Pastor Jeff on the Book of Mormon–Part III

 

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.

More on the “15-minute City” Tyranny Agenda!

 

This one is so pertinent and alarming that I changed my mind, and decided to give it prominence by displaying it in a new blog post; here is the transcript:

GBNews:

“Introduced it in the 1980s, it is a bit weird to see it introduced in Oxford.”

Lois Perry:

“Welcome to dystopia; all our cities will probably end up now being broken up into precincts, like sci-fi films that were made predicting a dystopian future. You can’t even travel into your next couple of roads now; and there is going to be fines if you leave your area, or your 15-minute Zone, more than twice a week. Imagine how many people that is going to disenfranchise. Imagine women with small children, who have been forced to go out in the rain in the snow to the supermarket, because it is just outside of their ‘zone’. It is absolutely terrifying. And I tell you what, when we are forced (or a few of us, because most of us won’t be able to afford it) into electric vehicles, those electric vehicles won’t even go past the border; they will be programmed so they don’t. So you won’t even be able to get the fine. It is terrifying, Mark, it really is.”

GBNews:

“Well, you don’t even have to wait for the electric vehicle. I took a rental car from Budapest to drive into Ukraine a few months ago, and the car has been programmed in order to prevent me driving it into the war-zone. The car had been programmed to die at the border. I couldn’t figure out what had happened. It just stopped. And as I think I said on this show back then, if you think that is just going to be applied to Ukraine, no no no, it is going to be applied to Billingsgate, and Birmingham, and Ballymena; and in fact, I think Joe Biden has just made it mandatory that all American cars have to have a kill-switch in them by 2026. So there is actually now a governmental war on freedom of movement.”

Lois Perry:

“Freedom of movement: we talked before about ‘You will own nothing, and you will be happy’. Well, ‘You will go nowhere, and you will be happy’. I mean, how are people supposed to get to work? Or maybe that is the idea, we don’t need to go to work, because we can sit at home staring at the screen, work from home; everyone got used to that during the COVID test-bed, for all of these insane totalitarian policies. This is England. And you know, we have had the big globalist coup that has just happened; we have had Rishi Sunak placed in, our ‘dear leader’. And now we have been broken up into precincts. It is all … obviously what you said before was very prophetic, about your experience with the rental car. It is happening now; it is happening a lot quicker than everybody thought it was. And the whole 2030 vehicle ban on ICE vehicles—I can completely see what it is about now.”

Any subsequent videos I find on the same subject I will link it below, starting with these ones:

https://youtu.be/iGvWSH3NGyY

https://youtu.be/XypqPNHLl2U

https://youtu.be/K-rupiCShTk

https://youtu.be/nvEcbjoy8A4

https://youtu.be/BurMk7ThYVk

http://bit.ly/3KriGGF

Also on Twitter and CHD.TV.

https://youtu.be/Ajyo-965RuM

https://youtu.be/EPFQaNWh6bk

https://youtu.be/7mxvBuwY9eA

.

A Case Against Cessationism!

 

What is wrong with the above sermon? It is 9 years old, but it is still quite prominent on the Grace to You channel, and expresses a commonly held view among Evangelicals. There is, however, one problem with it. It ignores what Jesus specifically taught to his disciples after his resurrection. He commanded them to go and preach the gospel to every creature, with the following promise added:

Mark 16:

17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;

18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

That is a universal principle and promise, and is not restricted by time or place. And the rest of Jesus’ teachings, and the Bible confirm this:

Matthew 9:

22 But Jesus turned him about, and when he saw her, he said, Daughter, be of good comfort; thy faith hath made thee whole. And the woman was made whole from that hour.

• • •

29 Then touched he their eyes, saying, According to your faith be it unto you.

Matthew 13:

58 And he did not many mighty works there because of their unbelief.

Matthew 14:

28 And Peter answered him and said, Lord, if it be thou, bid me come unto thee on the water.

29 And he said, Come. And when Peter was come down out of the ship, he walked on the water, to go to Jesus.

30 But when he saw the wind boisterous, he was afraid; and beginning to sink, he cried, saying, Lord, save me.

31 And immediately Jesus stretched forth his hand, and caught him, and said unto him, O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt?

Matthew 17:

19 Then came the disciples to Jesus apart, and said, Why could not we cast him out?

20 And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you.

Matthew 21:

21 Jesus answered and said unto them, Verily I say unto you, If ye have faith, and doubt not, ye shall not only do this which is done to the fig tree, but also if ye shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; it shall be done.

Mark 5:

34 And he said unto her, Daughter, thy faith hath made thee whole; go in peace, and be whole of thy plague.

Mark 9:

23 Jesus said unto him, If thou canst believe, all things are possible to him that believeth.

Mark 10:

52 And Jesus said unto him, Go thy way; thy faith hath made thee whole. And immediately he received his sight, and followed Jesus in the way.

Mark 11:

22 And Jesus answering saith unto them, Have faith in God.

23 For verily I say unto you, That whosoever shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; and shall not doubt in his heart, but shall believe that those things which he saith shall come to pass; he shall have whatsoever he saith.

Luke 7:

50 And he said to the woman, Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace.

Luke 17:

6 And the Lord said, If ye had faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye might say unto this sycamine tree, Be thou plucked up by the root, and be thou planted in the sea; and it should obey you.

• • •

19 And he said unto him, Arise, go thy way: thy faith hath made thee whole.

Luke 18:

42 And Jesus said unto him, Receive thy sight: thy faith hath saved thee.

Hebrews 11:

1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

2 For by it the elders obtained a good report.

3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

4 By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh.

5 By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God.

• • •

32 And what shall I more say? for the time would fail me to tell of Gedeon, and of Barak, and of Samson, and of Jephthae; of David also, and Samuel, and of the prophets:

33 Who through faith subdued kingdoms, wrought righteousness, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions.

34 Quenched the violence of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, out of weakness were made strong, waxed valiant in fight, turned to flight the armies of the aliens.

35 Women received their dead raised to life again: and others were tortured, not accepting deliverance; that they might obtain a better resurrection:

Throughout the Bible, there is only one criterion that has been established for the performance of miracles, signs and wonders; and that is faith—and nothing else. Now this is not intended to justify or vindicate the Charismatic claims. All miraculous claims are not genuine: hence we are commanded to, “try the spirits whether they be of God” (1 John 4:1). This is an argument against Cessationism, not in support of the Charismatic claims.

Another Good Analysis of the “15-minute City”

 

He has correctly figured out I think that the majority of the people in the UK at least are not going to put up with this. The British in general tend to be an independent-minded, freedom-loving people, who value their hard-won freedoms and democratic institutions, and they are not going to just give it up. They are not the kind of people who can be shoved into a box. Hopefully that is true of all European nations. But it is especially true of the British, who have demonstrated that characteristic throughout their history. They are not going to allow themselves to be locked up in a “15-minute City”. They want to be able to get about, go wherever they want to go, do whatever they want to do, visit whatever shop, store, business, restaurant, gym, swimming pool, recreation ground, office, library, Church, Mosque, Pagoda, garage, doctor, car mechanic, job opportunity, etc., etc., etc., that they want to visit—regardless of where it is, or how far away it is situated. Nobody in his right mind would want to be imprisoned in a “15-minute City”—but especially the people of the UK. These guys are crazy, if they think that they can impose this kind of nonsense on the people of Britain. And hopefully that is true of the rest of Europe too. And by the way, I have only just discovered his channel. I had a look, and noticed that he has other interesting videos on his channel that are worth watching.

More on Oxford “15-minute City” Lockdown

 

Lots of people in the UK have wised up on this, and are talking about it. I don’t think that they will be able to shut down the conversation—as it seems they successfully did with the Sky News report. I doubt that the project will be successful in the UK. Lots of people are raising objections to it, and planning to oppose it. I hope that Sky News will also not be intimidated, and will make their original report public again. And I hope that GB News are braver than Sky News, and will never be intimidated! 😃

Interesting Biblical Take on the Great Reset

 

Here is an interesting biblical take on the “Great Reset” of the World Economic Forum (WEF). You only need to watch the first three minutes of it. It tends to get a bit boring after that.

More on Climate Change Lockdowns! ...

 

. . . And the globalist agenda to control our lives! Katie Hopkins explains. The cities of Oxford and Canterbury in the UK are being used as trials. When they have figured out how to do it, it will spread everywhere else I guess. My question is, what if your local “15-minute” store doesn’t stock everything you need or want? Or what if your favorite doctor or dentist etc. resides in a different locality? And what is going to happen to the larger supermarkets (and indeed, to the many smaller shops, businesses, restaurants, etc.) who rely on customers from longer distances to survive? They will all have to close down I guess. And in the process all innovation, creativity, and personal freedoms etc. will be lost. And do they think that the rest of the population is going to put up with this? Not the true Brits that I am acquainted with. Maybe that is why they want so many illegal immigrants into the country, to thin down the indigenous population, so they don’t protest too much. And when all the businesses have been destroyed, and the economy has collapsed, how are they going to finance their nefarious projects? We will all have to go back to the stone age I guess. And this is what is happening all over Europe, not just in the UK. France, Germany, Holland, and the rest are going in the same direction. Western civilization is built on the personal freedom and innovation of individuals. Once that is lost, civilization will be lost.

Pastor Jeff on the Book of Mormon–Part II

 

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.