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.