3 Nephi 27

3 Nephi 27:1 it came to pass that the disciples were gathered together and were united in mighty prayer and fasting. I often think about this term, united. In Ukrainian, it is the same term used by the savior when he says that he and the father are one, and when he prays that the apostles will be one with him. In that context, it speaks of having aligned desires and will. So when the apostles come together and are united/one in mighty prayer, they clearly weren't 100% in agreement about their issue, because they were asking The Lord to resolve a dispute about the name of the church. I suppose they could have been aligned on the goal of "resolve this issue" or something else but the question stands: can you be united in mighty prayer with someone where the outcomes desired are different? For example, a family praying abut whether to move with one parent desiring to move and the other to stay. Or about having children, with similarly opposing opinions.

Mosiah 12

Mosiah 12:17-18 Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work; But the seventh day, the sabbath of the Lord thy God, thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy man-servant, nor thy maid-servant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates; I am generally good about not working on Sunday but the comment here about your servants not working is interesting—how did people who rely on servants to prepare their food get by on Sunday? That thought led me to the question of how we prepare our food and Betsy often does it, but when we talk about division of labor in our family, my official work is to go to the office an earn money and Betsy's work is taking care of the kids. Seemingly as part of that, there is some home care and meal preparation. So if preparing meals is part of her job, should I request to e allowed to prepare the meals on Sunday? If I do it, it's service but if she does it, it's work.

Mosiah 12

Mosiah 12:19 And they began to question him, that they might cross him, that thereby they might have wherewith to accuse him; but he answered them boldly, and withstood all their questions, yea, to their astonishment; for he did withstand them in all their questions, and did confound them in all their words. When they had Abinadi, they questioned him to try and get him to blaspheme. It's funny to me that the justification for death that they most naturally moved toward was religious. What would it be like to live in a society where the capital offenses were all religious in nature? I worry it might be a little like the Salem community when they were hunting of witches. 12:26 I say unto you, wo be unto you for perverting the ways of the Lord! For if ye understand these things ye have not taught them; therefore, ye have perverted the ways of the Lord. if you understand something and do not teach it, you are perverting it? Or does that only relate to priests and gospel principles? And what if you just don't understand it and are teaching it wrong? But he appears to be saying (at least to these priests) that because they are priests, they have an obligation to understand these things. That seems to very naturally carry over to basically all priesthood holders—we are probably obligated to both understand and teach doctrine.

Mosiah 12

Mosiah 12:15 And behold, we are strong, we shall not come into bondage, or be taken captive by our enemies; yea, and thou hast prospered in the land, and thou shalt also prosper. Here, they use the fact that he has prospered as justification for his perceived righteousness. I think we do this often. Surprisingly, thee political left is more likely to make the opposite determination—where the political right stems from a Protestant Christian background, which prizes hard work above dependence, and often associates material success with that hard work and God's implied approval—the political left uses wealth acquisition as a clear example of greed and a lack of compassion. Focusing on the more convenient sin, I suppose, the one on sloth and envy, the other on greed and gluttony. The problem is that scripturally, we have clear examples of God blessing the righteous and taking credit for their success and other clear examples of God indicating he had no hand in a wicked person's material success. End lesson: you can't judge a man by his possessions.

Mosiah 12

Mosiah 12:13 And now, O king, what great evil hast thou done, or what great sins have thy people committed, that we should be condemned of God or judged of this man? we're the people really that unaware of their sinful behavior? How could they be, considering the punishments God was threatening to pour out on them? At this point, it had been at least 20 years since their last war with the Lamanites, during which, they had stomped all over the Lamanites. People now, though, don't think they are doing anything wrong when they sin. I'm thinking of Sarah, who moved in with her boyfriend, and then was hurt when her grandmother looked at her reproachfully for participating in communion. She felt (despite growing up being clearly taught otherwise) that she was not doing anything very wrong, meaning she didn't think it was bad to be having premarital sex or to be taking communion while doing so. Which I don't get. I mean, I could understand most of her behavior—all of it, in fact—except for the part where she didn't think her grandmother should look at her with reproach.

Mosiah 12

Mosiah 12:1 And it came to pass that after the space of two years that Abinadi came among them in disguise, that they knew him not, and began to prophesy among them, saying: Thus has the Lord commanded me, saying—Abinadi, go and prophesy unto this my people, for they have hardened their hearts against my words; they have repented not of their evil doings; therefore, I will visit them in my anger, yea, in my fierce anger will I visit them in their iniquities and abominations. I wonder what was the purpose of his disguise if the first words out of his mouth were, "my name's Abinadi." 12:3 And it shall come to pass that the life of king Noah shall be valued even as a garment in a hot furnace; for he shall know that I am the Lord. This is an interesting metaphor. How often do you think that something is worth a piece of clothing in a furnace? How often do you throw clothing in the furnace anyway? How many Nephites had furnaces? Noah's people, when they brought Abinadi to king Noah quoted it a little differently, 12:10 10 And he also prophesieth evil concerning thy life, and saith that thy life shall be as a garment in a furnace of fire, indicating that regardless of what he said, they heard that king Noah's life was going to end with him being burned up. (I wonder if perhaps his priests took this prophesy as inspiration when they had finally had enough of him, or if it was just their preferred method of killing. Would Abinadi have been burned at the stake if he hadn't prophesied this against king Noah?) The idea of cloth being thrown(specifically) into a furnace isn't something that I can find other references to, but I did find a couple of places where God talks to Moses about burning clothing. In Leviticus, Moses instructed that the clotting of a leper should be burned if the disease was there, And if it appear still in the garment...thou shalt burn that wherein the plague is with fire. The implication is clear, there comes a point where the clothing is unredeemable and must be burned to prevent the further spread of disease. In the Epistle of Jude, when speaking about how we need to concern ourselves with the salvation of others, he tells us, And of some have compassion, making a difference: And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh. This is a fairly clear reference to what needs tobe burned and what doesn't—the filthy garment, the connection to the worldly sins, has to go, but the sinner himself needs to be plucked from the fire before he is consumed. I believe the fear is supposed to be our caution regarding touching the unclean thing; in our quest to save others, we need to be cautious to avoid falling into the same sins we are helping them to overcome. Anyway, back to the story of king Noah, his life is going to be treated like the diseased garment that it is, spreading its filth and disease all over the kingdom.

Mosiah 2

Mosiah 2:28 I say unto you that I have caused that ye should assemble yourselves together that I might rid my garments of your blood, at this period of time when I am about to go down to my grave, that I might go down in peace, and my immortal spirit may join the choirs above in singing the praises of a just God. ie always thought it was a great thing that this guy wanted to get to heaven in order to join the choir. I wonder whether he sang well in life and loved it or if he, like me, was not gifted in singing and so looked forward to the opportunity to go to heaven where he would be able to sing the way he perhaps always heard his voice inside his own head. 2:3131 And now, my brethren, I would that ye should do as ye have hitherto done. As ye have kept my commandments, and also the commandments of my father, and have prospered... I don't know of I had noticed this before, but these people are (some of them) the group that left the land of Nephi when the Lord warned the first Mosiah to take those who would listen and bail. They left the people who were unwilling to listen to the prophets, and they were either absorbed or slaughtered or driven out by the Lamanites who showed up to possess that land. So when he's talking to them and reminding them that they have listened to the prophet, he knows full well what they were asked to do in abandoning their homes and lands to follow a prophet's word. You also have here, the Mulekites, who I have to wonder about here. They had lost much of their language, had no writing, and had lost their spiritual moorings until Mosiah showed up, talking a fine language, reading out of books, and telling them about God. Apparently they latched onto it, though, as he doesn't distinguish between Mulekites and Nephites as he speaks.

Mosiah 2

Mosiah 2:21 I say, if ye should serve him with all your whole souls yet ye would be unprofitable servants. I'm thinking about this notion of profitable servants. If you are rich enough to afford servants, you must believe that what they are giving you is worth the money you are paying them for performing those tasks, or else you would not employ them, right? And yet, servants are not supposed to contribute to actual profitability, they're jut supposed to do tasks that you don't have the time or willingness to do yourself. So if we provide literally nothing to God, the why does he continue to bless us? My kids don't perform any actual work for me, and when they do help, it's rarely actually helpful, but they provide me joy and fulfillment in my life, which is why I like them. Perhaps God gets something else out of the relationship with us than "profitability."

Mosiah 2

Mosiah 2:18 Behold, ye have called me your king; and if I, whom ye call your king, do labor to serve you, then ought not ye to labor to serve one another? Who in my life could say this to me? And who could I say it to? As parents, are we able to say this to our children? "Hey, kids, I have served you, so you should serve one another?" Or are we precluded from calling that revive since we created those kids, and they didn't exactly elect us to our jobs as their parents? In America, we have the mindset that we owe our kids a decent upbringing, and the best shot at success in life, since we brought them into this life. In most of Asia, however, they take a completely different view—the kids owe the parents because the parents created them and brought them into this life. Which does the scripture support? Moses said to honor thy father and thy mother. The proclamation to the world says that children have claim on their parents for support. Psalms says that children are an inheritance to the lord.

Mosiah 2

Mosiah 2:15 Yet, my brethren, I have not done these things that I might boast, neither do I tell these things that thereby I might accuse you; but I tell you these things that ye may know that I can answer a clear conscience before God this day. Mosiah is concerned that his people know that he has a clear conscience. Why is it important that others know the state of your conscience? I feel like this is not the only case where this is said. Maybe it is, though. I just retread the end of 2 Nephi and the start and finish if Jacob, and didn't see it, so maybe I'm just remembering this section.

Still, though, why do you need others to know the state of your conscience? To that end, why do you need to let others know whether you have a testimony at all? We have our sacrament meetings where we take turns sharing what we know with the other people who have come to church that Sunday, and it often includes the line, "I want you to know..."

Mosiah 2

Mosiah 2:9 I have not commanded you to come up hither to trifle with the words which I shall speak, but that you should hearken unto me, and open your ears that ye may hear, and your hearts that ye may understand, and your minds that the mysteries of God may be unfolded to your view. King Benjamin here asks for three faculties: ears, hearts, and minds. The first to actually take in the message, the second to be prepared to feel something as you do so, and the last to think through what he says in order to have some intellectual understanding of what he is saying. I notice that this is in fair contra position to the mindset or expectation of non religious activists in the US today, who produce bumper stickers saying things like, "the more you know, the less you believe." When I was a missionary, one of the things we told ourselves was that somebody had done a study of religiosity and education that showed that religiosity decreased as education increased except in a few notable cases, Mormonism being one. Thanks to the questionable reliability of Wikipedia, I have found that educational attainment drives or is correlary to religious involvement: "Similarly, studies of Mormons in the US show that Mormons with higher education attend church more regularly than uneducated Mormons. Survey research indicated that 41% of Mormons with only elementary school education attend church regularly, compared to 76% of Mormon college graduates and 78% of Mormons who went beyond their college degrees to do graduate study attending church regularly.[19]

Mosiah 2

Mosiah 2:3 And they also took of the firstlings of their flocks, that they might offer sacrifice and burnt offerings according to the law of Moses; 4 And also that they might give thanks to the Lord their God. This idea of sacrifice as an expression of gratitude is one that I wonder whether it still exists. It was not only common in the Old Testament, but commanded. Is it still commanded? Is tithing a "sacrifice"? I haven't thought of it that way, but I feel that a significant part of the reason I pay it is gratitude. When we fulfill our callings, is that a sacrifice made to show gratitude? Should we think of it that way? I wonder how it changes the thing that you are doing if you change your mindset to be, "I am teaching this lesson to express gratitude to heavenly father for the blessings he has given to me."

Mosiah 1

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. This is king Benjamin to his son, king Mosiah. I know it s conspiracy theorist but wouldn't it be cool if president Monson has the sword of Laban? He may.

There's a really interesting article that explores a few things you might not have thought about in connection with the sword of Laban here.

Mosiah

Mosiah 1:11 And moreover, I shall give this people a name, that thereby they may be distinguished above all the people which the Lord God hath brought out of the land of Jerusalem; and this I do because they have been a diligent people in keeping the commandments of the Lord. The name that he is going to give them is the name of Christ. I think it is interesting that he is giving it to them because they have been diligent in keeping the commandments, I.e. you earn the name of Christ through obedience.

I remember the first time I heard this and actually heard it. I was in high school, and a newly returned missionary was giving his welcome me home talk and he focused on this idea of being called by the name of Christ and I thought it was a weird thing and it took me a while and another reading of the chapters to feel like it was correct and appropriate. It is interesting to me still. We are striving to literally become like Christ, not figuratively, but in every sense. We aspire to be called by his name, we hope to reflect his image in our countenance, we try to align our wills to him so that our behavior becomes the same thing he would do if he were here. Basically, we are trying to become exactly like him in looks, name, behavior, and even authority (throug the priesthood).

Words of Mormon

Words of Mormon 1:7 and I cannot write the hundredth part of the things of my people. Mormons abridgment of the book of Mormon reminds me a little bit of the abridged version of the Princess Bride, and Steven King's comments to the fellow who did it. I don't remember the guy's name, but apparently, he pulled out of the original only the parts he liked, or thought were interesting, and skipped over whole sections of the book that he thought were not necessary. Now, a proper abridgment doesn't give undue weight to the more interesting parts of the book but rather, gives an accurate reproduction of the entire work with all sections shortened. That's not what Mormon did with the book of Mormon. If he was giving an accurate abridgement of the whole history of his people, there's no way he would have given so much attention to the wars in Alma, and such a cursory treatment of the years after Christ visited them. Instead, he picked out the parts that he felt inspired would be the most important for us to have.

Omni

More on Zedekiah

Jeremiah 37:1 And king Zedekiah the son of Josiah reigned instead of Coniah the son of Jehoiakim, whom Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon made king in the land of Judah.
2 But neither he, nor his servants, nor the people of the land, did hearken unto the words of the Lord, which he spake by the prophet Jeremiah.

Zedekiah was a wicked king, who was also a weak king. His city was besieged by the Chaldeans, who ran away when pharaoh's army showed up, and at that point, they ran away. This was problematic for the prophet Jeremiah, because. He had prophesied that the Chaldeans would burn jerusalem, so when they turned tail, the Israelites told Jeremiah he was wrong.

When he says that the Chaldeans will still burn the city, the other nobles ask the king if they can throw him in prison and he replies, 5 Then Zedekiah the king said, Behold, he is in your hand: for the king is not he that can do any thing against you.

So they throw Jeremiah into prison and the king kind of freaks out, because he is scared so he pulls him out to talk to him and is told, Thus saith the Lord, the God of hosts, the God of Israel; If thou wilt assuredly go forth unto the king of Babylon’s princes, then thy soul shall live, and this city shall not be burned with fire; and thou shalt live, and thine house:

He again reveals his weakness of character when he says, I am afraid of the Jews that are fallen to the Chaldeans, lest they deliver me into their hand, and they mock me.

He doesn't go, and then, came Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon...against Jerusalem, and they besieged it...And the city was broken up. And it came to pass, that...Zedekiah...and all the men of war fled. But the Chaldeans’ army pursued after them, and overtook Zedekiah... and they brought him up to Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon...Then the king of Babylon slew the sons of Zedekiah in Riblah before his eyes...Moreover he put out Zedekiah’s eyes, and bound him with chains, to carry him to Babylon.

They go on to burn Israel, according to the prophesy of Jeremiah. And in all that, somehow, one of his sons, Mulek, escaped with a group of people to America.

Omni

Omni 1:15 Behold, it came to pass that Mosiah discovered that the people of Zarahemla came out from Jerusalem at the time that Zedekiah, king of Judah, was carried away captive into Babylon.

The people of Zarahemla were descendants of Mulek, the son of Zedekiah, and the people he brought with him. We don't know who they were, and this introduces an interesting element to the book of Mormon: were there any priests or Levites with Mulek? Without any, the Nephites had only the melchezidick priesthood. With some, it is possible that thy had levitical priests. I don't think that it matters, ultimately. The king, Zarahemla himself had no written record of his genealogy, but gave a genealogy of his fathers, according to his memory

On to Zedekiah. We learn about him in Jeremiah 37 1 And king Zedekiah the son of Josiah reigned instead of Coniah the son of Jehoiakim, whom Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon made king in the land of Judah.
2 But neither he, nor his servants, nor the people of the land, did hearken unto the words of the Lord, which he spake by the prophet Jeremiah. So basically, a wicked king. Also, he was a ak king. The princes hated Jeremiah because he was constantly calling them out on being wicked.

I'd like to revisit this more tomorrow.

Omni

Omni 1:13 And it came to pass that he did according as the Lord had commanded him. And they departed out of the land into the wilderness, as many as would hearken unto the voice of the Lord; and they were led by many preachings and prophesyings. And they were admonished continually by the word of God; and they were led by the power of his arm, through the wilderness until they came down into the land which is called the land of Zarahemla. They seem to have been in the wilderness for quite some time. I wonder how long this was.

Omni

Omni 1:1 Behold, it came to pass that I, Omni, being commanded by my father, Jarom, that I should write somewhat upon these plates, to preserve our genealogy— Again, leading with preserving genealogy, which is a bit different than leading with to teach about Christ. Of course my own motivation for keeping this journal is "to document which days I actually read the scriptures," followe closely by a "to record my incredibly valuable thoughts for my progeny," neither of which is "to teach about Christ.

Omni 1:9 Now I, Chemish, write what few things I write, in the same book with my brother; for behold, I saw the last which he wrote, that he wrote it with his own hand; and he wrote it in the day that he delivered them unto me. And after this manner we keep the records, for it is according to the commandments of our fathers. And I make an end. Chemish is an interesting one—he makes a point of stating that he saw his brother make his final entry, says that doing that is the manner they follow, which implies that he may not have read this whole record before putting down his one comment and passing it on. He is followed by his son, who says that he doesn't know of any revelations or prophesies other than those that are already written, which, to me, implies that he at least read the book. He also makes an interesting update on the genealogy thread—in his mind, it is supposed to be the genealogy of the kings, which they're keeping. He almost implies that he doesn't get the value of the plates he is keeping or why he is doing so.

Jarom

I like the book of Jarom. He's fairly humble, with his, what could I say more comments and his brevity. He gives us a picture of the Nephites when nothing dramatic enough for Mormon to decide to copy it is happening. Th Nephites are living, by and large, righteously. They're having wars, but not being overcome. They're working and prospering, becoming rich. And they keep the law of Moses, the sabbath day, and they don't profane or blaspheme. It's interesting to me that he called out specifically profaning and blaspheming. The first is to speak Of sacred things irreverently or disrespectfully and the second is to speak of God irreverently or disrespectfully. The two are very connected, and when Jarom is making his list of how to describe the Nephites, he includes those two forms of respect for holiness.

Jarom

Jarom 1:1 Now behold, I, Jarom, write a few words according to the commandment of my father, Enos, that our genealogy may be kept. Enos grew up to be a grown man who was old enough to go into the forest to hunt by himself before he decided to pray to understand the truthfulness of the gospel and ask for a remission of his sins. His son, Jarom, kept the record according to his father's commandment for the specific purpose of preserving their genealogy. Not to record the things of Christ, the way that Jacob, Nephi, and to a lesser extent, Enos did. What happened during this time that resulted in what appears to be a decline in spiritual confidence? Because it's not that he didn't have revelations, prophecies, etc. He tells us in verse two that he had them, but that they were not worth recording.

Are everyone's spiritual experiences worth recording? I'm keeping this blog, to talk about thoughts I have while I read the scriptures, but is this something that is worth the digital storage space it takes up? I believe so. Sometimes more than others, but I think it has value—for me if for no one else. But, perhaps, my children will read it after I die, and maybe one or two of their children will also read it, and hopefully, they will find it valuable, and it will help someone one of my descendants to know that their father believed in Christ enough to read his word and write down my thoughts about the scriptures.

General Conference—Priesthood Session

Elder Bednar
What is the most defining characteristic of the church?
The priesthood
D&C 58:29 But he that doeth not anything until he is commanded, and receiveth a commandment with doubtful heart, and keepeth it with slothfulness, the same is damned. 
Priesthood is selfless. Require obedience. 
His father was not a member of the church. He asked, why, if the priesthood was restored and unique to our church, didn't members of our church differ more from people in other churches, especially in performing their duty?
However old he was when he baptized his dad, he looked exactly like he does now. 
He used to ask sisters somewhere what support they needed from him and the answer was always about helping their husbands to know/understand their responsibility as a priesthood leader in their homes. The specific examples were around scripture study, family prayer, and family home evening.  

Does Betsy wish I did more to lead the family?

Richard Edgley formerly first counselor in the presiding bishopric
Helping less active members return to full fellowship. Told a story about a dude who went inactive early in life but came back late in life. Lamented that none of his kids, grandkids, or great-grandkids are active in the church.  He traced the progeny of some less active great uncle or other in his family tree, and found something like 20,000 people by 6 generations later. I just did that math, and great uncle and all his progeny would have had to average 6.1 children each to get to 20k. I wonder how far back that uncle was. If you go too far, mortality rates prevent a larger portion of those kids from reaching adulthood, and if it was too recent, you run into declining birth rates, also preventing that from happening. 

Adrian Ochoa - Second counselor in YM presidency
Combo message on the fact that this is a war and thy should arise and use the power of god. 

President Uchtdorf
When he was called as deacons quorum president, there was either one or two deacons in the branch. His branch president took the time to tell him not only what, but why, and the why holds the keys to understanding the power. The what informs, the why transforms. 
He was called to be a stake president when he had just been promoted at work, and expected to be extremely busy. Church activities should be based on the why, and not on flashy trends. (Flashy trends was extremely hard to understand through his accent.) 
How shall we know where to focus our efforts, activities? Study scriptures, pray seek revelation. Pure hearts, seek glory of God.  It is in the application of doctrine that the purifying flame of something grows.  
Consider the words spoken here. Pray and ask for guidance in daily life and church responsibilities and specific challenges. Few the promptings of the spirit. 

President Henry Eyering
Keys of the sealing power. 
Gave some pointers, #2 was love your wife. 

President Thomas S. Monson
Thoughts and teachings from former church leaders on the priesthood. John Tayler called the priesthood the government of God. He loves duty. When God speaks and man obeys, that man will always be right. 
I slept and dreamt that life was joy. I awoke and saw that life was duty (dharma). I acted, and behold, duty was joy!  (Dharma is sometimes translated "service" but president Monson said it "duty".)
Back when he was a new bishop (age 22) there were a lot of people serving in the military (23 from his ward) and the church asked that the ward come up with funds to cover subscription to the church news and magazines. He said that the priesthood quorums, with difficulty, covered the cost of the subscriptions.  I am blessed to live in a ward where covering the cost of something like that would not be a challenge.  Do your duty, that is best. Leave unto the Lord the rest. President Monson is an amazing speaker. 

Enos

Enos 1:14 For at the present our strugglings were vain in restoring them to the true faith. And they swore in their wrath that, if it were possible, they would destroy our records and us, and also all the traditions of our fathers. One of the great things about growing up in the west is that somehow I feel that I absorbed this idea that all men are created equal, and that anybody can work hard and succeed in life. Somehow I was blessed to grow up without inheriting any strong animosity towards any single group of people. (To be fair, I did believe that I hated the Russians for a long time, but I blame that more on Rocky and Bulwinkle than anything else.) When I look at the world now, there are so many groups of people who grow up quite literally hating one another for no other reason than group affiliation: the Jews and the Arabs, the racism of the south, the separatists in Spain and France, the Chechnyans in Russia, the list is as long as you care to make it. What is it that allows some societies to avoid that? Is it constant war that brings it on and lack thereof that makes it go away? How long do you have to live without war before the kids stop listening to the parents about how terrible another group of people is? The Nephites claim that the Lamanites want to destroy them, but by the time Zeniff goes to try to reclaim the original land of their inheritance, there are quite a few Nephites who hate the Lamanites just as much as the Lamanites hate them, with both sides feeling robbed by the other.

Enos

I'd like to visit this idea that God grants to men according to their desires.

Eons 1:12 And it came to pass that after I had prayed and labored with all diligence, the Lord said unto me: I will grant unto thee according to thy desires, because of thy faith. Enos's desires were granted because of his faith.

Psalms 37:4 Delight thyself also in the Lord; and he shall give thee the desires of thine heart. Our desires are contingent on our delight in the Lord.


Alma 41:3 And it is requisite with the justice of God that men should be judged according to their works; and if their works were good in this life, and the desires of their hearts were good, that they should also, at the last day, be restored unto that which is good.
4 And if their works are evil they shall be restored unto them for evil. Therefore, all things shall be restored to their proper order, every thing to its natural frame—mortality raised to immortality, corruption to incorruption—raised to endless happiness to inherit the kingdom of God, or to endless misery to inherit the kingdom of the devil, the one on one hand, the other on the other—
5 The one raised to happiness according to his desires of happiness, or good according to his desires of good; and the other to evil according to his desires of evil; for as he has desired to do evil all the day long even so shall he have his reward of evil when the night cometh. Our final state is consistent with our desires while in mortality. Does this mean that The timing of the granted desires is post mortem?

D&C 7:8 8 Verily I say unto you, ye shall both have according to your desires, for ye both joy in that which ye have desired. There are different desires that are acceptable to the Lord and appropriately make us happy.

D&C 11:17 And then, behold, according to your desires, yea, even according to your faith shall it be done unto you. This one seems to equate desires with faith. Does that correlation exist only for righteous desires or is a lack of faith equivalent and associated with unrighteousness desires?

Enos

Enos 1:11 And after I, Enos, had heard these words, my faith began to be unshaken in the Lord; and I prayed unto him with many long strugglings for my brethren, the Lamanites.
12 And it came to pass that after I had prayed and labored with all diligence, the Lord said unto me: I will grant unto thee according to thy desires, because of thy faith. When Enos prayed for the Nephites, the Lord said, "I'll bless them if they're good and punish them if they're bad," or "naw, not going to change what I was planning to do with the Nephites just because you prayed about it." But when he prays for the Lamanites, the Lord says, "ok. I'll do what you're asking."
Of course, you've to remember that the Nephites and Lamanites mingle and blend around the coming of Christ so there isn't necessarily any specific genealogical tieback to Laman himself when they finally kill all the Nephites.

Enos

Enos 1:4 And my soul hungered; and I kneeled down before my Maker, and I cried unto him in mighty prayer and supplication for mine own soul; and all the day long did I cry unto him; yea, and when the night came I did still raise my voice high that it reached the heavens. Enos spent the whole day crying to God in supplication. It's hard for me to ask God for things. I find that in my personal prayers, I will mention things that I think might be challenging or are worrisome to me, but I always feel a little ungrateful to ask for more. I wonder, though, if supplicating God for your soul is different from asking for things like health or safety or confidence and success at work.

1:9 Now, it came to pass that when I had heard these words I began to feel a desire for the welfare of my brethren, the Nephites; wherefore, I did pour out my whole soul unto God for them. The scriptural case for asking others to pray for you is quite strong, and it makes me wonder a little bit, how does another person praying for you affect your agency and the consequences of your actions? Throughout the Old Testament, you generally see an individual or a group of people who ask ask prophet to pray for them, but what if you don't ask? Enos's prayer here is unsolicited, and the Lord tells him that he will keep the covenant he has already made with them (if they serve the Lord, they will prosper, but if they reject him, he will do likewise), which isn't much of an impact. So do our prayers in behalf of our children make a difference in their lives?

Enos

Enos 1:1 Behold, it came to pass that I, Enos, knowing my father that he was a just man-for he taught me in his language, and also in the nurture and admonition of the Lord-and blessed be the name of my God for it.

Does this settle the nature vs. nurture battle? Is nurture more important than nature in child development? I'm a big believer in nature, but here as well as in Ephesians, it commends the practice of bringing children up in the nurture of the Lord.

The reason that Enos knows his father was just is because he taught him in his language. Is teaching children really a good way to help them to know us as parents? Do they recognize us through what we teach them after they have grown?

Jacob 7

Jacob 7:21 And when the multitude had witnessed that he spake these things as he was about to give up the ghost, they were astonished exceedingly; insomuch that the power of God came down upon them, and they were overcome that they fell to the earth. What's with all the passing out in the Book of Mormon? It seems like people are constantly being overcome by teh spirit so that they fall to the earth. I don't know anybody who has been overcome in this way. I suppose, though, the book o Mormon spans quite a bit more time than I have been alive, so maybe I will see it sometime.

Jacob 7

Jacob 7:20 And it came to pass that when he had said these words he could say no more, and he gave up the ghost. Sherem died after requesting a sign from God that Jacob was correct in his belief in Christ. The sign was that he fell down, didn't die for many days while he lay unconscious, and then woke up long enough to say he was wrong and die. (The scripture says he "gave up the ghost" but really, it was taken from him. Nobody bug Christ really has the power to choose whether they live or die but that's completely beside the point.)

In Jeremiah, when a prophet named Hananiah was preaching falsely to the people, the Lord sent Jeremiah to say, you're going to die for lying to the people in the name of the Lord. 15 Then said the prophet Jeremiah unto Hananiah the prophet, Hear now, Hananiah; The Lord hath not sent thee; but thou makest this people to trust in a lie. 16 Therefore thus saith the Lord; Behold, I will cast thee from off the face of the earth: this year thou shalt die, because thou hast taught rebellion against the Lord. 17 So Hananiah the prophet died the same year in the seventh month. If the lord was in the business of killing people who say things in his name without permission, why are there so many churches on the earth? What makes the determination of when it's a capital crime and when to let it go? In the circumstance with Hananiah, the people believed him to be a literal prophet of God, invested with authority to speak in the name of the Lord. But that wasn't true in Sherem's case. He wasn't the prophet, and everyone knew it.

Jacob 7

Jacob 7:11 Behold, I say unto you that none of the prophets have written, nor prophesied, save they have spoken concerning this Christ.

None of the prophets have written or prophesied without including Christ? This is why I wonder if the scriptures of other religions are actually some of the records we're supposed to find that testify of Christ. I do not see Christ in every book of scripture I read, and I find some of the "messianic" psalms to be a convenient stretch. They sometimes read more like something David is saying about his own feelings and later, for convenience' sake, someone says, hmmm, Christ must have felt like that at such and such point in his life, so that makes this poem that David wrote as a hobby about his own life actually prophetic in nature. Maybe. Maybe not.

7:15 And it came to pass that when I, Jacob, had spoken these words, the power of the Lord came upon him, insomuch that he fell to the earth. And it came to pass that he was nourished for the space of many days. Does this mean he was nourished by God while he was in a coma or nourished and cared for by Jacob and his peers? I like the idea of him being nourished by God better.

Jacob 7

Jacob 7:4 And he was learned, that he had a perfect knowledge of the language of the people; wherefore, he could use much flattery, and much power of speech, according to the power of the devil.

Sherem came to argue with Jacob about wheth Christ would come or not and Jacob makes a point to highlight Sherem's learning. This makes me wonder whether they had organized education or if it was just parents teaching their children. I wonder if Jacob considered himself learned. He could after all, inscribe his commentary into the Book of Mormon.

7:7 And ye have led away much of this people that they pervert the right way of God, and keep not the law of Moses which is the right way.

Sherem wants them to adhere to the law of Moses, implying that (a) he didn't think they were and (b) the law of Moses was pleasing unto the people. That's a very interesting thought, that the law of Moses in all it's strictness could be easier to live with than the belief in Christ.

Jacob 5

Lets track the Nephites throughout the chapter.

Jacob 5:25 And he said unto the servant: Look hither and behold the last. Behold, this have I planted in a good spot of ground; and I have nourished it this long time, and only a part of the tree hath brought forth tame fruit, and the other part of the tree hath brought forth wild fruit; behold, I have nourished this tree like unto the others.
26 And it came to pass that the Lord of the vineyard said unto the servant: Pluck off the branches that have not brought forth good fruit, and cast them into the fire.
27 But behold, the servant said unto him: Let us prune it, and dig about it, and nourish it a little longer, that perhaps it may bring forth good fruit unto thee, that thou canst lay it up against the season. this is the first clear reference to th Nephites. They were planted in the promised land, and only half of them were good.

5:39 And it came to pass that they went down into the nethermost parts of the vineyard. And it came to pass that they beheld that the fruit of the natural branches had become corrupt also; yea, the first and the second and also the last; and they had all become corrupt.
40 And the wild fruit of the last had overcome that part of the tree which brought forth good fruit, even that the branch had withered away and died. and here we are at the beginning of this dispensation, where the Nephites had all perished and the Lamanites had overcome them. He continues to say, 43 And behold this last, whose branch hath withered away, I did plant in a good spot of ground; yea, even that which was choice unto me above all other parts of the land of my vineyard.
44 And thou beheldest that I also cut down that which cumbered this spot of ground, that I might plant this tree in the stead thereof.
45 And thou beheldest that a part thereof brought forth good fruit, and a part thereof brought forth wild fruit; and because I plucked not the branches thereof and cast them into the fire, behold, they have overcome the good branch that it hath withered away., speaking of the Jaredites who were inhabiting the land prior to the Nephites.

Jacob 5

This theme of people joining the family of Abraham is a favorite of Paul's. He revisits it again in Galatians 3:7-9 Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.
8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.
9 So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham. joining the seed of Abraham is one of the great blessings of the gospel, in that we are able to partake of the blessings promised to him: specific lands throughout eternity, infinite posterity, and the priesthood. I've always thought that the property one feels a little out of place with the other two, almost like it isn't eternal enough, but I haven't really ever understood the whole new heaven new earth thing with this earth becoming the celestial kingdom after the resurrection anyway, so perhaps someday Abraham will explain it to me if he's got a minute.

Jacob 5:18 And he said unto the servant: Behold, the branches of the wild tree have taken hold of the moisture of the root thereof, that the root thereof hath brought forth much strength; and because of the much strength of the root thereof the wild branches have brought forth tame fruit. Now, if we had not grafted in these branches, the tree thereof would have perished. And now, behold, I shall lay up much fruit, which the tree thereof hath brought forth; and the fruit thereof I shall lay up against the season, unto mine own self.

I wonder how literally we're intended to take this allegory. Now that I have a rudimentary knowledge of the way grafting works, I understand that the strength of the roots flows to the newly grafted branches (in real trees) only if you cut off any natural branches that are growing higher on the trunk than the graft. Is the success of Christianity a direct result of the Romans sacking Israel and the dispersion of the Lord's covenant people? Could Christianity have flourished (in the world outside of Israel) if it had not been rejected there?

Jacob 5

I just fund a couple of great additions to the allegory, this first one was spoken by Paul to the Romans, and in it, he explains to them that they are the wild branch that was grafted in and that the natural branches had been plucked out due to unbelief, but that they could very naturally be grafted back in again.

Romans 11:16-24 If the root be holy, so are the branches.
17 And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;
18 Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee.
19 Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in.
20 Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:
21 For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee...
23 And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again.
24 For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert graffed contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be graffed into their own olive tree?

There's also a great reference in Jeremiah, where God tells Jeremiah that Israel was a beloved olive tree that he was going to set afire because they were not bringing forth good fruit. Jeremiah was prophesying about the time Lehi left Jerusalem, which is about when the natural olive tree started to decay bad enough that the natural branches were about to be cut off.

Jeremiah 11:14 Therefore pray not thou for this people, neither lift up a cry or prayer for them: for I will not hear them in the time that they cry unto me for their trouble.
15 What hath my beloved to do in mine house, seeing she hath wrought lewdness with many, and the holy flesh is passed from thee? when thou doest evil, then thou rejoicest.
16 The Lord called thy name, A green olive tree, fair, and of goodly fruit: with the noise of a great tumult he hath kindled fire upon it, and the branches of it are broken.
17 For the Lord of hosts, that planted thee, hath pronounced evil against thee, for the evil of the house of Israel and of the house of Judah, which they have done against themselves to provoke me to anger in offering incense unto Baal.

Jacob 5

So in the allegory, the tame olive tree represents the House of Israel, and the wild olive trees represent the gentiles, or everybody else. But in the story, the only tree that produces good fruit is the tame tree, either by grafting its branches onto wild trees temporarily and harvesting from those branches of the wild trees, or by harvesting from its own branches on itself, or by grafting in branches from the wild trees and giving credit to the roots of the tame tree. What's wrong with the other trees? Why is it so hard for them to produce a good olive?

I'm also curious about this idea that grafting in wild branches will heal the tree. I wonder if it is something that actually happens. Can you heal a tree that is not growing well by cutting off its branches and grafting in branches from a wild tree, the way you might breed a sick purebred animal with a wild animal to combat the inbreeding its probably been subjected to in order to become purebred?

Well, it turns out there are some reasons you might choose to graft a tree, but most of them don't actually seem to deal with healing a tree that is decaying. However, the process is very interesting and worth exploring.

In a typical grafting process, you have a scion (twig or bud from the wild tree) and a rootstock (trunk and roots from the parent tree) and arborists will typically cut off any branches of the original tree that are growing above the placed scion, thus ensuring that the nutrients from the rootstock will all flow to the new branches, strengthening them much faster than they would otherwise. A scion is chosen for the good characteristics it can give an existing rootstock, (e.g. flowers, fruit, or form). A rootstock also adds unique strengths. The right rootstock can be more than just roots. The right variety of rootstock can be adapted to a type of soil that the scion alone would fail in, such as clay-soil adapted apple rootstocks. Some pear rootstocks make the plant bear fruit and ripen earlier (“precociousness”). Some grape rootstocks are chosen for resistance to parasitic soil nematodes.

In the allegory, the pruning of the tame tree prior to grafting in the wild branches is consistent with sending the strength for growth from the roots, which were adapted to the Old Testament scriptures and knowledge of God to the new converts, and grafting the branches from the tame tree elsewhere, rather than planting tame trees, allowed them to exist in conditions where they may not have survived on their own.

Jacob 5

I was just asked to teach the Sunday school lesson in two weeks, which will be on Jacob 5, not one of my favorite chapters in scripture, so I figure I should spend some time thinking about it. Here's the way I think of the allegory before I re-read through the whole thing.

Lord sees tree is wasting (Israel around several hundred BC).

Cuts off branches and takes them to other parts of his vineyard (Ten Tribes, Nephites, etc.).

Brings wild branches in (apostolic conversions of nations post Christ).

Both prosper (Nephites are righteous, converts believe in Christ).

Both wither (universal apostasy).

Lord comes back, grafts back in original olive branches (restoration of gospel, gathering of Israel)

Good fruit gathered. Vineyard burned (righteous take up to Christ at the second coming and the earth is cleansed by fire).

I'll explore more tomorrow. Same topic.

Jacob 5

Jacob 5:3 For behold, thus saith the Lord, I will liken thee, O house of Israel, like unto a tame olive-tree, which a man took and nourished in his vineyard; and it grew, and waxed old, and began to decay. I know it's an allegory, but even the Jews had to know that olive trees live a long time. There is a tree in Crete that was cut down and shown through tree-ring analysis to be slightly over 2,000 years old. (Source) Shouldn't matter to me, but it does a little bit.

The thing that interests me in this allegory is the idea that there is one tree that the Lord of the vineyard is concerned about. He grafts the branches of that one tree into other wild trees in other parts of his vineyard. But they're still his trees in his vineyard--why would he have wild trees in his vineyard? Why not prune and dig and nourish all the trees in his vineyard, rather than just grafting in branches and plucking fruit from only those branches, however they thrive?

Jacob 4

Jacob 4:14 But behold, the Jews were a stiffnecked people; and they despised the words of plainness, and killed the prophets, and sought for things that they could not understand. Wherefore, because of their blindness, which blindness came by looking beyond the mark, they must needs fall; for God hath taken away his plainness from them, and delivered unto them many things which they cannot understand, because they desired it. And because they desired it God hath done it, that they may stumble.
What does it mean to seek for things you can not understand? Does it mean to research the odd things in church history? Polygamy, for example. Or is that something we should understand? What about simpler things like why you need two priesthood holders and oil when the prayer of faith works great in their absence? Or why would you need to seek for someone with the gift of healing when the blessing is predicated on the worthiness of the sick person and the will of God regardless of who performs it? Is worrying about those sort of things seeking for things we cannot understand?

Does looking beyond the mark mean to expect more from God than the plan allows? Thus passage reads like an indictment of the Jews for not recognizing Christ, which they didn't do in part because he didn't fix the purely mortal problems they were struggling with in regards to the roman occupation. Are we looking beyond the mark when we pray for purely mortal concerns?

Jacob 4

Jacob 4:6-7 Wherefore, we search the prophets, and we have many revelations and the spirit of prophecy; and having all these witnesses we obtain a hope, and our faith becometh unshaken, insomuch that we truly can command in the name of Jesus and the very trees obey us, or the mountains, or the waves of the sea. Nevertheless, the Lord God showeth us our weakness that we may know that it is by his grace, and his great condescensions unto the children of men, that we have power to do these things. Couple of thoughts: first, their faith comes from searching the scriptures. This is consistent with something Paul said about faith comes by hearing the word. The scriptures seem to be important beyond their educational content, and the study of the scriptures seems to do more than educate—it seems to actually grow faith. Second, what weakness were they shown that reminds them (effectively) that they are not responsible for their capabilities (you may not have noticed, but he didn't say that they do command, but that they can command. So if you've got an individual who is capable of moving mountains, what do you show him within his own self that reminds him that he's not actually responsible for that unused prowess? It seems like a flaw in the system because you've already restricted him to using the ability only when you say it's ok. Is he really going to forget that he's using the power on sufferance if it doesn't work unless he checks with you first?

Jacob 4

Jacob 4:5 Behold, they believed in Christ and worshiped the Father in his name, and also we worship the Father in his name. And for this intent we keep the law of Moses, it pointing our souls to him; and for this cause it is sanctified unto us for righteousness, even as it was accounted unto Abraham in the wilderness to be obedient unto the commands of God in offering up his son Isaac, which is a similitude of God and his Only Begotten Son. James E. Talmage talks about how the Nephites were more willing to accept that salvation did not come by way of the law than the Hebrews were, as shown by their willingness to accept Christ when he arrived and by verses like this one. Now, I would say that there are also scriptures in the old testament that make it clear that the Hebrews (at least those more than 600 years prior to Christ) understood that the law did not justify them, and point out that some Jews were willing to accept the conclusion of the period of living under the law of Moses. I would also point out that in the Americas, all the wicked people were buried under mountains or burned in fires or washed out to the sea, which left only the righteous, and I wouldn't put it past a group of righteous peopl anywhere to be willing to accept truth when Christ himself shows up to declare it to them. And finally, I would point out that the Nephites had to live without the Leviticus priesthood throughout their entire history, which may have contributed to their willingness to abandon the mosaic law. Prophets, who held the melchezidick priesthood could come from any tribe, and could be ordained by another prophet, an angel, or anyone with the authority to do so. Levites and Aaron's other progeny were the only people who could be priests under the levitical law, giving the office a great deal of tradition, ceremony, and clear cut rules, somewhat akin to nobility. People who grow up with nobility have a harder time throwing it off and accepting the idea of everyone being equal than those who grow up with elected leaders.

A useful reference for this verse is in Galatians, Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster. Do we have laws now that are schoolmasters, to bring us to Christ? One thing that comes to mind immediately is the law of tithing. If we live the law of consecration, will we pay tithing? I can't imagine how that would work. What about the word of wisdom? If we all had self discipline and exercised moderation in all things, would we need an injunction against consuming alcohol?

Jacob 4

Jacob 4:2 But whatsoever things we write upon anything save it be upon plates must perish and vanish away; but we can write a few words upon plates, which will give our children, and also our beloved brethren, a small degree of knowledge concerning us, or concerning their fathers. they were very concerned that the things they wrote should be kept and presered. Remember Enos, when he had received a remission of his sins, he prayed that the records could be kept and used someday to bring their posterity back to a remembrance of the truth. I wonder if that is something that happens to all old people—this desire to have your words kept and handed down to your unknown posterity or if it was something particular to these Nephites. It's hard for me to imagine that among the first things I would pray for if I happened to have an amazing spiritual interaction with the voice of the lord, telling me my sins were forgiven and asking what I wanted would be that a thousand years from now, my words would still be around and be used to convert people to the truth.

Jacob 4:4 For, for this intent have we written these things, that they may know that we knew of Christ, and we had a hope of his glory many hundred years before his coming; and not only we ourselves had a hope of his glory, but also all the holy prophets which were before us. Did the Nephite prophets tell the general population why they were keeping the records on plates? Did the general population even know they were making a record? Are our prophets today making records that they intend for the benefit of people who will not see them for a thousand years? We have no idea what they are doing in relation to visions of the future they have received.

Jacob 3

Jacob 3:11 O my brethren, hearken unto my words; arouse the faculties of your souls. What are the faculties of your soul? He goes on to suggest that they awake from slumber, and loose themselves from chains, but it is unclear if those are illustrations of using the faculties of their souls or simply additional instruction.

Jacob 3

Jacob 3:4 And the time speedily cometh, that except ye repent they shall possess the land of your inheritance, and the Lord God will lead away the righteous out from among you. this concept of leading the righteous out from among the wicked is something that feels common in ancient times but disappeared at some point after Christ. Even though Peter says, But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people, God no longer tells people to isolate themselves by way of physical location. In the parable of the wheat and the tares, Chris makes it clear that in the last days, the righteous would grow up in the midst of the tares, and not be separated until the end. For some reason, the righteous are too tender to be separated from the tares, and I wonder if that is because we lack a tradition of the proper religion due to our amazing proseletyizing program. In biblical times, it was easy to say, you all are Jews, because you've been marrying each other for 400 years, and we're Egyptians, because, even though we've been living in the same country as you, we generally don't marry you, and you generally don't marry us, and we live isolated from each other, to help that continue. Oh, and by the way, you have a different religion. As long as you can maintain that kind of physical and spiritual separation, you can lead away the righteous out from among another group. As soon as those barriers dissolve, you lose distinct groups, as seen in the scattering of the 10 tribes. They had given up on the spiritual separation prior to being taken captive into Babylon, so that when they were settled among the Gentiles, they did not have any cohesion tying them either together or to Jehovah. In the case of modern Jewry, those who successfully maintain their Jewishness are those who cling to the Law of Moses. That way, they are able to exist in a geography separate from Israel and yet remain the children of Israel.

Jacob 3

Jacob 3:3 But, wo, wo, unto you that are not pure in heart, that are filthy this day before God; for except ye repent the land is cursed for your sakes; and the Lamanites, which are not filthy like unto you, nevertheless they are cursed with a sore cursing, shall scourge you even unto destruction. this is an interesting theme throughout the bookof Mormon: the Nephites will be scourgedby the Lamanites because they sin, knowing the will of God, which is worse than just sinning. If there really were two constant groups of people throughout, one that knew the will of God and another that never knew it, this would be a solid and reliable theme. However, whe there is a fairly constant now ledge of God among the Nephites, there are period forays into knowledge made by the Lamanites, particularly as time progresses. E.g. Samuel was a Lamanites because at that time, the Lamanites were the righteous people. After Christ, everybody alive was a Nephite, and the curse was lifted. The trick, it would seem, to not having your children wiped off the face of the earth is not righteousness, but early adoption of wickedness. (I'm sure there's some reason why that is flawed, but it's not coming to me right now.)

Jacob 2

Jacob 2:34 And now behold, my brethren, ye know that these commandments were given to our father, Lehi; wherefore, ye have known them before. I don't believe I had realized that the specific commandment to eschew multiple wives had been given to Lehi, and hearing that, it makes me wonder at the comment that the only time the Lord would command polygamy would be when he wanted to raise up seed. Wouldn't sending the two families of Lehi and Ishmael into a new world be a time when he would want to raise up seed? Of course, if they were going to mix with indigenous people, he wouldn't need them reproducing like mad. Back to the original idea--this issue had come up before, requiring the specific revelation on multiple wives to be given to Lehi. Interestingly enough, it would appear that the issue was one that the Lamanites didn't struggle with. If you were to ask me which of Lehi's children were most likely to say, "Hey, dad, how's about I marry another one of Ishmael's daughters?", I would have had my money on Laman or Lemuel, not Nephi, Sam, Joseph, or Jacob. Of course, it may well have been one of their children that asked, and who knows, maybe it was part of why the records went to Jacob instead of Nephi's own children.

Jacob 2

Jacob 2:24 behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord. I think it's important to note here, that it wasn't the multitude of wives, but the taking of them.

Recall Nathan's visit after David took Bathsheba, he said, thus saith the Lord God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel...And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom...and if that had been too little, I wold moreover have given thee such and such things. Nathan (and by extension, God) wasn't upset with David for having wives--he was upset with him for taking them when God had not given them.

Jacob 2

Jacob 2:21 And the one being is as precious in his sight as the other. And all flesh is of the dust. And for the selfsame end hath he created them, that they should keep his commandments and glorify him forever. Why did God create you? So that you would keep his commandments and glorify him, same reason he created me. I'm not sure this would have been my answer to why did God create me. Nephi said that Adam fell that men might be, and men are that they might have joy and I'm pretty sure he meant Adam fell that men might have a mortal existence, not an existence at all, but I think Jacob here is saying that our eternal existence is for the end that we might keep the commandments and thereby glorify God.

Jacob 2

Jacob 2:19 And after ye have obtained a hope in Christ ye shall obtain riches, if ye seek them. how bad is it that this verse has always appealed to me? I read a scripture that says there's a sure way to obtain riches and I get all excited. I wonder if that means I won't find them until the scripture isn't exciting to me any more. It does go on to say, and ye will seek them for the intent to do good, but I feel like nearly every hard working church member I know says that he is only working so hard now to be able to provide for his family, and that he wants to be able to spend more time with them later, so he's putting in the long hours now. So here's the question: is it better to put yourself in a position to have to work until you are actually old, but be able to be with your children in their youth, or to work hard while they are young, be able to pay for their college educations, finance their missions, and potentially serve a mission yourself, at the expense of not being around while they are young?

Jacob 2 (II)

Jacob 2:10 I must do according to the strict commands of God, and tell you concerning your wickedness and abominations, in the presence of the pure in heart, and the broken heart, and under the glance of the piercing eye of the Almighty God.  Sometimes I hate grammar.  Was the command from God, "Go tell them of their abominations and wickedness tomorrow," or "Go tell them in front of the pure in heart tomorrow?"  Was Jacob saying, that his message was being delivered despite the presence of the pure in heart or was their attention to it a requisite part of the message?  It reminds me of the video we watched in San Francisco about people who were recovering from pornography addiction, and the wives were almost uniformly hurt when they found out.  Almost all of them said that they had had no idea that anything was wrong with their relationship, and they had believed that they were living in this wonderful life until they found out, and then they were torn apart with hurt, and grief.  (I fully believe that their lives and relationships would have been better and stronger without the pornography in the life of the husband.)  So, is their suffering part of the sin?  Is Jacob saying, there is no way to commit immoral acts without explicit pain to anyone you love?  i.e. If they don't find out on their own, God will tell them?

Jacob says that hearing his message will enlarge the wounds of those who are already wounded...and those who have not been wounded [will] have daggers placed to pierce their souls and wound their delicate minds.  Is immorality a dagger, and if you think you are only sticking it in yourself, you are wrong, because, through Godly justice, it will strike those you love?  That seems horrible, but perhaps it is part of being sealed together.  If the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband, is the believing wife injured by the unrighteous husband and vice versa?  Is that what we're signing up for?

Jacob 2

Jacob 2:2 I come up to the temple this day that I might declare unto you the word of God. Do you suppose Jacob called an assembly of sorts?  You get the distinct impression that he was speaking to all the Nephites.  The culture must have been incredibly close-knit at this point in time, to bring even the sinners who needed to hear his message to the temple.  If they were there, their presence might give us insight into the size of the group--or rather, insight into it's approximate maximum.  A scientist named Robin Dunbar did some research on primates and came up with what is now known as Dunbar's Number.

Dunbar's number is a theoretical cognitive limit to the number of people with whom one can maintain stable social relationships. He suggests that the group size is tied to the size of some part of your brain (feel free to click the link to read the actual article).  His number is only about 150 people.  There are a few other studies that estimate the number would be higher, with the largest being around 300 people.  The point of knowing this is that before you cross the line, there is some pretty intense social pressure to conform to the norms of the group, and once you cross the line, you get enough people behaving out of sync to create a sub-group, ergo, you might appropriately expect to have absenteeism from a polygamy speech by the prophet at the temple.

Now, some people might argue that the fact that the polygamy was happening is evidence of the society breaking into sub-groups already: those that support Jacob's teachings, and those that did not. I think they would be right.  Somehow, in that society, it would appear, it was less of a social stigma to pick up another wife and justify it by the written behavior code (the brass plates' account of David and Solomon) than it was to skip the prophet's speech at the temple.

I think, though, that we can use the attendance at the temple and the polygamy to pin the group size somewhere between 150 and 300 people.  Large enough to start to show fractures, but not large enough for an actual schism.

Of course, this is all speculation based on one interesting theoretical number derived from a study of monkeys.  There could well have been thousands of them and he might talk like that even though the sinners were absent.

Jacob 1 (II)

Just a quick note on Jacob. Jacob seems to be to give a close up picture of the Nephites at this time. They come across in his writings as a small group of people. Nephi seems to focus so much on the people he was seeing in his visions wh would be reading his record that you don't get a great picture of what the society might have actually been like.

Also, Jacob makes me wonder why Nephi didn't pass the records on to any of his own seed. He talks about his seed all throughout both his books, so I think it's fair to assume he had some children, but none of them get the book. It could easily have been because none of them were worthy, but it could also have been that none of them were boys, or that none of them seemed to have the aptitude for writing. Who knows.

2 Nephi 33 (II)

In this last chapter, Nephi makes a list of what is message does:

1. Persuades men to do good
2. Tells them of their fathers
3. Speaks of Christ
4. Persuades men to believe in Christ
5. Persuades men to endure to the end
6. Speaks harshly against sin

It's a interesting list. If I were making a list of what I wanted a message to my descendants to say, I wonder how closely it would resemble this list.

Scott Carrier's Baptism

Scott Carrier was baptized recently, and because the baptism was scheduled for 7:00 pm on a Sunday, Betsy and I decided that I would take Porter only to watch it.  He's six, will be getting baptized soon, and handles missing sleep better than his siblings at this point in time.  While we were there, I told him about what was happening, why Scott Carrier was in white, why Kerry Morgan was in white, and how happy his family was.  There was a point in the program when we were singing I am a Child of God and I felt the presence of the Holy Spirit.  About that time, Porter turned to me and said, "I just love you, dad.  I'm full of love."

It is difficult to describe the joy that brings to me: for one thing, I love it when my children express love, and for another, I had been wondering how I could help him know that the spirit was present.  I lovingly told him that he felt that way because the Spirit was there.  That his feeling of love was the way the Spirit tells him that Heavenly Father is happy that Scott Carrier was getting baptized, and that baptism is important.  I told him that I also feel full of love when I feel the spirit and that is one of the ways I feel him telling me that Heavenly Father loves me.

When Samuel heard the voice of the Lord, he ran to Eli three times to ask him what he wanted before Eli realized what Samuel was experiencing.  It's a challenge to invite the spirit into your home and daily activities so that your children can feel it, and harder still to know when they are feeling it to identify it.  I am extremely grateful that I had the opportunity to have that moment with Porter at Scott's baptism.

2 Nephi 33

2 Nephi 33:1 Neither am I mighty in writing, like unto speaking. This puts Nephi in a smaller group than those who feel the opposite.  We have prophets who were concerned that they were not competent to be the prophet based on their lack of speaking ability, but apparently, since Nephi's message was intended predominately for people who would not listen to him, he was given the trial of feeling inadequate in writing.

This may give some insight into what your talents are going to prepare you for, or rather, what you should expect to be called to do based on your weaknesses.  For me specifically, I enjoy teaching; I feel like I do it well.  I also enjoy giving talks in Sacrament meeting.  I don't enjoy interacting with people I don't know.  I don't like going to meetings.  I lack patience in a number of situations: when people try to explain something I already know, when driving, at night.  I fail to assume best intent with most people.

Ergo, I will be called to interact with people I don't know, who do not believe I know what is going on, possibly while driving, late at night.  Oh, and these people will be suspected of doing something bad.  But I won't teach or preach as the main focus of my service.

Maybe.

2 Nephi 32 (II)

2 Nephi 32:8 For if you would hearken unto the Spirit which teacheth a man to pray ye would know that ye must pray; for the evil spirit teacheth not a man to pray, but teacheth him that he must not pray. But I say unto you that ye must pray always, and not faint. I noticed this verse for the first time somewhere back in high school, probably around tenth grade, and it was impactful to me then.  The scriptural case for prayer is strong throughout scripture, beginning with Adam, and continuing through Christ's ministry and that of his apostles.  It was prayer that led Joseph Smith to learn that the correct church was not on the earth at that time.  Without that fervent prayer and answer, he might well have joined with one of the protestant groups of the day, assuming it was as close as he could get to correctness.

Generally speaking, prayer should be personal--Christ clearly did not approve of the public manner of prayer of the hypocrites of his day, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, they have their reward.  This is not to say that public prayer is inappropriate, but that personal prayer in public is generally inappropriate.  Daniel was not saved from the lions for offering his private prayers in a public forum, but for doing so in the privacy of his own closet.  But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.

2 Neohi 32

2 Nephi 32:4 Wherefore, now after I have spoken these words, if he cannot understand them it will be because ye ask not, neither do you knock; wherefore, ye are not brought into the light, but must perish. Other people can only do so much to bring us to Christ. The ultimate responsibility falls to us, each individually.

It's interesting too that the problem starts once we've heard the words of Christ. After that, failing to understand is the fault of the listener, not the speaker. This is interesting because it is counter to so much of what we learn in public speaking, where failure to communicate is the fault of the speaker more than the listener. The perception that we must "dumb down" our language so that everyone can understand it is endemic in our society. My blog offers me suggestions for ways to avoid using uncommon words in the interest of broader understanding; in PowerPoint decks at work, big specific words are often derided as posturing and recommend to be replaced with simpler words. And yet here, we have the opposite. The message will not be changing, and if you don't understand it, you need to ask, because it's not going anywhere.

2 Nephi 31 (III)

2 Nephi 31:14 And after this should deny me, it would have been better for you that he had not known me.. Things like this always make me wonder a little bit. God already knows everything, so what is the harm or benefit in us coming to Christ? If we're going to turn away, why would it be better to have never known him? Isn't there something built into the justie of god that compensates for our specific circumstances?
We certainly have scriptural examples that God knows what we would have done if given the chance—All those who have died without a knowledge of this gospel, who would have received it if they had been permitted to tarry, shall be heirs of the celestial kingdom of God.

So if God is willing to reward people for what they would have done, why would he punish anyone less for what they didn't do, but would have, given the chance? If the blessing in the celestial kingdom is the same, whether you actually lived the rite out life or not, as long as you would have done so, given the chance, why would it be better for you to have never known Christ if your choices show exactly what you would do, given the chance? Wouldn't God's omniscience tell him that you would have made that covenant, and that you would have broken it?

Whenever I go down this path, it reminds me of the time on my mission when I was wondering the same type of thing, but in reverse—why bother baptizing living people of we could just baptize youth for them once they're dead and was really down about it. I received a revelation that the church is true because we have living prophets, and I knew that God had answered my prayer. He didn't address the specific question, but he answered my plea for affirmation, nonetheless.

2 Nephi 31 (II)

2 Nephi 31:13 I know that if ye shall follow the Son, with full purpose of heart, acting no hypocrisy and no deception before God, but with real intent, repenting of your sins, witnessing unto the father that ye are willing to take upon you the name of Christ...then shall ye receive the Holy Ghost. What does it mean to act hypocrisy before God? I get that if you get baptized without actually being penitent, you will not receive the blessings, so that part is clear, but is there anything more here that applies to us after we are baptized? Suppose at the time you get baptized, you are truly humble, penitent, and desirous of fellowship with the fold of God, but you later lose that.  Is there a concern that you might be hypocritical after the baptism?  Perhaps when we partake of the sacrament?

2 Nephi 31

2 Nephi 31:10 Wherefore, my beloved brethren, can we follow Jesus save we shall be willing to keep the commandments of the Father? I like this verse because it is so explicit.  You can not follow Jesus without keeping the commandments.  That's the only way to follow him.  When says, come follow me he is saying, keep my commandments.

2 Nephi 30 (II)

2 Nephi 30:12-18 And then shall the wolf dwell with the lamb; and the leopard shall lie down with the kid, and the calf, and the young lion, and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them. Is this to be taken literally or do these groups of animals represent types of people?  Apparently most early protestant leaders (Luther, Calvin) believed that the animals are symbolic of human behaviors, and that this passage is to be interpreted generally, to indicate a state of security and harmony.  I'm not sure I'm with them.
In disagreeing with them, there are a few problems for me.  Obligate carnivores, (animals that depend solely on the nutrients found in animal flesh for their survival) lack the physiology required for efficient digestion of vegetable matter.  I'm not saying God can't change physiology, I'm just not sure why he would do it.  However, in counterpoint to that physical problem, you have a few additional biblical references to animal behavior.
Isaiah 62:25 The wolf and the lamb will feed together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox, but dust will be the serpent's food.
Hosea 2:18 In that day I will make a covenant for them with the beasts of the field and the birds of the air and the creatures that move along the ground. Bow and sword and battle will I abolish from the land, so that all may lie down in safety.

And in potential counterpoint, to be fair, Ezekiel 34:25 I will make a covenant of peace with them and rid the land of wild beasts so that they may live in the desert and sleep in the forests in safety.

The first two seem to support the idea that the animals will actually eat straw and other green fare.  The reference in Ezekiel may imply that the actual peace will be a surcease of war.  I'm not sure it matters in the long run but I am certainly interested in the fate of animals in the millennial day.

The greater point here, is certainly that if God is capable of altering the very physiology of animals so that ancient prejudices disappear, then he will have similar abilities when it comes to altering the minds and hearts of men.  Recall the story of Saul, When he had turned his back to go from Samuel, God gave him another heart. Which is harder?  The updated physiology or the new heart?  Does the new heart count as updated physiology?  When Christ forgave the sins of the man who was sick of the palsy, the scribes were pretty upset because he shouldn't have authority to forgive sins unless he was God, and he said, Wherefore think ye evil in your hearts? For whether is easier to say, Thy sins be forgiven thee: or to say, arise and walk? He was really asking them, which is easier? He continues, But that ye man know that the son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (then saith he to the sick of the palsy,) Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thine house. And he arose and departed to his house. So here, you have Christ, miraculously rearranging physiology, and basically saying it is easier to do that than it is to change hearts.

2 Nephi 30

2 Nephi 30:6 Speaking of the descendants of Nephi finally receiving the gospel and then shall they rejoice; for they shall now that it is a blessing unto them from the hand of God. Will they know that the gospel is a blessing or that it is a blessing that they were not destroyed with the rest of the Nephites?

30:9 And with righteousness shall the Lord God judge the poor, and reprove [someone] with equity for the meek of the earth. This statement seems to have been given in counterpoint to what may have been a prevailing custom of deciding in favor of the rich. It was certainly the case in all the mideaval history I ever learned, where a noble could do anything he wanted as long as it was to a commoner, because they had no rights under the law. This verse says that the will judge the poor with righteousness, but several translations indicate that he will judge them fairly or impartially. Barnes comments that he will be impartial, but the continues to cite how Christ chose his disciples from among the poor, ate with them, wasn't afraid to be their companion, etc.

Is he actually biased in favor of the poor, against the rich? He clearly stated that a rich man was less likely to get into heaven than a camel to go through an eye of a needle. When the rich young man said that he had been keeping the commandments, Christ told him to go get rid of his riches, as they were his one handicap. He indicated that the tithes of the rich are worth less than the tithes of the poor, despite being greater sums. Alma told the poor people in Ammonihah that their poverty had been the reason they were ready to hear the gospel. I wonder if perhaps Christ is actually prejudiced against the rich.

We're in a social class that is not quite rich enough to call ourselves rich, but we are clearly not poor, so it feels like whenever this topic comes up in Sunday school, it descends into people trying to outdo each other in their eloquent reasons why their choices prove that they are not under the condemnation that Christ seems willing to heap upon the actual rich.

Of course it's also entirely possible that he means the poor in spirit here, not the physically poor. I don't think so, or why would he have made the distinction between poor and meek? Poor physically, and meek spiritually. Unless he means poor in the sense of underdeveloped spiritually, but aware of it (most poor people know they are poor), while meek means humble, but not necessarily lacking in spiritual development.

2 Nephi 29 (III)

More in the vein of gathering home and scriptural writings:
2 Nephi 29:12 For behold, I shall speak unto the Jews and they shall write it; and I shall also speak unto the Nephites and they shall write it; and I shall also speak unto the other tribes of the house of Israel, which I have led away, and they shall write it; and I shall also speak unto all nations of the earth and they shall write it. (Emphasis added) It goes on to say that each group will have the writings of the others. This whole notion of speaking unto all nations and them writing it is what makes me wonder where those writings are. At what point will we find a book, written in some ancient dialect, and the prophet will say, "that's scripture"? Of course, if we did actually find such a book, it would probably pose multiple problems.  For one, would it even be clear that it referred to Jesus Christ?  The Book of Mormon is unique in that it identifies Christ by name, and that may be as much a function of the fact that Joseph Smith was translating it via inspiration as opposed to a literary translation as anything else.  For all we know, the word actually used by the Nephites wasn't anything at all similar to the word, Christ, but as Joseph Smith was given the meaning of the word, he wrote down what it meant in English, not what they actually said, so we end up with references to Christ by name.  Additionally, the Book of Mormon was given with the specific intent of proving that Jesus Christ was the savior, as taught from the Bible, and is rife with references to the how the testimony of two witnesses establishes truth.  Now that we have the two witnesses, we would probably be erroneous to suppose that the records given to other people would meet the same criteria--i.e. the content of those religious texts would be targeted at them, not us, hence, would likely lack relevance, and may not be clearly speaking of Christ at all.

Think of the Old Testament: if you were to read that as a Christian for the first time, (assuming you had never heard of it, and that Christ didn't intentionally quote it throughout the New Testament), would you think it was teaching someone about Christ?  You have a creation story, followed by stories about a severly angry god punishing the world for riotous living, some prophets who seem to engage in behaviors specifically prohibited by Christianity (lying, drunkenness, incest, genocide), followed by some amazingly explicit instructions on daily life (that are not followed by modern Christians), and a smattering of history.  True, they pray, repent, are forgiven, pay tithing, and are told to do things similar to what we are taught in the New Testament, but many of those same positive themes are also available in ancient religious texts of the majority of the world's religions. What I am saying is that, while I haven't read other religions' scriptures, I probably ought to do so, and when I do it, I might well be reading the scripture given to the people referenced here in 2 Nephi. Of course, I might also not be.

2 Nephi 29:14 And it shall come to pass that my people, which are of the house of Israel, shall be gathered home unto the lands of their possessions; and my word also shall be gathered into one. (Emphasis added) Here, I think is a portion of the answer asked a couple of days ago, whether the condemnation the world is under for failing to "recover" Israel referred to a physical recovery to lands held anciently or to a spiritual recovery through preaching. Apparently it is both. The covenant made with Abraham included both gospel blessings and physical properties.

2 Nephi 29 (II)

2 Nephi 29:5 O ye gentiles, have ye remembered the Jews, mine ancient covenant people? Nay; but ye have cursed them, and have hated them, and have not sought to recover them. Have not sought to recover them--as in have not tried to help them return to Israel and displace the Palestinians living there? In politics, the relationship with Israel is always an interesting topic, because I am not convinced that America's role in the world needs to be the big brother type, who is pulling the younger siblings apart as they squabble over their toys. If this is saying that we are under condemnation for not doing more to return the Jews to Israel, then I may have to rethink that. Of course, I always struggle with limiting the Jews to the tribe of Judah, when spoken by prophets who lived hundreds of years prior to Christ, and within liven memory of the transplantation of the other tribes. In this particular case, Nephi isn't even of the tribe of Judah, making it doubly unlikely that in his mind, recovery means helping one tribe (not even his) recover specific lands. Remember, Judah was granted only a small portion of the lands modern day Israel is trying to reclaim. (Here's a map of ancient Israel's land allocation


And here's a map of modern day Israel



You can pretty clearly see that modern day Judah is claiming lands that formerly belonged to his brothers, which may or may not be part of the appropriate course of action. Like I said, I'm not convinced that the US needs to be telling Abraham's squabbling boys how they need to share.

Is it perhaps a spiritual recovery that Nephi is referencing? Spiritual recovery would mean that we are supposed to recover them to the covenant graces of God, through baptism and recognition that Christ was their Messiah, despite not saving them from Roman physical bondage, and it gets us out of the semantics of whether Judah should inherit all the lands given to Abraham, because we should teach the gospel to all the world, and when everyone is baptized, you can confidently say that Abraham's descendants are all baptized, thus, recovered. The biggest problem with this is that we sometimes choose to look at a physical instruction as a spiritual instruction because it's easier to pat ourselves on the back and say, "I prayed for the poor lost Jewish souls, so I'm meeting the clear injunction to recover Israel and now I can stop thinking about them and go to Heaven" than it is to work toward a physical recovery. I'm not sure which is correct, but there are clear prophesies about modern nations being the suckling parents of scattered Israel, that are hard to put into spiritual terms.

2 Nephi 29

2 Nephi 29:3 A Bible! A Bible! We have got a Bible, and there cannot be any more Bible. This one always makes me wonder why we stopped at the Book of Mormon. Where are the additional records of God's interactions with men? With Asia, for example.

2 Nephi 28

2 Nephi 28:8 There shall be many which shall say: eat, drink, and be merry; nevertheless, fear God–he will justify in committing a little sin...and if it so be that we are guilty, God will beat us with a few stripes, and at last, we shall be saved in the kingdom of God. This is given by Nephi as an example of false teaching. God will not justify us in committing even a little sin, but commands exact obedience. Does this passage fit in with a merciful God? Recall, if you will, the story of the woman who washed Christ's feet with her tears and dried them with her hair. Of her, Christ said, Wherefore I say unto thee, Her sins, which are many, are forgiven; for she loved much. Paul tells us that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, while Alma tells his son, Heleman, that God cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance. We read that the law justifies no man, and also that what was filthy shall be filthy still.

As I am coming up with these seemingly conflicting verses, I wonder if it is only because I am all too aware of my own failings and am hopeful that being a good person will be enough. This passage makes it clear that being a generally good person will definitely not be enough–you need to be a generally good person who truly sorrows for his mistakes, as did the woman who washed Christ's feet. The mistakes matter less than how you feel about them, because, ultimately, if you steal a paper-clip and do so knowing its wrong and don't feel sorry about it, that will keep you out of heaven as surely as assault and battery during a home invasion to steal a million dollars.

2 Nephi 27 (III)

2 Nephi 27:27 Surely your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the potter's clay. This phrase took me a bit. There's a footnote to look at Jeremiah, which is just the reference to us being clay in the potter's hands--not very helpful. I flipped over to Isaiah to see if there was anything to clarify it there, and it reads pretty much exactly the same. The context suggests that people who try to hide their works from the lord are trying to put themselves on a level with him, to say unto him that made it, he made me not. But I didn't get the part about turning things upside down being like clay. According to Barnes notes on the bible, though, There has been much diversity in rendering this phrase. Luther renders it, 'O how perverse ye are.' Lowth renders it,'Perverse as ye are! shall the potter be esteemed as the clay?'. Two different translations that leave out entirely the whole turning = clay sentiment and simply say, you're being ridiculous to think that you can possibly hide anything from God; he made you.

2 Nephi 27 (II)

2 Nephi 27:11 And the day cometh that the words of the book which were sealed shall be read upon the house tops; and they shall be reads by the power of Christ; and all things shall be revealed unto the children of men which ever have been among the children of men, and which ever will be even unto the end of the earth. There are two other references that I know of where something is proclaimed from the housetop-Luke 12:3 Therefore whatsoever ye have spoken in darkness shall be heard in the light; and that which ye have spoken in the ear in closets shall be proclaimed upon the housetops and Matthew 10:27 What I tell you in darkness, that speak ye in light: and what ye hear in the ear, that preach ye upon the housetops. Each is describing something that had been private becoming public. This is in reference to a custom common in Israel at the time of Christ for rulers to have public proclamations made after the majority of the townspeople had returned from their labors to their homes, and the crier would ascend to the highest roof and yell for people to listen up. In Luke, Christ is saying that men's secrets are not in fact secret, and in Matthew, he is instructing his apostles to be bold in preaching, and not to assume at anything he taught needed to be a secret. In Nephi, though, he is indicating that not only secret deeds, but every action will be published before the eager ears of the world. I am much less interested in the Matthew reference, because I think the doctrine of missionary work is sufficiently clear. What interests me is this idea of shouting to the public all the wrongs you have committed. What value does that create? I can't imagine that God is doing it just for the shame we should feel, or to force us to watch as our loved ones realize that we are not as holy as they might have thought, so what's the point? At that point in time, there seems to be little for others to learn from our mistakes, and we're clearly not going to be doing a great deal of repenting, post judgement, so who benefits? Does it really come down to justice requires transparency? God needs to be clear that he is not unjustly consigning anyone to hell?

27:22 Then shalt thou seal up the book again, and hide it up unto me... This reminds me of that story of the group of people who thought that they knew where the cave that Mormon had used to stash the various plates from which he had compiled the book of Mormon and had all moved to that mountain and spent their time looking for the cave. I don't believe anyone ever found it, but it's entirely possible that they did and the church hushed it up and somewhere beneath temple square, there's a room full of stuff the is being held for Moroni to say, go ahead and pull it out.