horrible pain and the branding of slaves and animals. And when I think of smoke, I don't think of the presence of God or prayers ascending to reach God. I think of danger from fire and how my smoke alarm is going to go off at any second.

I think Isaiah literally saw this, which is...well, it's weird, to say the least. I would have to really think and study a lot more to come closer to understanding what any of it means.

Answer:

It was the voice of one of the seraphim standing above the Lord (or his robes, or his train) in the temple who cried.

The Upside Down of Wikipedia

Sex.

A very interesting topic.

I am interested in the science of sex - but the *history* of sex is truly an endless well of fascination to me.

How did birth control work in Ancient Egypt? What was the typical frequency of intercourse between married people in Victorian England? What is the statistical likelihood that my Czech Catholic ancestors were virgins when they married? Is it true that female orgasm is a 20th century discovery (#pffffffft)? What were medieval sexual norms? What did x civilization believe about how the science of conception worked? Most especially: *how do we know this?*

How do you learn about this?

Do you go to the library and find books? Well, most local libraries have a pretty limited selection. This is the kind of book that I would never order on interlibrary loan because of the human interaction with the librarian that would have to take place. I talk. How could I ever talk with anyone besides my spouse about "The History of Scientific Discoveries about Human Sexuality"? I would  not be capable of even meeting the librarian's eye. So that's out.

Do you go online to find books? One option I've tried: use Amazon as a search engine. But the next question is important: how do I know if my search is giving me satisfactory results? The way I decide which items to purchase from Amazon is usually by reading reviews - between the lines. I usually only read the 3-4 star reviews because I don't trust either the flattering praise or disgruntled insults. And how many times have I bought an item - especially books! - in spite of negative reviews?

So, sex. An interesting topic very interwined with emotions and spirituality. I have discovered that as curious about the sex lives of other people as I may be, I can't tolerate learning about the specific sexuality - specific sexual thoughts, sexual feelings, sexual acts, obviously sexual images (!!) - of other specific people. It is damaging to my spirit to do so. I avoid such media. Even conversations with groups of my peers that turn to subjects like, "what kind of birth control do you use?" make me personally bite my lip until it bleeds, or else I just walk away. I can't ever un-know or un-remember the details. I can't un-imagine what they tell me. I see my friends' husbands in church the next day and have to try very hard to fill my thoughts with other thoughts and mental images than what their wives described.

Maybe my imagination is too vivid.

Anyway, what I really want to know about sex is *not* specific to individual people. Since Amazon reviews are created by humans who very often share too much about their own personal feelings and experiences, they are not a tolerable source of information (for me) about deciding which books are a good source about sex. #learnedthisthehardway

Typically, the most satisfying print sources I've found for the history of sex I stumbled upon completely by accident as part of a broader research quest about the history of x. I'll never forget the book I read about what the inside of a Victorian English home looked like. The chapter about bedrooms was super interesting because it had all kinds of concrete evidence for why human sexuality at that time in that place probably involved/looked like/was like x. I didn't check the book out with the intent to learn about that. It was the most interesting thing of all, second only to reading about the reality of air pollution in their world and the etymology of "spring cleaning" (and that only because it was less speculation and more believable.)

I once checked out a book that was a collection of mostly extremely dry, snooty, self-congratulatory, pedantic, incomprehensible scholarly essays about the history of the Czech lands. One of them was totally different from all the others. It was an analysis of a legal court case from Bohemia of the 1400's, complete with a translation of the transcription of the original document. The case itself was about a child rape by a nobleman. It was horribly sad to read about. He got in big trouble. It also taught me more about views on sexuality in that time and that place than any other thing I have ever read before or since.

Too bad 95% of books about Czech history are not written in English.

[This is why I am learning Czech, by the way. It's the only solution to that problem.]

In summary: books as a source for learning what I want to know about sex are difficult (though not utterly impossible) to find and they're limited to the library and online booksellers, with the most success coming from accidentally stumbling on snippets while reading about something more generally related.

It's a bad idea to turn to Google for topics about sex. Here's why:
- I don't trust that the search results will be based on relevance more than popularity
- porn is popular
- porn is a plague to be avoided at all costs, including limiting myself from learning what I'm curious about
- I don't want to be targeted with ads about sex

Why not search for sex on Wikipedia?

I have done so in the past, for example about birth control in Ancient Egypt or Victorian views on Female Sexuality.

I recognized that it was a bad source for this topic for these reasons:
- the articles I read were poorly written, as they often are. Writing clear, grammatically correct sentences that make sense and are on the reader's level - not too much over it, not too much under it - this is a learned skill. When an article is piecemeal, written by volunteers over time who only contributed small sections and did not craft the overall piece, they almost inevitably end up like this. This is the reality of what Wikipedia looks like today for most articles.
- the articles I read were not believable. The sources they chose were old. The information itself had me ask, "how do you know that?"
- and mostly: I immediately perceived a glaring male bias. I could not imagine that a woman would write about this topic in the callous, ignorant way that it was written. You'll have to just take my word for it, I guess, because I don't remember exactly what page it was or what was said (and it's probably not the same today - this must have been 6+ years ago). I remember I was in Katy. I remember what room I was in when I was reading about this on my phone. I vividly remember thinking, "this is a load of crap!" and deciding that I was never again going to search for answers to my questions about sex on Wikipedia.

Anyway, what I want to learn is original research, and Wikipedia is a poor source for that. It's a place for people to cite other people's research. There's danger in citing your own - you are biased. Wikipedia strives for neutrality.

I've used Wikipedia since...forever. I obviously know the tone that it strives for (and often misses). I know that it is not meant as a source for deep exploration of topics - it's more like the diving board into the pool of deeper research. It's a starting point, a source of sources. Everything should be taken with a bucket of salt. I have actually looked at the references to books and articles cited on Wikipedia and sought them out directly. Some now adorn bookshelves in my house somewhere.

What shocked me was not to learn that this is how Wikipedia works; I've always known this. It was, however, shocking to really see it and experience it first-hand.

My experience:

Decide to edit x topic because I know about it.
I don't actually remember how I know what I know. Therefore: failure to cite my sources correctly. It just seemed obvious.
My edits removed because they lacked citations or looked "spammy."
Intense, overwhelming anger. Livid.
Find sources to "prove" what I already know.
Re-add my edits.
Recognize I am probably not adding sources correctly and so they will be thrown out.
Anger. My own knowledge is meaningless here unless it was published in a peer-reviewed journal of medicine.
Anger. I never will be published there.
Anger. How many people who are published there have breastfed five infants? How many have experienced tandem breastfeeding? How many have been pregnant while breastfeeding? Hypothesis: a statistically insignificant number.
Anger. Worries that this is not a safe space for me as a woman.
Strange nightmares. You probably laugh that the white Wikipedia screenwith lots of blue links could possibly be the stuff of nightmares. But for the past several nights I have woken up sweating, my voice calling out for help, the image of editing something abstract in my mind, the feeling of intense terror overwhelming my emotions. It persists after the dream itself fades.

Yeah, it's the vivid imagination problem again.

I have not and probably will not muster up the courage to check what happened to those edits I made, at least not for a very, very long time.

Becoming a Wikipedia editor is like walking through an alternative universe. Every Wikipedia page has a meta-discussion going on. I had only ever looked at it one single time in my life previously, in 2015, to make a very tiny comment about my own theory on something. It was an original theory from my original research, so it didn't really belong on the front end. But I thought it was worthy enough to belong on the back end. It was difficult for me to discover how to make that tiny comment. I didn't continue to pursue exploring that world.

That is the entire world of Wikipedia editing.

It's like this: every Wikipedia page is a doorway. You can open the doorway in the normal way and walk through it to a world of knowledge and information. It's vibrant, lush, colorful, wonderful! It might need a little bit of gardening, to weed the superfluous commas and ytpos, but it's really not a scary place.

OR...

You can flip the doorway and then open it backwards and enter a dystopian world of people (mostly men) fighting about what is and isn't worthy of belonging on the other side. If this were Stranger Things, it would be the Upside Down. This place is mostly black and white and so many shades of gray - and tracks made by people so confident and cocky and sure that they know everything about x on the other side, and that their view is the only one that matters or is valid. The landscape is nasty courier font and you're always tripping over HTML tags. If you deign to mention that one reason you know x is from your own 10k+ hours of life experience with x, you're discredited as trying to contribute "original research." It feels like the only people who win this game are the ones who read the most *volume.*

But as was previously examined, reading isn't always the way to learn about the world. It's certainly no substitute to learning about the actual experience of the act of sex itself!

It wasn't new knowledge for me. It was a very poignantly new feeling, though. It was like going from mild hesitation and distrust in everything I read on Wikipedia to major apprehension and disbelief in everything written everywhere about anything at any time by anyone. Faith in knowledge of humanity, crumbling and blowing away in the wind.

Of course that'd be nightmarish to someone who literally idealizes the printed word and longs more than almost anything else to contribute to the great libraries of the world's knowledge.

But that's just feelings for you. Dramatic. Overstated. Full of senseless worries. The actual mission of Wikipedia is wonderful. The flaws in execution are compelling reasons for me to contribute *more*, not run away from it entirely (though I have noticed that my Wikipedia usage since this experience has significantly decreased. I have purposefully temporarily avoided clicking on search results that would take me there - and it's been about 15x in the last three days).

I only wish that I had been smart enough to have my first real experience with Wikipedia editing be for me to walk through an obscure door on Czech Wikipedia into a teeny tiny world, gather some baskets of information there, walk back down the hall, open a wholly new door in English Wikipedia, and there plant the seeds from my basket. I should have realized that a topic like breastfeeding would have a particularly nasty Upside Down.

It's a weird world when I can learn more about breastfeeding by sitting in a quiet place with a baby on my lap than by perusing the towering libraries of all the world's information.

But I think the problem is not that the information about breastfeeding (or sex) doesn't exist in those libraries. The problem is being able to find it.

How much of an understanding of the premortal existence did Lehi have? 2 Nephi 2:16

How much of an understanding of the premortal existence did Lehi have? 2 Nephi 2:16

Lehi is talking to his children before he dies. He is preaching about the purpose of life and the plan of salvation. He wants his children to understand that agency was a necessary aspect of the plan.

Lehi testifies that God created all things in the heaven and the earth. He testifies that opposition had to exist, good and evil had to exist. He testifies that mankind had to be given the option to choose between good and evil. This is called agency and it is a foundational doctrine of the restored Church on the earth today.

In this verse, Lehi says: "Wherefore, the Lord God gave unto man that he should act for himself. Wherefore, man could not act for himself save it should be that he was enticed by the one or the other."

It occurred to me as I read this verse that Lehi knew an awful lot about the plan of salvation. Where did he gain this knowledge?

This verse reminded me of the temple endowment ceremony - well, at least, the previous version of the endowment ceremony. I heard that around the first of January the ceremony was changed slightly. It will be so interesting to go to the temple and learn how, but it is difficult to arrange with sick children, snowstorms, and unreliable vehicles.

Lehi could have gained his knowledge from the brass plates which Nephi took from Laban. We already know that there are Old Testament prophets like Zenos and Zenock whose original prophecies have been lost to time; why not other writings by other ancient prophets that were also lost, but which also testified of the premortal existence and the council in heaven?

One of the most interesting books of scripture that we have is the book of Moses in the Pearl of Great Price. This is a translation of a book that used to be part of the Old Testament writings of Moses. It reads extremely plainly about the plan of salvation, for example in Moses 4. The entire book of Moses reminds me of the temple endowment ceremony as well. If you are interested in learning about Latter-day Saint temple rituals, I'm sure you could just go to YouTube or some place like Wikipedia or something to find the entire text and perhaps the old (outdated) video, but please do not do that. It is highly offensive and disrespectful and would cause me great distress and feelings of sadness. Instead, just read the book of Moses. It's not long and it's very interesting, especially when compared to the first part of Genesis.

Answer:
I don't know, but if I study more, I might find out.

I can carefully study what Lehi understood and compare it to the writings of the Old Testament and the writings of the Pearl of Great Price, so that perhaps I can determine whether or not the Brass Plates also contained the lost book of Moses or other lost scripture that we don't have in the Old Testament that have information about the premortal existence.

By the way, some churches have books of scripture which are not in our canon, for example the book of the Maccabees which is apparently "a historical document of the highest importance." Certainly this and other apocryphal writings are good deal more useful to read than like, the Song of Solomon #OldTestamentporn.

I'm personally totally okay with the idea that scriptures, like any other physical, human-made writing, is copied, disseminated, misinterpreted, concealed, contaminated by any other number of human-created imperfections - and sometimes even lost or destroyed. I also believe that ancient scripture can be discovered, revealed, retranslated, and restored.

I understand that this is not a belief that I share with all Christians, and that is also okay.

I personally don't worship the Bible itself. I worship the God of the Bible. As I am amazed to continually discover through highlighting the words in both the Old and New Testaments (this week I was reading some really, um, pleasant chapters in Deuteronomy as well as Matthew 1 and Luke 1), that is Jesus Christ, his Father, and the Holy Ghost. I really love them.

What is the "skin of blackness" that came upon the Lamanites? 2 Nephi 5:21

What is the "skin of blackness" that came upon the Lamanites? 2 Nephi 5:21

Nephi's brothers stop listening to and obeying the commandments. The promise is that if they did so, they would be "cut off from the presence of the Lord" (see 2 Nephi 5:20, as one of several dozen places that this type of thing is mentioned about Laman and Lemuel specifically, I guess. I could look that up sometime. But not now).

What happens next is that the Lord caused "the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity...wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them."

Holy Offensive Racism Batman!

Here's how Ahmad Corbitt explains this phrase:

Church members and others should beware, as I warned the couple who came to talk with me, of a tactic some use to try to discredit the Book of Mormon. They cherry-pick isolated Book of Mormon references that, out of context, sound negative, even offensive, to us today. One example is the ancient description of Laman’s people as having “a skin of blackness” so “that they might not be enticing” to the Nephites. Admittedly, these expressions collide with current sensibilities and speech. But they should not distract readers from the grand, eternal perspectives and purposes I’m convinced the Lord intended for the Book of Mormon. Rather, they should serve as reminders of these perspectives and purposes. Readers of this scriptural record should keep in mind that these words reflect the cultural perceptions and customs of ancient people in response to an unusual color change in their family.

Perhaps the Lamanites, who usually avoided the Nephites except to do battle against them, saw the color difference between the two peoples in completely opposite terms. Who knows? What’s important is that the early Nephite writers’ reactions to the darkness of the Lamanites’ skin is of no significance to us in our day. Obviously, Church leaders do not hold up the Book of Mormon as an authority on the science of racial origins or as a standard for human attractiveness. I believe that like Paul’s statements about women who wore braided hair or spoke in church, the significance of Nephite descriptions of the Lamanites’ skin is merely historical, not doctrinal.

While these descriptions of the Lamanites’ skin color change are not doctrinally significant in my view, they do add important context. They highlight cultural challenges that existed for Book of Mormon peoples, foreshadowing challenges that humanity faces today. It is impressive that such references can ultimately enable the book to communicate such a timely, urgent, and global message of unity and harmony across race and ethnicity. Thus, the Lord’s overarching message of peace eclipses the cultural ethnocentricities of the book’s ancient writers and modern-day readers. For me, it is inspiring to read the Book of Mormon and to be reminded, by the references to skin color, that a loving Heavenly Father is using the book to guide the human family to greater unity and peace.

 TLDR: Nephites were probably racists.

Corbitt then goes further to say that the inclusion of this phrase is actually evidence that Joseph Smith was called of God.

What does the Book of Mormon’s message of universal, multiracial unity in Christ say about Joseph Smith and his mission? Again, I believe the Lord foreknew advances that would transform the modern world into a global community. Consequently, He knew that we would have unprecedented opportunities for multiracial and multiethnic interrelations throughout the world.

In a display of divine irony, the Lord brought forth this racially unifying book in a land that was racially divided at the time, plagued with the slavery of Africans and the diaspora and maltreatment of Native Americans. Yet He also brought it forth in a land endowed with religious freedom and constitutional self-government. In His providence, He has, over time, raised up and inspired His children who enjoy these freedoms to facilitate ways for others to receive them, both within the United States and throughout the world, in order that His unifying gospel might be enjoyed by all.

It is miraculous that a book published in 19th-century America could include a record of a “fair”-skinned nation and a nation with a “skin of blackness” reaching pure equality and unity. That it could rise in ever-increasing relevance to become, in my view, the most racially unifying book of scripture in the world compels both mind and soul to recognize the hand of God in its emergence “out of obscurity, and out of darkness.”

These attributes of the Book of Mormon strengthen my conviction that Joseph Smith, a young man who lacked formal education, translated this volume of scripture by the power of God. Miraculously, he did so in approximately 55 to 65 working days. All of this background speaks resoundingly to the reasoned and reasonable witness of millions throughout the world that Joseph Smith Jr. was a true prophet of God. Ultimately, the Book of Mormon’s unifying power confirms the words of Moroni that the book had been prepared to testify “that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God, manifesting himself unto all nations.”

TLDR: The Book of Mormon teaches that salvation is available to all races when we repent. This idea was not popular during the 1830's in the United States, therefore: Joseph Smith got this idea from God.

Here are some of my ideas for what the "skin of blackness" could be:

• Genetic: the children of Laman and Lemuel (etc.) started mixing with the indigenous people of America who had darker skins. (I guess this is the consensus, mainstream view of most people I know)
• Clothing: perhaps there was some kind of marked clothing style that these people donned. Remember, the Nephites continued to live the Mosaic law for the next 500+ years until the coming of Jesus Christ - wasn't it against the commandments to like, touch certain animals like wild pigs and stuff?
• Biological: On that same note, perhaps something in the habits (so, biological but not through genetic inheritance) of the Lamanites could change the color of their skin. Something in their diet? Perhaps they were much more tan from working outside more, from uncovering their skin to the sun more? 
• Symbolic: Maybe this "skin of blackness" is not literal at all; maybe it is just a phrase meaning that the people became really ugly and undesirable for the Nephites to marry and associate with. 
• Lost in translation : Maybe something else.

Answer:
I'm not sure. I would have to research this more, but right now, I feel satisfied with accepting that the Nephites themselves probably did have racist aspects of their culture, so if they wrote some racist phrases, I could find it within myself to excuse Nephi "because of the weakness which is in [him]" as he specifically asked us to do.

I also feel satisfied knowing that there are extremely intelligent people like the scholar Hugh Nibley (this guy is my hero) who believed that this "skin" did not literally refer to race at all, but something else.

It would be nice to find out the answer to this question someday, for sure.

It would also be nice to ask Paul what the heck he was thinking when he wrote about women not being allowed to talk (or rule) in church in 1 Corinthians 14:34. Like, that little verse has been a thorn in women's side for centuries...but that's a tooootally different tangent.

"And the Lord is near, and he justifieth me." Who is being justified here? Jesus Christ or Isaiah? 2 Nephi 7:8

"And the Lord is near, and he justifieth me." Who is being justified here? Jesus Christ or Isaiah? 2 Nephi 7:8

This is a nice little prayer thing that goes like this:

7 ¶ For the Lord God will help me; therefore shall I not be confounded: therefore have I set my face like a flint, and I know that I shall not be ashamed.
8 He is near that justifieth me; who will contend with me? let us stand together: who is mine adversary? let him come near to me.
9 Behold, the Lord God will help me; who is he that shall condemn me? lo, they all shall wax old as a garment; the moth shall eat them up.

Is Jesus Christ speaking?

Yes. The chapter heading of Isaiah 50 mentions that here, Isaiah is speaking "as the Messiah."

If we interpret these verses to be Jesus Christ speaking, then the LORD GOD here, the one who "will help" is God, the Father.

If we apply these verses to ourselves as Nephi would do (see 1 Nephi 11:2), and also Latter-day prophets and apostles have done - albeit not very recently (see Daniel H. Wells "Increase of the Stakes" 1877, George Q Cannon "Gathering - Its Spirit, Etc." 1872,  Orson Pratt "The Kingdom of God" 1855) then the LORD GOD becomes the Godhead - God the Father as the designer of the plan, Jesus Christ as the executor of the plan, and the Holy Ghost as the witness of the plan.

These are extraordinarily confident and uplifting words testifying of the power and strength of God over our myriad enemies. I really love these words.  

Why did Nephi ask Jacob to write the words of Isaiah in 2 Nephi 6?

Why did Nephi ask Jacob to write the words of Isaiah in 2 Nephi 6?

Jacob was probably born between 591-589 BC (see 1 Nephi 18:7) and the writings of Isaiah in 2 Nephi 6 are from about 559-545 BC. Jacob would have been somewhere between the ages of 30-46.

Which would make Nephi a very old person.

The first mention of Nephi's age is in 1 Nephi 2:16. He describes himself as "exceedingly young." I don't know exactly what that means, but I guess he was probably a minor. Let's say he was 15.

If he were 15 at this point, then he would have been between 56 and 70 years old.

Nephi himself says why he likes the words of Isaiah in 2 Nephi 11:2. He says that his soul delights in his words because they can apply to his people, he wants to share them with his children, and that Isaiah testified of Jesus Christ.

Answer:
Nephi also specifically asks Jacob to write the words of Isaiah because the word of God is established by the words of three witnesses in 2 Nephi 11:3. I am certain that Nephi is quoting the Old Testament somewhere, but I'm not exactly sure where. I will have to find that out.

Nephi is saying that his words, Jacob's words, and Isaiah's words all together testify and "prove unto [my children] that my words are true."

Who were Nephi's sisters? 2 Nephi 5:6

Who were Nephi's sisters? 2 Nephi 5:6

Answer:

Well, now that I've thought about this a little, I wonder if perhaps Nephi might be referring to his sisters-in-law in this verse?

We know there were at least two (because of the plural). They are only mentioned this one time after the family arrived in the Americas as being righteous followers of Nephi when the family separated into two groups upon arrival in the promised land.

New question:

Is the ancient Jewish concept of "sister" inclusive of "sisters-in-law"?

Guess: Maybe?

Languages very frequently differ in words for specific extended family relationships. Arabic, which is also a Semitic language, has eight ways to say "cousin" (son of my paternal aunt, daughter of my maternal uncle...etc.) I'm pretty sure Chinese has different words for "eldest son" and "youngest son" even.

To be researched more.

Which other sons of Lehi was this chapter addressed to? 2 Nephi 2:30

Which other sons of Lehi was this chapter addressed to? 2 Nephi 2:30

Nephi writes the words of his dying father to his brothers. Addressed are the following:

Jacob, firstborn son in the wilderness
2 Nephi 2:1-13

All the sons (and perhaps sons in law?)
2 Nephi 2:14-30

Joseph, last-born (not last-born son, but last-born of all)
2 Nephi 3:1-25 (note that Lehi explicitly mentions his own father in verse 22)

The sons and daughters of Laman
2 Nephi 4:3-7 (note that neither Laman nor Lemuel had the decency to listen to the words of their dying father)

The sons and daughters of Lemuel
2 Nephi 4:8-9

The whole household of Ishmael
2 Nephi 4:10

Sam
2 Nephi 4:11

Note that Nephi's blessing is curiously omitted. He definitely would have received one, too. Maybe it was too personal to share? Maybe it, too, is in the sealed portion? (that is, by the way, my throw-my-hands-in-the-air-because-there-is-no-way-to-find-this-knowledge-right-now-that-I-know-of answer)

I've read theories about that in some obscure F.A.R.Ms publication when was in high school; I don't remember exactly where; you have no idea how many bookshelves of Latter-day Saint theology books existed in my house while I was growing up - my dad is a little bit obsessed. From what I remember of the theory, it mentioned that Nephi's choice to kill Laban would have been a really bitter pill for his father Lehi to swallow because of their Jewish culture. The Mosaic Law in Deuteronomy specifically forbids people from shedding innocent, defenseless blood (see Deuteronomy 19:10 and Deuteronomy 19:11-13, for example, but I guess this is not the only reference to avoiding shedding innocent blood). Basically, Nephi went against his father's deeply held moral values when he impersonated the church brethren, used Laban's sword to kill Laban, disguised himself as Laban, took the sword, had Zoram give him the plates, and fled with Zoram out of Jerusalem forever.

By the way, this suggests to me that Lehi's daughters (he had at least two) married sons of Ishmael. Lehi would have addressed his daughter's husbands, and presumably Nephi would have written about them. But he didn't, unless they fall under "the whole household of Ishmael."

Did Lehi and Sariah have other children born to them in the wilderness? 2 Nephi 2:1

Did Lehi and Sariah have other children born to them in the wilderness? 2 Nephi 2:1

Answer: Lehi and Sariah had at least one other son named Joseph, and at least two unnamed daughters. "My father had begat two sons in the wilderness; the elder was called Jacob and the younger Joseph." 1 Nephi 18:7 "I, Nephi, did take my family...and also my sisters, and all those who would go with me." 2 Nephi 5:6 Perhaps these sisters married some of the sons of Ishmael, who travels with Lehi. Ishmael had two sons and five daughters - none of whom are named, weirdly.

In the first verse I mentioned, Nephi records the words of his father Lehi to Jacob, who is the eldest of Nephi's younger brothers born in the wilderness between 591-589 BC. If this chapter occurs between 588-570 BC, then Jacob would be somewhere between the age of 1-21. I seriously doubt that the words, "in they childhood thou has suffered afflictions and much sorrow, because of the rudeness of thy brethren," would have been made to either a 1 year old infant or a fully grown man.

Nephi never mentions his sisters by name.

Other really prominent people who are oddly never mentioned by name in the Book of Mormon include:

- Queen Lamoni
- King Lamoni's father
- King Lamoni's father's wife
- the Brother of Jared

It's super strange to me that Nephi would not have recorded the name of his own wife. But the lineage of Nephi is also not explicitly recorded there, either.

:::shrug::: I guess maybe it's included in the sealed portion.

In this Arnold Friburg painting, Jacob is probably the little boy with the manacles or leather bracelet thingies leaning over the ship, while Nephi is the guy with the green shirt. Sariah and Lehi are the old ones in the middle.

Familysearch vs. Wikipedia vs. something else

Familysearch Family Tree and Wikipedia

Both:
- Are free open publicly crowdsourced databases of information about people, places, events, and more
- Focus on citation: making easy to use, intuitive tools for new users to cite sources
- Have user interfaces that are insensitive to old people who struggle with small font defaults
- Have mechanisms for meta-discussion
- Are about disseminating true ideas
- Operate on a fantastically disproportionate ratio of people who might have knowledge of a topic : people who contribute knowledge to said topic
- Are subject to attacks and vandals
- Have only a small handful of employees
- Are charitable organizations financed entirely by donations
- Can be places where you run into problems with people messing up your contributions
- Have, in such cases, the ability for certain pages to have barriers to change placed on them


Familysearch Family Tree:
- Is an acceptable place to share original research
- Allows a person's own knowledge of a subject to be cited
- Has at least five public (ie non-PM) spaces for interactive meta-research discussion among contributors, all of which are easily accessible by non-programmers
- probably has more female contributors than male contributors
- Focuses on striving to be an easy tool for the world to use. Example: Familysearch Family Tree Lite, which is designed for fast loading on mobile devices for places like Mexico which skipped the PC era of computing and went straight to mobile phones
- is the project by which all the people who died without having the chance to be baptized while living can receive that chance by proxy; aka a strong religious motivation for some users to publicly contribute true information in a timely, courteous manner
- Has an intuitive, fast learning curve for new contributors
- has a smaller user base than it wants


Wikipedia:
- Only recognized records, and not personal experience/memory/knowledge, as a valid source
- Has only two public (ie non-PM) spaces for meta-research discussion: a person's personal talk page and a talk page of a subject, neither of which have a visual editor. This highly favors the accessibility of programmers who are not intimidated by streams of unformatted courier font surrounded by <HTML tags> which is literally as intimidating/frustrating to non-programmers as a foreign language. 
- Has far more male contributors than female contributors
- Seems to value intentional barriers to contribution such as disallowing machine translation from x language to English, steep learning curve for cultural expectations of communication, and unintuitive GUI's
- lacks religious motivation for contributors, unless placing words upon the altar of hubristic human pride is one's religion, which it actually seems to often be
- has a steep learning curve for new contributors
- has the highest user base for any website online; just about everyone in the world with internet access has used Wikipedia and knows about Wikipedia's existence
- is not limited to creating a sprawling tree of information about the human family, but is rather a sprawling tree of information about EVERYTHING*
- ...*ish

My own personal epistemologic philosophies and values have never felt so relevant to me as when I first took a look at the back-end of Wikipedia and experienced first-hand how it's created. How do I know something is true? What is the source of knowledge and wisdom?

Jesus Christ taught, "Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled." (Matthew 5:6)

Hannah, mother of the Old Testament prophet Samuel said, "the LORD is a God of knowledge, and by him actions are weighed." (1 Samuel 2:2)

The only source of absolute truth is God. Everything else is an approximation or imitation. The way to gain spiritual knowledge is not by searching the internet. It's by searching the scriptures and words of the prophets. It's by searching my soul in genuine, quiet introspection. It's by listening to a voice that is quieter but more trustworthy than that belonging to any human. It is by worshipping God through active decisions to strive to keep covenants, commandments, and commitments to my callings. Spiritual knowledge comes from walking by faith.

I feel bitter that my efforts to understand spiritual truth and gain spiritual knowledge are not celebrated publicly the way online contributions in both these aforementioned online spaces are. But do I want actual greatness, or just to look great to other people? I guess the truth is that I want to *feel* great, but if actually being great requires me to give even that up, I would.

I constantly feel so parched and famished. Jesus's words seem to assure me that this feeling is both acceptable and temporary. It is comforting.

Frustrated Mind Dumping after my first day editing Wikipedia

Aughaghgahjk;ahj;kaghjk;aghj;k hkl'aertj'klauhj;ahjk;ater

Nowhere else to express my utter distaste, disdain, disgust, dis-everything. Dissing everything. EVERYTHING SUCKS. DO YOU HEAR ME, ANYONE!?

:::pant, pant, pant:::

So. Okay. I will compose myself and compose this post.

I usually get somewhere between .25-4 hours per day to spend doing something interesting on my computer, the only place where interesting things ever seem to happen. Or at least, the most interesting things. The mental playground.

Today I decided, with great hesitation, that I would venture down the rabbit hole of Wikipedia editing. Even though it pretty much goes against some of my most dearly held core values.

But some of those values conflict with each other, and in the end, the other side won.

Even though it meant losing all kinds of my precious, sacred, valuable, super-limited free time.

And now I'm ranting about it, but I don't really know what else I can do but rant on a blog. If I were to call somebody - nobody I know who I can reach by phone would be 1. available right now or 2. sympathetic. I am not capable of ranting to non-humans. I can set my little offerings out to the great void. I guess some people read this pathetic little blogičký bloggy blogíček.

PERSONAL VALUE A:
Being genuine. Sincere. Open. Honest. With all my heart. Feelings. Sometimes gushing. Sometimes obnoxious. Often obnoxious. Always obnoxious? Ugh.

PERSONAL VALUE B:
Dissemination of knowledge. Free. For everybody. Language should not be a barrier. Reverse Iron Curtain Is Stupid. #imsurroundedbymorons "This wasn't a page on wikipedia?! How is it possible that this was not a page on wikipedia already?!" Maybe I know some things.

PERSONAL VALUE C:
I never, never, never, never, never, never, never, NEVER want to find myself on Mount Stupid.

PERSONAL VALUE D:
But there is my journey on Mount Stupid, in plain view, for everybody to see, with my edits on wikipedia. Ughhghghghgh.

And I can't utter the phrase "edit wikipedia" without thinking of Weird Al Yankovic, which just makes me...

Cringe.

It makes me cringe.

And then I start to cry because perhaps this is the solution I've been looking for these past years. The solution for finding somebody - anybody - any human body - to...talk to.

aafds;jt 4h;iet4'tw4hjil/grkjldsf

What a lousy, embarrassing, frustrating, horrid, disgusting solution.

I know I was trying to keep this blog positive, upbeat, cheerful, happy - but that is not how I feel and I guess "Personal Value A" tends to overshadow all the others, being a well-practiced, needy type of person. I guess I could really have a hey-day writing the internal dialogue here, but I have actual stuff to do in the real world.

I don't want to write in a super neutral voice. I want to write in my own voice.

Or translate somebody else's voice. That is the contribution I really want to make.

But that will require 500 edits to unlock the translator tool for English, because English Speakers Suck.

There are some lousy work-arounds. But they really are pretty lousy.

And this tool has a learning curve. It's hard to figure out a new GUI. It's hard to figure out how to orient myself. It's hard to cringe every time I see the tracks I'm leaving that don't make sense. It's frustrating that I wasted a good three hours on this. It feels like a waste. Maybe it won't be. Maybe it will be really good for me. Maybe I should try to be optimistic. Maybe I will love this rabbit hole. Maybe it will lead to some great translation projects. Maybe Personal Value B will get some exercise.

Maybe this is just PMS. And I'm not actually kidding about that.

bleughghgh.

Why are children of gay couples not allowed to be baptized into the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

There was a policy change sometime in the past two-ish years that really upset some people both inside and outside the church. The policy change made it so that children of gay couples were not allowed to be baptized until they turned 18. 

There is a lot of reading in various places that you could do on this topic. Some of it is good, some of it is not. I hate wading through that crap so I am not going to find it and quote it, but instead I want to share my personal feelings on this topic.

My church sends this "army" of really nice men and women around the world giving away free books and doing all kinds of free service, sacrificing 1 1/2 to 2 years of the prime of their lives to try to convince people to renounce their previous lifestyle and become members of the restored church of Jesus Christ by being baptized. We don't spend that much time talking about what could prevent an investigator from being baptized, and I think a lot of people don't realize that you actually do have to qualify for baptism through an interview process. 

If you are married and your spouse does not agree with you getting baptized, you do not qualify to be baptized. 

I see this policy change with the children of gay couples as super similar; basically, the church is very, very pro-family to the point that if it will risk causing serious contention in important family relationships, church policy is that it would be better to temporarily not be baptized.

Remember, we have this doctrine that everybody in the entire world will get the chance to be baptized, either while they are alive or by proxy after they are dead! Remember that the great majority of God's children on the earth will receive this ordinance by proxy, so apparently, though the ordinance itself is essential, there might be conditions that make it worthwhile to wait.

Children who are not baptized are welcome to attend and participate in sacrament meeting, Sunday School, Primary, and later in the youth programs. Nobody is excluded from the social function of the church by not being baptized (though one will not be able to hold a church calling until being an official member - but there are lots of jobs in the church that are not technically "callings"). Honestly, the majority of people at church do not even know who is or is not baptized (or excommunicated!) around them at church. It doesn't come up particularly often in conversation. If a baptized member takes the sacrament, it is like renewing their baptismal covenants. If a non-baptized person takes the sacrament, it's meaningless. If an excommunicated person takes the sacrament, that's...well, that's not good.

In a way, this policy acknowledges that gay couples raising children together are family units. That is a much more progressive thought than it might seem at first glance.

I like that the church is trying to minimize and avoid feelings of contention within homes, even at the expense of delaying (note that delaying is not the same as limiting!) access to the gift of the Holy Ghost and church membership for some people. It is bittersweet, but it attests that family relationships are really the most important.