Pastor Jeff has put out his third video discussing the contents of the Book of Mormon. In this video he comments on 2 Nephi, which is the second book into the Book of Mormon. I won’t comment on all of it, because that would take too long; I will mention some highlights. Skipping the initial introductory passages, at around 2:42 minutes into the video he says the following:
“And then Jacob enters the scene, who is a brother of Nephi. He essentially quotes multiple chapters of the book of Isaiah, almost verbatim, from chapter six of second Nephi, all the way through about chapter 24; and through those utterances, and the quoting of Isaiah, is sort of attaching certain aspects of what Isaiah was prophesying about the Messiah, about Jesus, and a few other things. And then Nephi kind of picks up in chapter 25, and continues to do a lot of the same, though he is not quoting Isaiah nearly as much, if at all, like Jacob was.”
That is a mistaken reading of the text; it means that he has not been reading it carefully enough. Nephi quotes Jacob starting with chapter 6, and ending with chapter 10. During these chapters, Jacob quotes lengthy passages from Isaiah. Then Nephi resumes his own narrative starting from chapter 11 onwards (not chapter 25, as he mistakenly assumes), and then Nephi himself gives more extensive quotes from Isaiah. So everything that follows after chapter 10 originates from Nephi, including the lengthy Isaiah quotes after that. And the passages from Jacob given in chapters 6 to 10 are also quotations from Jacob written by Nephi (not written directly by Jacob, as he mistakenly assumes). Nephi had consecrated and ordained his brother Jacob to be a priest, teacher, and preacher to his people, the Nephites (2 Nephi 6:2). In chapters 6–10, Nephi is simply quoting his brother Jacob’s teaching and preaching. He thinks that they are sufficiently inspired that they merit a quotation in his book. He says in 2 Nephi 11:2-3 that Isaiah had seen the premortal Jesus; and then he proceeds to say that himself, and his brother Jacob had also seen the premortal Jesus; and that is why he likes to quote from them in his book. But the whole of the book of 2 Nephi was written by Nephi, including the lengthy quotes from Jacob given in chapters 6 to 10. Jeff continues to repeat that mistake in the remainder of the video. It is not a serious mistake, as far as interpreting the doctrine of the book is concerned; but still it is a significant error, or misreading of the text. The Book of Mormon is a book that needs to be read carefully, not casually or hastily. Moving on, at 4.26 minutes into the video he observes the following:
“Now there is one thing that did jump out at me, that I want to zero in on, in chapter two of 2 Nephi; and it was a statement that struck me very peculiar, and I am not really sure what to do with it, but I will just sort of articulate it right here; and it is a statement in verse 22, where it essentially says that if Adam and Eve hadn’t fallen, they wouldn’t have had children; and I will just read these couple verses here: ‘And Now Behold, if Adam had not transgressed, he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the Garden of Eden,’ which is something that I think in an Evangelical sense we would agree with to a certain extent, that mankind was created for God’s presence, and had they not fallen, they would not have been cast out of God’s presence. But then it progresses in a way that is very unfamiliar to me. It says, ‘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.’ Now I am sure I could do a lot of research here into the doctrinal context to a statement like this, as it is talked about in the Latter-day Saints Church. But I will say just at face value, it seems very strange to me that they would not have had children; and the idea of having children, is tied to a ‘loss of innocence;’ and that it is tied to an idea of knowing what sin is. I think just from a Biblical standpoint, why that really jumps out at me is, because it is in Genesis chapter one before the Fall, that God commanded Adam and Eve to be fruitful and multiply. So this is one of those points where it doesn’t seem compatible with the Bible, where Genesis 1 is very clear, and even it is echoed in Genesis 2, that God created all things, and all things were good; and part of that goodness was the command for Adam and Eve to be fruitful and multiply, whereas the Book of Mormon is saying no; he created all things good, but they would not have had children unless they fell. So that really stuck out to me, because you are essentially saying that had Adam and Eve had children before the fall, that that even would have been an act of disobedience. So all that is very fuzzy to me, but I will continue to give my summary here.”
That goes into quite a bit of deep theology, parts of which he has again misread. There are a couple of issues in there that he has mixed up, and needs to be dealt with separately. Firstly, it says that Adam and Eve could not have had children until after the Fall. It doesn’t give a proper or full explanation for it—except to say that they “would have remained in a state of innocence …” (2 Nephi 2:23). I believe what that means is that prior to the Fall, Adam and Eve were like little children, they had no awareness or consciousness of sexuality. Little children are sexually unaware, hence we say that they are “innocent”. They become sexually aware when they reach puberty, and become adults. It appears that Adam and Eve were in that condition before the Fall. They were like little children; and had no sexual awareness or desire for one another before the Fall. They acquired that only after the Fall. It doesn’t give a reason for it; it doesn’t explain why; but that apparently was the case.
Interestingly, the Bible also indirectly confirms this. Adam and Eve started having children only after the Fall. We have no record of them having had children before the Fall. It is unlikely that they fell on the same day that they were created. They must have lived together in the Garden for some time, before they were tempted and fell. But we have no record of them having children before the Fall. The Bible says that Adam and Eve were “naked” before the Fall, and were “not ashamed” (Genesis 2:25). They became aware of their “nakedness” only after the Fall (Genesis 3:7). That is like little children. They run around naked and think that is okay, they don’t have a problem with that. It is only as they get older that they figure out that that is not okay. Adam and Eve were like that before the Fall. They had no sexual desire or awareness until they fell. That is what that scripture in the Book of Mormon (2 Nephi 2:23) is implying. This may appear at first to be at odds with God’s command to them to “multiply and replenish the earth” (Genesis 1:28) before the Fall. But even Evangelicals acknowledge that at times God may give commandments to mankind which they may not be able to fulfill in their present circumstances, such as the command to be “perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect” (Matthew 5:48).
One other possible reason for that might have been that they were immortal beings when they were first created (and also when they were married), and any children they might have had before the Fall would have also been “immortal” like themselves; and the earth would soon have run out of space for all its inhabitants—man as well as beasts. Death entered into the world after the Fall. Prior to the Fall, there was no death—for man as well as for beasts. That means that if they would have been able to have offspring before the Fall, pretty soon the earth would have run out of space for all of its inhabitants—men and beasts. That is one other possible reason why they could not have had children until after the Fall. But the actual reason it gives is that they were “innocent,” meaning that they were like little children—they had no awareness or consciousness of sexuality before the Fall—but without giving an explanation why. But there is a lot of deep theology involved in that, the fulness of which has not yet been revealed.
The scripture then proceeds to discuss something completely different. It adds, “… having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin.” (2 Nephi 2:23). That relates to a broader concept, and describes the general condition of man before the Fall, and gives a broader explanation for why there had to be a Fall of Adam. Elsewhere the Book of Mormon explains that there has to be an “opposition in all things” (2 Nephi 2:11). Everything is known by its opposite—good with evil, truth with falsehood, light with darkness, happiness with unhappiness etc. In LDS theology, the Fall was not such a “negative thing” that it is in Evangelical theology. There was a positive aspect to it—which was to give mankind that “opposite” experience. I have already discussed that in an earlier blog post which can be seen here, therefore there is no need to discuss it further in this post. Continuing on, at 7:31 minutes into the video he says the following:
“I will say that there was a verse that jumped out at me, that I did stop the camera to research it just a little bit; but I will just call it out, because it was a point that really kind of stopped me in my tracks, and it is when talking about the Nephites and the Lamanites, and the separation of the Lamanites, this ‘cursed language’ is continuing to be spoken; and it says in chapter 5 verse 21 of 2 Nephi, ‘He had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity; for behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, and they had become like unto a flint; wherefore as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome—that they might not be enticing unto my people, the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come up on them.’ This is one of those ideas that has a reputation outside of the Latter-day Saint Church, the idea that God cursed people with dark skin, and that people with dark-skinned were in some way either unrighteous in the pre-existence—which is not really what I feel like is being talked about here. This is more of a division of those who were obedient to God, versus those who weren’t, here in the promised land; and him cursing them with dark skin. I understand some of the commentaries point out that this was quite simply so that the Nephites would know who they should or shouldn’t intermingle with, and even have children with; but I have to say that certain adjectives that are attached to ‘white’ which is ‘delightsome,’ versus a blackness of skin, which is tied to not being ‘enticing,’ it is problematic to me. It is echoed again in Chapter 30 verse 6, where you know, Gentiles that repent will be ‘pure and delightsome’. I understand that there is always language tied to righteousness, and purity, and whiteness; but it seems like this idea of delightsome, is directly tied to skin color; and it really is troubling for me. It doesn’t seem something that is consistent with the types of things I see in the scriptures; and it seems to really resonate more with a 19th century audience, where an idea of black and white have been at the forefront of people’s minds; and there was a lot of conversation being had about the humanizing that should or shouldn’t be granted to people who have darker skin. Now I want to point something out that is really important, and that is, when I am pointing out something that seems problematic to me, that isn’t me saying that, well, this just proves that this isn’t true. I am saying that it is problematic, and it requires a little bit more study, and a little bit more of an understanding; because the reality is, as I am reading through the Bible, there are passages that I am going to run across that I would say are problematic, and require a little bit of an extra look to really understand what is going on. Just one example: … So I am going to leave that there for right now; but if I am giving you my honest reaction, that was something that was and still is a bit troubling within me; and I am sure I can talk it out more with other Latter-day Saints. But if I am just wanting to read the Book of Mormon at face value, that is the impression that it left on me.”
The language used in those verses unfortunately does leave it open to misreading, misunderstanding, and misinterpretation of the text, because of the culture of slavery and racism that has existed in Western societies in the past, which are not the intention of the author of the text. The points to bear in mind is that, firstly, cursing the Lamanites with a “dark skin” was not a “racial” distinction. It did not make the Lamanites somehow “racially inferior” to the Nephites. And there were also times in their history when the Lamanites were more righteous than the Nephites, and therefore more highly favored by the Lord than were the Nephites. They had also obtained a promise that at some point in their history, when they became righteous, that the curse would be lifted from them, which in fact did happen later on in their history, as recorded in 3 Nephi 2:14-16. We also have the following testimony of the Book of Mormon, declaring God to be completely impartial, and does not “discriminate” among people on the basis of color, race, gender, or anything else:
2 Nephi 26:
33 For none of these iniquities come of the Lord; for he doeth that which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men; and he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile.
At around 13 to 15 minutes into the video he also observes a lot of “New Testament language” found in the book of 2 Nephi, such as references to crosses and the crucifixion of Jesus; and also the New Testament name by which Jesus would be known etc.; and expresses doubt, because such things did not exist in the Old Testament time frame in which Nephi was writing. But that is bad logic. It is an expression of skepticism about prophecy in general. If Isaiah saw prophetically people flying in airplanes in our day, and made references to it in his prophecies, it doesn’t make his prophecy false, just because there were no airplanes in his time. It is bad logic. Moving on, at 16:06 minutes into the video he says the following:
“And this brings us in chapter 25 to a hotly debated passage that is talked about; and I have heard a lot of people within the Evangelical Church, and even within the LDS Church point to; and this gets to the whole idea of being saved by grace. 2 Nephi chapter 25 verse 23, ‘For we labor diligently to write, to persuade our children, and also our brethren, to believe in Christ, and to be reconciled to God; for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do’. Now clearly, if you are a Latter-day Saint, you know that most Evangelicals are going to read a passage like that, and immediately what is going to be brought to their mind is going to be Ephesians chapter 2; and one of the reasons why these passages are connected, is because the wording is so similar, but in Ephesians, as Paul says, ‘For it is by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not from yourself, it is a gift from God, not by works, so that no one can boast’. So here in the Book of Mormon, it seems to be more tied to a salvation by grace; but first you must do certain works in order to receive that grace. So an Evangelical is going to read that and say, well it sounds to me like you cannot get God’s grace unless you earn it, as opposed to what we would say, it is impossible to earn God’s grace, he gives it freely. Now that doesn’t mean that works aren’t important, and this is a whole other discussion that I could get into, that salvation really has both ingredients, it is the grace of God proved out by our actions. You could actually think of it in an illustrative sense if you think of grace and works like light; there is a source of light, and then there is the eminence of that light, or the beams of light coming off of it. I think in a New Testament Evangelical sense, we would say that God’s grace is the light, or the source of salvation; and if we have that light, then the beams of light of grace will manifest themselves by the way of works. So grace comes first, and then works prove that grace is present, just like beams of light prove that there is a light bulb or a sun. I think that there is a way for Latter-day Saints and Evangelicals to agree on the significance of God’s grace, and how works and faith interact with one another. But at face value, it is something that seems inconsistent, and really would require more conversation, because as I see it again, it seems as though this teaching coming out of the Book of Mormon says that you can’t receive God’s grace until you have done certain works.”
This verse in 2 Nephi 25:23, “… for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do,” has been misunderstood by a lot of people, both in the Church, as well as outside of the Church. I have previously discussed that several times in my blog, as well as in other interactions online. “After all we can do” in that verse means in spite of all we can do. LDS theology is very much “Grace” based. Without the “grace of God” no salvation is possible. But it is not the same as the “faith alone” theology of Calvinism and Evangelicalism either. We still need to repent of our sins, and keep the commandments of God to be saved; and that is not the same as “works”. It is not a “works based salvation,” or “saving ourselves by our own works”. Those are two different things. Calvinism is antithetical to repentance. It is a license to commit sin with impunity and get away with it. In Calvinism, doing good, repenting of our sins, and keeping God’s commandments etc. is something that just “happens” to you automatically whether you like it or not just because you have “believed,” which goes against everything taught in the Bible. It is a recipe for damnation, not salvation. At 19:16 minutes into the video he says the following:
“But there was one other thing in chapter 29 tied to this whole idea of Gentiles and other churches regarding the Book of Mormon when it would come forth, and it is in verse 3: ‘And because my words shall hiss forth, many of the Gentiles shall say, “A Bible! A Bible! We have got a Bible, and there cannot be any more Bible”’. Now I kind of chuckled at this a little bit, because I know that this is really at the center of a lot of the debates and conversations between Latter-day Saints and mainstream Christianity. We look at the Book of Mormon as extra biblical, and we say, we don’t need the Book of Mormon, because we have the Bible. A couple things jump out to me about that. The first is this, the use of the word Bible here in 2 Nephi around 550 BC, that word didn’t exist. That is a Latin word that wouldn’t have even come about until the first or second century A.D. So this idea that “A Bible! A Bible! We have already got a Bible,” I don’t understand what that word could have existed, and the source material that Joseph Smith is translating. I think an answer would probably be given that it was some other word that the closest word to it from what Joseph could tell was Bible; and that is why he used it. But that use of that word really did sort of stop me, because I know that the idea wasn’t even in existence until hundreds of years after this would have been recorded. And another thing that I would say to that specific passage, because I have had Latter-day Saints point to that saying, you are not receiving the Book of Mormon, and it was prophesied in The Book of Mormon that you wouldn’t receive the Book of Mormon. And just giving you my perspective, Joseph would have been recording this around and soon after the Second Great Awakening; and there were other individuals who were claiming to have additional scripture outside of Joseph Smith and the Restoration in the Book of Mormon; and he would have known this, because mainstream Christians were rejecting those claims of extra biblical writings as well. So he would have known that bringing forth this additional Testament of Jesus Christ, probably wasn’t going to be well received by mainstream Christianity. So I don’t know if I am totally convinced that that is a prophecy, as much as Joseph observing what was around him, and recording it here in 2 Nephi chapter 29.”
Nice try, but that doesn’t work. According to my online search, the English word “Bible” is defined etymologically as, “Middle English: via Old French from ecclesiastical Latin biblia, from Greek (ta) biblia ‘(the) books,’ from biblion ‘book,’ originally a diminutive of biblos ‘papyrus, scroll,’ of Semitic origin”. None of that squares with the current meaning of the English word “Bible”. So what word was used in the original manuscript of the Book of Mormon that is translated into the English as “Bible” is immaterial. The only thing that matters is the meaning that was intended to be conveyed. The real question there is whether a true prophet has the power and ability to predict such an event or not, the answer to which of course is yes. And I am not aware of any other individuals around the time of Joseph Smith who were claiming to have received additional scripture as Joseph Smith had claimed. I would like to have some names if he is serious. He is making things up to counter the claims of Joseph Smith.
No comments:
Post a Comment