In this video he comments on 1 Nephi, which is the first book in the Book of Mormon. At around 3.0 minutes into video he he picks up on God’s command to Nephi to kill Laban, and comments on it as follows:
“Lehi has a vision, he shares it with the Jews, it is not well received, so he goes into the wilderness with his sons; and then his sons come back to obtain these plates from Laban, that has these brass plates that inscripted on them is the record of their fathers. And when they go to obtain these plates, Laban isn’t having it, he is not going to give it to them; but this whole thing about going to get the brass plates—one thing that is jumping out at me, and this is really fascinating to me, is that Nephi is being commanded to kill Laban. That is jumping out at me just because, that is—I don’t know if I know of any time in the Bible where God commands one person to kill someone else—in order in this case to to get something from them. I know that there were invasion forces that would go in; and I know these are the things talked about in the Old Testament, that can be really difficult for us, and that is, you know the command to kill as part of an invasion agenda. And then people being stoned when they didn’t follow certain aspects of the Law. In fact I was just reading a couple weeks ago in Numbers, where an individual was stoned for not keeping the Sabbath—I think he was like picking up sticks on the Sabbath—but that was in accordance to the Law. So this just jumped out at me.”
The answer to that is that, as he has himself partially (and reluctantly) observed, that is not such an unexpected occurrence in the context of the Old Testament. When the Israelites conquered Canaan, they were commanded to kill everything that “breatheth,” including men, women, children, and animals (Deut. 20:16). Saul was commanded to wage war on the Amalekites, and destroy them completely, including men, women, children, and animals:
1 Samuel 15:
1 Samuel also said unto Saul, The Lord sent me to anoint thee to be king over his people, over Israel: now therefore hearken thou unto the voice of the words of the Lord.
2 Thus saith the Lord of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt.
3 Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.
And when Saul disobeyed the command, and spared the life of Agag, and some of the best of the animals (1 Sam. 15:9), God was displeased, and he lost his privileges, and his kingship was taken away and given to David. Another example is the killing of all the firstborn of the Egyptians, including men, women, children, and animals (Exodus 11:4-6; 12:12, 28-30). Which is worse, killing one man at the command of God, who was obviously a very evil person, who had stolen their property, and who had also tried to kill them (1 Nephi 3:9-27), and wouldn’t obey the will of God; or killing thousands of men, women, children, and animals who had not themselves (apparently) done anything to deserve it? God likewise permitted Satan to tempt Job by, among other things, killing all of his children, servants, and animals (Job 1:13-22). If he wants to judge the action of Nephi in killing Laban (at the command of God), he needs to take the entire context of the Old Testament into account. He has also overlooked the immediate context, that Nephi was initially reluctant to kill Laban, and only did so as God commanded him to (1 Nephi 4:7-18).
At 5:35 minutes he observes the prophecy of the coming of the future Messiah in the Book of Mormon, and how detailed it is; and a bit later in chapter 11, verses 13 to 15, he observes the passages referring to Mary, the mother of Jesus, as being “most beautiful” and “fair and white,” and comments in it as follows:
“In verse 15 of chapter 11, there is a virgin, who is called ‘beautiful and fair above all virgins’. It also seems to be indicating her skin color, that she was ‘white’. I don’t believe that, historically, we believe that she was ‘white’. I know that some people might say it is not talking about her skin, but it is hard for me not to read it this way. So yeah, for me this not only doesn’t really seem accurate, but it is really bothersome to me, if I am just going to be honest with you. I know that issues of race and skin color plays into at least a reputation of Latter-day Saint belief. And this is the first time I am seeing it sort of emerge here.”
There are several issues with that. Firstly, associating beauty or “fairness” with “whiteness” is not unheard of in the Old Testament. Here are a couple of quotes:
Song of Solomon 5:
10 My beloved is white and ruddy, the chiefest among ten thousand.
Lamentations 4:
7 Her Nazarites were purer than snow, they were whiter than milk, they were more ruddy in body than rubies, their polishing was of sapphire:
“Ruddy” means reddish, purple, or pinkish in color, like we might say someone having “rosy cheeks”. They couldn’t have had “rosy cheeks” if they hadn’t been “white”. Dark skinned people are not normally associated with having “rosy cheeks”. Even today that is associated with beauty in women. They put makeup on their faces in order to give themselves that kind of appearance. So if associating beauty with “whiteness” is racist, then so is the Bible. You can’t have it both ways. Whatever applies to the Bible, would equally apply to the Book of Mormon. “Whiteness” is also associated with purity, goodness, and holiness in the Old Testament:
Psalm 51:
7 Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean: wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow.
Daniel 11:
35 And some of them of understanding shall fall, to try them, and to purge, and to make them white, even to the time of the end: because it is yet for a time appointed.
Daniel 12:
10 Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried; but the wicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand.
But in the context of 1 Nephi 11:15, I agree that it is more likely to be referring to the color of her skin. Secondly, there is no definitive “historical data” to establish that Mary, or the Israelites in general, were not “white”. That is a baseless theory of the skeptical scholars of today. The ancient Israelites may not have been as “white” as some north Europeans; but that is not what it means to be “white”. The people in the Middle East and Near East would generally consider themselves to be “white,” although perhaps not quite as “white” as some north Europeans. That is partly because the hot and sunny climate of the region tans their skin quite a bit. But there is no reason to assume that Mary or the Israelites were not “white-skinned”.
At about 9 minutes in the video he comments on the observation made in chapter 13, of the “awful state of blindness” in which the Gentile Christians are in, in our time, as follows:
“And then the next couple chapters chapters, 13 and 14, are really intriguing to me, because you are seeing prophecy now about the colonization of America. It appeared to me like there could have been even prophecy of the American Revolution, prophecy of the Book of Mormon; and then things start getting into sort of this ‘awful state of blindness’ that had overtaken the church, up until the time where the Book of Mormon was then revealed to Joseph Smith, which gets into chapter 14.”
The “awful state of blindness” of the Gentile Christians mentioned in chapter 13 refers to the loss of divine truth among Christians, caused by the removal of the many “plain and precious parts” from the biblical canon, which causes contentions and divisions among Christians, mainly over points of doctrine, because the biblical text is not clear enough on many of those doctrinal points, due to the loss of many of those “plain and precious parts”. One of the purposes of the Book of Mormon (and other modern scriptures of the Church) has been to clarify many of those doctrinal ambiguities, and restore many of those lost truths—which they most certainly do in a very remarkable way. If the unbelieving “Christians” don’t want to benefit from, and learn from them, that is their loss, not anybody else’s. Then he moves on to chapter 14, and continues as follows:
“Chapter 14 talks about ‘two churches,’ very specifically ‘two churches’: one an ‘abominable church,’ whose founder is the devil; and the other is the ‘church of the Lamb of of God’. And the language talked about this ‘abominable church’ is pretty stark language, calling that church the ‘whore of the earth’. Now I am going to be honest, that whenever I was reading that, based on the fact that I have not read anything in the Book of Mormon, I have not even looked at a lot of critiques of the Book of Mormon, but I have gone to Palmyra, and I am aware of the First Vision. And I know that Joseph Smith claimed that when Heavenly Father and Jesus appeared to him, they communicated that all other Christian creeds, or the denominations associated with creeds, were an abomination; and that God was going to reveal to him what the restored church should look like. So at first reading, it seemed as though, according to the First Vision, that these two churches are talking about the restored Church, which is the ‘church of the Lamb;’ versus all other churches, or the ‘abominable church’. Now I talked to a couple Latter-day Saints after reading that, and they were telling me that that is not necessarily the case. There was a time where there was a belief that the ‘abominable church’ was specifically referring to the Catholic Church, but there has been a backing away of that. But I will say on the first pass, I was associating the idea of the ‘abominable church,’ I would probably put myself in that category, a non-restored church being abominable. But leave some comments in the comment section, and help me understand if that is not the case.”
That points to a great deal of incorrect reading of those scripture passages, as well as misconceptions of the contextual data associated with those events, for which Latter-day Saints bear as much responsibility (if not more) than the critics, which would be too tedious to try to unravel and unpack in detail here. But to cut it short, the “church of the devil,” or the “great and abominable church” etc. referred to in those verse, is not a reference to any particular Christian church or denomination (Catholic, Protestant, or any other); nor is it a reference collectively to “all of them” (as he seems to think). The “church of the devil” has been identified in the Book of Mormon as anyone who “fights against Zion” (1 Nephi 22:14, 19; 2 Nephi 6:12-13; 10:13, 16; 27:3; D&C 18:20)—be they Jew or Gentile; Catholic, Protestant, or whatever. All who “fight against Zion,” and do not repent, will eventually fall into the category of the “church of the devil,” the “great and abominable church,” the “whore of all the earth” etc.; and will suffer the same fate—regardless of the particular religious denomination (or none) that they may adhere to. Another clue to understanding this “great and abominable church” correctly is given in 1 Nephi 14:11, which identifies it as having “dominion over all the earth, among all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people”. The majority of the nations of the earth are not “Christians,” therefore it cannot be a reference to any particular Christian church or denomination (or even collectively to all of them). There are no Christian churches that have “dominion” over China, or India, or Japan, or Korea, or Vietnam, or Mongolia, or the Middle East etc. Another clue is given in 1 Nephi 22:13-14, which says that this “great and abominable church” will end up warring among themselves, and that is how they will be destroyed, which again is not an accurate description of any particular Christian church or denomination. Another clue is found in Doctrine and Covenants 18:20: “Contend against no church save it be the Church of the devil.” That presupposes that there is only one church of the devil, out of many. Therefore all churches are not the church of the devil. And the reference to the “creeds” being an “abomination” in Joseph Smith’s First Vision account, is not a reference to every single creed in Christendom, nor to every single Christian denomination. It refers specifically to the contentious Protestant sects that Joseph Smith had encountered in the religious revival that he speaks of. Then he moves on to chapter 15 of 1 Nephi, and comments on it as follows:
“Chapter 15 was really interesting to me, because it is talking about the Gentiles being grafted into Israel, which sounds very familiar again to some New Testament language; in Romans chapter 11 specifically. I have not seen anywhere else in the Old Testament that type of language being used. And that led to another really interesting part in chapter 15, verses 26 through 36 in 1 Nephi. In chapter 15, are talking about a judgment, and a very binary view of the afterlife, of hell versus heaven. I actually was resonating with some of what was being communicated here, that there is a filthiness that can’t dwell in heaven. So those are that are unrighteous would not be able to enter into heaven, but would be sent to hell; and that is in my context tied to the holiness of God, that God in his holy presence cannot dwell with unholiness, which is why mainstream Christians do have this binary view, that anyone who has not been made holy by the blood of Christ would be the owners of their sin, and as a result they could not dwell in God’s presence, so that they would spend eternity in hell. So this didn’t really sound like the idea of the ‘three levels of heaven’ that I know the Latter-day Saint Church teaches, which I am pretty sure is talked about in Doctrines and Covenants. It seemed more like a heaven and hell idea; so I found that section pretty interesting.”
It is true that scripture often takes a “binary” approach to heaven and hell. That is true of the Bible as well as the modern scriptures of the Church. That is because they present a condensed view of life after death, in order to focus on the primary requirements for obtaining heaven. Another reason is that when prophets refer to attaining heaven, they usually have the highest heaven, or degree of glory, in mind; and want to motivate people to seek and qualify for the highest heaven. That is the only kind “heaven” that is worth striving for. If you are actively seeking to qualify for and obtain heaven, you are not doing yourself any favors by seeking one of the lesser kingdoms of heaven, when you can qualify for the highest heaven at no extra cost. None of this, however, rules out the three degrees, or levels of glory in heaven.
Two further points he raises in the remainder of the video that are worth mentioning. The first relates to the miraculous instrument that God provided for them in the wilderness to guide them in their journey, which he comments on as follows:
“… So these are different ways that I will approach the Bible, to sort of understand any given passage; and some of those impulses were firing when I was in chapter 18, where Nephi is building the ship, and they depart, and they encounter a storm. In this whole process, there are a few details that jumped out to me, that I am compelled to study a little bit further. So one of them is this: In verse 21 of chapter 18, there is a reference to a ‘compass’. From what I understand, compasses didn’t come about until much, much, much later; so I would be doing a little bit of a historical analysis of what might have been used as ‘compasses’ back then. Is there another instrument that might have been used that in the original language might have been referring to a different instrument, that Joseph was just translating into ‘compass’?”
That is because he hasn’t read the text carefully enough. Lehi and his family were provided by the Lord with a miraculous instrument to guide them in their journey in the wilderness, and towards the Promised Land, which in their own language is called the “Liahona,” and which has been translated in the English text variously as a “ball,” a “director,” and also a “compass”. It was not a “compass” in the normal sense of the term, and did not operate on “magnetic” principles, pointing to the polar North and South. It was a miraculous instrument that worked according to their “faith,” and pointed to the direction in which they should travel. When they built a ship to traverse the ocean to the Promised Land, the same instrument was installed on their ship, which then guided them in the direction in which they should sail the ship. Here are the references to it in the Book of Mormon (emphasis added, punctuation revised):
1 Nephi 16:
10 And it came to pass that as my father arose in the morning, and went forth to the tent door, to his great astonishment he beheld upon the ground a round ball of curious workmanship; and it was of fine brass. And within the ball were two spindles; and the one pointed the way whither we should go into the wilderness.
• • •
16 And we did follow the directions of the ball, which led us in the more fertile parts of the wilderness.
• • •
26 And it came to pass that the voice of the Lord said unto him, Look upon the ball, and behold the things which are written.
27 And it came to pass that when my father beheld the things which were written upon the ball, he did fear and tremble exceedingly, and also my brethren, and the sons of Ishmael and our wives.
28 And it came to pass that I Nephi beheld the pointers which were in the ball, that they did work according to the faith and diligence and heed which we did give unto them.
29 And there was also written upon them a new writing, which was plain to be read, which did give us understanding concerning the ways of the Lord. And it was written and changed from time to time, according to the faith and diligence which we gave unto it. And thus we see that by small means the Lord can bring about great things.
30 And it came to pass that I Nephi did go forth up into the top of the mountain, according to the directions which were given upon the ball.
1 Nephi 18:
12 And it came to pass that after they had bound me, insomuch that I could not move; the compass, which had been prepared of the Lord, did cease to work.
• • •
21 And it came to pass after they had loosed me, behold, I took the compass, and it did work whither I desired it. And it came to pass that I prayed unto the Lord; and after I had prayed, the winds did cease, and the storm did cease, and there was a great calm.
2 Nephi 5:
12 And I Nephi had also brought the records which were engraven upon the plates of brass; and also the ball, or compass, which was prepared for my father by the hand of the Lord, according to that which is written.
Mosiah 1:
16 And moreover, he also gave him charge concerning the records which were engraven on the plates of brass; and also the plates of Nephi; and also the sword of Laban; and the ball or director, which led our fathers through the wilderness, which was prepared by the hand of the Lord that thereby they might be led, every one according to the heed and diligence which they gave unto him.
Alma 37:
38 And now my son, I have somewhat to say concerning the thing which our fathers call a ball, or director—or our fathers called it Liahona, which is, being interpreted, a compass—and the Lord prepared it.
• • •
45 And now I say, is there not a type in this thing? For just as surely as this director did bring our fathers, by following its course, to the promised land; shall the words of Christ, if we follow their course, carry us beyond this vale of sorrow into a far better land of promise.
He also expresses surprise at the frequent occurrence of the word “church” in 1 Nephi, which is in the Old Testament context, as follows:
“The only other thing that I would want to communicate, that really stuck out to me as I studied 1 Nephi was, there was a word that was used frequently, and it is the word ‘church,’ that might seem strange, that caught my attention. But as someone who has not only studied the New Testament, but I am also studied in Greek to a certain extent, I recognize that that idea of ‘church’ wasn’t really an idea until around the first century. In fact when you read the New Testament, and you see the word church, it is the Greek word ecclesia, which would not have originated in any ancient languages, especially around the time that Nephi would have been recording these things, unless in fact there was a word in ‘reformed Egyptian’ similar to ecclesia that would have been translated into ‘church’. Now I did talk to a Latter-day Saint, and they explained to me, well, we are really just talking about congregations or assemblies; and that might have been the best word that Joseph wanted to use in order for a 19th century audience to understand specifically what was being talked about. But I will say that that was something that really caught my attention. And I was doing word count searches, how many times the word ‘church’ was used in 1 Nephi, how many times ecclesia, or the word ‘church’ was used in the New Testament, and then I did a word search on how many times the word church is used in the Old Testament, and you don’t see it. You will see the ‘assembly of God,’ or you know, when Israel gathers, there are certain Hebrew words in that regard. But none that an English translator would translate into ‘church,’ in the same way that we have seen here in 1 Nephi.”
So I did an online search for a definition of ecclesia (Greek Ekklēsia) and found this information: According to Britannica, it signifies the “gathering of those summoned,” or the “assembly of citizens in a city-state”. According to the NAS New Testament Greek Lexicon, and also Strong’s dictionary, it is defined as, “a gathering of citizens called out from their homes into some public place, an assembly;” also, “an assembly of the people convened at the public place of the council for the purpose of deliberating”. None of these definitions conform to “church” as we understand it today, or even in the New Testament context. So what word was used in the original manuscript of the Book of Mormon that is translated into the English as “church” is not the most important. It is the meaning that is being conveyed that is important, which in this case, it refers to a body of believers, or followers, or disciples etc. of God on the one hand, or of the devil on the other—regardless of their nominal religious affiliations. When it says that there are only “two churches,” that is what it is referring to, not to any kind of religious or denominational associations. It all depends on where your heart is—with God, or somewhere else. You can be a Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, Shinto etc., and your heart still be with God (as in the case of Cornelius, Acts 10); or you could be nominally an adherent to a particular Christian denomination, and your heart be with the devil. The distinction made between the “two churches” in those verses is of that kind, not a “denominational” one.
No comments:
Post a Comment