Tuesday, October 30, 2007

1 Nephi

I finished reading 1 Nephi tonight so I am now 53 pages (10%) through the Book of Mormon (BOM). Over the last four days, that's an average of 13.25 pages per day. At that rate, I'd finish the BOM in 40 days (December 5). Now, obviously the point here isn't to go for speed and forego comprehension. So, if it takes 60 or 80 or 100 days to get through the BOM, so be it. The important thing is to get something out of the experience and also judge for myself whether I believe in the book (or not). My wife, however, will appreciate the math above because I tend to do that with other books and she finds it amusing (and likely a bit ridiculous).

In terms of the content itself, I had two posts along the way (here and here). Regarding the tree of life, there is greater explanation regarding the meaning behind the tree of life in 11:22-27, 11:35-36, 12:16-18, 15:23-24, and 15:26-30. In short, the tree of life is the love of God, the rod of iron is the word of God, and the great and spacious building is the pride of the world.

At chapter 4 of 1 Nephi, there is a puzzling story of God (via the Spirit) directing Nephi to kill someone:

11 And the Spirit said unto me again: Behold the Lord hath delivered him into thy hands. Yea, and I also knew that he had sought to take away mine own life; yea, and he would not hearken unto the commandments of the Lord; and he also had taken away our property.
12 And it came to pass that the Spirit said unto me again: Slay him, for the Lord hath delivered him into thy hands;
13 Behold the Lord slayeth the wicked to bring forth his righteous purposes. It is better that one man should perish than that a nation should dwindle and perish in unbelief.
14 And now, when I, Nephi, had heard these words, I remembered the words of the Lord which he spake unto me in the wilderness, saying that: Inasmuch as thy seed shall keep my commandments, they shall prosper in the land of promise.
15 Yea, and I also thought that they could not keep the commandments of the Lord according to the law of Moses, save they should have the law.
16 And I also knew that the law was engraven upon the plates of brass.
17 And again, I knew that the Lord had delivered Laban into my hands for this cause—that I might obtain the records according to his commandments.
18 Therefore I did obey the voice of the Spirit, and took Laban by the hair of the head, and I smote off his head with his own sword.


Laban had been after Nephi's family and was also withholding plates of brass that had important information on them about Nephi's family and other direction from God. So, this is somewhat self-defense in the sense that if Nephi didn't kill Laban, Laban would have killed Nephi and his family at some point. But it's also not really self-defense in the sense that Laban is drunk on the ground, posing no immediate threat to Nephi, and yet Nephi chops off his head in cold blood. And that wouldn't be that hard to accept other than the fact that he does it at the specific direction of the Spirit. With respect to the plates of brass, you could also argue the ends justify the means ("It is better that one man should perish than that a nation should dwindle and perish in unbelief") and I get that. But it seems like there was probably a better way to accomplish this goal - especially if God's going to get directly involved. It's one thing if it's man making due with a bad situation but you'd assume God has more tools at his disposal and/or a better solution available to him that getting someone drunk and then having someone else behead him with his own sword. Asked the missionaries about this and they didn't have a great answer. Asked HG about this as well and she didn't have a great answer either. You can argue that this took place in Old Testament times (eye for an eye, etc) excerpt for the fact that if God is "the same yesterday, to-day, and forever" (1 Nephi 10:18) then the same God that's involved here (in roughly 600 BC) is the same God that operates today. Anyway, if others have good explanations, would love to hear them. I wouldn't say this passage diminishes my faith but it did take me a bit by surprise.

There are multiple references to the abominable church of the devil (see, for example, 13:3-9, 13:26-28, 13:32, 14:1-17, and 22:23). At first I thought this was a literal reference to a particular faith or church (which would have been troubling), but my sister-in-law HG informed me that Church officials have gone on the record saying that these passages are metaphorical and refer to anything worldly that takes one's attention away from God or otherwise corrupts His teachings.

In 15:11, it says "If ye will not harden your hearts, and ask me in faith, believing that ye shall receive, with diligence in keeping my commandments, surely these things shall be made known unto you". That's a comforting thought.

In 17:45, it says "Ye are swift to do iniquity but slow to remember the Lord your God". So true.

And, in 19:6, it says "Nevertheless, I do not write anything upon plates save it be that I think it be sacred. And now, if I do err, even did they err of old; not that I would excuse myself because of other men, but because of the weakness which is in me, according to the flesh, I would excuse myself". This admission that errors may exist in the record given weakness "according to the flesh" is good to hear (at least for me personally) relative to other concerns I've raised on this topic in the past (see this post, for example).

On a whole, I think it's too early to really say what I think of the BOM and whether reading it will lead me to be baptized or not. I'll just need to continue this process and see how it goes with the remaining 90% of the book (ignoring D&C and the Pearl of Great Price which are another whole set of reading). Reactions or thoughts very welcome in the meantime.

4 comments:

Betsy Escandon said...

It's really fun to read your reactions to these familiar stories. This story also became a little troubling to me as an adult. After all, "Thou shalt not kill" is one of the big 10. I think the story serves to demonstrate that the direction of the Spirit trumps all, but that if you are going to act in opposition to the standard commandments, you should be wary and also VERY sure that God is actually directing you. After all, everyone deciding willy-nilly that God is exempting them from a particular commandment would be disastrous. I think Nephi's reluctance to follow the direction is instructive. We should all be reluctant to take a life, but also willing to do whatever the Lord asks. I also think this story is at the beginning of the Book of Mormon to show just how important the scriptures (brass plates) were to the preservation of the faith among Lehi's family. At any rate, although the story is troubling, it's certainly not any more troubling to me than God asking Abraham to sacrifice his son, for example (even if Abraham was stopped at the last moment).

David "El Salsero" said...

Passages like these make you want to pull your hair out because they seem contradictory to a loving God. I agree, the plan God set in motion to have Nephi recover the plates was less than inspiring for me. Were was George Lucas? Couldn't we have gotten an Obi-Won/Anaking like duel? Clearly, Laban was at a disadvantage; I mean, he being plastered and all, was there really a need to chop his melon off? Why no take the plates and run?

I recall spending 3/4 of a class period discussing this story in my MBA ethics class. There were some interesting insights that were on display that morning, but nothing that really made any sense to me. My guess is that you'll be hard pressed to fine a "satisfactory" answer, except that it was something that had to be done according to God's plan. I suppose Nephi always had the choice to disobey God's commandment, but he didn't and it's time to move on.

I respectfully disagree with HG on the abominable church interpretation. While some have suggested this passage to be metaphorical, there have been church leaders that have gone on the record to single out other faiths. I don't remember which apostle it was, but he referred to the Catholic Church as the abominable church. You'll have to search the History of Church books to find record of this, but I know it's there.

One last things. If the Christian Church was restored to its purest form, then aren't the other Christian denominations leading people astray? What does it mean to corrupt God's teachings in this sense?

gnp said...

Another comment from ege. Just changed first names to initials.

I'm going to respond to DE's "abominable church" comment. I do not doubt that at some point a church leader said that the Catholic church was the abominable church. In some ways, it seems to fit the bill. But I spent some time researching this issue at BYU (during my summer of research on early church history), and it's clear that the leaders in Joseph Smith's time were happy to apply it to all the protestant faiths (basically, anybody persecuting the LDS faith) of the day as well. (Whereas at that time, Protestants unanimously interpreted the "Whore of Babylon" -- the NT equivalent of the G&A church -- as the Catholic church.) And as far as I know, what HG said, that it represents "anything worldly that takes one's attention away from God or otherwise corrupts His teachings" is the favored interpretation of present-day leaders. I personally see this passage as fitting into the lamb/ goat tradition -- there are many scriptures that divide the world into two camps -- God's or the devil's. I think the idea is that anything that leads you away from the truth is "abominable." Maybe at a certain point in history, different organizations and institutions (even religious institutions) have fit into that role.

Betsy Escandon said...

OK, one more comment about David's last 2 questions.
"If the Christian Church was restored to its purest form, then aren't the other Christian denominations leading people astray?"
Yes, if they prevent you from recognizing greater truth. No, if they prepare your heart for more truth. Many current church leaders talk about the non-LDS religions of their childhood that taught them correct moral principles, faith in Christ, and prepared their families to be receptive to the Holy Ghost and the missionaries' teachings. Present-day LDS leaders emphasize that we should be building upon the good in other faiths, rather than engaging in contentious behavior.

To me, corrupting God's teachings is purposefully altering God's teachings to fit your own purposes or philosophy, and then teaching it authoritatively (as if you have the authority from God to speak for Him).