DAVID AND JONATHAN
Three insights into the relationship between David and Jonathan.
And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul. (1 Samuel 18:1)
The Hebrew word qashar, translated here as “knit,” means literally to bind together. From this point onward, David and Jonathan were as one person, having the same interest in each other’s welfare and the welfare of their people. The reason for this is revealed two chapters later.
And as touching the matter which thou and I have spoken of, behold, the Lord be between thee and me for ever. (1 Samuel 20:23)
Though their love for one another was great, the thing that united David and Jonathan in a unique way was their profound love of the Lord. The Lord was literally the binding force between the two men, and would be forever. They had found in each other a mirror image of a man who desired to do that which is right above all else, and therefore covenanted one with another to protect each other and their households.
I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women. (2 Samuel 1:26)
The love of David for Jonathan is here expressed as something greater than the love of women. That is, their love is something more than temporal or physical, it is a love based on spiritual principles of the highest order.
In a relationship such as this, selflessness is a primary attribute. Though, in a traditional patriarchal monarchy, Jonathan would succeed his father as the next king, he harbors no ill will toward David who has supplanted him. He recognizes and accepts that the Lord has chosen David to be the next king. Jonathan will therefore do all he can to see that David is safe and prosperous. He takes joy in David and what he represents.
Their relationship reminds me somewhat of that between Alma and the Sons of Mosiah:
Now these sons of Mosiah were with Alma at the time the angel first appeared unto him; therefore Alma did rejoice exceedingly to see his brethren; and what added more to his joy, they were still his brethren in the Lord... (Alma 17:2)
I recently reconnected with one of my former missionary companions. We had actually been companions twice, including three months in the Mission Home. I was in his wedding party shortly after I returned home, but had not seen him in more than 30 years. When we came face to face after all that time, there was something between us similar to that of Alma and the Sons of Mosiah, or between David and Jonathan; probably not that profound, but just as real. I felt that our souls were still “knit” together, and I rejoiced to see his happiness and success. It was obvious that he had a similar reaction.
Surely this is how we should feel toward all men, but the connecting link has to be our love of God. This changes the way we see and feel and brings about a more Christ like love - one that is selfless and pure.
--------------------------------------------
Saul, on the other hand, has distanced himself from God and has focused his attention solely on himself. He becomes jealous and fearful of David, and sinks further into the hole of self-preoccupation to the point of madness. His obsession with David becomes paranoid in nature, as he sees in every action and every comment about David, a threat to his person and to his kingship. His selfishness, his overwhelming desire for self-preservation actually leads to his complete destruction.
Sunday, June 20, 2010
LESSON 22: The Lord Looketh on the Heart
The desire of Israel to be ruled by a King had existed since at least the days of Gideon (See, Judges 8:22, 23), but now the corruption of Samuel’s sons gives the nation an opportunity to attempt to bring to an end the rule of the Judges and to become more like neighboring nations. Samuel doubtless sorrowed that his own sons were partly responsible for this petition from the people, but the Lord explains that Israel has desired to “serve other Gods” since the day that He brought them out of Egypt. “…they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.” (1 Samuel 8:7)
The reign of the Judges was a unique form of government for a people so numerous, unlike any other known at that time, allowing Israel to grow and develop differently, as the people of the Lord. Yet their unwillingness to purge the land of its inhabitants is now beginning to influence their social outlook. They see the ways of the world around them and desire, not to be different, but to be the same - they choose the world over the Lord, in fulfillment of the prophecy and warning in Numbers 33:
53 And ye shall dispossess the inhabitants of the land, and dwell therein: for I have given you the land to possess it.
55 But if ye will not drive out the inhabitants of the land from before you; then it shall come to pass, that those which ye let remain of them shall be pricks in your eyes, and thorns in your sides, and shall vex you in the land wherein ye dwell.
With the end of the Reign of the Judges and the institution of a King, they develop a stronger national (political) identity. They are no longer the People of the Lord, but the People of Israel.
The Lord instructs Samuel to follow the voice of the people, but also charged him to warn them of the evil effects of monarchial rule. Among the evils mentioned by Samuel are conscription and heavy taxation.
SAUL’S IMPATIENCE
In only two years time, Saul has gone from being the most “goodly” candidate in Israel, to a man who has let his power and authority go to his head and subsequently cloud his judgement. He has become the epitome of Joseph Smith’s warning,
We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion. (D&C 121:39)
When Samuel does not arrive at the appointed time to offer sacrifice, Saul takes it upon himself to perform the priestly duty, though he has no priesthood authority to do so. Much focus has been placed on Saul’s impatience, and certainly he was impatient. Many of his men had begun to desert, or to hide in the face of the threatening Philistine army. Saul was willing to wait upon the servant of the Lord for a period of time, but when the pressure mounted, he caved in and performed the sacrifice himself.
That he would even consider to do so shows that he does not understand the nature of the priesthood, nor the limits of his authority as King. His trust in the Lord and his servant has been replaced by trust in himself. He may even have rationalized that the real purpose of the sacrifice was not to enlist the Lord’s help in their battle, but rather was simply to provide courage for his men. He thought only of the outward effect of the sacrifice, and gave no thought to its inner significance.
FIVE SMOOTH STONES
It is largely from this incident that the number 5 represents deliverance or grace in Hebrew numerology.
The reign of the Judges was a unique form of government for a people so numerous, unlike any other known at that time, allowing Israel to grow and develop differently, as the people of the Lord. Yet their unwillingness to purge the land of its inhabitants is now beginning to influence their social outlook. They see the ways of the world around them and desire, not to be different, but to be the same - they choose the world over the Lord, in fulfillment of the prophecy and warning in Numbers 33:
53 And ye shall dispossess the inhabitants of the land, and dwell therein: for I have given you the land to possess it.
55 But if ye will not drive out the inhabitants of the land from before you; then it shall come to pass, that those which ye let remain of them shall be pricks in your eyes, and thorns in your sides, and shall vex you in the land wherein ye dwell.
With the end of the Reign of the Judges and the institution of a King, they develop a stronger national (political) identity. They are no longer the People of the Lord, but the People of Israel.
The Lord instructs Samuel to follow the voice of the people, but also charged him to warn them of the evil effects of monarchial rule. Among the evils mentioned by Samuel are conscription and heavy taxation.
SAUL’S IMPATIENCE
In only two years time, Saul has gone from being the most “goodly” candidate in Israel, to a man who has let his power and authority go to his head and subsequently cloud his judgement. He has become the epitome of Joseph Smith’s warning,
We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion. (D&C 121:39)
When Samuel does not arrive at the appointed time to offer sacrifice, Saul takes it upon himself to perform the priestly duty, though he has no priesthood authority to do so. Much focus has been placed on Saul’s impatience, and certainly he was impatient. Many of his men had begun to desert, or to hide in the face of the threatening Philistine army. Saul was willing to wait upon the servant of the Lord for a period of time, but when the pressure mounted, he caved in and performed the sacrifice himself.
That he would even consider to do so shows that he does not understand the nature of the priesthood, nor the limits of his authority as King. His trust in the Lord and his servant has been replaced by trust in himself. He may even have rationalized that the real purpose of the sacrifice was not to enlist the Lord’s help in their battle, but rather was simply to provide courage for his men. He thought only of the outward effect of the sacrifice, and gave no thought to its inner significance.
FIVE SMOOTH STONES
It is largely from this incident that the number 5 represents deliverance or grace in Hebrew numerology.
Sunday, June 6, 2010
Lesson 21: God Will Honor Those Who Honor Him
The introduction of Samuel marks an interesting shift in the history of Israel. He is both the last of the Judges and the first of the Prophets. Although the term “prophet” had been used previously in the Old Testament (Abraham, Moses, Miriam, Deborah), Samuel is the first to define the prophetic office as an institution in Israel. Thus we later read Paul’s statement:
Yea, and all the prophets from Samuel and those that follow after, as many as have spoken, have likewise foretold of these days. (Acts 3:24)
And that of the Savior to the Nephites:
Verily I say unto you, yea, and all the prophets from Samuel and those that follow after, as many as have spoken, have testified of me. (3 Nephi 20:24)
There were certainly prophets prior to Samuel, but especially after the rise of the Kings, and in the national identity of Israel, Samuel was the first to define that role as a specific office.
The longing of Hannah and the miraculous birth of Samuel are recorded to show that he had a divine destiny to bless Israel. Like those who came before (Sarah, Rebekah and the unnamed mother of Samson), as well as those who were to follow (Elizabeth, the mother of John the Baptist), the miraculous elements of God’s grace are emphasized to prefigure the greatness of Samuel even before he was born.
The calling of Samuel and the demise of Eli and his family as recorded in 1 Samuel 3 contains some subtle lessons.
2 And it came to pass at that time, when Eli was laid down in his place, and his eyes began to wax dim, that he could not see;
3 And ere the lamp of God went out in the temple of the Lord, where the ark of God was, and Samuel was laid down to sleep;
Note that Eli is described as having dim eyes, that he could not see, and that the lamp of God was going out in the temple. The imagery shows us that Eli was not only getting old and more feeble, but that he had lost some of his spiritual vision, presumably because of the iniquity of his children and his unwillingness to stem it.
4 That the Lord called Samuel: and he answered, Here am I.
5 And he ran unto Eli, and said, Here am I; for thou calledst me. And he said, I called not; lie down again. And he went and lay down.
6 And the Lord called yet again, Samuel. And Samuel arose and went to Eli, and said, Here am I; for thou didst call me. And he answered, I called not, my son; lie down again.
7 Now Samuel did not yet know the Lord, neither was the word of the Lord yet revealed unto him.
8 And the Lord called Samuel again the third time. And he arose and went to Eli, and said, Here am I; for thou didst call me. And Eli perceived that the Lord had called the child.
9 Therefore Eli said unto Samuel, Go, lie down: and it shall be, if he call thee, that thou shalt say, Speak, Lord; for thy servant heareth. So Samuel went and lay down in his place.
Although Eli was dim of hearing the word of the Lord, Samuel was as yet unfamiliar with it and needed someone to identify it for him. Though Eli was on the decline, he had enough insight left to discern what was happening and to instruct Samuel to answer. It must have been a sad day for Eli to realize that although he was nominally the spokesman of the Lord, that God had chosen instead to reveal his will to this child. Surely, by this time, Eli must have begun to understand what was going to happening, and that the number of days allotted to him and his house were few. One wonders how much sleep Eli had the remainder of that night.
10 And the Lord came, and stood and called as at other times, Samuel, Samuel. Then Samuel answered, Speak; for thy servant heareth.
11 ¶ And the Lord said to Samuel, Behold, I will do a thing in Israel, at which both the ears of every one that heareth it shall tingle.
12 In that day I will perform against Eli all things which I have spoken concerning his house: when I begin, I will also make an end.
13 For I have told him that I will judge his house for ever for the iniquity which he knoweth; because his sons made themselves vile, and he restrained them not.
14 And therefore I have sworn unto the house of Eli, that the iniquity of Eli’s house shall not be purged with sacrifice nor offering for ever.
Though Eli and his house were under condemnation, Eli was still the religious leader of Israel. His sons were unworthy to follow in the office of their father, and so Samuel was given that calling. This break in tradition, was unusual enough that it would cause the ears of all who hear it to “tingle.”
15 ¶ And Samuel lay until the morning, and opened the doors of the house of the Lord. And Samuel feared to shew Eli the vision.
16 Then Eli called Samuel, and said, Samuel, my son. And he answered, Here am I.
17 And he said, What is the thing that the Lord hath said unto thee? I pray thee hide it not from me: God do so to thee, and more also, if thou hide any thing from me of all the things that he said unto thee.
18 And Samuel told him every whit, and hid nothing from him. And he said, It is the Lord: let him do what seemeth him good.
Even at his young age, Samuel seems to understand the implications of his vision and so he fears to relate it to his master. Eli, on the other hand, makes no protestations. He knows the truth and accepts the will of God.
Though Samuel’s own later experiences with his progeny were somewhat different, he learns from Eli to accept the will of the Lord and trust in his justice.
Yea, and all the prophets from Samuel and those that follow after, as many as have spoken, have likewise foretold of these days. (Acts 3:24)
And that of the Savior to the Nephites:
Verily I say unto you, yea, and all the prophets from Samuel and those that follow after, as many as have spoken, have testified of me. (3 Nephi 20:24)
There were certainly prophets prior to Samuel, but especially after the rise of the Kings, and in the national identity of Israel, Samuel was the first to define that role as a specific office.
The longing of Hannah and the miraculous birth of Samuel are recorded to show that he had a divine destiny to bless Israel. Like those who came before (Sarah, Rebekah and the unnamed mother of Samson), as well as those who were to follow (Elizabeth, the mother of John the Baptist), the miraculous elements of God’s grace are emphasized to prefigure the greatness of Samuel even before he was born.
The calling of Samuel and the demise of Eli and his family as recorded in 1 Samuel 3 contains some subtle lessons.
2 And it came to pass at that time, when Eli was laid down in his place, and his eyes began to wax dim, that he could not see;
3 And ere the lamp of God went out in the temple of the Lord, where the ark of God was, and Samuel was laid down to sleep;
Note that Eli is described as having dim eyes, that he could not see, and that the lamp of God was going out in the temple. The imagery shows us that Eli was not only getting old and more feeble, but that he had lost some of his spiritual vision, presumably because of the iniquity of his children and his unwillingness to stem it.
4 That the Lord called Samuel: and he answered, Here am I.
5 And he ran unto Eli, and said, Here am I; for thou calledst me. And he said, I called not; lie down again. And he went and lay down.
6 And the Lord called yet again, Samuel. And Samuel arose and went to Eli, and said, Here am I; for thou didst call me. And he answered, I called not, my son; lie down again.
7 Now Samuel did not yet know the Lord, neither was the word of the Lord yet revealed unto him.
8 And the Lord called Samuel again the third time. And he arose and went to Eli, and said, Here am I; for thou didst call me. And Eli perceived that the Lord had called the child.
9 Therefore Eli said unto Samuel, Go, lie down: and it shall be, if he call thee, that thou shalt say, Speak, Lord; for thy servant heareth. So Samuel went and lay down in his place.
Although Eli was dim of hearing the word of the Lord, Samuel was as yet unfamiliar with it and needed someone to identify it for him. Though Eli was on the decline, he had enough insight left to discern what was happening and to instruct Samuel to answer. It must have been a sad day for Eli to realize that although he was nominally the spokesman of the Lord, that God had chosen instead to reveal his will to this child. Surely, by this time, Eli must have begun to understand what was going to happening, and that the number of days allotted to him and his house were few. One wonders how much sleep Eli had the remainder of that night.
10 And the Lord came, and stood and called as at other times, Samuel, Samuel. Then Samuel answered, Speak; for thy servant heareth.
11 ¶ And the Lord said to Samuel, Behold, I will do a thing in Israel, at which both the ears of every one that heareth it shall tingle.
12 In that day I will perform against Eli all things which I have spoken concerning his house: when I begin, I will also make an end.
13 For I have told him that I will judge his house for ever for the iniquity which he knoweth; because his sons made themselves vile, and he restrained them not.
14 And therefore I have sworn unto the house of Eli, that the iniquity of Eli’s house shall not be purged with sacrifice nor offering for ever.
Though Eli and his house were under condemnation, Eli was still the religious leader of Israel. His sons were unworthy to follow in the office of their father, and so Samuel was given that calling. This break in tradition, was unusual enough that it would cause the ears of all who hear it to “tingle.”
15 ¶ And Samuel lay until the morning, and opened the doors of the house of the Lord. And Samuel feared to shew Eli the vision.
16 Then Eli called Samuel, and said, Samuel, my son. And he answered, Here am I.
17 And he said, What is the thing that the Lord hath said unto thee? I pray thee hide it not from me: God do so to thee, and more also, if thou hide any thing from me of all the things that he said unto thee.
18 And Samuel told him every whit, and hid nothing from him. And he said, It is the Lord: let him do what seemeth him good.
Even at his young age, Samuel seems to understand the implications of his vision and so he fears to relate it to his master. Eli, on the other hand, makes no protestations. He knows the truth and accepts the will of God.
Though Samuel’s own later experiences with his progeny were somewhat different, he learns from Eli to accept the will of the Lord and trust in his justice.
Lesson 20: “All the City … Doth Know That Thou Art a Virtuous Woman”
The book of Ruth provides us with the person of Boaz as a type of Christ and of his redemption of all mankind. Boaz is referred to as a “near kinsman,” which comes from the Hebrew word goel, signifying a kinsman with the right to redeem. Thus Boaz can be called a “kinsman-redeemer,” just as Christ is both our elder brother, and our eternal redeemer. Boaz is conscious of the law and is dedicated to upholding it, but his compassion for both Ruth and Naomi carries him beyond the limits of the law to a Christ-like act of both general and personal redemption.
The Hebrew word Hesed, sometimes translated as "loving kindness," also implies loyalty, or fidelity This concept of loyalty or fidelity is found throughout the book of Ruth, beginning with Naomi blessing her two daughters-in-law as she urges them to return to their Moabite families. Naomi blesses them for their kindness and loyalty toward her. Both Ruth and Boaz demonstrate loyalty to their family members throughout the story. These are not acts of kindness with an expectation of receiving the same in return. Rather, they are acts of hesed that are more than the basic definition of everyday loyalty, and demonstrate that one can be expected to go beyond the minimum requirements of the law and choose something greater. However, the importance of the law is evident within the Book of Ruth, and the story reflects a need to stay within legal boundaries. Boaz gives us an example of one who not only stays within the boundaries of the law, but does something greater than what is merely required. In fulfilling the requirements of the law, and through his compassion, he redeems not only the land but both Naomi and Ruth as well. The two widows now have a secure and protected future.
The Targum makes it plain that Ruth understood that by returning with her mother-in-law she would need to become a Jewish proselyte. She steadfastly proclaims her willingness to do so despite fierce questioning by Naomi:
15- Then said she: "Behold, your sister-in-law has returned to her people and to her gods. Return after your sister-in-law to your people and your gods!"
16- But Ruth said: "Do not coax me to leave you, to turn from following you, for I desire to become a proselyte." Said Naomi: "We are commanded to keep the Sabbaths and holidays, not to walk more than two thousand cubits." Said Ruth: "Wheresoever you go I shall go." Said Naomi: "We are commanded not to spend the night together with non-Jews." Said Ruth: "Wherever you lodge I shall lodge." Said Naomi: "We are commanded to keep six hundred thirteen commandments." Said Ruth: "That which your people keep, that I shall keep, as though they had been my people before this." Said Naomi: "We are commanded not to worship idolatry." Said Ruth: "Your God is my God."
17- Said Naomi: "We have four methods of capital punishment for the guilty -- stoning, burning with fire, death by the sword, and hanging upon the gallows." Said Ruth: "To whatever death you are subject I shall be subject." Said Naomi: "We have two cemeteries." Said Ruth: "There shall I be buried. And do not continue to speak any further. May the Lord do thus unto me and more if [even] death will separate me from you."
18- When she saw that she insisted upon going with her, she ceased to dissuade her.
(Targum to Ruth) 1:15-18
The Targum also reveals that the other near kinsman declined to redeem the land and to take Ruth as a wife as he was already married and feared it would cause dissension in his own family
Deuteronomy 25:5-9, lays out the requirements for redemption. It states that if the kinsman who has the responsibility refuses, the widow was to take off his shoe and spit in his face. He would be considered disgraced from that moment on. In the case of Ruth and her near kinsman, we note that he plucked off his own shoe and gave it to his neighbor. No mention is made of the spitting, as it was likely considered that he was justified in his actions and that Boaz was a willing replacement.
The Hebrew word Hesed, sometimes translated as "loving kindness," also implies loyalty, or fidelity This concept of loyalty or fidelity is found throughout the book of Ruth, beginning with Naomi blessing her two daughters-in-law as she urges them to return to their Moabite families. Naomi blesses them for their kindness and loyalty toward her. Both Ruth and Boaz demonstrate loyalty to their family members throughout the story. These are not acts of kindness with an expectation of receiving the same in return. Rather, they are acts of hesed that are more than the basic definition of everyday loyalty, and demonstrate that one can be expected to go beyond the minimum requirements of the law and choose something greater. However, the importance of the law is evident within the Book of Ruth, and the story reflects a need to stay within legal boundaries. Boaz gives us an example of one who not only stays within the boundaries of the law, but does something greater than what is merely required. In fulfilling the requirements of the law, and through his compassion, he redeems not only the land but both Naomi and Ruth as well. The two widows now have a secure and protected future.
The Targum makes it plain that Ruth understood that by returning with her mother-in-law she would need to become a Jewish proselyte. She steadfastly proclaims her willingness to do so despite fierce questioning by Naomi:
15- Then said she: "Behold, your sister-in-law has returned to her people and to her gods. Return after your sister-in-law to your people and your gods!"
16- But Ruth said: "Do not coax me to leave you, to turn from following you, for I desire to become a proselyte." Said Naomi: "We are commanded to keep the Sabbaths and holidays, not to walk more than two thousand cubits." Said Ruth: "Wheresoever you go I shall go." Said Naomi: "We are commanded not to spend the night together with non-Jews." Said Ruth: "Wherever you lodge I shall lodge." Said Naomi: "We are commanded to keep six hundred thirteen commandments." Said Ruth: "That which your people keep, that I shall keep, as though they had been my people before this." Said Naomi: "We are commanded not to worship idolatry." Said Ruth: "Your God is my God."
17- Said Naomi: "We have four methods of capital punishment for the guilty -- stoning, burning with fire, death by the sword, and hanging upon the gallows." Said Ruth: "To whatever death you are subject I shall be subject." Said Naomi: "We have two cemeteries." Said Ruth: "There shall I be buried. And do not continue to speak any further. May the Lord do thus unto me and more if [even] death will separate me from you."
18- When she saw that she insisted upon going with her, she ceased to dissuade her.
(Targum to Ruth) 1:15-18
The Targum also reveals that the other near kinsman declined to redeem the land and to take Ruth as a wife as he was already married and feared it would cause dissension in his own family
Deuteronomy 25:5-9, lays out the requirements for redemption. It states that if the kinsman who has the responsibility refuses, the widow was to take off his shoe and spit in his face. He would be considered disgraced from that moment on. In the case of Ruth and her near kinsman, we note that he plucked off his own shoe and gave it to his neighbor. No mention is made of the spitting, as it was likely considered that he was justified in his actions and that Boaz was a willing replacement.
SPECIAL NOTE
In an attempt to get caught up and remain so, I am skipping ahead to those lessons that I believe are most current.
Sunday, March 28, 2010
LESSON 8 - Living Righteously in a Wicked World
THE REAL SIN OF SODOM
Although the sexual sins of Sodom and Gomorrah are well documented, the Lord tells Ezekiel that the root of their iniquity lay in pride, laziness, and a lack of charity.
49 Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.
50 And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good. (Ezekiel 16:49-50)
MELCHIZEDEK AND ABRAHAM
The person known as Melchizedek is one of the most enigmatic figures in all of scriptures. That most translations of Hebrews 7:3 appear to state that he was, “Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life…,” only serve to make him seem more mysterious. In fact, an early Christian Gnostic group called themselves Melchizedekites, and worshipped him as God, the Father incarnate.
Here are some of the things we do know about Melchizedek:
He worked miracles as a child (JST Gen. 14:26)
He received the priesthood through the lineage of his fathers (D&C 84:14)
He was a priest of the Most High God (Gen. 14:18; Heb. 7:1)
He was the king of Salem (Heb. 7:1)
He reigned under his father (Alma 13:18)
Abraham received the priesthood from him (D&C 84:14)
Abraham paid him tithes (Gen. 14:20; Heb. 7:4)
He offered bread and wine to Abraham and blessed him (Gen. 14:17-20)
Paul considered him greater than Abraham (Heb. 7:4-7)
Was called the Prince of peace, or King of peace (JST Gen. 14:33; 36)
Helped convert his people from great wickedness to righteousness (Alma 13:17-19)
His people were translated to the City of Enoch (JST Gen. 14:34)
The higher priesthood was named after him because he was such a “great High Priest” (D&C 107:1-4)
Many have attempted to identify him with Shem, of whom little is heard after exiting from the ark. This is strengthened by the statement in Joseph F. Smith’s Vision of the Redemption of the Dead, where he recounts seeing, “Shem, the great high priest…,: (D&C 138:41). But others have pointed to D&C 84:14, where we read that Melichizedek received the priesthood , “through the lineage of his fathers, even till Noah,” as evidence that there were multiple generations separating Noah and Melchizedek. However, this could also be read as a descending statement (Adam to Noah), as opposed to an ascending statement (Melchizedek to Noah).
Whatever the case, we do not know for certain who the man Melchizedek may have been, which makes the statement in Alma 13:19 especially puzzling:
Now, there were many before him, and also there were many afterwards, but none were greater; therefore of him they have more particularly made mention.
Obviously, this is not the case, at least in the scriptures that we currently have at our disposal. The thought crossed my mind once that perhaps at one time Melchizedek may have been widely known and revered, but perhaps when the determination was made to name the higher priesthood after him, the Lord made it known that details concerning the man Melchizedek would be hidden for a period of time, so as not to detract from the sacredness of the Holy Priesthood after the Order of the Son of God, now known as the Melchizedek Priesthood.
Just a thought.
Although the sexual sins of Sodom and Gomorrah are well documented, the Lord tells Ezekiel that the root of their iniquity lay in pride, laziness, and a lack of charity.
49 Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.
50 And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good. (Ezekiel 16:49-50)
MELCHIZEDEK AND ABRAHAM
The person known as Melchizedek is one of the most enigmatic figures in all of scriptures. That most translations of Hebrews 7:3 appear to state that he was, “Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life…,” only serve to make him seem more mysterious. In fact, an early Christian Gnostic group called themselves Melchizedekites, and worshipped him as God, the Father incarnate.
Here are some of the things we do know about Melchizedek:
He worked miracles as a child (JST Gen. 14:26)
He received the priesthood through the lineage of his fathers (D&C 84:14)
He was a priest of the Most High God (Gen. 14:18; Heb. 7:1)
He was the king of Salem (Heb. 7:1)
He reigned under his father (Alma 13:18)
Abraham received the priesthood from him (D&C 84:14)
Abraham paid him tithes (Gen. 14:20; Heb. 7:4)
He offered bread and wine to Abraham and blessed him (Gen. 14:17-20)
Paul considered him greater than Abraham (Heb. 7:4-7)
Was called the Prince of peace, or King of peace (JST Gen. 14:33; 36)
Helped convert his people from great wickedness to righteousness (Alma 13:17-19)
His people were translated to the City of Enoch (JST Gen. 14:34)
The higher priesthood was named after him because he was such a “great High Priest” (D&C 107:1-4)
Many have attempted to identify him with Shem, of whom little is heard after exiting from the ark. This is strengthened by the statement in Joseph F. Smith’s Vision of the Redemption of the Dead, where he recounts seeing, “Shem, the great high priest…,: (D&C 138:41). But others have pointed to D&C 84:14, where we read that Melichizedek received the priesthood , “through the lineage of his fathers, even till Noah,” as evidence that there were multiple generations separating Noah and Melchizedek. However, this could also be read as a descending statement (Adam to Noah), as opposed to an ascending statement (Melchizedek to Noah).
Whatever the case, we do not know for certain who the man Melchizedek may have been, which makes the statement in Alma 13:19 especially puzzling:
Now, there were many before him, and also there were many afterwards, but none were greater; therefore of him they have more particularly made mention.
Obviously, this is not the case, at least in the scriptures that we currently have at our disposal. The thought crossed my mind once that perhaps at one time Melchizedek may have been widely known and revered, but perhaps when the determination was made to name the higher priesthood after him, the Lord made it known that details concerning the man Melchizedek would be hidden for a period of time, so as not to detract from the sacredness of the Holy Priesthood after the Order of the Son of God, now known as the Melchizedek Priesthood.
Just a thought.
LESSON 7 - The Abrahamic Covenant
Abraham 1
1 In the land of the Chaldeans, at the residence of my fathers, I, Abraham saw that it was needful for me to obtain another place of residence;
2 And, finding there was greater happiness and peace and rest for me, I sought for the blessings of the fathers, and the right whereunto I should be ordained to administer the same; having been myself a follower of righteousness, desiring also to be one who possessed great knowledge, and to be a greater follower of righteousness, and to possess a greater knowledge, and to be a father of many nations, a prince of peace, and desiring to receive instructions, and to keep the commandments of God, I became a rightful heir, a High Priest, holding the right belonging to the fathers.
3 It was conferred upon me from the fathers; it came down from the fathers, from the beginning of time, yea, even from the beginning, or before the foundation of the earth, down to the present time, even the right of the firstborn, or the first man, who is Adam, or first father, through the fathers unto me.
4 I sought for mine appointment unto the Priesthood according to the appointment of God unto the fathers concerning the seed.
This passage makes it appear that it is was likely in Chaldea, or at least during the period of his residence there, that Abraham met with Melchizedek and received from him the High Priesthood (D&C 84:14). This was the first great covenant entered into by Abraham, and was a necessary precursor to that which we commonly refer to as “The Abrahamic Covenant.” By first receiving the priesthood and exercising righteousness, Abraham made himself worthy to be the “father” of the covenant through which all the nations of the earth will be blessed.
Abraham and his seed understood the significance of this blessing, and that it would most easily by preserved if they continued to marry those who would be willing to accept and assist in the preservation of the covenant. Therefore, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob sought for wives among their own king.
Abraham married his niece, Sarah
Isaac married his first cousin once removed, Rebekah
Jacob married his second cousins once removed, Leah and Rachel
1 In the land of the Chaldeans, at the residence of my fathers, I, Abraham saw that it was needful for me to obtain another place of residence;
2 And, finding there was greater happiness and peace and rest for me, I sought for the blessings of the fathers, and the right whereunto I should be ordained to administer the same; having been myself a follower of righteousness, desiring also to be one who possessed great knowledge, and to be a greater follower of righteousness, and to possess a greater knowledge, and to be a father of many nations, a prince of peace, and desiring to receive instructions, and to keep the commandments of God, I became a rightful heir, a High Priest, holding the right belonging to the fathers.
3 It was conferred upon me from the fathers; it came down from the fathers, from the beginning of time, yea, even from the beginning, or before the foundation of the earth, down to the present time, even the right of the firstborn, or the first man, who is Adam, or first father, through the fathers unto me.
4 I sought for mine appointment unto the Priesthood according to the appointment of God unto the fathers concerning the seed.
This passage makes it appear that it is was likely in Chaldea, or at least during the period of his residence there, that Abraham met with Melchizedek and received from him the High Priesthood (D&C 84:14). This was the first great covenant entered into by Abraham, and was a necessary precursor to that which we commonly refer to as “The Abrahamic Covenant.” By first receiving the priesthood and exercising righteousness, Abraham made himself worthy to be the “father” of the covenant through which all the nations of the earth will be blessed.
Abraham and his seed understood the significance of this blessing, and that it would most easily by preserved if they continued to marry those who would be willing to accept and assist in the preservation of the covenant. Therefore, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob sought for wives among their own king.
Abraham married his niece, Sarah
Isaac married his first cousin once removed, Rebekah
Jacob married his second cousins once removed, Leah and Rachel
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
LESSON 6 - “Noah … Prepared an Ark to the Saving of His House”
ENOCH
One of my pet theories (NOT even REMOTELY Church doctrine) is that the City of Enoch provides a possible basis for the legend of Atlantis as first recorded by Plato. It was reported that Joseph Smith stated that the City of Enoch was removed together with all the surrounding land, leaving behind what we now know as the Gulf of Mexico. (Waiting for the World’s End: The Diaries of Wilford Woodruff, p. 305)
Such an event would have created a cataclysm that would have been felt far and wide, and as it would have occurred about 3100 BC, it fits fairly nicely into the story told by Plato. (Timaeus 24e–25a)
What is interesting here is that Joseph Smith reportedly stated that when the City of Enoch returns to the earth, it would take up its previous location, the Gulf of Mexico. We know from Latter-day revelation that when the City of Enoch returns it will be joined to the New Jerusalem that is to be built beginning at Independence, Missouri. John also describes the descent of the “holy city” from the heavens and its unification with the New Jerusalem. He then gives the dimensions of the newly created city, and although many of the numbers are meant to be figurative, it is interesting to note that the length and breath of that city as described by John (about 1400 miles), could reach from Independence to the Gulf of Mexico.
NOAH AND THE ANIMALS
There are several early Jewish and Christian traditions that speak of a “holy garment” that was passed from Adam to Seth and on to the other patriarchs. Possession of this garment gave the bearer power, not just in a priesthood sense, but to rule as temporal king as well. It was purportedly this garment which was taken from Noah by Ham and his son as the drunken Noah was sleeping. The garment then passed on to Nimrod (Ham‘s grandson) who ruled as king and attempted the construction of the Tower of Babel. (See, Hugh Nibley. Lehi in the Desert and the World of the Jaredites, pp. 160-162)
Since Adam had this garment in the Garden of Eden, these traditions imbue it with special powers, including the ability to calm and attract animals. They suggest that Noah used the power of this garment to call the animals to the Ark.
CLEAN AND UNLEAN ANIMALS
I have been asked several times about the strange classification of “clean” and “unclean” animals as first mentioned in Genesis 7 in connection with the Ark, and later expanded in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14. The restrictions regarding a split hoof and the “chewing of the cud,” do not make sense to many of us in modern society.
It’s all about health. Specific animal groups (cattle, sheep, deer, goats), were exempted from the restrictions because they are herbivores and less likely to carry disease. The other clean animals were allowed since animals with a split hoof can more easily perspire through their feet, thereby eliminating waste and decreasing the incidence of disease. Animals that “chew the cud,” have improved digestion, and are therefore, healthier. Those animals that are specifically forbidden (rats, lizards, skunks, snakes and weasels, as well as pigs) are excluded because they are predators and scavengers and are more likely to carry parasites.
The permitted seafood was limited to fish with scales and fins. This is because fish with fins could swim against the currents and tides, avoiding the more polluted and infected areas of water. The scales also serve as a protective barrier to pollution.
LOGISTICS OF THE ARK
Some modern theologians have calculated that the square footage of the Ark would have allowed for the housing of some 16,000 animals. Under normal circumstances, these animals would have created some 12 tons of waste each day, but this could have been handled by using slatted floors where the waste would make its way to a smaller enclosure below the floor of the pens. The movement of the ship would have allowed for the regular release of methane and other gases, and some sort of disposal slip could have been designed as well.
The real problem would have been the storage of enough feed for these animals during their year-long confinement. Of course, their need for food would have been much reduced due to their slower metabolic rate during confinement (thereby also reducing the amount of waste), but still, if we allow a daily ration of 2 ounces of food per animal, the total for 365 days would be some 730,000 pounds. Perhaps the Lord provided manna-like rations for the sea voyage?
One of my pet theories (NOT even REMOTELY Church doctrine) is that the City of Enoch provides a possible basis for the legend of Atlantis as first recorded by Plato. It was reported that Joseph Smith stated that the City of Enoch was removed together with all the surrounding land, leaving behind what we now know as the Gulf of Mexico. (Waiting for the World’s End: The Diaries of Wilford Woodruff, p. 305)
Such an event would have created a cataclysm that would have been felt far and wide, and as it would have occurred about 3100 BC, it fits fairly nicely into the story told by Plato. (Timaeus 24e–25a)
What is interesting here is that Joseph Smith reportedly stated that when the City of Enoch returns to the earth, it would take up its previous location, the Gulf of Mexico. We know from Latter-day revelation that when the City of Enoch returns it will be joined to the New Jerusalem that is to be built beginning at Independence, Missouri. John also describes the descent of the “holy city” from the heavens and its unification with the New Jerusalem. He then gives the dimensions of the newly created city, and although many of the numbers are meant to be figurative, it is interesting to note that the length and breath of that city as described by John (about 1400 miles), could reach from Independence to the Gulf of Mexico.
NOAH AND THE ANIMALS
There are several early Jewish and Christian traditions that speak of a “holy garment” that was passed from Adam to Seth and on to the other patriarchs. Possession of this garment gave the bearer power, not just in a priesthood sense, but to rule as temporal king as well. It was purportedly this garment which was taken from Noah by Ham and his son as the drunken Noah was sleeping. The garment then passed on to Nimrod (Ham‘s grandson) who ruled as king and attempted the construction of the Tower of Babel. (See, Hugh Nibley. Lehi in the Desert and the World of the Jaredites, pp. 160-162)
Since Adam had this garment in the Garden of Eden, these traditions imbue it with special powers, including the ability to calm and attract animals. They suggest that Noah used the power of this garment to call the animals to the Ark.
CLEAN AND UNLEAN ANIMALS
I have been asked several times about the strange classification of “clean” and “unclean” animals as first mentioned in Genesis 7 in connection with the Ark, and later expanded in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14. The restrictions regarding a split hoof and the “chewing of the cud,” do not make sense to many of us in modern society.
It’s all about health. Specific animal groups (cattle, sheep, deer, goats), were exempted from the restrictions because they are herbivores and less likely to carry disease. The other clean animals were allowed since animals with a split hoof can more easily perspire through their feet, thereby eliminating waste and decreasing the incidence of disease. Animals that “chew the cud,” have improved digestion, and are therefore, healthier. Those animals that are specifically forbidden (rats, lizards, skunks, snakes and weasels, as well as pigs) are excluded because they are predators and scavengers and are more likely to carry parasites.
The permitted seafood was limited to fish with scales and fins. This is because fish with fins could swim against the currents and tides, avoiding the more polluted and infected areas of water. The scales also serve as a protective barrier to pollution.
LOGISTICS OF THE ARK
Some modern theologians have calculated that the square footage of the Ark would have allowed for the housing of some 16,000 animals. Under normal circumstances, these animals would have created some 12 tons of waste each day, but this could have been handled by using slatted floors where the waste would make its way to a smaller enclosure below the floor of the pens. The movement of the ship would have allowed for the regular release of methane and other gases, and some sort of disposal slip could have been designed as well.
The real problem would have been the storage of enough feed for these animals during their year-long confinement. Of course, their need for food would have been much reduced due to their slower metabolic rate during confinement (thereby also reducing the amount of waste), but still, if we allow a daily ration of 2 ounces of food per animal, the total for 365 days would be some 730,000 pounds. Perhaps the Lord provided manna-like rations for the sea voyage?
Monday, February 22, 2010
LESSON 5 - If Thou Doest Well, Thou Shalt Be Accepted
SACRIFICE
I have heard two major theories regarding the acceptance of Abel’s sacrifice and the rejection of Cain’s sacrifice.
1) Abel’s was acceptable because it involved the shedding of blood in similitude of the future sacrifice of the Savior. Cain’s did not.
2) Cain’s sacrifice was rejected because he did not offer the best he had; his allegiance had already been given to Satan.
While certainly there may be some truth to the assertions in the second theory, the prophet Joseph Smith specifically cited the issue of the shedding of blood as the determining factor in the acceptance of Abel’s sacrifice and the rejection of Cain’s.
Abel offered to God a sacrifice that was accepted, which was the firstlings of the flock. Cain offered of the fruit of the ground, and was not accepted, because he could not do it in faith, he could have no faith, or could not exercise faith contrary to the plan of heaven. It must be shedding the blood of the Only Begotten to atone for man; for this was the plan of redemption; and without the shedding of blood was no remission; and as the sacrifice was instituted as a type by which man was to discern the great Sacrifice which God had prepared; to offer a sacrifice contrary to that, no faith could be exercised… Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, page 58.
As Cain was a “tiller of the ground,” to offer a sacrifice in the approved manner would have required some effort on his part. He would have had to make arrangements with his brother, or some other “keeper of sheep,” for a firstling of the flock. This effort was more than he was willing to make, so he simply offered (half-heartedly) what he had, the “fruit of the ground.” He seems to have had no faith in the performance of the sacrifice itself, and was trying to do the least he could to comply with the letter of the law only.
Lest we think that Abel got off easy, remember that as a shepherd, the “firstlings of the flock” would be his most prized possessions, and the basis for the future growth of his flock. To give these up would require devotion to the principle and the spirit of the law of sacrifice. If neither Abel nor Cain completely understood the necessity of a blood sacrifice, at least Abel exercised his faith and was obedient to the instruction given to them.
In an effort to understand the principle of sacrifice and how it may apply in our lives, allow me to jump ahead to a story about King David found in the final chapter of 2 Samuel.
David had sinned in numbering Israel when he had been specifically forbidden to do so, and as a result, 70,000 men were killed by pestilence. David repented of his disobedience, and wishing to make amends and bring the pestilence to an end, consulted with the prophet Gad. The prophet told David that he should go to the “threshingfloor of Araunah the Jebusite,” and there offer sacrifice to the Lord. David did as instructed, and took his servants with him to offer the required sacrifice.
2 Samuel 24:20 And Araunah looked, and saw the king and his servants coming on toward him: and Araunah went out, and bowed himself before the king on his face upon the ground.
21 And Araunah said, Wherefore is my lord the king come to his servant? And David said, To buy the threshingfloor of thee, to build an altar unto the Lord, that the plague may be stayed from the people.
22 And Araunah said unto David, Let my lord the king take and offer up what seemeth good unto him: behold, here be oxen for burnt sacrifice, and threshing instruments and other instruments of the oxen for wood.
23 All these things did Araunah, as a king, give unto the king. And Araunah said unto the king, The Lord thy God accept thee.
David had come with the intent of purchasing the threshingfloor and animals for sacrifice, but Araunah offered to give these to him freely. There is great wisdom in David’s response, and a profound lesson for all of us.
2 Samiuel 24:24 And the king said unto Araunah, Nay; but I will surely buy it of thee at a price: neither will I offer burnt offerings unto the Lord my God of that which doth cost me nothing. So David bought the threshingfloor and the oxen for fifty shekels of silver.
David understood that if he were given the threshingfloor, the animals, and the instruments necessary for the sacrifice, the sacrifice would not be acceptable to the Lord. He would not make an offering unto the Lord of “that which doth cost me nothing.”
A sacrifice, by its very nature and definition, requires that we give up something. If we give up nothing in the performance of the “sacrifice,” then it is no sacrifice at all, and the blessings promised as a result of that sacrifice will not be realized. In this day we are not required to give up the “firstlings of the flock,” but we are required to give up something. It may be money, or desires, or time, or talents. Let’s not take the easy way out, like Cain, and thereby show our lack of faith in the Lord’s promises. Let’s make sure when we are asked to sacrifice, to do something to help another, or to build the Kingdom, that we are willing to pay a price, and thereby purchase the promised reward.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
GENESIS 4:7
If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door…
The Chumash renders this as, “sin rests at the door,” or, “sin rests at the gate,” referring to the gate of death. In other words, our unrepented sins await us at the entrance to the afterlife.
I have heard two major theories regarding the acceptance of Abel’s sacrifice and the rejection of Cain’s sacrifice.
1) Abel’s was acceptable because it involved the shedding of blood in similitude of the future sacrifice of the Savior. Cain’s did not.
2) Cain’s sacrifice was rejected because he did not offer the best he had; his allegiance had already been given to Satan.
While certainly there may be some truth to the assertions in the second theory, the prophet Joseph Smith specifically cited the issue of the shedding of blood as the determining factor in the acceptance of Abel’s sacrifice and the rejection of Cain’s.
Abel offered to God a sacrifice that was accepted, which was the firstlings of the flock. Cain offered of the fruit of the ground, and was not accepted, because he could not do it in faith, he could have no faith, or could not exercise faith contrary to the plan of heaven. It must be shedding the blood of the Only Begotten to atone for man; for this was the plan of redemption; and without the shedding of blood was no remission; and as the sacrifice was instituted as a type by which man was to discern the great Sacrifice which God had prepared; to offer a sacrifice contrary to that, no faith could be exercised… Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, page 58.
As Cain was a “tiller of the ground,” to offer a sacrifice in the approved manner would have required some effort on his part. He would have had to make arrangements with his brother, or some other “keeper of sheep,” for a firstling of the flock. This effort was more than he was willing to make, so he simply offered (half-heartedly) what he had, the “fruit of the ground.” He seems to have had no faith in the performance of the sacrifice itself, and was trying to do the least he could to comply with the letter of the law only.
Lest we think that Abel got off easy, remember that as a shepherd, the “firstlings of the flock” would be his most prized possessions, and the basis for the future growth of his flock. To give these up would require devotion to the principle and the spirit of the law of sacrifice. If neither Abel nor Cain completely understood the necessity of a blood sacrifice, at least Abel exercised his faith and was obedient to the instruction given to them.
In an effort to understand the principle of sacrifice and how it may apply in our lives, allow me to jump ahead to a story about King David found in the final chapter of 2 Samuel.
David had sinned in numbering Israel when he had been specifically forbidden to do so, and as a result, 70,000 men were killed by pestilence. David repented of his disobedience, and wishing to make amends and bring the pestilence to an end, consulted with the prophet Gad. The prophet told David that he should go to the “threshingfloor of Araunah the Jebusite,” and there offer sacrifice to the Lord. David did as instructed, and took his servants with him to offer the required sacrifice.
2 Samuel 24:20 And Araunah looked, and saw the king and his servants coming on toward him: and Araunah went out, and bowed himself before the king on his face upon the ground.
21 And Araunah said, Wherefore is my lord the king come to his servant? And David said, To buy the threshingfloor of thee, to build an altar unto the Lord, that the plague may be stayed from the people.
22 And Araunah said unto David, Let my lord the king take and offer up what seemeth good unto him: behold, here be oxen for burnt sacrifice, and threshing instruments and other instruments of the oxen for wood.
23 All these things did Araunah, as a king, give unto the king. And Araunah said unto the king, The Lord thy God accept thee.
David had come with the intent of purchasing the threshingfloor and animals for sacrifice, but Araunah offered to give these to him freely. There is great wisdom in David’s response, and a profound lesson for all of us.
2 Samiuel 24:24 And the king said unto Araunah, Nay; but I will surely buy it of thee at a price: neither will I offer burnt offerings unto the Lord my God of that which doth cost me nothing. So David bought the threshingfloor and the oxen for fifty shekels of silver.
David understood that if he were given the threshingfloor, the animals, and the instruments necessary for the sacrifice, the sacrifice would not be acceptable to the Lord. He would not make an offering unto the Lord of “that which doth cost me nothing.”
A sacrifice, by its very nature and definition, requires that we give up something. If we give up nothing in the performance of the “sacrifice,” then it is no sacrifice at all, and the blessings promised as a result of that sacrifice will not be realized. In this day we are not required to give up the “firstlings of the flock,” but we are required to give up something. It may be money, or desires, or time, or talents. Let’s not take the easy way out, like Cain, and thereby show our lack of faith in the Lord’s promises. Let’s make sure when we are asked to sacrifice, to do something to help another, or to build the Kingdom, that we are willing to pay a price, and thereby purchase the promised reward.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
GENESIS 4:7
If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door…
The Chumash renders this as, “sin rests at the door,” or, “sin rests at the gate,” referring to the gate of death. In other words, our unrepented sins await us at the entrance to the afterlife.
LESSON 4 - Because of My Transgression My Eyes Are Opened
THE FALL OF ADAM
There are essentially three major modern Christian theories regarding the Fall of Adam and its relationship to the rest of mankind.
1) THE MYTH THEORY OF THE FALL, which proposes that the first few chapters of Genesis are a myth created to explain the problem of man’s corrupted state.
2) THE REALIST VIEW OF THE FALL, which implies that we were somehow all present with Adam and Eve in the garden, and participated with them in the choices that precipitated the Fall. Therefore, we are equally to blame and inherit the sin before we are born into mortality.
3) THE FEDERAL OR REPRESENTATIVE VIEW OF THE FALL, which teaches that Adam acted as a representative of the entire human race, and as a result, we are all afflicted with the effects of that Fall, including original sin.
When I look at these theories, their convoluted reasoning, and the scriptures that are twisted in an effort to buttress them, I am more thankful than ever for the clear understanding of the Fall of Adam as explained in modern-day revelation.
In particular, I appreciate the words of Jacob as found in 2 Nephi chapter 2, where he beautifully explains the necessity and logic of the Fall as an integral part of the plan of salvation, and how it is inextricably connected to the atonement of Jesus Christ.
22 And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end.
23 And they would have had no children; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin.
24 But behold, all things have been done in the wisdom of him who knoweth all things.
25 Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy.
26 And the Messiah cometh in the fulness of time, that he may redeem the children of men from the fall. And because that they are redeemed from the fall they have become free forever, knowing good from evil; to act for themselves and not to be acted upon, save it be by the punishment of the law at the great and last day, according to the commandments which God hath given.
Because of the significance of the Fall of Adam, we can find traces of the story in many belief systems and mythologies from around the world. The one that I find most interesting, is one that we may not often consider as a parallel to the events in the Garden of Eden, and the subsequent explanation of the plan of salvation, and that is the myth of Pandora.
According to Hesiod, Pandora was the first woman, created out of the earth by Hephaestus upon instruction from Zeus. She is given a jar (not “box") which she is instructed not to open, but curiosity gets the better of her, she disobeys, and opens the jar. As a result, many evils are introduced into the world: disease, misery, plague, mischief, etc.; but once the jar is emptied of its evils, one thing remains behind and that is Hope. It is inferred that Hope alone is sufficient to counteract all the evils of mortal existence.
There are obvious parallels between this myth and our Latter-day understanding of Adam’s Fall. When Adam and Eve are at their lowest point, having realized what they have done, and having had the effects of their actions explained to them, they are given Hope. They are told that a Savior will be provided for them and for all mankind. Our Hope in this Savior alone is sufficient to allow us to overcome all the evils of this temporal existence.
GENESIS 3:1
This is a classic ploy used by the serpent in enticing Adam and Eve. Isn’t the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil one of God’s great creations. Doesn’t God want us to enjoy all of His creations? Why would he then forbid us to partake of it? There must be some sort of misunderstanding.
The same ploy is used on us today. Doesn’t God want us to enjoy all his creations? God would not restrict us from enjoying sex, natural drugs, or other sensual pleasures - these must be restrictions invented by man. If God created these things, they must be good and intended for our enjoyment.
The serpent is indeed the most “subtle of any beast of the field.”
There are essentially three major modern Christian theories regarding the Fall of Adam and its relationship to the rest of mankind.
1) THE MYTH THEORY OF THE FALL, which proposes that the first few chapters of Genesis are a myth created to explain the problem of man’s corrupted state.
2) THE REALIST VIEW OF THE FALL, which implies that we were somehow all present with Adam and Eve in the garden, and participated with them in the choices that precipitated the Fall. Therefore, we are equally to blame and inherit the sin before we are born into mortality.
3) THE FEDERAL OR REPRESENTATIVE VIEW OF THE FALL, which teaches that Adam acted as a representative of the entire human race, and as a result, we are all afflicted with the effects of that Fall, including original sin.
When I look at these theories, their convoluted reasoning, and the scriptures that are twisted in an effort to buttress them, I am more thankful than ever for the clear understanding of the Fall of Adam as explained in modern-day revelation.
In particular, I appreciate the words of Jacob as found in 2 Nephi chapter 2, where he beautifully explains the necessity and logic of the Fall as an integral part of the plan of salvation, and how it is inextricably connected to the atonement of Jesus Christ.
22 And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end.
23 And they would have had no children; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin.
24 But behold, all things have been done in the wisdom of him who knoweth all things.
25 Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy.
26 And the Messiah cometh in the fulness of time, that he may redeem the children of men from the fall. And because that they are redeemed from the fall they have become free forever, knowing good from evil; to act for themselves and not to be acted upon, save it be by the punishment of the law at the great and last day, according to the commandments which God hath given.
Because of the significance of the Fall of Adam, we can find traces of the story in many belief systems and mythologies from around the world. The one that I find most interesting, is one that we may not often consider as a parallel to the events in the Garden of Eden, and the subsequent explanation of the plan of salvation, and that is the myth of Pandora.
According to Hesiod, Pandora was the first woman, created out of the earth by Hephaestus upon instruction from Zeus. She is given a jar (not “box") which she is instructed not to open, but curiosity gets the better of her, she disobeys, and opens the jar. As a result, many evils are introduced into the world: disease, misery, plague, mischief, etc.; but once the jar is emptied of its evils, one thing remains behind and that is Hope. It is inferred that Hope alone is sufficient to counteract all the evils of mortal existence.
There are obvious parallels between this myth and our Latter-day understanding of Adam’s Fall. When Adam and Eve are at their lowest point, having realized what they have done, and having had the effects of their actions explained to them, they are given Hope. They are told that a Savior will be provided for them and for all mankind. Our Hope in this Savior alone is sufficient to allow us to overcome all the evils of this temporal existence.
GENESIS 3:1
This is a classic ploy used by the serpent in enticing Adam and Eve. Isn’t the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil one of God’s great creations. Doesn’t God want us to enjoy all of His creations? Why would he then forbid us to partake of it? There must be some sort of misunderstanding.
The same ploy is used on us today. Doesn’t God want us to enjoy all his creations? God would not restrict us from enjoying sex, natural drugs, or other sensual pleasures - these must be restrictions invented by man. If God created these things, they must be good and intended for our enjoyment.
The serpent is indeed the most “subtle of any beast of the field.”
Saturday, February 13, 2010
LESSON 3 - The Creation
THE AGE OF THE EARTH
One of the most important LDS discussions regarding the age of the earth and attendant issues, occurred during 1930-31, with Joseph Fielding Smith on one side of the question, and B. H. Roberts and James E. Talmage (a professional geologist) on the other. B. H. Roberts had been working for some time on his magnum opus (The Truth, The Way, The Life), and wanted to see it published before his life came to a close. Before it was published, however, he wanted approval from the leading quorums of the Church.
His manuscript was reviewed by a reading committee from the Twelve, and they cited some 37 “points of doctrine in question.“ Among these were the questions of the age of the earth, and whether man had been on the earth prior to Adam (pre-Adamites). Changes were recommended, but Roberts refused to alter the manuscript, and even added additional information to support his views.
Joseph Fielding Smith chose to publicly criticize Roberts’ views, and the matter became a serious issue behind closed doors at Church headquarters. James E. Talmage, because of his experience as a scientist, was naturally drawn into the discussion as well.
After months of sometimes acrimonious debate, the First President finally counseled the brethren that no good would come from a further discussion of this question as the Lord had not yet seen fit to reveal all the details of the creation of this earth and life upon it. The one thing that could be stated with certainty was, "Adam is the primal parent of our race,” (First Presidency Message, 1931).
Joseph Fielding Smith was correct in his statement to the Twelve when he said, "The Latter-day Saints are not bound to receive the theories of men when they do not accord with the word of the Lord to them." (Sessions & Oberg, eds. The Search for Harmony: Essays on Science and Mormonism, page 97).
Brigham Young was also in the right when he stated:
You take, for instance, our geologists, and they tell us that this earth has been in existence for thousands and millions of years. They think, and they have good reason for their faith, that their researches and investigations enable them to demonstrate that this earth has been in existence as long as they assert it has. . . . In these respects we differ from the Christian world, for our religion will not clash with or contradict the facts of science in any particular. You may take geology, for instance, and it is true science; not that I would say for a moment that all the conclusions and deductions of its professors are true, but its leading principles are; they are facts--they are eternal; and to assert that the Lord made the earth out of nothing is preposterous and impossible. . . . How long it's been organized is not for me to say, and I do not care anything about it. As to the Bible account of the creation we may say that the Lord gave it to Moses. If we understood the process of creation there would be no mystery about it, it would be all reasonable and plain, for there is no mystery except to the ignorant. (Discourses of Brigham Young, pp. 258-259).
Several years ago, a devout life-long member of the Church told me that he was convinced that the reason there is apparent conflict between the scientific record and the scriptural record is that science does not understand how the Lord created the earth. He then went on to explain that this earth was created when God took pieces from other planets and put them all together to form a new world. This accounts for the dinosaurs and other fossil records which are more than 6000 years old. (Yes, this really happened to me)
Statements like this (and others less ridiculous, but every bit as uninformed) do a great disservice to the Church. Brigham Young made two important points in the above statement:
1) We, as Latter-day Saints, differ from the rest of the world in our acceptance of scientific theory. We believe that science and religion are eternally interconnected, and that they will eventually be in complete harmony, once all has been revealed. Some have even referred to God as the Greatest Scientist.
2) At present, we are all ignorant, so it might be wise to keep an open mind and look for ways to reconcile scientific theory with religion, rather than throwing out one or the other.
------------------
Regarding the comments in D&C 77 that seem to indicate that the life of this earth would be 7000 years, an interesting explanation can be found at:
http://mormanity.blogspot.com/2004/08/dc-77-and-age-of-earth.html
------------------
THE SABBATH
Gen 1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
Gen 2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
2:2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
It seems to me that there is something significant going on here that we often miss. When God completed the work of the sixth day, He examined what he had been doing and saw that it was good. In other words, He “put a wrap on it.” He was done with the work of the six days of creation, and before moving on to the seventh day of rest, He put a mental barrier between the work week and the Sabbath day.
I believe that this is intended as a pattern for all of us. As we prepare for the Sabbath day, we can look at the preceding work week, and whether it was “good,” or perhaps not as good as we may have wished, we should set it aside - we are done with it and should do our best not to allow the concerns of the six days to carry over into the seventh.
This is obviously easier said than done, but if we can, with practice, learn to do this, I am confident that our Sabbath days will be more wholly devoted to the things of God, and become a great blessing in our lives - a true day of rest.
One of the most important LDS discussions regarding the age of the earth and attendant issues, occurred during 1930-31, with Joseph Fielding Smith on one side of the question, and B. H. Roberts and James E. Talmage (a professional geologist) on the other. B. H. Roberts had been working for some time on his magnum opus (The Truth, The Way, The Life), and wanted to see it published before his life came to a close. Before it was published, however, he wanted approval from the leading quorums of the Church.
His manuscript was reviewed by a reading committee from the Twelve, and they cited some 37 “points of doctrine in question.“ Among these were the questions of the age of the earth, and whether man had been on the earth prior to Adam (pre-Adamites). Changes were recommended, but Roberts refused to alter the manuscript, and even added additional information to support his views.
Joseph Fielding Smith chose to publicly criticize Roberts’ views, and the matter became a serious issue behind closed doors at Church headquarters. James E. Talmage, because of his experience as a scientist, was naturally drawn into the discussion as well.
After months of sometimes acrimonious debate, the First President finally counseled the brethren that no good would come from a further discussion of this question as the Lord had not yet seen fit to reveal all the details of the creation of this earth and life upon it. The one thing that could be stated with certainty was, "Adam is the primal parent of our race,” (First Presidency Message, 1931).
Joseph Fielding Smith was correct in his statement to the Twelve when he said, "The Latter-day Saints are not bound to receive the theories of men when they do not accord with the word of the Lord to them." (Sessions & Oberg, eds. The Search for Harmony: Essays on Science and Mormonism, page 97).
Brigham Young was also in the right when he stated:
You take, for instance, our geologists, and they tell us that this earth has been in existence for thousands and millions of years. They think, and they have good reason for their faith, that their researches and investigations enable them to demonstrate that this earth has been in existence as long as they assert it has. . . . In these respects we differ from the Christian world, for our religion will not clash with or contradict the facts of science in any particular. You may take geology, for instance, and it is true science; not that I would say for a moment that all the conclusions and deductions of its professors are true, but its leading principles are; they are facts--they are eternal; and to assert that the Lord made the earth out of nothing is preposterous and impossible. . . . How long it's been organized is not for me to say, and I do not care anything about it. As to the Bible account of the creation we may say that the Lord gave it to Moses. If we understood the process of creation there would be no mystery about it, it would be all reasonable and plain, for there is no mystery except to the ignorant. (Discourses of Brigham Young, pp. 258-259).
Several years ago, a devout life-long member of the Church told me that he was convinced that the reason there is apparent conflict between the scientific record and the scriptural record is that science does not understand how the Lord created the earth. He then went on to explain that this earth was created when God took pieces from other planets and put them all together to form a new world. This accounts for the dinosaurs and other fossil records which are more than 6000 years old. (Yes, this really happened to me)
Statements like this (and others less ridiculous, but every bit as uninformed) do a great disservice to the Church. Brigham Young made two important points in the above statement:
1) We, as Latter-day Saints, differ from the rest of the world in our acceptance of scientific theory. We believe that science and religion are eternally interconnected, and that they will eventually be in complete harmony, once all has been revealed. Some have even referred to God as the Greatest Scientist.
2) At present, we are all ignorant, so it might be wise to keep an open mind and look for ways to reconcile scientific theory with religion, rather than throwing out one or the other.
------------------
Regarding the comments in D&C 77 that seem to indicate that the life of this earth would be 7000 years, an interesting explanation can be found at:
http://mormanity.blogspot.com/2004/08/dc-77-and-age-of-earth.html
------------------
THE SABBATH
Gen 1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
Gen 2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
2:2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
It seems to me that there is something significant going on here that we often miss. When God completed the work of the sixth day, He examined what he had been doing and saw that it was good. In other words, He “put a wrap on it.” He was done with the work of the six days of creation, and before moving on to the seventh day of rest, He put a mental barrier between the work week and the Sabbath day.
I believe that this is intended as a pattern for all of us. As we prepare for the Sabbath day, we can look at the preceding work week, and whether it was “good,” or perhaps not as good as we may have wished, we should set it aside - we are done with it and should do our best not to allow the concerns of the six days to carry over into the seventh.
This is obviously easier said than done, but if we can, with practice, learn to do this, I am confident that our Sabbath days will be more wholly devoted to the things of God, and become a great blessing in our lives - a true day of rest.
Thursday, February 11, 2010
LESSON 2 - Thou Wast Chosen Before Thou Wast Born
THE NOBLE AND GREAT ONES
Abraham 3:22 Now the Lord had shown unto me, Abraham, the intelligences that were organized before the world was; and among all these there were many of the noble and great ones;
23 And God saw these souls that they were good, and he stood in the midst of them, and he said: These I will make my rulers; for he stood among those that were spirits, and he saw that they were good; and he said unto me: Abraham, thou art one of them; thou wast chosen before thou wast born.
What was it that caused certain premortal spirits to be identified as “noble and great ones?” A friend recently told me that he is convinced that certain spirits were more righteous from the “beginning,” and that these were early on singled out for special purposes. He suggests that we can all become “noble and great,” but some have a spiritual head-start -- sort of a Mormon preexistence application of Calvinist predeterminism!! He seems to think that the number of the “noble and great,” is quite limited.
I note, however, that Joseph F. Smith, in his Vision of the Redemption of the Dead, identified a similar group of, “great and mighty ones,” and remarked that this was a “vast congregation.” He begins to enumerate these, but his list is obviously open-ended, as indicated in verse 49: “all these and many more.”
The notion that some were more righteous from the beginning, or that they had a spiritual head-start, is refuted by the prophet Alma as he discusses those who proved themselves worthy to receive the priesthood by their actions in the preexistence.
ALMA 13:3 And this is the manner after which they were ordained—being called and prepared from the foundation of the world according to the foreknowledge of God, on account of their exceeding faith and good works; in the first place being left to choose good or evil; therefore they having chosen good, and exercising exceedingly great faith are called with a holy calling, yea, with that holy calling which was prepared with, and according to, a preparatory redemption for such.
4 And thus they have been called to this holy calling on account of their faith, while others would reject the Spirit of God on account of the hardness of their hearts and blindness of their minds, while, if it had not been for this they might have had as great privilege as their brethren.
5 Or in fine, in the first place they were on the same standing with their brethren; thus this holy calling being prepared from the foundation of the world for such as would not harden their hearts…
So we see that ALL spirits were on the “same standing,” in the preexistence, but that some proved themselves more worthy by “choosing good,” and, “exercising great faith.” We had agency before we came into mortality, and how we used that agency in large part determined whether or not we would be counted among the, “noble and great ones.”
In comparing Abraham 3 and Alma 13, we see that the only requirements listed for the “noble and great,” are that they were left to choose between good and evil, and that they exercised great faith and made the decision to do good. Having done that, they are “chosen,” and given a calling to fulfill here in mortality, or “foreordained,” to a high and holy calling.
As John Taylor noted in 1882:
...there are thousands of men upon the earth to-day, among the Saints of God, of whom it was decreed before they came that they should occupy the positions they have occupied and do occupy, and many of them have performed their part and gone home; others are left to still further the duties and responsibilities devolving upon them. (Journal of Discourses 23:177)
When it is stated in Abraham 3:23 that of these God would "make my rulers," the connotation is not necessarily political nor governmental, but rather that these noble and great ones would be rulers in the Kingdom of God on earth. As we all have opportunities from time to time to hold positions of responsibility within the Church on a constantly revolving basis, I think it would be reasonable to say that we have all been chosen from the "noble and great."
--------------
LUCIFER / SON OF THE MORNING
The origin of the title, “Son of the Morning,” is associated with the statement in Isaiah 14:12 and applied to the being known as Lucifer. Although some early Christian and Eastern traditions assert that Satan and Lucifer are two different fallen angels, modern-day revelation seems to refute that.
D&C 76:26 And was called Perdition, for the heavens wept over him—he was Lucifer, a son of the morning.
Lucifer is a Latin name meaning literally “light bearer,” and originally was a Roman name for the planet Venus, the “day star.” There is considerable debate raging regarding the translation of Isaiah 14:12, the assignation of the name Lucifer to this passage and the subsequent equating of Lucifer with Satan. A simple search of the internet will reveal the points of this debate.
The Bible Dictionary found in the LDS edition of the KJV Bible states, “Apparently Lucifer is the name of the devil before his rebellion and fall. Latter-day revelation clarifies the fall of Lucifer and equates him with Satan.” BD, p. 726.
Now, if Lucifer was known as a “Son of the Morning,” or “Day Star,” or, “Bright and Morning Star,” prior to his fall, this brings up an interesting point in reference to Revelation 22:16, where Jesus is referred to as, “the bright and morning star.”
Latter-day Saint theology asserts that Jehovah (the pre-mortal Jesus) was the firstborn of the Father in the spirit, and that Lucifer was among the first (if not, in fact, the second). The naming of both as “sons of the morning,” seems to validate this view, and presents the possibility that an early group of God’s spirit children were known as “children of the morning.”
Abraham 3:22 Now the Lord had shown unto me, Abraham, the intelligences that were organized before the world was; and among all these there were many of the noble and great ones;
23 And God saw these souls that they were good, and he stood in the midst of them, and he said: These I will make my rulers; for he stood among those that were spirits, and he saw that they were good; and he said unto me: Abraham, thou art one of them; thou wast chosen before thou wast born.
What was it that caused certain premortal spirits to be identified as “noble and great ones?” A friend recently told me that he is convinced that certain spirits were more righteous from the “beginning,” and that these were early on singled out for special purposes. He suggests that we can all become “noble and great,” but some have a spiritual head-start -- sort of a Mormon preexistence application of Calvinist predeterminism!! He seems to think that the number of the “noble and great,” is quite limited.
I note, however, that Joseph F. Smith, in his Vision of the Redemption of the Dead, identified a similar group of, “great and mighty ones,” and remarked that this was a “vast congregation.” He begins to enumerate these, but his list is obviously open-ended, as indicated in verse 49: “all these and many more.”
The notion that some were more righteous from the beginning, or that they had a spiritual head-start, is refuted by the prophet Alma as he discusses those who proved themselves worthy to receive the priesthood by their actions in the preexistence.
ALMA 13:3 And this is the manner after which they were ordained—being called and prepared from the foundation of the world according to the foreknowledge of God, on account of their exceeding faith and good works; in the first place being left to choose good or evil; therefore they having chosen good, and exercising exceedingly great faith are called with a holy calling, yea, with that holy calling which was prepared with, and according to, a preparatory redemption for such.
4 And thus they have been called to this holy calling on account of their faith, while others would reject the Spirit of God on account of the hardness of their hearts and blindness of their minds, while, if it had not been for this they might have had as great privilege as their brethren.
5 Or in fine, in the first place they were on the same standing with their brethren; thus this holy calling being prepared from the foundation of the world for such as would not harden their hearts…
So we see that ALL spirits were on the “same standing,” in the preexistence, but that some proved themselves more worthy by “choosing good,” and, “exercising great faith.” We had agency before we came into mortality, and how we used that agency in large part determined whether or not we would be counted among the, “noble and great ones.”
In comparing Abraham 3 and Alma 13, we see that the only requirements listed for the “noble and great,” are that they were left to choose between good and evil, and that they exercised great faith and made the decision to do good. Having done that, they are “chosen,” and given a calling to fulfill here in mortality, or “foreordained,” to a high and holy calling.
As John Taylor noted in 1882:
...there are thousands of men upon the earth to-day, among the Saints of God, of whom it was decreed before they came that they should occupy the positions they have occupied and do occupy, and many of them have performed their part and gone home; others are left to still further the duties and responsibilities devolving upon them. (Journal of Discourses 23:177)
When it is stated in Abraham 3:23 that of these God would "make my rulers," the connotation is not necessarily political nor governmental, but rather that these noble and great ones would be rulers in the Kingdom of God on earth. As we all have opportunities from time to time to hold positions of responsibility within the Church on a constantly revolving basis, I think it would be reasonable to say that we have all been chosen from the "noble and great."
--------------
LUCIFER / SON OF THE MORNING
The origin of the title, “Son of the Morning,” is associated with the statement in Isaiah 14:12 and applied to the being known as Lucifer. Although some early Christian and Eastern traditions assert that Satan and Lucifer are two different fallen angels, modern-day revelation seems to refute that.
D&C 76:26 And was called Perdition, for the heavens wept over him—he was Lucifer, a son of the morning.
Lucifer is a Latin name meaning literally “light bearer,” and originally was a Roman name for the planet Venus, the “day star.” There is considerable debate raging regarding the translation of Isaiah 14:12, the assignation of the name Lucifer to this passage and the subsequent equating of Lucifer with Satan. A simple search of the internet will reveal the points of this debate.
The Bible Dictionary found in the LDS edition of the KJV Bible states, “Apparently Lucifer is the name of the devil before his rebellion and fall. Latter-day revelation clarifies the fall of Lucifer and equates him with Satan.” BD, p. 726.
Now, if Lucifer was known as a “Son of the Morning,” or “Day Star,” or, “Bright and Morning Star,” prior to his fall, this brings up an interesting point in reference to Revelation 22:16, where Jesus is referred to as, “the bright and morning star.”
Latter-day Saint theology asserts that Jehovah (the pre-mortal Jesus) was the firstborn of the Father in the spirit, and that Lucifer was among the first (if not, in fact, the second). The naming of both as “sons of the morning,” seems to validate this view, and presents the possibility that an early group of God’s spirit children were known as “children of the morning.”
LESSON 1 - This is My Work and My Glory
Elohim/Jehovah - God/LORD/Lord
Since the Old Testament is a record of God’s dealings with man prior to the advent of Jesus Christ, it seems that a proper understanding of the biblical (KJV) terms God, LORD and Lord would be useful in helping us determine who is acting in the various scenes. For the most part, two Hebrew terms, El (Elohim) and YHWH (Jehovah), are used to identify "God" throughout the Old Testament. As Latter-day Saints, we understand that Elohim is a plural noun referring to the personage we identify as God, the Father, but may also refer to, “the Gods.” Its plurality may equate to both quantity and quality. The name Jehovah, is the pre-mortal name of that being known to us in mortality as Jesus Christ, the Son of God (See, Doctrine and Covenants 110:3, among others).
In the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible, the Hebrew name Elohim is usually rendered as "God." The sacred name of Jehovah, or YHWH, is usually transliterated as "LORD" (all capitals). The Hebrew word Adonai, used most often for angels, royalty, and other respected persons, appears in the KJV as "Lord." There are a few places where these rules seem blurred, but generally they do apply uniformly throughout the Old Testament.
An understanding of this is helpful when we examine key passages, such as the creation of the earth and man, as well as the appearance of God to Moses on Mount Sinai.
Genesis 1:1 - In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
So this is the Hebrew word Elohim, signifying God, the Father, or more likely in this case, the Gods. As Latter-day Saints, we understand that the Father, Jehovah, Michael and possibly others were involved in the creation, so this is consistent with our thinking. This usage continues through the seven days of creation (Gen. 2:3).
Beginning with Genesis 2:4, the name of the creator(s) is rendered as LORD God, or Jehovah Elohim; or as I would prefer, Jehovah of the Gods. It is at this point in the narrative that Michael “leaves” to come to the earth as the mortal Adam, so it seems to make sense that there would be a change in the names of the agents involved in the creation process.
These rules for God, LORD and Lord, of course apply only to the King James Version of the Old Testament, and NOT to the New Testament, nor to latter-day revelation. Still, they provide interesting insight into many key OT passages, and a clearer understanding of the labors of the premortal Jesus Christ.
Since the Old Testament is a record of God’s dealings with man prior to the advent of Jesus Christ, it seems that a proper understanding of the biblical (KJV) terms God, LORD and Lord would be useful in helping us determine who is acting in the various scenes. For the most part, two Hebrew terms, El (Elohim) and YHWH (Jehovah), are used to identify "God" throughout the Old Testament. As Latter-day Saints, we understand that Elohim is a plural noun referring to the personage we identify as God, the Father, but may also refer to, “the Gods.” Its plurality may equate to both quantity and quality. The name Jehovah, is the pre-mortal name of that being known to us in mortality as Jesus Christ, the Son of God (See, Doctrine and Covenants 110:3, among others).
In the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible, the Hebrew name Elohim is usually rendered as "God." The sacred name of Jehovah, or YHWH, is usually transliterated as "LORD" (all capitals). The Hebrew word Adonai, used most often for angels, royalty, and other respected persons, appears in the KJV as "Lord." There are a few places where these rules seem blurred, but generally they do apply uniformly throughout the Old Testament.
An understanding of this is helpful when we examine key passages, such as the creation of the earth and man, as well as the appearance of God to Moses on Mount Sinai.
Genesis 1:1 - In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
So this is the Hebrew word Elohim, signifying God, the Father, or more likely in this case, the Gods. As Latter-day Saints, we understand that the Father, Jehovah, Michael and possibly others were involved in the creation, so this is consistent with our thinking. This usage continues through the seven days of creation (Gen. 2:3).
Beginning with Genesis 2:4, the name of the creator(s) is rendered as LORD God, or Jehovah Elohim; or as I would prefer, Jehovah of the Gods. It is at this point in the narrative that Michael “leaves” to come to the earth as the mortal Adam, so it seems to make sense that there would be a change in the names of the agents involved in the creation process.
These rules for God, LORD and Lord, of course apply only to the King James Version of the Old Testament, and NOT to the New Testament, nor to latter-day revelation. Still, they provide interesting insight into many key OT passages, and a clearer understanding of the labors of the premortal Jesus Christ.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)