Jacob’s Isaiah Exegesis, His Prophesies, Warnings and Visions
Some of this comes from reworking Grant Hardy’s, Understanding the Book of Mormon, A Reader’s Guide. I highly recommend that book as well as his edited version of The Book of Mormon – The Book of Mormon, A Reader’s Edition. Some of my commentary comes from my own little messed up brain. I hope you enjoy, and please, write a comment, especially if you disagree with me. I really enjoyed Justin’s and Cody’s comments on my previous posts.
In this post I include a lot of rhetorical and open-ended questions. I would appreciate any insight one might have as I clearly have been unable to draw any clear conclusions to some of the questions.
For 5 chapters, Nephi leaves the historical narrative and focuses on scriptural exegesis, prophecy, and visions. Why does he do this through his younger brother instead of doing it himself? Did it have to do with Nephi’s age?
The use of the phrase, “my beloved brethren” is used 13 times by Jacob. The phrase appears 7 more times in Jacob’s brief book (one of them seems to have been added by the 1830 editor, see Royal Skousen, Variants, Prt Two, 990-91) Nephi will later adopt this phrase himself in 2 Nephi 25-33. The phrase never appears anywhere else in Nephi’s writing except for his transcription of Jacob’s sermon as noted earlier.
2 Nephi 6:1
Why is Nephi speaking about himself in the third person? Is it Nephi speaking in this verse or could it be Mormon interrupting the readers?
2 Nephi 6:2
How are we to interpret vs. 2? At this point has Nephi turned over the responsibility of being the spiritual leader of the Nephites to his younger brother? It appears that Nephi is still the political leader.
2 Nephi 6:2
It appears Jacob has spoken to the Nephite people on at least one other occasion (I speak unto you again). Nephi however did not include this on the small plates. I wonder if it was included in the manuscripts lost by Martin Harris.
2 Nephi 6:4
Jacob is told by Nephi what to preach 6:4. Here it sounds as though Nephi is still the spiritual leader as he is instructing Jacob on what he should discourse.
2 Nephi 6:8
Jerusalem’s fall occurred about 586 B.C. to Babylon’s King Nebuchadnezzar II . 1 Nephi 1:4 tells us Lehi’s story begins during the first year of the reign of Zedekiah (597 B.C.) 1 Nephi 10:4 says that Lehi’s group left 600 years before Jesus’ birth (roughly 600 B.C. +/-); obviously it would have to be after 600 B.C. because the story doesn’t start until 597 B.C. From 1 Nephi 17:4 we learn that Lehi’s group was traveling for about 8 years before building the boat (Somewhere around 589 B.C. since the story starts in 597B.C. and they hadn’t left Jerusalem at that point). 2 Nephi 5:28 tells us 30 years had passed away since the group left Jerusalem (567 B.C.+/-). 2 Nephi 5:34 says Nephi was commanded to make the Small Plates about 40 years after what? It isn’t clear. Forty years since they left Jerusalem( 557 B.C. +/-) or 40 years since the family split up (527 B.C. +/-)? Traditionally it is held that the 40 years represents since Lehi’s group left Jerusalem. So the earliest that Jacob would be giving this discourse would be probably around 557 B.C. Since Jacob was born after the family left Jerusalem, the oldest Jacob could be is around 40 years old. Nephi, depending if he was a teenager or a young man in his twenties or approaching his thirties, could be anywhere from 53 to 70 years old.
My friend, Justin Esplin, pointed out in an earlier post, that based on Jacob 1:9-12, that the monarchy was given to someone different than the spiritual leader. This new king could have been one of Nephi’s sons. If the kingship was indeed given to one of Nephi’s sons, the question has to be asked, “Why is the new king not named by his proper name?” The new kings took the regnal name Nephi – similar to the whole Caesar thing and perhaps how the new Catholic Pope takes on a pontifical name. From this interpretation it would follow that it was the spiritual leaders as well as the Small Plates that followed Jacob’s blood line, not Nephi’s. Based on Mosiah 25:13, the two distinct roles of King and Priest, were then combined into one man. The two records (Small and Large plates) were at that point also held by the same man. I owe Justin Esplin for this new insight.
Now the question should be asked, “Why does Nephi include Jacob’s sermon at this particular time?” Let’s gather some background first. Looking at 1 Nephi 6:6 it appears that Nephi had every intention of giving the small plates, and thus assumed, the spiritual leadership to his direct descendants – rather than nephews. 1 Nephi 9:4 tells us Nephi was coronated the Nephite king but it seems to be with some ambivalence (nevertheless, I did for them according to that which was in my power) Jacob explicitly calls him king (2 Nephi 6:2).
Omni 1:23 and Mosiah 6:4 & 10:6 seem to indicate that there was a clear father/son succession to both the Nephite and Lamanite kingly office. However, the kings mentioned in Omni 1:23 and Mosiah 6:4 aren’t called by the regnal name “Nephi”. Why?
Mormon 1:5 shows that the prophet-historian Mormon claimed to be a descendant of Nephi so we can assume that Nephi had children.
Why is Jacob’s sermon here and now in The Book of Mormon? Might it be Nephi’s attempt to smooth the way for, and add legitimacy to an unexpected succession of spiritual leadership? For with Nephi’s death, as pointed out earlier, the spiritual leadership follows Jacob’s blood line. Also Nephi could be attempting to show the reliability of prophecy (2 Nephi 6-10) as we see Isaiah’s prophecy of Jerusalem’s fall coming to pass. We find Isaiah’s prophecies coincide with Nephi’s own prophecies thus adding legitamacy to Nephi’s prophetic call. We will see in 2 Nephi 11:2-3 that Nephi includes Isaiah, his brother Jacob, and himself as three having seen Jesus. This statement along with Jacob’s sermon, might be interpreted as further indication of Nephi’s concern of adding legitimacy to his own prophetic call as well as to Jacob’s succession as spiritual leader.
2 Nephi 9:1
Here Jacob gives his reasoning for quoting Isaiah (that ye might know concerning the covenants of the Lord that he has covenanted with all the House of Israel). Does this contradict his previous reason for quoting Isaiah as stated in 2 Nephi 6:4 (they are the words which my brother has desired that I should speak unto you)?
2 Nephi 9:7
Why did Joseph Smith use the word “atonement” as opposed to other words that deal with Jesus’ sacrificial death. Examples would be: expiation, propitiation, etc. Each of these words have their own theological nuance, so I wonder if Joseph Smith was trying to emphasize the theological nuance of the word “atonement”
Perhaps a post should be done on the different theories of the atonement. For now, I will give a brief description of the different words used to explain what Jesus did in the Garden of Gethsemane, the cross, and through His resurrection:
Atonement: The word atonement occurs only once in the KJV of the New Testament (Romans 5:11), while it occurs 31 times in the Book of Mormon. Atonement does not exist in English until Middle English at around 1505-1515. It means at- one-ment, or in other words, in harmony with. The idea of atonement is becoming one with God or reconciling ourselves with God though Jesus Christ, where we had been separated from Him before due to our sins.
Expiate: Does not occur in the KJV. This deals with removal of sin. The idea is extinguishing something, to wipe something out. The idea is that the sacrifice would expiate a person’s sins. It would extinguish their sins. It would cleanse them thus the object of expiation is not God, it is sin. Through Christ our sins are expiated, or removed. In Spanish this is the word that is used instead of atonement, including in The Book of Mormon – this would make sense since the word atonement did not enter the English lexicon until 1505 at the earliest
Propitiate: In the KJV this word is found in Romans 3:25, 1 John 2:2, and 1 John 4:10. This word deals with appeasing God’s wrath that we have incurred because of our sins. In a sense it means to placate a person. In pagan religions, the gods needed to be propitiated. You needed to placate them, or do things to win their favor; you would bring them offerings in order to get the gods on your side. The idea of propitiation is a sacrifice that is offered to the deity in order to mollify the deity’s opposition to you and win the favor of the deity. Jesus Christ made propitiation for us. This means He appeased God’s anger that came because of our sins. The object of propitiation is God Himself. It is God that is propitiated.
In the Greek N.T., the Greek word we are dealing with is hilasterion. The question theologians and Bible scholars debate is how to best translate this word. Should it be translated as propitiation or expiation? Hilasterion literally means “mercy seat”. Hilasterion is the word that is used in the Greek translation of the Old Testament, (the Septuagint -sometimes written LXX), for the mercy seat that is in the Holy of Holies in the temple. The Septuagint was already in existence during the time of Jesus Christ. The Bible scholar C.H. Dodd argues that propitiation is a pagan idea and so hilasterion should only be translated as expiation. Most scholars are not persuaded by Dodd and realize that hilasterion is used to mean both expiation and propitiation. Zechariah 7:2 and Malachi 1:9 are examples of offering sacrifice to seek the favor of the Lord. This does not mean propitiation is being used in the pagan sense, to butter up God. It is important to realize that it is God Himself that is initiating the sacrifice of His Son. It is not a human sacrifice offered to God in order to win over God’s favor who is estranged from us. On the contrary, it is we who are alienated from God and God seeks us out, to reconcile Himself to us by offering Jesus Christ as a sacrifice. But wouldn’t this then be an expiation? No. What propitiation is dealing with is God’s holy anger towards sin. It is Christ’s death that averts God’s wrath. It satisfies Gods’ wrath. In doing so His justice is met.
As the hilasterion (mercy seat), Christ’s sacrifice is both a propitiation and an expiation.
Now that we have some brief theological definitions for atonement, propitiation, and expiation, why would Joseph Smith choose atonement when translating The Book of Mormon? -Especially when atonement shows up only once in the KJV of the New Testament.
2 Nephi 9:28-30
Here we get, as far as I know, one of the few warnings against being “learned”. If we take a qualitative approach to this warning and compare it to the warning of being rich we get the following:
I did a word search using “rich”. Here are some of the warnings against the rich: Psalm 37:16; 49:6; 52:7; 62:10; 73:12; Proverbs 11:4; 11:28; 13:7; 22:16; 23:4 (this one could go either to the rich or the wise); 27:24; 28:6; 28:20; 28:22; Ecclesiastes 5:12-14; 10:6; Jeremiah 5:27; 9:23 (could go to either the rich or the wise) Matthew 19:23,24; Mark 4:19; 10:23-25; Mark 12:41-44; Luke 6:24; 8:14; 16:19-24; 18:18-25; 21:1-4; I decided to stop there.
Total warnings of being rich: 23
Warning against the “wise/learned” 2 Nephi 9:28-30; the two noted above; Proverbs 3:5
Total warnings of being wise/learned: 4
“The worst fear that I have about this people is that they will get rich in this country, forget God and His people, wax fat, and kick themselves out of the Church and go to hell. This people will stand mobbing, robbing, poverty, and all manner of persecution, and be true. But my greatest fear for them is that they cannot stand wealth; and yet they have to be tried with riches, for they will become the richest people on this earth” (Brigham Young, reported in James S. Brown, Life of a Pioneer [1900], 122-23).
If we take a qualitative approach, it would seem God is much more concerned about the rich than he is with the learned.
Now a bit of social commentary on Mormonism. Why does so much of the rhetoric from the 20th and 21st century Mormonism center around the warning of being learned and not listening to the council of God? What is the role of “the intellect” in the church? We know what the role of the rich is: They are the ones that have the motor boats and take the youth on water skiing trips. They also seem to occupy the leadership positions in the church.
Looking here locally, our previous Stake President has an MBA and owns his own business. He just got called to be the Mission President of the Santiago Chile, East Mission. The newly called Stake President is also a business man. What were the occupations of the two 70 that came to release the old and call the new Stake President? Their brief bios in the programs showed that they were both business men. I know both the previous and the new Stake Presidents personally. The previous one was in our old ward and one of his sons use to baby sit our now 10 year old daughter. The new Stake President used to be our bishop in our old ward. I know of no better men. When Mormonism does it right, it produces men like my past and present Stake Presidents.
It is understandable why the hierarchy of the church relies on business men. If you have wealth, you are able to give more of your time to the church. As a business owner, you have more control over your time, since you are the boss. There seems to be some truth however, in the observation that the J. Reuben Clark Law School and BYU Business College are factories for making Stake Presidents and General Authorities.
What of the intellects of the church? The great intellects of the church seem to get marginalized, or worse, excommunicated. Think of the following intellectuals: Leonard Arrington, B.H. Roberts, Lowell Bennion, Michael Quinn and, Eugene England, Juanita Brooks. All have either been formally or informally marginalized by our church.
As further examples, we have: the “September 6” excommunications, Elder Packer’s famous (or infamous) May 18, 1993 talk in which he included “so called scholars and intellectuals” as one of the three great dangers to the church. When was the last time you heard of someone being excommunicated for being too rich? Ya, you don’t. You hear of the rich getting special privileges and dispensations. I am thinking of Mitt Romney being able to marry outside the temple followed by his temple sealing a few days later. If you look closely at his financial records that were released, you might argue (I am not) that he doesn’t pay a full tithe. Although marriage outside the temple followed closely by a temple marriage is allowed in countries that do not recognize the legality of LDS temple marriages, this is almost never allowed in the United States. In the U.S., if you marry first outside the temple, there is usually about a one year waiting period before you are allowed to be sealed in an LDS temple ceremony. To be rich is to be privileged.
In regards to the warning of being “learned”, the scriptures seem to provide the answer to how to walk this path and still remain in good standing with God, “if they hearken unto the counsels of God.” In contrast, the warnings to the rich, for the most part, stand as warnings, with little advise on what to do if you are rich; it just appears to be super hard to get into heaven if you are rich. I will admit there are scriptures advising the rich to give to the poor and, “to sell all you have.”
Looking at the scriptural warnings, it seems that God is more concerned about the rich, not the “wise and learned”. Why do we as modern Mormons flip that?
Since it is Nephi’s younger brother, Jacob, addressing the Nephites, it can be assumed that only one generation has passed since the beginning of The Book of Mormon narrative. Is that really enough time to get gain and wealth? I would argue probably not. Assuming the Nephites have not accumulated much wealth by this part of the narrative, why would Jacob be giving such an exhortation?
Assuming that Jacob’s discourse is given around 550B.C. +/-, this would put us around the beginning of the Middle Formative Period of Mayan culture. This is about the time that the Olmec civilization, which inhabited Vera Cruz, suddenly collapsed (some Mormon apologists think the Olmec were the Jaredites). In Michael Coe’s, The Maya, we read, “During this time we get the beginnings of the construction of Kaminalijuyu in Guatemala. The oldest culture in this area is probably Arevalo followed by Las Charcas. There is little archeological evidence left of the Arevalo, but much more of Las Charcas. In the Maya lowlands, we now have for the first time substantial evidence for a Maya population. The oldest occupation in this area is the little-known Xe culture, which appears in deep levels at the site of Altar de Sacrficios and at Seibal in the western part of Peten. It is in the Northern part of Peten, where the Middle Formative Period has been best defined. Here we get the great Maya centers of Uaxactun and Tikal. In these centers, it appears that the Mamom is the dominant culture of this time. Mamom, which has a radiocarbon date within the 5th century B.C. looks like a simple village culture. However, it must be kept in mind that the lowland Maya almost always built their temples over older ones, so that in the course of centuries, the earliest constructions would eventually come to be deeply buried within the towering accretions of rubble and plaster. Consequently, to prospect for Mamom temples in one of the larger sites would be extremely costly in time and labour, and the question of their existence should be kept open. The Middle Formative sees the establishment of Maya-speaking lowlands everywhere; the flowering of Maya culture could only have taken place on this base. But there is absolutely nothing to suggest that Maya civilization as we understand it – the vaulted masonry architecture, the naturalistic painting and relief style, Long Count calendar and hieroglyphic writing – had even begun to germinate during this epoch.” (MIchael Coe, The Maya, pg 35-40)
With the above evidence as background, could it have been Jacob’s observations of the collapse of the Olmec, or the rise of one of the Middle Formative civilizations that prompted his warnings against the rich?
2 Nehphi 10:3
This is an odd verse. Christ comes from the Greek meaning “the anointed one” as opposed to Messiah which means the same thing but comes from the Hebrew. The question raised is two fold: First, Jesus’ name wasn’t Christ, it was Jesus of Nazareth; Messiah and Christ are titles – not last names. In first century Judaism, what we would consider a last name, either had to do with from where you came (Jesus of Nazareth, Joseph of Arimathaea) or told who your father was ie Simon Bar-jona (Son of Jonah/Jonas). The second part deals with Book of Mormon translation itself. Why did Joseph Smith Jr. pick the title “Christ” here instead of the Hebrew “Messiah”. Wouldn’t it have made more sense to pick the Hebrew since Jacob is a first generation Jew?
2 Nephi 10:24
”reconcile” Hmmmmm. Atonement would fit nicely here. Perhaps this gives a window into what was written on the plates.
Miguel Barker-Valdez
Miguel is a Guatemalan-American Mormon living in the Northwest with his family. He is one of the proprietors of the Rational Faiths blog.
All posts by Miguel Barker-Valdez
As usual, another great post. I wanted to share my opinion with regards to what you wrote about the warnings against the rich and the learned. One reason why the church hierarchy seems to be so dominated by businessmen and lawyers rather than theologians and academicians is because the church needs individuals with strong leadership experience. The church is now global, and can be viewed as a very large multi-national corporation. In order to run an organization of that magnitude, it needs to be run like a large corporation. For good or bad, that is the reality. It is not realistic that the quorum of the twelve can sit down with all the congregations in the church and teach them, or teach each bishop within the church individually. The majority of the time spent by a stake president, mission president, or general authority is occupied by more of an administrative role rather than a revelatory or theological role.
Their wealth, I believe, is merely a secondary result of their managerial skills. It’s a natural cause and affect relationship in our capitalistic society. If someone is driven, has great work ethic, and has great managerial skills, they will accumulate wealth. Yes, their wealth does allow them to serve in a greater capacity, but I see the large numbers of MBA’s in the church hierarchy as an indicator of the need for great leaders rather than wealthy individuals.
I do agree, however, that many of the scholars and intellectuals become marginalized unfortunately. As I mentioned, I do believe though that we don’t see more of them because of the need for managerial/administrative skills in the leadership positions.
There is a problem with how we as a church culture deal with these two warnings. With respect to wealth, we unfortunately view wealth as the early American Puritans, if you are righteous God will bless you with wealth. Therefore we pursue wealth to show how righteous we are to our neighbors. We also celebrate the wealth of our leaders as a sign of their success and favor with God.
Now the warning for the wise and learned often gets misinterpreted. As a culture we often forget to keep reading the verse in 2 Nephi 9:28 “When they are learned they think they are wise, and hearken not unto the counsel of God, for they set it aside, supposing they know of themselves….” We sometimes view intellectuals as being anti-religion. This is not true, the problem with intellectualism begins when we quit following the counsels of God because we can rationalize or reason our way out of some of his commandments or counsels. There is a delicate balance that we need to try and maintain between knowledge and wisdom without thinking we know more than God, or God’s elect.
The way I believe we can maintain that balance and harmony between intellectualism and obedience is found in 2 Nephi 28:4 “…their priests shall contend one with another, and they shall teach with their learning, and deny the Holy Ghost, which giveth utterance.” The key in all of this is to follow the Holy Ghost. In all things defer to the Holy Ghost. If our reasoning and learning seem to contradict the Holy Ghost, defer to the Holy Ghost, not our learning. If we beginning ignoring, or merely not listening, to the Holy Ghost our intellectualism can then lead us down a path of apostasy.
This is a very tricky delicate subject though that I won’t expound upon too much because it does deal very intimately with the fallibility of our leaders and their perception of what “apostate” means.
Overall a very good post.
Cody,
I agree with all your points. It does bother me a bit when the church is run like a corporation. A corporation is worried about its self-preservation. By doing so it usually does the opposite of Jesus’ injunction to, “leave the 99 to find the 1.” Often I see our church as leaving the one to preserve the 99. I worry that those under our leaders’ and our stewardships get “managed” and not administered to. This is not necessarily all the fault of the hierarchy. Our leaders are often much more progressive than us members are on certain subjects; the easiest one that comes to mind is the treatment of those in our congregations that have same sex attraction. We as members are often still stuck back in 1970 when our leaders have publicly advocated a much more loving and inclusive approach. I guess I got off subject there.
In regards to the fallibility of our leaders, that is a post we should do. After all: Catholics have the doctrine of infallibility, but no one believes it. Mormons say their leaders are fallible and no one believes it!
If you would like to do a post on that topic, you should do it. My brother Jon can set you up. I would want to include all the contradictory statements about that. Including N. Eldon Tanner’s statement about the ERA movement, “The thinking has already been done.”
This tension between managing and administering, learning and listening to our ecclesiastical leaders, being rich but not prideful, fallibility and infallibility creates tension. But that is where we as a church are, and that is, at least for me, is where I wrestle with God.
“Catholics have the doctrine of infallibility, but no one believes it. Mormons say their leaders are fallible and no one believes it!” Awesome!
So I have a question that is fairly off topic. In your comments you mentioned the policy in the church regarding temple marriage. Why does a couple who gets married civilly first have to wait a year to get married in the temple? If they did not engage in sex outside of marriage, they weren’t breaking any commandments, and therefore should be worthy to be sealed in the temple, right? I’ve never understood the year “ban” required for a worthy couple who gets married civilly first. Shouldn’t our goal as a church be to have as many worthy couples be sealed for time and all eternity? Why are we as a church making it so difficult for some couples who get married civilly first? I know of several couples who got married civilly first for various reasons that had to wait a year. And to prove they were worthy and it wasn’t anything like a shotgun wedding, they continued to attend the temple as a couple throughout that year even though they weren’t allowed to be sealed. Things that make you go hmmmm……
This is not the situation in other countries – I’m sure you saw this plenty in Mexico Cody, where they get married civilly first and then go to the temple the next day. I guess if you wanted to do that, go south of the border!
Cody,
My wife,Cathy, & I got into a debate about this very topic a few months ago. All the possible reasons for the policy were so illogical, that I have since forgotten them. I feel that if the church did away with the policy, it would heal the wounds of parents who are not allowed to see their child’s wedding. I remember in seminary being told the cautionary tale of the young LDS couple that got a civil marriage first and then both being killed in a car accident before being sealed
You should do some investigating on the topic Cody and write a post. See what you get when you ask too many questions?
While I would love to compose a post, I feel like I have no time to put together a coherent post. Ever since last month when my wife was operated on for her brain tumor my life has been flipped upside down. Now that she is undergoing chemo and radiation and with her seizures, I feel like a single parent at times with my work load at home. For now, I’ll defer to Paul for the post 😉 I’ll just try to interject some pithy comments here and there.
Oh. I didn’t realize it was you that Paul had told me about. We will keep you in our prayers. Please interject more of you “pithy” comments.
Interesting points. I’d like to see more discussion about intellectuals in the church, especially B.H. Roberts who– in spite of his devotion to the gospel and his intellectual prowess–seems to have been relegated to the fringes of Mormon thought and history.
Ya. There is a great book published by Kofford Books dealing with the high level debates on evolution. BH got the shaft Give us some of ur insight Bret
Mike you bring some interesting questions to think about. Some I don’t know if there will ever be answers to. Well at lleast in this life. I would really like to be able to read those lost manuscripts though. Dang that Martin!
I was interested in the comments regarding the education/business background of those currently serving in the Quorum of the 12 so I went to the church’s website and discovered the following:
——–There are 4 of the brethren that have backgrounds/experience/degrees in business
——–There are 3 that have PhDs in education
——-Three of the brethren are attorneys
——-One is a nuclear engineer
——-One is a heart surgeon
These brethren have spent their time–paid the price–if you will–in obtaining the training/wisdom of the world. They are smart men. I’m sure that when they are in discussion regarding issues, that the ideas flow free and spontaneous but when the prophet speaks, the discussion is ended. But I am equally certain that the prophet doesn’t stride into the room and arbitrarily announce policy.
The leading brethren preside over the church in much the same way a husband and wife preside over the family. Neither the husband nor the wife arbitrarily make policy for the family but they visit, discuss, share pros and cons, ask and seek counsel. Hopefully, after enough time and ideas have been shared, there is a common consensuses of what is best for the family. But if not, sometimes there has to be someone to make that final decision and that is usually the priesthood holder in the home.
In the leading councils of the church, if there is not common consent, there is not a decision made until all are in consent.
I remember one experience where my husband and I had a life-changing decision to make. It was such that if it didn’t work out, it would have been a source of conflict for the rest of our marriage and so we had to be unified in this decision. It took a lot of thought and investigation and I still couldn’t come to grips with our choices. So I talked to our bishop and asked him if he had ever been in that position and how he and his wife resolved their inability to come to agreement.
He told me that when the leading brethren were in that position, they simply tabled the motion until all could be in agreement. For men that are as highly educated, experienced and successful as these brethren are, if it was any where else, that would be terribly hard. But because they are working for a common cause–the good of all of God’s children–they are able to put their individual feelings aside and support the prophet. And the prophet is patient enough that he also waits until there is common consent among those that have that stewardship.
Perhaps the perception that those that are “smart” in the church are marginalized is that many times they stray into the gray areas of the doctrine–where there is no absolute answer. Perhaps it is because their thoughts and philosophy comes across as “critical”. What is served by pointing out the weaknesses of those who have given their lives to serve the Lord? I’m sure that they are just as aware of their weaknesses as we are of ours. We usually don’t need to have anyone point out our weakness to us–or even when we said something stupid in Sunday School class. Why do we need to seek out the weaknesses of our presiding authorities–local and/or general?
Also, there is the possibility that instead of building and edifying the members of the church, those that are “marginalized” are creating doubts and questions that can’t be answered and therefore are weakening the faith of those that come in contact with them. And I’m not saying that we shouldn’t think and question. I’m saying to purposely create doubt in the name of knowledge is to create conflict rather than unity. And we all know what Heavenly Father has said regarding unity.
If I were to do that, at this very moment, I would think and feel that God didn’t need me in His kingdom and that I should just forget it. Yes, these men are human but they are the best men that Heavenly Father could find and there will come a day when they, like me, will have the opportunity to answer for their stewardship. If there was some blessing that I lost in this life or opportunity to serve that was denied me unjustly, those will all be adjusted. That is not my responsibility. That will be between them and God.
That’s all. Thanks for listening.
Mom,
I disagree with your assessment of those “intellectuals” marginalized in the church. Take Leonard Arrington as an example. He was called as Church Historian and given the specific responsibility by Howard W. Hunter and Spencer Kimball to write histories about the church that libraries would carry. The reason being was, that all the public libraries were carrying at the time was “anti-mormon” literature. Brother Arrington took that injunction quite seriously and did what he was asked to do. He professionalized the church archives and under his auspices, produced some of the best Mormon Historiography we have. These are known as “The Camelot Years” of Mormon historiography. A few in the Quorum of the 12 Apostles did not like the history he was writing because they viewed it as not being “faith promoting” history. They were unaware that Leonard Arrington had been given a specific duty to write scholarly history about the church. Those few men were very vocal and did things to prevent, and eventually have released, Brother Arrington from his position. Even though Brother Arrington had been called and sustained at General Conference, his release was done so quietly and privately; not in General Conference. All of the Church Historian’s portraits are hanging up at the Church History Museum; all except for Leonard Arrington. That is marginalization.
Elder BH Roberts of the Quorum of the Seventy was also marginalized. He brought up very early in the 20th century the problems with the anachronisms in The Book of Mormon. No one listened. He as well as Elder Widtsoe and Talmage strongly and vocally disagreed with Elder Joseph Fielding Smith’s anti-evolution views. B.H. Roberts was marginalized and Elder Smith outlived everyone else. Now we have the majority of Mormons taking President Smith’s anti-evolutionary view as doctrinal.
Michael Quinn was researching post-manifesto polygamy so members would hear about it first from a reliable, faithful Mormon historian and be able to contextualize it. Both Elder Roberts and Brother Quinn were marginalized. Look where we are now. To quote Elder Marlin Jensen of the Seventy, and our current Church Historian, “The fifteen men [1st Presidency and the Quorum of the 12 Apostles] really do know and they really care. And they realize that maybe since Kirtland, we never have had a period of, I’ll call it apostasy, like we’re having now; largely over these issues [meaning the church’s history].”
Along with historical issues, I would also add Book of Mormon anachronisms are up there with one of the top three reasons people leave the church. These “intellectuals” were not dealing in grey areas. I am grateful for the above mentioned “intellectuals”. They sacrificed so that we can now have the Richard Bushmans and Teryl Givens of today. I am grateful we as a church are beginning to mature in regards to dealing with tough issues within the church in a more open way; we still however have a long ways to go.
In regards to your assessment of the men in the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, you kind of proved my point. Seven of the 12 are either businessmen or attorneys; that is over half. I don’t quite understand the reason for the explanation you gave about how the leading quorums of the church work. Now, if you took my assessment of church culture as a criticism of our leaders, you are wrong. I believe we have inspired women and men leading this church, regardless of their professional or educational backgrounds. I do reserve the right however, card carrying, tithe paying member to look at my LDS culture and to criticize it. Isn’t that what Hugh Nibley was doinog in his famous BYU commencement address, “Leaders and Managers”? (http://speeches.byu.edu/reader/reader.php?id=2553)
Thank you Mom – I love you for openly disagreeing with me. Mormonism can and should sustain open discussions like this.
Since the church has, thus far, not issued a statement either in support of or against the Theory of Evolution, it seems that the purported heated exchanges between B H Roberts and Joseph Fielding Smith, especially concerning the existence of a pre-Adamic race, was a war of opinions between Roberts and Smith. Both men presented their opposing arguments to the then presiding church authorities, and in the end Smith won. Why? I don’t know. Perhaps it was because Joseph Fielding’s last name was Smith.
Brent,
I agree with you 100%. The LDS church has no official stance on organic evolution. The problem is that most of the members think there is and that it is anti-evolution. Why? Once again I agree with your assessment – Joseph Fielding Smith. He was much more vocal than BH Roberts and to the consternation of President McKay, several institute directors, and President Henry Erying’s father, Dr Henry Erying, he insisted that his book be used in church institutes. BH Roberts died before his book was published. Joseph Fielding Smith just outlived his opponents. That is why we have an anti-evolutionary bend in our church
Mike, you mentioned both warnings of the learned and the rich. I would think that these two things might be combined, kind of what Cody was saying how we celebrate the wealth of the leaders as their blessings. The difference I would make, though is that their consequences are the same, or at least close to it. Most people that have knowledge are wealthy;
mostmany wealthy people have knowledge. The end result, however, is the same for far too many people: pride. I refer to Elder Oak’s quote on wealth:The same thing is true about knowledge. Nothing is wrong with knowledge. If there were, I doubt there would be a BYU. What we must be careful with, however, is how we use the knowledge. Is it used to help others? the church? Or is it used to “cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness?”
If we do any of the above, it is out of pride. If we do anything – thanks to, because of or as a result of – our knowledge or wealth to truly and selflessly help others, and we are constantly striving to do those things, then there is nothing wrong with that knowledge or wealth. It is only when we try to put ourselves ahead of others in any way that pride steps in and that is the where the problems start.