One of the things I’ve written about before is the problem of common, broad terminology, that allows us to speak, without expressing what we mean (if we even know ourselves). For example, what does “true” mean in an LDS context, e.g. “the church is true” or “the scriptures are true”? It can be a problem. See my old post here, for example.
I’ve encountered two professors in the last year who make students think by requiring them to avoid certain words. In one non-BYU course on comparative religion, the students were barred for the first month from saying “religion”; in another (at BYU), students were barred from saying “atonement.” This means the students have to slow down and think about what they actually mean, since they can’t use those words. (Imagine if we struck the words “nourish and strengthen” from food blessings.)
If I were a Bishop (and I thank the heavens I am not), I might try having a sacrament meeting wherein all testimonies had to be expressed without using the words “atonement,” “true,” “church,” “gospel,” “testimony,” or “know.” I think it would be really interesting and edifying. And yes, it’s a bit like the game Taboo, but the purpose here would be to induce more thought, sincerity, and clarity into our Fast and Testimony Offering Personal Witness Meeting.
As always, you can help me pay my tuition here, or you can support my work through making your regular Amazon purchases through this Amazon link. You can also get updates by email whenever a post goes up (subscription box on the right). If you friend me on Facebook, please drop me a note telling me you’re a reader. I tend not to accept friend requests from people I’m not acquainted with.
As part of the New Testament Commentary Seminar, a conference will be held at BYU Friday July 29. A formal announcement, more information, and audio/video from previous conferences are available here at the Commentary homepage. Click here for a nice PDF.
4th Annual BYU New Testament Commentary Conference:
New Mormon Ideas about Mark and Hebrews
Friday, July 29
9:00 am to 3:00 pm
Hinckley Center Assembly Hall, Brigham Young University
Public welcome, Admission free
The Epistle to the Hebrews
9:00 Welcome, Invocation, and Introductions
9:10 Michael Rhodes, “Thoughts on the Authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews”
9:45 Joshua M. Matson, “‘Whoso Readeth It, Let Him Understand’: The Use of Extra-Canonical Jewish Traditions in Hebrews”
10:05 Q&A on the Authorship of Hebrews
10:15 Richard Draper, “‘Now Since the Children Share Flesh and Blood, [Christ] also, in Just the Same Way, Shared Their Humanity’: The Low Christology of the Lord as Viewed in Hebrews 1–2”
10:50 Avram R. Shannon, “‘I Have Sworn’: Ancient Exegesis and the Oath and Covenant of the Priesthood”
11:10 Ben Spackman, “Joseph Smith, JST Hebrews 9:15-20, and Covenant Curses”
11:30 Nathaniel Pribil and Chris Brockman, “The Many Uses of Hebrews by LDS Leaders”
11:50 Q&A on Main Themes of Hebrews
12:00 Lunch Break
The Gospel of Mark
1:00 Reconvene
1:10 Julie M. Smith, “The Purpose of Parables: A Closer Look at Mark 4:10-13”
1:45 Andrea Brunken, “Messianic Secret in the Book of Mark”
2:05 Philip Abbott, “The Markan Sandwich of Mark 5: A Reflection of Christ”
2:25 Andy Mickelson, “‘[He] Fled from Them Naked’: Uncovering the Significance of Mark 14:51-52”
2:45 Q&A on LDS Interests and Perplexities in Mark
2:55 Closing and Benediction
I’ve had an interest in my topic for years, and am glad for the opportunity to have to actually do the work. In essence, Hebrews 9:15-20 uses Gr. diatheke as a leitwort, but does it mean “last will, testament” per Classical Greek, or “covenant” per Septuagint Greek? Is it playing on both meanings? (You can see some of the problems explained here.) Regardless of how the Greek should be understood, Joseph Smith made some interesting changes to the JST.
15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament covenant, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament covenant, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.
16 For where a testament covenant is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator victim.
17 For a testament covenant is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator victim liveth.
18 Whereupon neither the first testament covenant was dedicated without blood.
19 For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people,
20 Saying, This is the blood of the testament covenant which God hath enjoined unto you.
These changes both pick a side in the will/covenant argument but also tie it more closely back to Exodus 24 (quoted in v.20 above), wherein the covenant of the Torah is put into force. Moses declares the covenantal requirements of Torah, the people verbally bind themselves to it, there’s some strange ritual, and lo, the covenant is in force.
3 ¶Moses… told the people all the words of the Lord, and all the judgments: and all the people answered with one voice, and said, “All the words which the Lord hath said will we do.”
4 And Moses wrote all the words of the Lord, and rose up early in the morning, and built an altar at the bottom of the mount, and twelve pillars, according to the twelve tribes of Israel.
5 And he sent young men of the children of Israel, who offered burnt offerings, and sacrificed peace offerings of oxen unto the Lord.
6 And Moses took half of the blood, and put it in basins; and half of the blood he sprinkled on the altar.
7 And he took the book of the covenant, and read in the audience of the people: and they said, All that the Lord hath said will we do, and be obedient.
8 And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the Lord hath made with you concerning all these words.
Part of that ritual involves collecting the blood from a ritual sacrifice (which likely means the animals had their throats cut, in order to collect it) and sprinkling it on the altar and on the people to ratify the covenant and also symbolize, as a simile curse, the fate of the people if they reject or violate the covenant. (That sprinkled blood is called “the blood of the covenant” and it is this phrase that Jesus uses when transforming the wine of the last supper into the Christian sacrament. “This is my blood of the new covenant.”) Regardless of what the Greek means, the JST shows that Joseph Smith knew… something about covenantal structures and curses when he did this part of the JST in 1830(?).
That’s my topic.
As always, you can help me pay my tuition here, or you can support my work through making your regular Amazon purchases through this Amazon link. You can also get updates by email whenever a post goes up (subscription box on the right). If you friend me on Facebook, please drop me a note telling me you’re a reader. I tend not to accept friend requests from people I’m not acquainted with.
One part of my book on Genesis 1 addresses the question “Why can’t we just believe what our Church leaders have said about Genesis 1?” Well, that presumes two things; first, that a unified interpretation of how to read Genesis has existed among them, and second, that such a unified interpretation (if it existed) had come about via revelation.
I examine three Church presidents to demonstrate the variety of views. On one extreme is Brigham Young, and on the other sits Joseph Fielding Smith. In the middle is David O. McKay. His position was that Genesis was indeed revealed scripture but, contra Joseph Fielding Smith, that status did not mean it was historical/scientific in nature. Genesis was therefore not an obstacle to belief in evolution. Continue reading
I’m spending a lot of my time writing about the idea of “context” right now, both for my book and also for a BYU paper, tentatively accepted for the 2017 Sperry Symposium. Below are a few fun things I’ve turned up recently. Continue reading
When it comes to frustrations with Gospel Doctrine class, one problem is that we don’t pay a lot of attention to context, and we like to casually shoe-horn modern doctrinal concepts or concerns into any old bit of verse that seems to relate. This is really only made possible by ignoring context, and not reading. For example, I wrote this in 2007.
I happened to be home once last year during a lesson on some chapters from Isaiah. The teacher did a decent job, but the comments all tended in one direction. By typical Gospel Doctrine standards, it was probably quite good. But afterwards, as I walked out, one man I know well asked me, “Why didn’t you say anything about Isaiah?”
“We didn’t talk about Isaiah.” I replied. “We selected some phrases in Isaiah that evoked familiar and current LDS principles, discussed those, and then decided that’s what Isaiah was really talking about in the first place. My Hebrew and ancient Near Eastern studies are irrelevant to that kind of discussion.”
On May 31, 1925, Elder Stephen L. Richards gave the baccalaureate sermon to the graduating class of BYU, which was quite small at the time. This was in the lead-up to the Scopes trial (which is why I’m reading it), and Richards, a lawyer, had been an Apostle for 15 years at this point. His address was printed in theImprovement Era in September, after the Scopes trial had concluded. (On which, see this great book.)
That issue also eulogizes William Jennings Bryan (who had died suddenly right after the Scopes trial), and contains a First Presidency statement on evolution (largely excerpted from the 1909 statement), followed by an editorial on “Teaching Bible Stories.” This editorial takes issue with “a number of communications” on the topic of the “literary” nature of Bible stories. Continue reading
The general thrust of my research over the next few years will be science, religion, and history, centered around evolution and scriptural interpretation. I’ll post various things from time to time. The following comes from The Juvenile Instructor, Vol XLVI No. 4 (April 1911): 208-9. BYU had just undergone a controversy of sorts about evolution, the nature of the Bible, and some other intertwined issues. See my post here. Writing in the Church’s magazine, President Joseph F. Smith, in the 10th year of his presidency, penned the following. I have broken up some of the paragraphing for readability, and bolded some interesting bits, commentary at the end. Continue reading
I only saw bits and pieces of the Women’s Session of General Conference tonight, but got a teaser of the theme last night from Elder Oaks’ visit to Claremont.
The LDS Church has generally been very favorable to refugees and immigrants. There is good historical reason for this. As dramatized by video in the session today, LDS have institutional memory and family stories about the multiple times we too had to flee because of violence and death, leaving behind everything of value. We too were dependent on others who found us strange and foreign, but who nevertheless opened their hearts and homes.
Deuteronomy is the heart of the law of Moses, both in the sense that that is where much of the text is located, but also because of its sympathetic compassion: You shall love the refugee, for you were refugees in the land of Egypt. (Deu 10:19).
Israel had taken refuge in Egypt because of famine, and were then exploited and oppressed.
As for the refugee, you shall not wrong or oppress them, for you were refugees in the land of Egypt (Exo 22:21)
As for the refugee, you shall not take advantage of them; you know how it feels to be a refugee, because you were refugees in the land of Egypt. (Exo 23:9)
Like a full citizen is how you shall treat the refugee living with you, and you shall love them like yourself, for you were refugees in the land of Egypt. (Lev 19:34)
But today, we will echo the law of Moses, by remembering our own history as immigrants and refugees driven out, and acting with according compassion; We have been invited to emulate Christ by “doing unto the least of these.”
These chapters are Nephi’s literary swan song, his winding down. He’s now in the position Lehi was in 2 Nephi 1-4, that is, old, preparing for his exit, and wanting to leave behind some words of guidance and distilled wisdom…. which makes for some interesting comparisons. Whereas Lehi spoke to his immediate children, Nephi speaks to his descendants and people. Notably, the closing arguments of Nephi’s life as the basics of the Gospel. He pleads with people to repent (31:11, 13, 17), be baptized (31:4-14), receive the Holy Ghost (31:12-14), and endure to the end (31:15-16, 19-20). This, according to the Book of Mormon, is the Gospel (see Noel Reynolds here for a shorter summary and here for an Ensign version.) The rest is just details or, as Joseph Smith called them, “appendages.”
Related to this is the logical-but-wrong idea that “fulness of the Gospel” includes all those “details” like eternal marriage, baptism for the dead, three degrees of glory, etc. The Book of Mormon, as is well known, is said to contain “the fulness of the gospel” but these things are not really mentioned in the Book of Mormon (although on becoming-as-God, see 3 Nephi 28:1), probably because the Nephite prophets didn’t know about them. Remember that line-upon-line thing. Also of interest is that the 1981 edition Introduction also said that the Bible too contained the fulness of the Gospel. (See this LDS history blog for data and discussion.)
But for outsiders who assume the Book of Mormon is The Mormon Bible, they are surprised (and often critical) to find that the it doesn’t forbid alcohol, or talk about endowment sessions, or any number of other uniquely Mormon things. The implication, then, is that “fulness of the gospel” does not mean a comprehensive laundry list of every practice, doctrine, policy, or ordinance, but is defining “the gospel” narrowly as the good news of Jesus’ salvation… as we saw Nephi (and Noel Reynolds) just do. For more on this aspect, see here.
31:3 “For the Lord God giveth light unto the understanding; for he speaketh unto men according to their language, unto their understanding.” I think one can parse this language in several ways, but it’s strikingly similar to D&C 1:24.
Behold, I am God and have spoken it; these commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding.
Both passages touch on the idea of accommodation, that God must adapt his message and commands to mankind’s fallen state. At minimum, this means language, but also extends to knowledge, culture, and worldview. This accommodative principle comes out of the Bible, was used extensively by Christians and Jews (including Jesus), and also has support from Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and a dozen other General Authorities. I’ve got a chapter on this in my book with plenty of citations, but in the meantime, you can watch my presentation on it from BYU’s New Testament Commentary conference last summer. I adapted my research to fit the conference topic of Corinthians, where it turned out to fit quite naturally.
31:5 -“if the Lamb of God, he being holy, should have need to be baptized by water, to fulfil all righteousness, O then, how much more need have we, being unholy, to be baptized, yea, even by water!” Nephi makes a classic Jewish qal wahomer (pronounced “call wah hoe-MER) argument for baptism. The phrase literally means “light and heavy” and reasons from lesser to greater or vice-versa. That is, if something applies in a small case, surely it applies even more in a large case! This type of rhetoric/argument occurs in Old Testament (Pro. 12:3, 11:31, Jer 12:5, Eze 15:5, Exo 6:12, Genesis 44:8, etc.) but much more explicitly in the Talmud and New Testament, e.g. Matt 6:30, John 7:23, Rom 5:15, 2Co 3:7-11, etc.)
31:13-15 Baptism is not the covenant itself, but the witness or sign of the covenant we make. (At least in modern times, the terms of that covenant are spelled out in the pre-baptismal interview, where the baptisee must verbally agree to the terms of the baptismal covenant; otherwise, they don’t get baptized. This does not seem to be in force for e.g. Acts 8:27-40.) Mosiah 18:10 says that our baptism serves as “as a witness before [God] that [we] have entered into a covenant” and Alma 7:15 similar says “show unto your God that ye are willing to repent of your sins and enter into a covenant with him to keep his commandments, and witness it unto him this day by going into the waters of baptism.” Thus did Joseph Smith preach that “Baptism is a sign to God, to angels to heaven that we do the will of God ” Wordsof Joseph Smith, 108. The association of a public witness or visible sign with a covenant goes all the way back to Genesis 9:12-13, and Genesis 17:11, and is found elsewhere too.
31:19 “And now, my beloved brethren, after ye have gotten into this strait and narrow path, I would ask if all is done? Behold, I say unto you, Nay; for ye have not come thus far save it were by the word of Christ with unshaken faith in him, relying wholly upon the merits of him who is mighty to save.” I aways liked the phrase “mighty to save.” It’s an odd English construction, but the phrase appears in Isa. 63:1, and the construction elsewhere in the Old Testament (e.g. “near to flee” Gen 19:20) More importantly, when it comes to salvation and we are baptized people, upon whose merits do we rely? Our own? No, still on Christ’s merits! See my lengthy discussion on grace and works here.
32:8 Said Brigham Young, on the subject of not praying,
When we neglect any one of these duties, the enemy says, “I have made so much ground.” If the Devil can induce an Elder to drink a little, he is not satisfied with this triumph, but says to him, “Your wife and children know it, don’t pray tonight.” The Elder says to his family, “I feel tired tonight, we won’t have prayers.” The enemy says, “I have gained another point.” You indulge still further, and you will find other excuses. Your head is not right, your heart is not right, your conscience is not right, and you retire again without praying. By and by, you begin to doubt something the Lord has revealed to us, and it is not long before such a one is led away captive of the Devil. JD 18:216.- Discourses of Brigham Young, p. 81
33:2-3 “I Nephi, have written what I have written, and I esteem it as of great worth…” Back to 1Ne 19:6-7. Nephi’s writing what he thinks is worthwhile and important, and at this point, he says “Yeah, well… Those plates are all inscribed now, and I think it’s good.” Could he have done it better? Maybe. We acknowledge potential errors in judgment and writing from the get-go in the Book of Mormon, with the Title Page, c.f. Mormon 8:17, 9:31.
As always, you can support my work through making your regular Amazon purchases through this Amazon link. Or you can donate directly here.
You can also get updates by email whenever a post goes up (subscription box on the right). If you friend me on Facebook, please drop me a note telling me you’re a reader. I tend not to accept friend requests from people I’m not acquainted with.
A friend recently asked for a list of books to read as an intro to the issues in Genesis 1-3 as well as the Moses and Abraham parallels. I focused on the former, because there’s not a whole lot dealing with the latter. I have a few chapters on it in my book, so I could write a separate post, if desired. When I taught my Institute class on Genesis a few years ago, I wrote a summary of each week. I treat Moses and Abraham briefly, here. Continue reading
One of the things I’ve written about before is the problem of common, broad terminology, that allows us to speak, without expressing what we mean (if we even know ourselves). For example, what does “true” mean in an LDS context, e.g. “the church is true” or “the scriptures are true”? It can be a problem. See my old post here, for example.
eed revealed scripture but, contra Joseph Fielding Smith, that status did not mean it was historical/scientific in nature. Genesis was therefore not an obstacle to belief in evolution. 
I’m spending a lot of my time writing about the idea of “context” right now, both for 
When it comes to frustrations with Gospel Doctrine class, one problem is that we don’t pay a lot of attention to context, and we like to casually shoe-horn modern doctrinal concepts or concerns into any old bit of verse that seems to relate. This is really only made possible by ignoring context, and not reading. For example, I wrote this in 2007.
You can also get updates by email whenever a post goes up (subscription box on the right). If you friend me on Facebook, please drop me a note telling me you’re a reader. I tend not to accept friend requests from people I’m not acquainted with.
Recent Comments