Someone asked me recently why the LDS church still uses the King James Version exclusively. My answer was probably a parrot of something I read in the bloggernacle at some point in the past, but I don’t really remember where I got my current view.

My answer was to this effect:

Q1: Why do we use the KJV in the first place?

A1: Because the KJV was the Bible in widespread use at the time of the restoration. We just picked up the KJV by default because it was the Bible used by Joseph Smith and his contemporaries.

Q2: Why do we still stick to the KJV tenaciously after all these years, even to the point of disallowing other translations from use as the basis for Gospel Doctrine classes etc.?

A2: Because the Book of Mormon uses KJV language and we don’t want to do anything to the Book of Mormon language. It would be weird if we started using a plain English translation of the Bible but had a Book of Mormon that still used the KJV English. Since we are not about to “translate” the Book of Mormon into modern English, we can’t officially do it to the Bible either. I don’t think it has anything to do with the KJV being the best, or even a particularly good translation by modern standards. (more…)

So, just to show I suck at New Years Resolutions, I switched from the Book of Mormon to the OT around the beginning of this month, and am currently in Leviticus.

Anyway, in Leviticus 19, we read the following:

23 ¶ And when ye shall come into the land, and shall have planted all manner of trees for food, then ye shall count the fruit thereof as uncircumcised: three years shall it be as uncircumcised unto you: it shall not be eaten of.
24 But in the fourth year all the fruit thereof shall be holy to praise the Lord withal.
25 And in the fifth year shall ye eat of the fruit thereof, that it may yield unto you the increase thereof: I am the Lord your God.

Looking at other translations of the Bible, we see another word alternatively used for uncircumcised is forbidden.

So this got me thinking. A lot of the stories in the book of Genesis call on the law of Moses to illustrate part of the story. An example is Judah sleeping with Tamar, which requires Judah knowing and understanding Mosaic Law for it to make sense.

Is Eve’s story like this? Is the Forbidden Fruit she partook fruit of a tree that was under three years old?

(It’s interesting to note that the above mosaic ruling on uncircumcised fruit is put forth without a punishment attached, and thus could be considered only a transgression, rather than a sin out right.)

Any thoughts or feed back from you scholarly types?

The response to my previous post could be characterized as a collective “that’s it?” but I know that what you really meant was “oh yeah baby, that’s it.” So, while I am on the topic of redactors working macro-level messages into the volumes of scripture the are redacting, I want to call you attention to a very interesting paper in the JBMS and get your take on it. In his paper Prophecy and History: Structuring the Abridgment of the Nephite Records, Steven L. Olsen makes some very intriguing claims about the editorial intent guiding Mormon’s abridgment of the Book of Mormon. (more…)

In a book called The Nine Commandments, David Noel Freedman argues that the Old Testament contains a hidden pattern, carefully crafted and put in place by an anonymous master editor† of the Primary History (Genesis – Kings). The hidden pattern is based on the Ten Commandments. According to Freedman, the history from Genesis to Kings is structured to show that the Ten Commandments were systematically violated by Israel (one commandment per-book) until God had no choice but to unleash the covenant curses on Israel, resulting in their capture and exile along with the destruction of the temple. (more…)

In Mosiah 2, it says, in a rather long sentence:

(more…)

The Book of Jacob is a pretty short book, I thought about combining it with Enos-Words of Mormon, but I thought it had two really interesting points I hadn’t before thought of, so I’d go ahead and share them.
(more…)

I’m making pretty good progress on my Goal this year to read the Book of Mormon from beginning to end. I just finished second Nephi. Previously I had reported on 10 things I never knew before in First Nephi. Here are 10 things about 2nd Nephi. (more…)

I can’t get any of my real posts to the point where I am willing to pull the trigger, so I will settle today with a quick question about an interesting scripture:

21 And in nothing doth man offend God, or against none is his wrath kindled, save those who confess not his hand in all things, and obey not his commandments. (D&C 59:21)

The idea that God’s wrath is kindled against those who don’t confess his hand in all things is often used to argue that God is sticking his fingers is way more things than some of us have supposed. For example, Blake used this scripture in that way here, which got me thinking about it again. Earlier in that thread, I said that I reject the “everything happens for a purpose” way of thinking. I don’t think God is micro-managing everything that happens. I don’t feel compelled to attribute every good thing that happens to some form of divine intervention. (more…)

This year, my new years resolution was to read and seriously study the book of Mormon. Tonight I finished first Nephi, and thought I’d take a moment to share 10 things I learned that I didn’t know before. If it’s old hat to you, your name is probably Kevin Barney.
(more…)

This year for sunday school we are studying the Book of Mormon. It is my new years resolution to take this study seriously and to make a real effort to have a positive experience with Studying the Book of Mormon this year. So far, I have gone through the first ten chapters, using various study aids, and am having a good experience. I figured I would pass on some the aids to you, and give you a review of which ones I found worthwhile and which ones, not so much.

First, let me give you the basis of my analysis. I graded all the materials with scores of either great, ok, or disappointing, with the idea being that the book, to be worthwhile had to be as good or better than the very affordable (free) church produced material, and the book had to supplement actually studying the text of the Book of Mormon itself. (Sorry, that means I disqualified the excellent “By the Hand of Mormon”)

(more…)

We have had some good discussions of hermeneutics here in the past (here’s one), but usually only on the large scale about guiding principles and so forth. Sometimes I wonder about hermeneutical minutia, as it were. What follows is an example. (more…)

It’s pretty obvious that the historian Mormon had a fairly strong case of hero worship for Captain Moroni. First, he named his son after him, second, major portions of his history are dedicated to Moroni, and third, he notes in a moment of commentary, that he believes if all men were like Moroni, “the very powers of hell would have been shaken forever; yea, the devil would never have power over the hearts of the children of men” ( Alma 48:17 )
(more…)

With respect to your questions regarding what constitutes Mormon Doctrine, your question is best answered by the Japanese “mu,” which means that the question is misinformed so it is better to withdraw the question. Like Judaism, and it appears earliest Christianity, there is neither “official Mormon Doctrine” nor council or creed that establishes such matters. Rather, there is a tradition of interpretation that is like the common law approach to deciding what constitutes the law. It is taken on a case-by-case basis guided by prior precedent of revelations, decisions and practices. So everything in the scriptures is “doctrine,” but of course that leaves open a lot of different approaches. It is well-settled that the doctrine of the Church is that Jesus is God’s Son and our Savior. What these basic affirmations mean is left open. It is basic that the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God. What that means is left open to a range of interpretation. (more…)

So far, the most we can say Alma 28 explicitly has told us is that the Light of Christ is “unto life”(vs 14). Moroni 7, says the Light of Christ is the “Spirit of Christ” which is “given to every man, that he may know good from evil” (vs 16) and so that he may “lay hold of every good thing”.(vs 19) Moroni 7 still says man has to judge rightly, even though he has this light with which to judge. (vs 18) This is just a brief recap of what ground we have already covered. Now, let’s move on.

D&C 88 also tells us what the Light of Christ is, and it gets a bit more complicated. It says, in a single sentence: this is the light of Christ. , but the question which first must be answered is “What is this?” (more…)

This continues my analysis of scriptures directly related to “the light of Christ”. I did Alma 28 already.

Moroni 7:18-19 is perhaps the most critical text to understanding the Standard LDS conception of the Light of Christ as our conscience. To begin in medias res, as it were, it says:

And now, my brethren, seeing that ye know the light by which ye may judge, which light is the light of Christ, see that ye do not judge wrongfully; for with that same judgment which ye judge ye shall also be judged. Wherefore, I beseech of you, brethren, that ye should search diligently in the light of Christ that ye may know good from evil; and if ye will lay hold upon every good thing, and condemn it not, ye certainly will be a child of Christ.

(more…)

First of all, the light of Christ is not mentioned at all in the bible. It is a concept strictly found in modern scripture. Even there, there are only three times were the term is used, the earliest use being in Alma 28:14. As NCT author Jacob J has dedicated much time to this topic, I felt I should do an independent study of it, and return and report.

Alma 28:14 notes only that we have reason for “joy because of the light of Christ unto life.” This is contrasted with sorrow because of the “death and destruction” caused by a great war where tens and thousands were slain, making the author (either Mormon or Alma) to reflect on the state of the souls of those who had been slain. Poignantly he notes the inequality of man, due to our choices, due to our sins and transgressions, and due also to the influence of Satan upon the world, which is a deterministic force compelling us on to misery. Realizing the power of this opposition, the Author feels, is a great call to diligence for men to go forth and “labor in the vineyards of the lord.” This is the set up for the reference to the “light of Christ unto life.” We must “labor in the vineyard” to give the “light of Christ unto life” or at least a knowledge of how to utilize it or increase it to man, so that he or she may “dwell at the right hand of God, in a state of never-ending happiness”. (more…)

I have long suspected that some of our creedal Christian friends have inadvertently begun worshiping the Bible itself in place of, or at least in addition to, the living God. Recently Aaron Shafovaloff (of the Fluffy Bunny Nice Nice Club) seems to have confirmed that suspicion for me in his case at least.

We were discussing how he knows the Bible is the word of God over at his blog and he kept saying things that made no sense at all to me. I kept asking things like “Did God tell you it is true or not”? And he kept saying things like “No, not in the way Mormonism talks about this “yes” answer.” Well his last comment finally started clearing up this issue for me. Here are some of his quotes: (more…)

The automatic salvation of little children is hard to reconcile with the rest of what we know about the plan of salvation. If there is an “official” doctrine of the Church, it is that all little children are automatically saved in the celestial kingdom. Two representative examples are the EoM entry and BRM’s Ensign article on the same subject. However, it doesn’t take too much pondering of the “big picture” to wonder how this makes sense with the rest of our doctrine. (more…)

I recently asked Nitsav at FPR about the correlation between Gen 3:16 and Gen 3:7. This is my own answer to the question. (more…)

This recent exchange reminded me of my “Lehi’s dream” series, which I never finished. Part of the problem was that I couldn’t figure out how to edit this post (below) down to a reasonable length. Also Geoff was less than enthusiastic about the series. Nevertheless, I decided to post this installment to finish off the series, even though it is clearly far too long for a blog post. Oh well, don’t read it if you don’t want to! (more…)

Today we covered John 9 in Sunday School. I’ve always admired the man who was blind from birth in this story — partially for his faith but more for his belligerent attitude toward the prideful and conniving leaders of his community. Let’s look at some of the relevant passages. First, after the man’s sight is restored the people are astonished and ask him what happened:

10 Therefore said they unto him, How were thine eyes opened?
11 He answered and said, A man that is called Jesus made clay, and anointed mine eyes, and said unto me, Go to the pool of Siloam, and wash: and I went and washed, and I received sight.
12 Then said they unto him, Where is he? He said, I know not.

(more…)

Many of the prevailing ideas surrounding the atonement have parallels in our ideas about the fall. For example, the idea that our sins are transferred to Christ in the atonement is very similar to the idea that Adam’s transgression was transferred to each of us in the fall, giving us a “fallen nature.” I often pontificate against these sorts of transferals, as I don’t believe sinfulness or righteousness can be transferred from one person to another in an economic sort of transaction.

Instead of Adam’s transgression making the rest of humanity inclined to sin, I favor the view that the fall effected a change in the spiritual environment. The Earth fell from the presence of God. According to this explanation of the fall, the natural tendency of humankind to sin is explained by our pre-existing weakness before coming to earth. When we leave the presence of God to face the experience of life on our own we find that we have not yet developed the strength of character necessary to remain righteous in the face of temptation.

Now, there are many scriptures that could be brought to bear on this topic, but I wanted to focus this post on a favorite of mine. I don’t remember ever seeing the following scriptural argument made, but then, I don’t read much. I am interested in your reaction/criticism. As is often the case, I could be way off base. (more…)

Some people are offended by the sensibilities of two scriptures by Paul which seem to note a secondary status of women in relation to men. This is my attempt to analyze one these two scriptures. (more…)

Not too long ago DMI Dave said he was going to start putting up something devotional on Sundays. I like the idea, but this is as devotional a post as I could come up with for today.

The Lord commanded Cain to offer the “firstlings of their flocks for an offering unto the Lord” (Moses 5:5). You might expect that Satan would come along and tell Cain not to do it. Instead, Satan “commanded [Cain], saying: Make an offering unto the Lord” (Moses 5:18). Rare agreement between God and Satan. Seem strange? Read on… (more…)

Nephi starts out his record thusly:

I, Nephi, having been born of goodly parents, therefore I was taught somewhat in all the learning of my father; (1 Ne 1:1)

Could Nephi be saying that he got a good education because his parents were wealthy?

Everyone loves being complimented. I know I do. And I like sincerely complimenting other people too — everybody wins with a good compliment.

Jesus knew people love being complimented too. In our Sunday school lesson today I noticed an odd compliment that Jesus seemed to pay to some rather trollish Pharisees. Here is the passage from Luke 5:
(more…)

It is no secret that Open Theists read scriptures with different operative principles of interpretation than those who maintain classical theology. Open theists generally argue that scriptural passages demonstrate that God changes his mind, relents, repents or feels sorrow for things that have occurred. If they are correct, then at least to the extent such scripture is regarded as disclosing what is true of God, then God cannot be, as classical theists maintain: (1) immutable in the strong sense that none of God’s intrinsic properties is subject to change; (2) impassible in the sense that nothing outside of God influences him or otherwise has no feelings comparable to human feelings; (3) timeless in the sense that God is outside of any type of temporal succession; (4) prescient in the sense that God has infallible foreknowledge.
(more…)

One of the popular sports among many Mormons is taking potshots at “the rich”. Hugh Nibley seems to have really gotten the ball rolling on this sport (perhaps unintentionally?) with some of his excellent essays found in the book Approaching Zion. Using many of Nibley’s arguments, some Mormons seem to immensely enjoy lobbing theological grenades at the ever-nebulous and faceless group, the rich. We have been discussing this very topic in the comments over at my recent post about the camel and the eye of the needle teachings in the New Testament.

The problem is that nobody seems to be willing to define the term rich. What makes one officially rich? Is it net worth? Is it annual income?

Are you among those who actually believe that being poor (please define poor too, btw) is morally and spiritually superior to being rich?

I have mentioned elsewhere that I have a Nibley hangover lately and it is things like this that have given it to me. It was fun to ride a high horse and look down on “the rich” for a while after reading his stuff but falling off that high horse seems to have given me a Nibley headache or something…

[Associated radio.blog song: ABC - How To Be A Millionaire]

Time for another quick scripture poll. How do you reconcile the apparent disagreement between these two verses:

And it came to pass that I, Nephi, said unto my father: I will go and do the things which the Lord hath commanded, for I know that the Lord giveth no commandments unto the children of men, save he shall prepare a way for them that they may accomplish the thing which he commandeth them. (1 Ne. 3:7)

Verily, verily, I say unto you, that when I give a commandment to any of the sons of men to do a work unto my name, and those sons of men go with all their might and with all they have to perform that work, and cease not their diligence, and their enemies come upon them and hinder them from performing that work, behold, it behooveth me to require that work no more at the hands of those sons of men, but to accept of their offerings. (D&C 124:49)

Obviously, these two verses seem to be at odds with one another. The verse from the D&C seems to be saying that the work was no longer required specifically because it was hindered by enemies and not by the lack of faith or effort on the part of the “sons of men.” On the flip side, Nephi seems to be saying that the situation decribed in D&C 124:49 will never occur since the Lord will always provide a way to prevail over enemies who attempt to hinder the Lord’s commandments from being fulfilled.

My question is, how do you reconcile these two verses? Is one right and the other wrong (in which case, which is which)? Or is there a way to resolve the apparent conflict in their messages and make them both true at the same time?

And as I cast my eyes round about…I beheld a river of water; and it ran along, and it was near the tree of which I was partaking the fruit. (1 Ne. 8:13)

In a previous post I explored a few connections between the Garden of Eden, the ancient temple, the Exodus story, and Lehi’s dream. In this post I’ll focus on the river of water.

There is a conspicuous error in every artistic depiction of Lehi’s dream that I have ever seen. (more…)