Wonkette: Jesus People Pray That False Idol Will Save God?「どィび「s Economy
Popularity: 1% [?]
Before the Book of Mormon prophet Jacob popularized the terms Nephites and Lamanites to refer to the two Book of Mormon peoples, various names were used to refer to the peoples.
>”Now the people which were not Lamanites were Nephites; nevertheless, they were called Nephites, Jacobites, Josephites, Zoramites, Lamanites, Lemuelites, and Ishmaelites.” (Jacob 1:13)
So why isn’t Sam listed? Jacob and Joseph are. Laman and Lemuel are. All of Nephi’s brothers are except for Sam.
Any thoughts?
Popularity: 4% [?]
While reading last night in the Book of Mormon, I came across two interesting verses.
“For behold, we will not have him to be our ruler; for it belongs unto us, who are the elder brethren, to rule over this people.” (2 Ne 5:3)
“I, Nephi, did take my family, and also Zoram and his family, and Sam, mine elder brother and his family, and Jacob and Joseph, my younger brethren, and also my sisters, and all those who would go with me.” (2 Ne 5:6)
Does it seem odd to anyone else that Laman and Lemuel would refer to their family, which amounted to fewer than 20 adults and a handful of children, as “this people”? Why would Nephi add “and all those who would go with me” when he had already listed everyone we would have thought would go with him.
Popularity: 3% [?]
One of the ten commandments (Exodus 20) is “Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.” Often, this commandment is used to support the admonition to avoid profanity.
For example, Dallin H. Oaks said the following in the April 1986 conference:
>This scripture [using D&C 63:61–62 to expound on Ex. 20] shows that we take the name of the Lord in vain when we use his name without authority. This obviously occurs when the sacred names of God the Father and his Son, Jesus Christ, are used in what is called profanity: in hateful cursings, in angry denunciations, or as marks of punctuation in common discourse.
Last year, President Hinckley said the following in the April conference:
>To each of you I say, be clean in your language. There is so much of filthy, sleazy talk these days. Failure to express yourself in language that is clean marks you as one whose vocabulary is extremely limited. When Jehovah wrote on the tablets of stone, He said to the children of Israel, ?「どィ?Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.?「どィャ
As I was pondering this last night, I was thinking that if taking the Lord’s name in vain means to speak profanity than why isn’t the commandment: Thou shalt not say the name of the Lord thy God in vain?
Maybe taking the Lord’s name means something deeper than just speaking it.
In a March 1994 Ensign article, Robert L. Millet, an ancient scripture professor at BYU, stated that the word “take” is a translation of the Hebrew word Nasah, which can mean: to lift or lift up, raise, bear or carry (as we carry a burden), and take or carry away (unjustly).
Thus we see that it is more than simply using it without meaning. In fact, Millet goes on to list 3 ways we can take the name of the Lord in vain. Unsurprisingly, the first on the list is related to profanity.
1. His children take his name in vain through profanity and vulgarity.
2. His children take his name in vain through the breaking of oaths and covenants.
3. His children take his name in vain through being flippant, sacrilegious, and irreverent.
One need only read Mosiah 5 and the sacrament prayers for just 2 examples of covenants we make involving our taking upon us the name of Christ. When we don’t do our part ?「どィて such as keeping the commandments and always remembering him in relation to the sacramental covenant ?「どィて then that is one way we end up taking his name in vain.
Likewise, using Millet’s definition above, it is also interesting to understand that taking Jesus’s name upon us isn’t just about being faithful. It’s also about raising his name up,
Popularity: 3% [?]
During Supper Scripture Study today, we were discussing D&C 68:1–4.
My servant, Orson Hyde, was called by his ordination to proclaim the everlasting gospel, by the Spirit of the living God, from people to people, and from land to land, in the congregations of the wicked, in their synagogues, reasoning with and expounding all scriptures unto them. And, behold, and lo, this is an ensample unto all those who were ordained unto this priesthood, whose mission is appointed unto them to go forth?「どィてand this is the ensample unto them, that they shall speak as they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost. And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation.
Does that mean if a deacon feels the Spirit while giving a talk in Sacrament Meeting, that his words can be considered scripture?
Popularity: 2% [?]
You know, reading through Isaiah can be intimidating. Downright slogging even. Which is why I was not looking forward with anticipation as I finished reading 1 Ne 19 a couple of weeks ago. I was confident my new method of scripture study would help me through the Isaiah chapters of the Book of Mormon. And have they.
Take 1 Ne 20:1–2 for example.
Hearken and hear this, O house of Jacob, who are called by the name of Israel, and are come forth out of the waters of Judah, or out of the waters of baptism, who swear by the name of the Lord, and make mention of the God of Israel, yet they swear not in truth nor in righteousness. Nevertheless, they call themselves of the holy city, but they do not stay themselves upon the God of Israel, who is the Lord of Hosts . . .
Prior to this, I would have slogged through it. I am glad I didn’t though. What a strong statement on hypocrisy. Made me cringe just thinking what possibly I might have been doing hypocritically.
Popularity: 2% [?]
While preparing for a lesson in a couple of weeks, I was doing a bit of research into Nephi’s character. From what I can tell, 1 Ne 2:16 is the first place we find out about why Nephi became the sort of person he did:
I, Nephi, being exceedingly young, nevertheless being large in stature, and also having great desires to know of the mysteries of God, wherefore, I did cry unto the Lord; and behold he did visit me, and did soften my heart that I did believe all the words which had been spoken by my father; wherefore, I did not rebel against him like unto my brothers.
According to this passage, Nephi seems to imply that his being young and his desire to learn God’s mysteries caused him to pray. He also seems to imply that those two things, along with his praying caused the Lord to visit him and soften his heart, which in turn caused him to believe everything his father had said.
In the next few verses, he tries sharing what he learned with his brothers. I don’t think it comes a surprise to anyone that Sam accepted what Nephi had to say, and Laman and Lemuel did not.
After his interaction with his brothers, Nephi went to his father. Right when Nephi returned to the tent, Lehi told him he and his brothers needed to go back to Jerusalem to get the brass plates. Nephi says the following:
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.
I wonder how Nephi came to know this. Was it something he had known for a long time? Or perhaps this was one of the mysteries he mentioned earlier.
Popularity: 2% [?]
You’ve probably heard of ?「どィて if not played ?「どィて a game called “word association”. The premise is someone says a word and the other person says the first word to come to mind. A lesser known variation involves restrict the word association to opposites only. For example, if someone said “cold”, I would probably say “hot”.
If you were to play that variation with the average Mormon and said the word “Nephi”, the other person would likely say “Laman” or “Lemuel”. For good reason. Nephi seems to do the opposite of what his brothers do.
In fact, I came across an example of this tonight.
In 1 Nephi 17, the Lord told Nephi to build a ship. Naturally, his brothers didn’t beleive him when they found out what he was up to. Let’s read verse 17:
I, Nephi, was exceedingly sorrowful because of the hardness of their hearts; and now when they saw that I began to be sorrowful they were glad in their hearts, insomuch that they did rejoice over me, saying: We knew that ye could not construct a ship, for we knew that ye were lacking in judgment; wherefore, thou canst not accomplish so great a work.
This verse in particular stood out to me for two reasons. Both reasons have to do with opposition.
First, let’s compare this verse to 1 Ne 16:5, which is shortly after Nephi explains to his brothers his father’s dream:
they did humble themselves before the Lord; insomuch that I had joy and great hopes of them, that they would walk in the paths of righteousness.
In the first scripture, Nephi is sorrowful; in the second, he is joyful. In the first, the brothers were hardhearted; in the second, they were humble. It really shows Nephi’s love: he’s joyful if his brothers are doing right and sorrowful if they’re being pigheaded.
The second reason becomes apparent when we read in 1 Ne 17:9 when Nephi responds to the Lord’s request:
I said: Lord, whither shall I go that I may find ore to molten, that I may make tools to construct the ship after the manner which thou hast shown unto me?
When Nephi’s brothers found out he was to build a ship, they ridiculed him and and said he lacked judgement. When Nephi received the direction to build the ship, he didn’t stop to think whether doing so would be good judgement or whether he could “construct a ship”. Rather, he accepted the command and showed initiative.
I wonder what it could take for me to stop being part Laman and part Nephi.
Popularity: 3% [?]
Big news this week for critics of the church in that the church has made a change in the introduction of the 2006 Doubleday edition of the Book of Mormon. (The introduction was added in 1981 by the then apostle Bruce R. McConkie)
What it used to say:
?「どィ?After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are the principal ancestors of the American Indians?「どィャ
and what it says now:
“After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are among the ancestors of the American Indians.?「どィャ
(emphasis mine)
So, is this a manifestation of the church?「どィび「s efforts to bring its teachings in line with the scientific realm—as if the doctrine was held in the hands of men and arbitrarily changed to fit the tides of secular progress? Or something else? Or is the introduction not technically scripture, and therefore, not a big deal to change?
Honestly, I’m glad they aren’t in denial about the science and see the change as a positive indication that the First Presidency is admitting the evidence has merit.
Popularity: 2% [?]
Big news this week for critics of the church in that the church has made a change in the introduction of the 2006 Doubleday edition of the Book of Mormon. (The introduction was added in 1981 by the then apostle Bruce R. McConkie)
What it used to say:
?「どィ?After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are the principal ancestors of the American Indians?「どィャ
and what it says now:
“After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are among the ancestors of the American Indians.?「どィャ
(emphasis mine)
So, is this a manifestation of the church?「どィび「s efforts to bring its teachings in line with the scientific realm—as if the doctrine was held in the hands of men and arbitrarily changed to fit the tides of secular progress? Or something else? Or is the introduction not technically scripture, and therefore, not a big deal to change?
Honestly, I’m glad they aren’t in denial about the science and see the change as a positive indication that the First Presidency is admitting the evidence has merit.
Popularity: 2% [?]