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?