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.
Monday, February 22, 2010
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)