Comments on: Sunday School Lesson #7 (Book of Mormon)

By: RuthS

RuthS — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 01:32:21 +0000

I have been reading all the various writings on Gospel Doctrine Net and found a statement by Ted Gibbons and Bruce R. McConkie that indicated that in V. 18 Mormon is the prophet , and Joseph Smith, Jr. is the spokesman. Does anyone have any thoughts on that?

It looks to me from reading v. 23 and 24 together that there is someone from among the descendants of Lehi’s son Joseph who is to be raised up. Apparently that has not yet come to pass, at least not openly. I don’t see that the wording of the introduction to the Book of Mormon would have any bearing on the efficacy of that prophecy.

By: KCryder

KCryder — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 08:56:26 +0000

Oh and I agree that being cursed is being cut off from God and his people but not necessarily by demarcation—darkness of the countenance comes because of the lack of righteousness but is not intended to mean an actual color of skin. Hope that helps.

By: KCryder

KCryder — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 08:48:57 +0000

NathanG

See footnote (d) skin 2Nephi 30:6 3Nephi 2:15

Whiteness refers to purity and blackness refers to the lack of it. 2 N 30:6 is quite clear about it.

I have a great discourse by Marvin Perkins (Public Relations, Genesis Group) entitled “How to Reach African-Americans” in which he discusses in great detail how many times the word “white” (or any form of it) appears in all scripture and well as examining all the footnotes to it. He does them same with the words Black and Curse.

I’d love to send a copy to you but for some strange reason, I can’t even send it from my husband’s docs to my own. BUT, you can go to http://www.blacksinthescriptures.com

to get some more info and email Marvin asking for a copy of his discourse. Just tell him that the Cryders sent you to him. (anyone else interested feel free to do the same).

By: Lisa F.

Lisa F. — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 04:56:32 +0000

Cheryl — agreed. The intro. to the Book of Mormon that was recently published by Doubleday indicates that the Lamanites were “one of” the groups that are the ancestors of the Native Americans. I had not read Pres. Kimball’s writings from that era before, and the emotion of his writings was very compelling to me.

Nathan — hmmm…I still think he was speaking of this prophet as one of the Lamanite people.

By: cherylem

cherylem — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 17:01:57 +0000

I think the Church is backing away from the idea that all Native Americans are Lamanite descendants. It’s hard to know who today’s Lamanites are, actually. (see http://juvenileinstructor.wordpress.com/2007/11/08/comparing-the-1981-2004-and-2006-book-of-mormon-introductions/)

We had a (little) bit of a discussion regarding this issue here: http://feastuponthewordblog.org/2008/01/01/sunday-school-lesson-1-book-of-mormon/

By: brianj

brianj — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 15:55:52 +0000

nathan, 10: I agree that the referred could be Joseph Smith. Lehi says, “among them” not “from among them”. The later would preclude Joseph.

By: NathanG

NathanG — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 13:23:44 +0000

Lisa, Here is a link to the October talk. The earlier talk is found here. I wish Elder Kimball had mentioned this prophet more than in passing in the conclusion.

By: Lisa F.

Lisa F. — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 07:24:10 +0000

Jim –
When I looked at this verse at http://www.scriptures.byu.edu, I found a talk by Spencer W. Kimball from the October general conference in 1947. He indicates that this prophet will come from among the Lamanite people. (Wish I could link it for you, but I am a true lurker and have no idea how.)

There is another powerful talk from April 1947 (the link is in 2 Nephi 5:21-24), where he pleads the plight of Lehi’s descendants, details the abuses of the Native Americans, and asks for the help of members of the church.

By: NathanG

NathanG — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 06:03:01 +0000

Jim
In 2 Nephi 5:20-25 I’ve often figured that the curse was being cut off from God and that the skin of darkness was a mark to make them undesirable to the small group of righteous people who couldn’t afford the risk of more apostasy due to mixing and mingling. More recently I’ve been uncertain what a skin of darkness even means to Nephi. When Nephi talks about exceedingly white skin in other instances I’m sure his definition of white is several shades darker than what my definition of white is. I am pasty white and imagine Lehi’s family were at least a fairly olive complexion. How much darker were Laman and Lemuel? Was their dark skin due to the lack of clothing? When the Ammonites were converted, there seems to be reference to the curse being lifted, but the first mention of skins of darkness leaving doesn’t occur until 3 Nephi when the Nephites and Lamanites were more integrated with each other.
The only trouble I have with the above explanation is that a few instances in the Book of Mormon talk about the curse of darkness. Even with those references, I can’t imagine God really cares about the outward appearance and I assume the Nephites became casual with how they referred to the curse and the mark of the curse to a point where the two were referred to as one.

By: NathanG

NathanG — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 05:50:52 +0000

24 And there shall rise up one mighty among them, who shall do much good, both in word and in deed, being an instrument in the hands of God, with exceeding faith, to work mighty wonders, and do that thing which is great in the sight of God, unto the bringing to pass much restoration unto the house of Israel, and unto the seed of thy brethren.

Does the wording in verse 24 necessitate this person being a direct descendent of Lehi? If someone is raised up “among them” is that equivalent to someone from that lineage? Could the “one mighty among them” be contemporary with his seed? Could it be that Lehi is not specifically referring to Joseph’s seed, but to all of Lehi’s seed, or to all of Joseph’s (of Egypt) seed? I definitely don’t know the answer, but I think the wording is vague enough that Joseph Smith can still fit the description of verse 24, especially when considereing the latter half of the verse and what we consider the destiny of the restored church to include.

By: Jim F.

Jim F. — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 02:35:02 +0000

Lisa F: I’d also always thought verse 24 refers to Joseph. Now I am not sure who it refers to.

By: Lisa F.

Lisa F. — Sat, 16 Feb 2008 01:33:23 +0000

Jim –
I don’t know who verse 24 is referring to…I had always thought it was Joseph Smith. Do you have any ideas?

Lisa F.

By: Jim F.

Jim F. — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 20:01:23 +0000

Robert C: When you see me on Tuesday, please tell me what I did wrong with that link so that I won’t do it again.

Phd: Thanks for your observations and, especially for the additional questions.

As for types and shadows: We live in an age where it is difficult to see or think in terms of types and shadows, but I don’t think they are any less relevant to us. One reason that attention to scripture is important is that it helps us see those types and shadows. I would go so far as to say that applying the scriptures to ourselves primarily means seeing types in them which are repeated in our own lives.

By: phdinhistory

phdinhistory — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 05:53:09 +0000

Is it possible that king Mosiah I in the Book of Mormon was the first person who fulfilled the prophecy of 2 Ne. 3:6-8? Was Mosiah I described in Mosiah 8 and 28 as the first “seer” during Book of Mormon times? Was Mosiah I’s use of the “interpreters,” and service as a historian, seen by the Nephites as restoring “knowledge of the covenants”? Did the Nephites view Mosiah I as “a Moses,” not just because of the similarity between the two names but because Mosiah I actually delivered them out of the grasp of their enemies and into a new land? Can we surmise that Mosiah I performed “none other work, save the work which [the Lord] command[ed] him” by the fact that his successor-son Benjamin stressed how he had worked in the fields alongside his people so that they would not have to support him through taxes? Have we somewhat lost sight of the important role that Mosiah I played in the history of the Nephites, since the first few chapters of Mosiah (and the headnote for Mosiah) were likely contained within the 116 page manuscript that was lost and therefore do not appear in today’s version of the Book of Mormon?

Of course, the traditional interpretation of 2 Ne. 3:6-8 views Joseph Smith as the “choice seer” foreordained to translate the Book of Mormon in the latter days. When the Lord commanded Joseph to “do none other work, save the work which I shall command him,” was he echoing his later explanation to Joseph that “in temporal labors thou shalt not have strength, for this is not thy calling” (D&C 24:9)?

By: phdinhistory

phdinhistory — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 05:20:46 +0000

Before Joseph Smith translated 2 Ne. 3, did he primarily view himself as a Gentile? As he translated this chapter, did he think the events described in verse 5 were applicable to Lehi’s “day” or to the latter days? Did Joseph understand this verse as describing how Lehi’s family was the branch sent to the American continent? Or did Joseph start to conceive of early converts to the church in his dispensation as descendants of Joseph of Egypt who were supposed to minister “unto the house of Israel”? To what extent did this chapter help Joseph to see that the ancestry and destiny of Gentile converts to the Mormon church were bound up with that of the Native American remnant of Israel? Did Joseph expect that the prophecy in verse 5 would be fulfilled at the Savior’s second coming, when he returned to the earth “in the spirit of power”?

I suspect that the phrase “for our day,” as a description of why the Book of Mormon was written, entered the Mormon vocabulary through the General Conference talks of President Ezra Taft Benson. To what extent was Benson influenced by (and perhaps appropriating Lehite) wording in 2 Ne 3:5 when he coined this phrase?

By: phdinhistory

phdinhistory — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 04:55:48 +0000

The Index to the Scriptures suggests that Joseph was born around 595 B.C. Nephi’s remarks in 2 Ne. 5:26-28 provide evidence that Joseph became a priest and teacher around the year 569 B.C. If we assume this ordination took place shortly after Lehi’s death, and that Lehi blessed all of his children shortly before his death, then Joseph was probably in his early to mid-20s when Lehi spoke to him in 2 Ne. 3. Lehi may have waited until Joseph reached this age because it was considered the point where Joseph was old enough to take on adult responsibilities. After all, Joseph of Egypt was only an assistant to his shepherd brothers at the age of 17.

Lehi may have chosen to name his son Joseph after his biblical progenitor since they were both among the very last sons born to a prophetic patriarch. Lehi may have also selected this name with the expectation that Joseph would become a leader in an abundant land, far from the wilderness where he was born. Perhaps Lehi had the foresight to see that Jacob, in accordance with the meaning of his name, would “supplant” Nephi as prophet and that Joseph, in keeping with his name, would “add” to Jacob’s priestly leadership.

By: phdinhistory

phdinhistory — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 04:11:02 +0000

With hindsight, I think it is fairly easy for us to see that Joseph Smith served as a seer, that the book he translated was comparable to the Bible, restore doctrines missing from or misunderstood by Christendom, physically gather the descendants of Israel, and follow the example of biblical Joseph in delivering modern people from a spiritual famine. But I doubt that Joseph grasped these things in their fullness as he was still near the beginning of his translation of the Book of Mormon. Perhaps the only thing we can be certain that Joseph understood at this point was that he came from a background of weakness.

By: phdinhistory

phdinhistory — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 03:52:58 +0000

Types and shadows were an integral part of the law of Moses. Now that the law of Moses has been fulfilled, how much do we still need types and shadows? Are types and shadows less common in the modern era, replaced with the expectation that we are supposed to walk by faith?

Nephi says in an upcoming chapter that “all things which have been given of God from the beginning of the world, unto man, are the typifying of him” (2 Ne. 11:4). Should our aim be to see all good things in this world (see Moses 6:63) as exclusively types of Christ? Are we being prideful if we imagine that things in our lives are types or shadows of people and events in the scriptures? Or is the Book of Mormon designed to provide types and shadows of the Lord’s coming that we can personally apply and liken to our latter-day lives and circumstances?

By: Robert C.

Robert C. — Sun, 10 Feb 2008 13:38:39 +0000

Thanks for these notes, Jim.

(I edited the link to your post 4 years ago, so you might want to double check my edit.)