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
Not a lot of time today, so here’s a short post, on Nephi’s non-contextual application of the Isaiah chapters to his people.
A note on 2 Nephi 26:29, wherein Nephi defines “priestcraft”-
priestcrafts are that men 1) preach and 2) set themselves up for a light unto the world, that 3) they may get gain and praise of the world; but they seek not the welfare of Zion.
Nephi’s translated definition dovetails well with Webster’s 1828, which says “The stratagems and frauds of priests; fraud or imposition in religious concerns; management of selfish and ambitious priests to gain wealth and power, or to impose on the credulity of others. ” (My italics.)
Alma 1:16 echoes this as well, “this did not put an end to the spreading of priestcraft through the land; for there were many who loved the vain things of the world, and they went forth preaching afalse doctrines; and this they did for the sake of briches and honor.”
LDS, on the other hand, have a tendency to define priestcraft as “preaching the gospel for money,” thereby casting aspersions on professional clergy of other religions. Note that this is not Nephi’s definition. It is not simply being paid in return for preaching the gospel, but one’s motive in doing so. Is it for money and praise, not for building up the kingdom?
Is it for building up the kingdom? That’s not priestcraft. (In my experience the vast majority of non-lds priests, pastors, and rabbis are not engaged in priestcraft, and there are definitely some advantages to a professional clergy.)
When I taught Book of Mormon at BYU, one of the questions I put on the midterm (#15) was, “Brother Spackman is getting paid to teach the gospel. How is this not priestcraft?” Students were expected to know Nephi’s definition and talk about motive. Motive is rarely transparent, however, and our motives are often mixed and opaque, even to ourselves. Nevertheless, as President Benson once said, “Our motives for the things we do are where the sin is manifest.” -“Beware of Pride,” Ensign, May 1989, 5.
Now, there’s another problem with the common definition of priestcraft, namely, it’s inconsistent both with current and past LDS practice, as well as the New Testament. The fifteen Apostles (as well as some others) receive a living stipend from the Church and other support. Morever, in the 19th century, Bishops also received some remuneration. It is more accurate to describe the LDS Church as having a non-professional clergy (in the sense that one does not choose it as a profession) than an unpaid clergy. When it comes to the New Testament, Paul makes clear in 1 Corinthians 9:6 onwards that those who preach the gospel have a right to make their living through that preaching. He argues from the Torah to that extent and then quotes Jesus in 1Co 9:14. The KJV misleads a bit here; it’s certainly true that those who preach the gospel should live and embody the gospel, but it’s quite clear the passage means more than that; “the Lord commanded that those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel.”
In his Understanding the Book of Mormon: A Reader’s Guide (Oxford Press) Grant Hardy spends a good bit of time on Nephi and the Isaiah chapters, and it’s not the usual kind of thing, either. He points out how Nephi has carefully woven Isaiah in and out of his material before and after the lengthy Isaiah quotation, as one aspect of presenting
a new prophecy about the relationships of the Jews, the Gentiles, and the descendants of Lehi in the last days. One of his major concerns is the visionary book – the Book of Mormon – and how it will be received (as we have seen, Isaiah 29 plays an integral role in this discussion). At the same time, key terms from Joseph’s Brass Plates prophecies are reintroduced into these chapters:
2 Nephi 3
The seer shall do a work… which shall be of great worth unto them (7)
unto him will I give power to bring forth my word unto the seed of thy loins (11)
the fruit of thy loins shall write, and the fruit of the loins of Judah shall write (12)
unto the confounding of false doctrines (12)
bringing them to the knowledge of their fathers (12)
when my work shall commence among all my people, unto the restoring thee, O House of Israel (13)
their words shall proceed forth out of my mouth (21)
the weakness of their words will I make strong (21)
2 Nephi 25-33
I know that they shall be of great worth unto them in the last days (25:8 +28:2, 33:3)
I bring forth my word unto the children of men (29:7 +25:18)
I shall speak unto the Jews and they shall write it; and I shall also speak unto the Nephites and they shall write it (29:12)
all those who preach false doctrines (28:15 +28:9, 12)
they shall be restored unto the knowledge of their fathers (30:5)
the Lord God shall commence his work among all nations … to bring about the restoration of his people (30:8)
the words of your seed should proceed forth out of my mouth (29:2, 33:14)
the words which I have written in weakness will be made strong (33:4)
These do not seem to be random hits, nor are they simply the result of the pervasive biblical diction in the Book of Mormon. For the most part, these phrases are clustered in these two sections of Second Nephi. For instance, outside of these chapters, “false doctrine(s)” appears only once (at Alma 1:16), and both “bring forth my word” and “knowledge of their fathers” never occur anywhere else. In addition, in at least one passage (focusing on his own writings), Nephi tells us explicitly that he has Joseph’s prophecy in mind: “the Lord God promised unto me that these things which I write shall be kept and preserved, and handed down unto my seed, from generation to generation, that the promise may be fulfilled unto Joseph, that his seed should never perish” (2 Ne. 25:21), which is a reference to 2 Nephi 3:16 (“the Lord hath said unto me, ‘I will preserve thy seed forever’”).
All this indicates that Nephi’s concluding discourse in 2 Nephi 25–33 is not simply an academic commentary on Isaiah 2–14. Rather, it represents a deliberate, creative synthesis of his own revelations, the writings of Isaiah, and the prophecy of Joseph. In this case, the form of Nephi’s writing reflects his theology.
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.
The Cyrus Cylinder. By Prioryman – Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=19669420
Back in fall, I got interviewed about teaching early-morning Seminary. I even attended one morning, to get the lay of the land. I got very excited about shaping young minds, but I was also up front that they would probably hear from some parents. As long as they were fine with that, I was on board. I’d heard that they’d called someone else, but then a few weeks ago, received the formal call. A friend (jokingly?) said, “I’m frankly kind of shocked they allow you to do this.”
I only teach Wednesdays, which means Wednesdays Are Different™. Yesterday was my third lesson, covering 1-2 Chronicles. Here’s what we did.
Importance of keeping up with the story
“You’ve finished your homework, and open up Netflix. You’re into Season 4, episode 14, and halfway through the episode, your mom comes in.
…Who’s that? Why’s she doing that? Where is she? Who is that guy? I don’t understand what’s going on.
Here I ran through an outline of the chronology of the Old Testament using this handout of mine, the “Historical Framework.” Since they’d just covered Samuel-Kings in the previous weeks, with Saul, David, Solomon, and the northern and southern kingdom, I focused on the United Kingdom, Divided Kingdom, and the AB down to the Exile. On the left side on the board, I had written down Samuel/Kings events. On the right side, I’d written in some of the prophetic books that happen at the same time as the events of Samuel/Kings, like Isaiah, Amos, Jeremiah, as well as Assyria, and Babylon below that, giving us a nice large A, B.
“What happens after the Exile?” Crickets. As planned.
“Ok, in order to answer that question, break up into two groups, around two tables.” I turned on the Indiana Jones theme.
“Ok, you’re all archaeologists now. You’ve just discovered two tablets, broken up and hard to read, like most tablets. Take five minutes, and try to reassemble these tablets. Once they’re together, try to sketch out the signs written on them.”
I handed each table a cookie sheet with a broken-up citrus shortbread tablet. (Pics edited for privacy reasons.)
“Be careful! Tablets are fragile, and if you break it, we’ll never know what was written!”
One group successfully assembled their tablet, and even got some signs copied. Here, the scribe dutifully examines the tablet before careful copying…
Success!
“What is this you’ve just put together? It’s Akkadian, the language of Assyria and Babylon. What you’ve just assembled is part of a royal decree by Cyrus the Persian, called the Cyrus Cylinder. You can go see the original in the British Museum in London.”
Under Assyria and Babylon, I write Cyrus, so we have an aide-mémoire for the history, ABC.
Assyria
Babylon
Cyrus the Persian
“The tablet says, anaku kuraš*, šarru kiššat…or I am Cyrus, king of the world, great king, powerful king…”
After the Jews are in Babylon 50-odd years, Cyrus the Persian shows up around the year 530, conquers Babylon, and declares that all the peoples the Babylonians captured can go home. Moreover, here’s money from the royal treasury to rebuild your temple, he says. That last part is from the Hebrew Bible, not the Cyrus Cylinder. Some drama around that is recorded in Ezra and Nehemiah.
“So how do you think the Jews like Cyrus?” They really like Cyrus. Isaiah names Cyrus as God’s messiah/anointed one in Isaiah 45:1. (See also Ezra 1:1, 2Chr 36:22-23, Daniel 1:21, etc.)
“So now that the Jews are back from the Exile, the next books are all about that right? Well, actually not. Chronicles is the next book**, and what do we find there? It starts over, with Adam. And it retells all the same stories about Saul, David, Solomon, and the divided kingdom we’ve just read. Why tell them again, if we’ve just read them all? To answer that question, I want to put this word on the board (“historiography”) aaand… let’s watch these.”
I then ran these three “trailers” on a nice big TV.
(No longer available.) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9eD2UpdhbwA
“Ok, based on those trailers, which one of those would you take your 8-yr old sister to? (The Shining, obviously.) Are Frozen or Mary Poppins horror movies? (No.) Is The Shining a family-friendly flick? (Not really) How did they make them into horror movies, and The Shining happy?”
Answers included: “what they left out, what they put in. how they put it together, the order of scenes, the jump cuts. The “framing” with music and VoiceOver.”
“Ok, so an editor can take material, and recut it in a different way to communicate something different… and this is exactly what Chronicles does. The stories are not the same as in Samuel/Kings, because the editor of Chronicles has chosen to leave some things out, include others, and frame it differently. This, roughly, is historiography, studying how the history is written and told. ” (We didn’t have time to look at any of my examples comparing Chronicles with Samuel.)
“Now note, the message being communicated here is not being explicitly stated in a verse or a chapter. It’s not a line or a phrase you can memorize. The message being communicated is several levels above that. You have to compare the two, Frozen Recut to the original Frozen, to see what’s being changed, in order to figure out what the director is trying to do and say.
This kind of thing happens in the New Testament too, with the four Gospels.” (I used the example of John changing the chronology of Matt/Mark/Luke, e.g. in the Synoptics, the last supper is the Passover, which is transformed into the Christian sacrament/eucharist. But in John, the last supper is the night before Passover, so that Jesus is crucified at the same time the passover lamb is slaughtered. What message is John communicating by changing the chronology this way? Jesus is the passover lamb.) It also happens in the Book of Mormon once, when Mormon tells the same story twice, differently.
So even something as “repetitive” as Chronicles has something to teach us, as long as we understand how to “read” that repetition.
Closed with excitement and testimony of the Old Testament.
This seemed to go over well.
A few notes:
* Kuraš is koreš in Hebrew… like David Koresh of Waco infamy, whose real name was Vernon Wayne Howell. He christened himself after the uniter of Israel (David) and the messiah of the Exile (Cyrus/Kuraš/Koreš).
** Chronicles only follows Samuel/Kings in the Septuagint and Christian canon. In the Hebrew canon, it’s the last book. This different book order actually makes a difference in how Jews and Christians understand it differently.
For making your own tablets, see here and here. It takes a while. I prefer the shortbread over the gingerbread, because it looks more like a clay tablet.
Tablet 1, in process.
Tablet 1, finished but raw
Tablet 1, baked.
Now, a lesson in scribal errors. If you look closely at the top line of what I’m copying and the top line of tablet 2 below, you’ll notice that the same sign repeats twice, close together. This is the ku sign, in a-na-kuIku-ra-aš (the I tells you “the following thing is the proper name of a human.”) As the scribe’s eye goes back and forth from original to copy, it’s possible to get confused when there are repetitions, like –ku. In copying tablet 2, after copying the first -ku, I went back to the second ku. This means that instead of a-na-kuIku-ra-aš, my top line actually reads a na ku ra aš, or anaku raš, which is either grammatically nonsensical or could be a misspelled version of “I am (the) head.” This is called homeoteleuton (see here, under “scribal error.”)
To learn more about common scribal errors, I recommend this intro volume. Bart Ehrman, an agnostic scholar, wrote a very popular book about New Testament text criticism, called Misquoting Jesus.
As always, you can help me pay my tuition here via GoFundMe. *I am an Amazon Affiliate, and may receive a small percentage of purchases made through Amazon links on this page. You can get updates by email whenever a post goes up (subscription box below) and can also follow Benjamin the Scribe on Facebook.
Two of my most-read posts have dealt with the flood in Genesis 6-9. This one looks at the Flood in terms of genre, and tries to steer Mormons away from the false interpretive dichotomoy of “literal/figurative” into a more productive and accurate way of looking at scripture, while also giving some ancient Near Eastern background. The second one responds to an older Ensign article on the flood by a BYU professor.
A new book out (Let Us Reason Together: Essays in Honor of Robert L. Millet) in honor of BYU’s Robert L. Millet, edited by Spencer Fluhman, includes important research by Paul Hoskisson (recently retired from BYU) and Stephen Smoot (recent BYU grad), “Was Noah’s Flood the Baptism of the Earth?” (The full table of contents is given at the Maxwell Institute page, Amazon link here.) They trace the LDS evolution of an inherited tradition about the flood into a quasi-doctrine about the baptism of the earth. This quasi-doctrine was then used to argue that there must have been a world-wide flood, which is a circular argument.
As it turns out, doctrinal inheritance leading to strong tradition is not uncommon in the LDS Church.
A close study of the Latter-day Saint beliefs early in the history of the Church uncovers a doctrinal migration from beliefs held by other denominations in the early nineteenth century. Combine the integration of people from different religious backgrounds with a lack of a professional clergy and no established creed; the result is a slow acclimation to new doctrine. There were no seminaries or missionary training centers to train and indoctrinate those that would fill the leadership positions in the Church. Beliefs and practices from previous religious backgrounds continued with the convert after baptism until they were addressed and corrected.- Link
What other traditions did we inherit? This is certainly not an exhaustive list.
The curse of Cain being black skin and/or slavery is a long tradition, per the LDS Gospel Topics essay and whole lot of scholarship like this and this and this.
Some of our religious vocabulary and structure was inherited from Protestantism. See this article by Fluhman, and this one by Kevin Barney for some examples.
The idea that the Roman Catholic church is the “great and abominable church” of both Revelation and 1 Nephi 13-14. This was common Protestant polemic going back to Luther, and it was repeated by e.g. Orson Pratt, and Bruce R. McConkie in the first edition of Mormon Doctrine, who called it “the church of the devil.” (On the latter, see p.50-53 and 122 in the McKay biography.)
Our church is now coming of age where it is mature enough, stable enough, and has the historical tools to begin interrogating some of these traditions inherited from outside.
I think the the baptism of the earth, for example, constitutes a case of “mission creep,” “feature creep,” or “scope creep.” In essence, this describes an original plan, mission, or feature that at inception had defined and limited scope, but is then expanded far beyond its original scope or purpose as time goes on. It takes on more than it was originally intended for, is put to uses that weren’t in the original design. With “doctrine creep,” a passage is pressed into use it wasn’t designed for, then that interpretation is expanded and solidified.
We might want to emphasize a particular thing, and so we look for a verse to emphasize it. Again, let’s consider the baptism of the earth. In a heavily Protestant context which downplays ritual and ordinances, early LDS wanted to make clear the absolute necessity of baptism. What was at hand? The Flood! Even the earth was fully immersed! It was baptized too! …. which then leads to the concept of the earth as a living being, the flood as a formal ordinance, and therefore not only a historical but a worldwide and literal flood with all the problems that entails. (Again, see my two posts linked above.)
Another example is chastity-related. We really want to emphasize (and rightly so) with our youth the seriousness of sex and steer them away from sexual activity outside of marriage. Alma 39 has been pressed into use to emphasize this, with the line “second only unto murder” even though the original passage is not so narrow.
Although not addressing any of the topics above, Elder McConkie once said to educators, “Certain things which are commonly said and commonly taught in the Church either are not true, or, are in the realm of pure speculation.”- Bruce R. McConkie: Highlights from His Life and Teachings, somewhere between 326-35. (The author sent me this in an email, and I have not seen the original nor confirmed the quotation, which is from an unpublished transcript.)
A new book is out from the Maxwell Institute and Deseret Book, Planted: Belief and Longing in an Age of Doubt by Patrick Mason, the Howard Hunter Chair of Mormon Studies at Claremont. This book is one of the MI’s Living Faith series, and addresses, among other things, how to live with faith and doubt, how to reconcile and make sense of things. It’s not an answer book, though, as much as a guide to thinking and approaches. The table of contents as well as links to reviews and interviews is here. The reviews are uniformly full of praise and lengthy useful quotations. Highly recommended.
The third book isn’t LDS, but Islamic. The Quran is at the center of many discussions and polemics about Islam, but few Americans have read it and even fewer understood it. The newly publishedStudy Quran (HarperOne) aims to change that. Following the model of Study Bibles, with their interpretive notes and essays, the Study Quran provides background, context, and an interpretive guide. It’s been getting positive reviews from Muslims, scholars, Muslim scholars, non-Muslim scholars, and LDS as well. See Michael Austin’s review here.
I fully expect to see this become a required book in Islam 101 courses across the country. It has its own homepage, complete with sample from Surah 1.
I’m a long-time user of Logos, an electronic library and Bible study program available for PC and MAC. The engine itself is FREE, as are the mobile apps (ios and Android), though you can buy packages with more advanced search capabilities and other tools. It’s far more powerful than something like a Kindle ebook or scanned PDF, which is why I’ve invested a lot in Logos over the last 13 years, most of it at steep discount from sales and deals like these.
There’s a free book and associated discounted book each month. For January, it’s Nahum Sarna’s Exodus volume in the JPS Torah Commentary series for free (free!) and the Jonah volume for $1.99, here. These are fantastic volumes from a scholarly Jewish perspective, 278 and 96 pages respectively, and typically about $60 each in print. Highly recommended. UPDATE: A friend pointed out that although it’s not February yet, they’ve changed the books already on that landing page. However, if you navigate to the individual book pages, they’re still free and $1.99, so here are the links to Sarna on Exodus and the Jonah volume. The current $1.99 volume is the technical version of a monograph by John Walton on Genesis 1. I reviewed the popular version, called The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate, for the Interpreter here. It’s a good read on Genesis, creation, and the temple. I do recommend the technical version (again, $1.99 at Logos throughout February), but it might make more sense if you read the less technical one first.
Also, through Sunday night, most Anchor Bible commentary volumes are $20 instead of their normal $50-$80. (The exceptions are brand-new volumes.) Again, this is a great series, very scholarly, and I have never seen them on sale at all in electronic format.
In the coming year, I plan to put up a Gospel Doctrine post each week as I have in the past. Well, kind of. Out of necessity, they’re going to be shorter and more focused, perhaps with longer biography and links. The blog will also be broadening somewhat, beyond the Gospel Doctrine lessons, in the sense that posts I might have written elsewhere will be posted here.
I’ll be cutting my online time drastically to focus on reading, writing, and working on a PhD at Claremont in History of Religion and Christianity in America, with a side helping of Mormon Studies. I’m still working on the funding situation, but quite excited. While the field is completely different from my previous field, my area of focus within that new field will be a continuation of sorts. I’ll be applying my work on Genesis in the ancient world to understanding the conflict between scripture/religious authority and evolution/scientific authority, in the LDS Church from 1880 onwards. (I’ve already begun reading and writing generally on that topic, such as my article on Ben Carson, Seventh-day Adventists, and young earth creationism.) Though this may change or need further narrowing, I intend to write my dissertation on the history in the LDS Church of conflicting authority and epistemology, evolution vs. scripture (and interpretation), and publish it as a sequel of sorts to my Genesis book.
While I had aimed to complete a draft of my book by Christmas, I was unsuccessful. This is not necessarily bad. The draft has grown and matured in some ways as I work through it. My goal now is to finish up the draft by mid-summer. One of my first classes at Claremont will be Mesopotamian Religion, which pertains directly to my book, given the importance of Enuma Eliš (the so-called Babylonian Creation Epic) for interpreting Genesis 1. The other two classes will help refine and professionalize my writing.
Joseph Smith’s Seerstone and the translation process- See here for my post, pictures, and some useful links about the role of the seerstone, why it has been less well known, and my experience teaching it at BYU. Also here for a post about how culture affects the channels of revelation we believe in, and how our day is different from Joseph Smith’s as well as that of Genesis. Relevant section is down at the bottom, starting with “Beyond the story itself”
Book of Mormon Authorship Revisited, with good articles by Richard Bushman and others about the coming-forth of the Book of Mormon, the various theories trying to account for it, etc.
I’ll repeat and expand on my comment to Kevin’s post, which you should read.
Martin Harris literally bet the farm ($3000) on the publication of the Book of Mormon, and technically lost. I’ve sometimes led up to this story in class with several stories about Martin testing Joseph.
the seerstone-testing story, (here in The Ensign, for one). Martin switched rocks on Joseph when he wasn’t looking.
Martin Harris tested Joseph Smith, and he passed every time, which is why Martin was literally willing to bet the farm. Even though he lost it, and was disaffected from Joseph Smith and the LDS Church for roughly 50 years, he testified consistently and constantly of the Book of Mormon, to his death.
Some Things about the Book of Mormon You Might Not Know
Below are some points of interest, potential to talk about in lesson 1 or thoughts for later on.
Nephi’s “goodly” parents comment probably indicates socio-economic standing, not moral goodness.
This is a long-standing argument among a few bloggers, including me. In the first few verses, Nephi explains that, because his parents were “goodly,” he was taught not just to read (very unusual in the ancient world) but to write (even more unusual), and moreover, to write in twoscripts or languages (depending on how we understand the “Egypt” reference). That degree of learning is much more dependent upon Lehi’s financial status than his goodness. Context thus favors the interpretation of “well-off.” The (weaker, in my view) counter-argument comes from dictionaries, which don’t list something like “well-off” as a meaning, so it would be fairly idiomatic usage there in 1Ne 1:1.
Nephi wrote the small plates 30 years after the events they depict, largely with religious/political purposes in mind. I’ll be expanding on this greatly in Lesson 2.
The small plates (1 Nephi-Omni) were translated last. Maybe.
The Book of Mormon doesn’t depict a church structured like ours today.
Joseph Smith never preached a sermon based on a Book of Mormon text.
Or at least, we have no records of Joseph Smith preaching a sermon based on the Book of Mormon. Most early saints took it as a sign of Joseph Smith’s prophethood, that the heavens were open, and as confirmation of the Bible, not as something that needed independent study and reading. This is probably what leads to D&C passages like this, telling the early Saints to start paying more attention to it.
The first two chapters of Mosiah are missing.
Mosiah 1-2 (original numbering) disappeared as part of the 116 pages JS gave to Martin Harris. We know this because in the Printer’s Manuscript (the hand copy made to give to EB Grandin to print from), our current Mosiah chapter 1 is labeled Mosiah chapter 3. See Uncovering the Original Text of the Book of Mormon, 20-21, or the critical-text work of Royal Skousen.
It’s not much of a prophesy for Lehi to speak of the Babylonian captivity. (1 Nephi 1:13 and 10:3)
I’m not suggesting that Lehi wasn’t a prophet, just that this one was no-brainer. The Babylonians had been in control of Jerusalem since 605. There were several episodes between 605 and 587/88 of hauling Jews off to Babylon. While politically and religiously “incorrect” to say that Babylon was going destroy the city (remember Laman and Lemuel’s disbelief on this point, shared with many Israelites), it was not much of a leap to see that was the way the wind was blowing. Lots of this covered in Glimpses of Lehi’s Jerusalem (Amazon link. Maxwell Institute link.)
Jesus appeared to the Nephites almost a year after the three days of darkness, not immediately.
The two primary texts are 3 Nephi 8:5 (which states that the destruction took place in year 34, month 1 day 1) and 3 Nephi 10:18 (which states that in the *end* of the 34th year, Jesus showed himself to them.) See Kent Brown and John A. Tvedtnes. “When did Christ appear to the Nephites?” (FARMS paper, don’t know if it’s still available) and Kent Brown, “When did Jesus Visit the Americas?” in From Jerusalem to Zarahemla, 146-156.
Book of Mormon prophets probably drank wine and didn’t know about three degrees of glory and similar doctrines many today consider central to Mormonism.
Many critics from a different religious worldview are surprised not to find much “mormonism” in the Book of Mormon, and it’s true. You don’t go to the Book of Mormon to find explicit teachings of not drinking alcohol or coffee (that’s D&C), the premortal existence (that’s mostly Abraham, though implied in Alma 13), eternal marriage (D&C again), or becoming like God (that’s actually the Bible, ironically enough (see here and here), AND D&C. Although, see 3 Nephi 28:10). This is from reading the text, and the principles of line-upon-line; the implication of line-upon-line is that what is known today wasn’t necessarily known or practiced in the past.
Lastly, as always, you can support this site and my research by making Amazon purchases through this link, or the Support My Research links at the bottom of the About page. You can 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.
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