Portraying the Lehites as Israelites (as opposed to Jews)

This paper by Richley Crapo is worth a look. The author discusses what threads of evidence we still have regarding two priesthoods in antiquity, and how the higher "Mushite" priesthood seems to have had more prominence in the northern kingdom of Israel prior to its destruction in 722 BC.

That discussion alone is very interesting, since we know that Lehi had to have had some type of priesthood authority in order to build altars and offer burnt offerings. Nephi must have also held the priesthood in order to build a temple in the promised land (see 2 Nephi 5:16) and consecrate his younger brothers as priests (see Jacob 1:18).

According to Crapo, the northern kingdom "Israelite" culture varied from the better known Jewish culture of the southern kingdom in a few important ways:

(1) revelation through prophetic dreams, (2) the ministry of angels, (3) imagery of the Tree of Life, and (4) a positive attitude toward the Nehushtan tradition.

That fourth one introduced a new term to me -- it refers to the story of Moses and the brazen serpent. Notice in 2 Kings 18:4 (Expanded Bible) how Hezekiah removes what he considers to be pagan elements from Judah:

4 He removed the ·places where gods were worshiped [L high places; 12:3]. He smashed the stone pillars and ·cut down [smashed; broke] the Asherah ·idols [poles; C a sacred tree or pole dedicated to the goddess Asherah; 13:6]. Also the ·Israelites [L sons/T children of Israel] had been burning incense to Nehushtan, the bronze ·snake [serpent] Moses had made [Num. 21:9]. But Hezekiah broke it into pieces.

So Hezekiah viewed both #3 and #4 from the list above as blasphemous.  This "reform" happened in the decades following the massive migration to Jerusalem of refugees from the conquered northern tribes.

Of course we see each of these elements very heavily and very clearly in the Book of Mormon, particularly in the accounts of Lehi and Nephi.

It took a long time for me to connect the dots regarding Lehi and his family as at least 2nd or 3rd-generation exiles to Jerusalem from the northern kingdom.  This is very significant to me for a few reasons:

1. This is presented subtly (not overtly) in the Book of Mormon. (Nephi speaks of "the Jews" as "those other guys," certainly not as his own beloved kin. See 2 Nephi 25:1-2 as an example.) If Joseph Smith, a relatively uneducated farm boy, was the author of the Book of Mormon -- as some critics suggest -- I cannot believe he would have been able to thread this subtlety into the text in such a definitive and yet indirect way.  I believe he would not have been able to resist at least one explication of this situation. 
2. Instead, this is written from the very real experience of Nephi, thus it seemed "normal" to the author and thereby went without ever being directly mentioned.
3. This northern "Israelite" culture is distinct from the more familiar ancient Jewish culture, which we know better by virtue of the fact that they survived longer into antiquity, but keep in mind the Israelites were every bit as much members of the House of Israel as the Judah-ites were at the time.  I would imaging Lehi and his family would have been quite-well integrated into Jerusalem culture by the 2nd/3rd generation even though it would have certainly contained aspects that seemed "off."  Imagine the debates that must have still lingered after Hezekiah purged the symbol of the tree from the temple, and how that connects to Lehi's vision.
4. I'd love for a critic to point me to a contemporary source Joseph Smith would have likely consulted to assist him in constructing this aspect of the Old World culture embedded in the books of 1 and 2 Nephi.

Dust and fruit: Symbolism in the Garden of Eden and beyond

Long post warning! I have been fascinated with symbols and symbolism in the gospel for a long time. Finding meaning in symbols is a great way for me to learn eternal truths. I do realize that others might find different meanings in the same symbols teaching them equally important truths. I don’t think there always is necessarily one and only one correct interpretation. So what I’m about to share is just how I see things, not necessarily the "correct" interpretation.

Lately, I have been contemplating the Garden of Eden story. Perhaps this is more of an Old Testament note than a Book of Mormon note, but the thoughts I’m posting now are at least in part a result of previous posts on this blog and a verse in Alma 42 that caught my attention.

Lord Wilmore has posted both on the topic of nakedness and dust. In another post, I linked both of these to the Garden of Eden. The passage in Alma 42 that caught my attention is in verse 2:

the Lord God sent our first parents forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground, from whence they were taken

Alma is quoting Genesis, so this passage is also found there. There is a certain irony in the statement. Adam is cultivating the very substance he is created from. Indeed, we learn that Adam’s physical body is created from the «dust of the ground» (Genesis 2:7). To keep us humble, we are reminded of this throughout the scriptures (e.g. Ecclesiastes 3:20, Psalms 103:14, Mosiah 4:2, Helaman 12:7). For ancient Israelites, this reminder was even constantly there as part of their language. In Hebrew, the word for ‘ground’ is ‘Adamah’. The ‘ah’ ending is really just the Hebrew letter corresponding to the Latin, ‘h’, usually not pronounced at the end of a word. Consequently, the Hebrew word for 'ground' is very similar to and pronounced more or less the same way as ‘Adam’, the word for ‘man’ or ‘mankind’.

So in Hebrew, the dust/ground is associated with man, but the physical/carnal side of him. Keep in mind that it was the body of Adam that was formed from the dust of the ground and it had no life until it had a spirit. (It is usually translated as 'breath', but the Hebrew word 'ruach' can be translated as 'breath', 'wind' or 'spirit'). As opposed to the serpent, who was confined to the ground to eat dust, Adam had the potential to rise above the ground and even cultivate it.

What happens when Adam or mankind "arise from the dust" (2 Nephi 1:14) and start cultivating it? It produces fruit! Elder Neil L. Anderson just gave a talk on fruit this last General Conference. Fruit can be good or bad but Jacob 5 is a good illustration of how much God wants his children to produce good fruit. Elder Anderson quotes John 4:36, where Christ invites us to gather "fruit unto life eternal". He also talks about Lehi's dream, where people had to hold on to the iron rod and overcome obstacles like the mist of darkness and the mockery from those in the great and spacious building, to taste the fruit from the tree of life. Another example from the Book of Mormon is Alma 32, where we exercise faith, patience and diligence to plant a seed and nourish the tree, before we can finally partake of the fruit of the tree of life.

Alma 42:5:

5 For behold, if Adam had put forth his hand immediately, and partaken of the tree of life, he would have lived forever, according to the word of God, having no space for repentance; yea, and also the word of God would have been void, and the great plan of salvation would have been frustrated.

Alma reminds us that the tree of life was there and Adam could just "stretch out his hand" but God prevented it. Instead, he wanted us to go through all the trouble described in 1 Nephi 8 and Alma 32. Why? Because it is a necessary part of his plan that we partake of this mortal experience, use our agency and knowledge of good and evil to rise above the ground/dust/flesh/carnal to till/cultivate/master it. In this way we produce fruit and ultimately get to taste the sweetest fruit of them all, the one from the tree of life. If Adam/mankind could just stretch forth his hand without any other effort and in their current state, "the great plan of salvation would have been frustrated".

In Mosiah 16:3-4 we read

3 For they are carnal and devilish, and the devil has power over them; yea, even that old serpent that did beguile our first parents, which was the cause of their fall; which was the cause of all mankind becoming carnal, sensual, devilish, knowing evil from good, subjecting themselves to the devil.

4 Thus all mankind were lost; and behold, they would have been endlessly lost were it not that God redeemed his people from their lost and fallen state.

If we are carnal, we are confined to the ground (which is the substance the flesh is created from) where the serpent/devil has dominion and we become subjects to him. But because of the redemption from God, we are able to arise. When we arise and cultivate the ground instead of crawling on it like the serpent, fruit becomes the result. In fact, the ultimate act of arising is the resurrection, which Abinadi talks about only a few verses later. Because of his resurrection, Christ became the "firstfruits of God" (2 Nephi 2:9). The sweetest fruit is the one on the tree of life that represents God's love manifest in Him sending his Son. In other words, the fruit can represent Christ himself. Just as the juice is squeezed out of a grape or oil squeezed out of the olive, blood was squeezed out of Christ. Blood in Hebrew is 'dam', also related to the word, 'mankind', it's Adam without the first letter, aleph. Acts 5:30:

The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree

1st Corinthians 15:22:

For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive

The atonement is the reversal of the fall! The fall came about when Adam took the fruit from the tree. The atonement came about when the firstfruit of God was hanged on the tree. The fall was figuratively a fall to the ground, to the carnal and the captivity of the devil. The atonement enabled mankind to rise, to "cultivate the ground", i.e. to become master of the carnal instead of subject to it. It enables us to eat fruit instead of dust. John 15:5:

I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.

When we come unto Christ, his grace enables us to "till the ground" and produce good fruit and ultimately taste the fruit of the tree of life. Then we're back in the Garden of Eden, back in God's presence, we just needed this detour to learn and grow and come back differently from how we started. Like a tree arises from the ground as it grows, so must we.

Perhaps this all seems a bit jumbled, but I find much meaning in these symbols. I think we lose out when we are more concerned with what's historical than what we can learn from this story. The layers of symbolism are there for us to uncover.

Our first parents

When posting about Alma quoting Genesis, I noticed another difference between the texts. Genesis talks about Adam or 'man' being sent forth from the Garden of Eden. Alma talks about "our first parents" being sent forth from the Garden of Eden (Alma 42:2). The expression, "our first parents", is never used in the Bible but several times in the Book of Mormon when referring to Adam and Eve, see e.g. 1 Nephi 5:11, Helaman 6:26, 2 Nephi 2:15, Ether 8:25.

In Alma 12:21, a man named Antionah asks

What does the scripture mean, which saith that God placed cherubim and a flaming sword on the east of the garden of Eden, lest our first parents should enter and partake of the fruit of the tree of life, and live forever?

He must be quoting the brass plates. This could be a translation issue, but "our first parents" is quite different from Adam/man/mankind. So another more likely possibility, in my opinion, is that the brass plates had a slightly different wording than the Jewish Torah or a different passage referring to the event with this expression. That would explain the Nephites' frequent use of it.

Hebrew "arum" and the serpent

As Stisa points out in this post, the Hebrew word arum takes center stage in the Garden of Eden, meaning "naked" and "shrewd/cunning."  Thus Adam and Eve are "arum" and not ashamed, and the serpent is the most "arum" of all the creatures. (The serpent, after all, regularly sheds even his own skin!)

The author of this article goes into more depth on this deeply significant, simple story, and how God's decision to cast Adam and Eve out of the garden and subject them to physical death was a blessing, as allowing to immediately gain immortality would permanently trap them in a bad state. He continues:

Death in this sense is not the curse, but a gift from a gracious God who, having just made new garments for his frightened creation, understands that without limits placed upon their lives, being arum would be more intolerable than it already was. Imagine an eternity of toil and pain and estrangement described in verses 14-19. Thus, we see God already conceding to the theme. Adjusting to this new situation. There is already, in the beginning, a hint toward the second dominant theme of the biblical landscape — deliverance and restoration. But it originates in the open eyed acknowledgment of the fact of human arumness and the turbulence which follows that knowledge. This movement toward concession culminates in the covenant.

 This fits is nicely with themes developed by Lehi in 2 Nephi 2, Jacob in 2 Nephi 9, and Alma in Alma 12/13 and Alma 42. The fall of Adam and Eve brings them knowledge but separates them from God (lest God's plan be frustrated), and mortality becomes a probationary time to choose to return to Him. The covenant God gives to Adam and Eve as he clothes them and send them away is to "cover their nakedness" (or perhaps in other words, compensate for their shrewdness) as they go about their mortal journey. In the words of this pastor:

The covenant — this rich mixture of tradition, experience, ritual, story and law makes it possible to live in community and is above all a gracious gesture toward human weakness. It proves itself time and again in the narrative of the biblical epic and in our own lives. Within its borders we come to trust, no longer fearing others discovering who we are, or needing to expend the enormous energy necessary for denial. The covenant concedes it!


When I sit in a pew next to you on Sunday morning I am transparent as Adam and so are you. The journey into Lent, the passion of Jesus, highlights this reality. In fact, we are sitting in the same pew because our eyes have been opened and we have grown weary of denying and displacing blame for our humanness. This covenant, flowing from the fullness of God's love, allows for us to be as it was 'in the beginning': now the two of them were arum, yet they were not ashamed, neither were they frightened.

Alma quoting Genesis

In Alma 42, Alma briefly recounts the Garden of Eden story to his son. I didn't realize before that he actually quotes Genesis 3:22-24 almost verbatim, but changing the order. Genesis 3:22-24 in the KJV Bible reads

22 And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

23 Therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.

24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.

Alma 42:2-3 reads

2 Now behold, my son, I will explain this thing unto thee. For behold, after the Lord God sent our first parents forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground, from whence they were taken—yea, he drew out the man, and he placed at the east end of the garden of Eden, cherubim, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the tree of life—

3 Now, we see that the man had become as God, knowing good and evil; and lest he should put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat and live forever, the Lord God placed cherubim and the flaming sword, that he should not partake of the fruit

One noticeable difference is that the KJV uses "cherubims" while the Book of Mormon uses "cherubim". Since the -im suffix in Hebrew indicates plural, the additional 's' is unnecessary and the Book of Mormon more correct.

There is also some irony and possible significance in Adam tilling "the ground from whence he was taken". More on this later.

The taste of God's love

King Benjamin is using a curious expression in Mosiah 4:11 when he says

if ye have known of his goodness and have tasted of his love

What does God's love taste like? I think this is an allusion to the tree that Lehi saw in a dream. The angel explained to Nephi that the fruit represented the love of God (1 Nephi 11:25). The taste is described as "most sweet, above all that I ever before tasted." (1 Nephi 8:11). God's love really does taste sweet. King Benjamin would probably know from personal experience, but also from reading the small plates of Nephi. In Omni 1:25,30 we learn that Amaleki fills the rest of the small plates of Nephi with his writings and then hands them over to King Benjamin. So there is good reason to believe that King Benjamin had read the description of Lehi's dream and kept this in mind when he talked about tasting God's love. 

Structural parallels between 2 Nephi 26:20-22 and 2 Nephi 28

A lot of thought and consideration went into the structure of the Book of Mormon, especially Nephi's writings.  I believe much of this is overlooked by us as readers unless we stop to look for the structure.

For example, consider the thematic parallels between these two verses in 2 Nephi 26:

20 And the Gentiles are lifted up in the pride of their eyes, and have stumbled, because of the greatness of their stumbling block, that they have built up many churches; nevertheless, they put down the power and miracles of God, and preach up unto themselves their own wisdom and their own learning, that they may get gain and grind upon the face of the poor.
21 And there are many churches built up which cause envyings, and strifes, and malice.

...and major themes in 2 Nephi 28, outlined below:

Pride: v 12 -- "Because of pride, and because of false teachers, and false doctrine, their churches have become corrupted, and their churches are lifted up; because of pride they are puffed up." (See also v. 9, 13, 15.)

Many churches: v. 3 -- "For it shall come to pass in that day that the churches which are built up, and not unto the Lord, when the one shall say unto the other: Behold, I, I am the Lord’s; and the others shall say: I, I am the Lord’s;"

Deny the power of God and miracles: v. 5 -- "And they deny the power of God, the Holy One of Israel;" and v. 6 -- "if they shall say there is a miracle wrought by the hand of the Lord, believe it not; for this day he is not a God of miracles; he hath done his work."

Preach according to worldly learning: v. 4 -- "they shall teach with their learning, and deny the Holy Ghost, which giveth utterance."

Desire to get gain/ignore the poor: v. 13 -- "They rob the poor because of their fine sanctuaries; they rob the poor because of their fine clothing; and they persecute the meek and the poor in heart, because in their pride they are puffed up."

Contention: v. 4 -- "And they shall contend one with another; and their priests shall contend one with another,"

Just another example of why I believe so strongly that the author of this book had a lot of time and a lot of notes.

Hat tip: Gregory Smith.

Possible Hebrew roots regarding Satan's "chains"

Jeff Lindsay discusses possible Hebrew roots that might help us understand the nature of Satan's chains:

How does a chain veil the earth with darkness (or how might it help Satan in veiling the earth...? Chains are not especially opaque. A search for “veil” and “chain” in the Old Testament yielded these possibilities:

• Candidate for “chain”: rābiyd (רבִיד)57), a necklace, neck chain or collar, used in Genesis 41:42 (Pharaoh gives Joseph “a gold chain about his neck”) and Ezekiel 16:11 (“I decked thee also with ornaments, and I put … a chain on thy neck”). From rābad (רָבַד)58), meaning to spread or bedeck.

• Candidate for “veil”/“vail”: rādiyd (רדִיד)59), a “veil” in Song of Songs 5:7 and “vails” in Isaiah 3:23, a word which can mean a “thin outer garment” or a shawl, headcloth, or large veil.60

If these words were actually used in a Hebrew document (say, on the brass plates), then Satan’s chain, a rābiyd, wouldn’t necessarily be something that looks frightening but could be ornamental and attractive, the kind we might gladly receive and wear around our necks with pride, only to realize too late that, like the golden handcuffs we speak of in the business world, it limits our freedom. Satan’s pretty chains are chains of slavery. They connect us to his crushing yoke and lead us captive into bitter servitude. 

These two ideas (the chain as an adornment and the "veil of darkness") fit in very nicely with a few additional relevant Book of Mormon passages. First a connection to Nephi's discussion of the devil's "flaxen cord" at the end of 2 Nephi:

 22 And there are also secret combinations, even as in times of old, according to the combinations of the devil, for he is the founder of all these things; yea, the founder of murder, and works of darkness; yea, and he leadeth them by the neck with a flaxen cord, until he bindeth them with his strong cords forever. (2 Nephi 26)

Note here the reference to two separate cords: First the flaxen cords, then the strong cords.

This paper by Gregory Smith explores the context of the term "flaxen cord" in exquisite detail.  Among many other points, he finds very specific connections between 2 Nephi 26:20-21 (the two verses immediately preceding the verse quoted above) and major themes of 2 Nephi 28. Smith then (convincingly, in my opinion) connects verse 22 with 2 Nephi 28:21:

And others will he pacify, and lull them away into carnal security, that they will say: All is well in Zion; yea, Zion prospereth, all is well — and thus the devil cheateth their souls, and leadeth them away carefully down to hell.

Imagine that--carnal security as the flaxen cord with which we willingly bind ourselves, only to end up bound by Satan's strong cords before we realize it. If the flaxen cord is an "adornment" that we put on ourselves, that fits very neatly into this context.

Second, a connection between the "veil of darkness" and Nephi's discussion of "the two churches" in 1 Nephi 14.  In this passage, Nephi makes extensive contrasts between the church of God and the "whore of all the earth."  Visually, I picture the contrast between Christ as the Bridegroom, leading the church of the Lamb of God down safe paths, as opposed to Satan leading the "whore of all the earth" as a captive, covered in a dark veil, against her will down to hell.  It fits in this context, too, and it is a stark image.

In light of all of this, what role does carnal security play in the Gospel?  I'm reminded of a few New Testament passages:

31 Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed?
32 (For after all these things do the Gentiles seek:) for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things.
33 But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you. (Matthew 6)

And this one:

16 And he spake a parable unto them, saying, The ground of a certain rich man brought forth plentifully:
17 And he thought within himself, saying, What shall I do, because I have no room where to bestow my fruits?
18 And he said, This will I do: I will pull down my barns, and build greater; and there will I bestow all my fruits and my goods.
19 And I will say to my soul, Soul, thou hast much goods laid up for many years; take thine ease, eat, drink, and be merry.
20 But God said unto him, Thou fool, this night thy soul shall be required of thee: then whose shall those things be, which thou hast provided?
21 So is he that layeth up treasure for himself, and is not rich toward God. (Luke 12)

The Lord God will "Joseph" a marvelous work among the Gentiles

1 Nephi 22 contains one of the best examples of how an understanding of Hebrew greatly enhances the richness of the text. The verb in verse 11 "will proceed to" is "yasap" which shares the same root with the Hebrew name "Joseph."

8 And after our seed is scattered the Lord God will proceed to do a marvelous work among the Gentiles, which shall be of great worth unto our seed; wherefore, it is likened unto their being nourished by the Gentiles and being carried in their arms and upon their shoulders.

...

11 Wherefore, the Lord God will proceed to make bare his arm in the eyes of all the nations, in bringing about his covenants and his gospel unto those who are of the house of Israel.
12 Wherefore, he will bring them again out of captivity, and they shall be gathered together to the lands of their inheritance; and they shall be brought out of obscurity and out of darkness; and they shall know that the Lord is their Savior and their Redeemer, the Mighty One of Israel.

In other words, God will "Joseph" a latter-day work.

In light of the known prophetic significance of the name Joseph (see 2 Nephi 3), this is pretty great stuff.

This paper by Matthew Bowen goes into exquisite detail on the significance of this Hebrew root in the writings of Nephi and Isaiah:

However, the active participle yôsīp, a form of the verb yāsap, may ultimately represent the more important term here. This participle implicitly modifies the Lord as doer of the action: hinĕnî yôsīp; literally, “I am proceeding [to do … ].” As has been noted previously, this participle greatly resembles the name “Joseph” (yōsēp) in form and sound. From a Latter-day Saint perspective, it is tempting to see Isaiah making a deliberate wordplay on the name “Joseph,” per ipsum. However, we can conclude with greater certainty that Nephi not only sees a reference to the name Joseph in this passage but repeatedly uses and adapts it as such. 

1 Nephi 22:11 is particularly interesting to me, as it makes clear that this latter-day work would include a restoration of the ancient temple covenants to all the world, which is exactly what is happening today. Joseph Smith, if a fraud, would have needed to have this concept already in mind by 1829 in order to justify going to such great lengths to embed this concept in Nephi's writings. 

Layers of irony in ancient prophecies of Christ's sacrifice

The first half of 1 Nephi 19:10 is dripping with irony:

10 And the God of our fathers, who were led out of Egypt, out of bondage, and also were preserved in the wilderness by him, yea, the God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, yieldeth himself, according to the words of the angel, as a man, into the hands of wicked men, to be lifted up, according to the words of Zenock, and to be crucified, according to the words of Neum, and to be buried in a sepulchre, according to the words of Zenos,

The same God who led them out of bondage, preserved them in the wilderness, and sent prophets to testify of him willingly gives himself up as a man to those same people, who have long since forgotten him and turned to their own ways. When he comes, they reject him and crucify him (for committing blasphemy by claiming to be the Messiah).

To underscore his point, Nephi references three Israelite prophets who had testified of these things. We of course have no direct knowledge of these prophets because their words have been removed from the record (too plain and precious, perhaps?).

Is it ironic that critics contend with Nephi's reference to the prophecies of ancient prophets about the sacrifice of Jesus Christ because we don't have their words outside of the Book of Mormon, in light of the fact that the reason we don't have their words is that they were removed by wicked men? Probably.