Feast upon the Word Blog

A blog focused on LDS scriptures and teaching

Approaching the Jaredites: the “great tower”

Posted by joespencer on October 18, 2007

Robf has hinted that any political study of the Nephites ought to begin with an investigation into the politics of the Jaredites. And I couldn’t agree more, even though I undeniably have my own agenda in thinking about Nephite politics. What I’d like to do in this post is try to lay a foundation for thinking about Jaredite political origins. More important for my own project and concerns, I would like also to raise some theological/textual questions about the place of the Jaredites in the Heilsgeschichte that is the story of the Jews/Gentiles in the Abrahamic covenant.

The Book of Mormon places the origins of the Jaredite three times in the event of the building of “the great tower.” Two of these instances are in the first chapter of Ether, which comes from the hand of Moroni, but another can be found in Mosiah 28:17, transmitted or written by the hand of Mormon. This agreement in phrasing is of some interest: something unites Mormon’s and Moroni’s way of talking about the tower. Whether this betrays a more general Nephite way of talking about that event (not likely, since the Nephites were likely speaking very little of such things in Mormon’s day), an influence of Mormon’s brief mention on Moroni’s discussion of the same (even this seems unlikely, since the brief mention in Mosiah 28 is so obscurely placed), some kind of phrasing original to the Jaredite record (this is a real possibility), or a dependence on the part of both Mormon and Moroni on the Genesis text (see below… twice), there is some reason to think about what is implied by the title, “the great tower.”

First things first, “tower” in Hebrew is written mgdwl and “great” is written gdwl: the two words are etymologically related (“tower” means something like “great thing” in Hebrew). Two linguistic approaches, then: “great tower” translates the one word mgdwl, or there was a kind of emphatic in the original, mgdwl gdwl. All of this linguistic business is not without importance if Mormon and Moroni (1) were careful readers when dealing with the Hebrew text of the Bible and (2) had at least roughly the same text as we now have for Genesis 11-12: there is a subtle wordplay at work that links the stories of the tower and of Abraham’s journey from Ur to the Egypt. The wordplay undergirds a series of thematic reversals and so is absolutely necessary to the interpreter of the Hebrew text. One of these several wordplays is the “tower” (mgdwl) built by men and the name of Abram that God will make “great” (gdwl). Any attentive reader of Genesis 11-12 in Hebrew would have recognized that the tower story was inextricably intertwined with the story of the Abrahamic foundation as well (there is a long tradition of making up stories, among Jews and Arabs especially, about Abraham’s place in relation to the tower): while the builders try to gather and are scattered, Abraham is scattered so that he will be gathered; while the builders make a tower (mgdwl) to “make” themselves a “name,” Abraham is told by the Lord that He will “make” his “name great” (gdwl); while the builders build in order to see God, Abraham sees God and then builds his altars; etc.

All of this is of importance because it weaves together, I think, the two questions I’m trying to address here: the origins of the Jaredites and the broader thematic of the Abrahamic Heilsgeschichte: the two cannot be separated.

Cannot be separated, and yet the Jaredite story separates them: they simply walk out of the (now eminently historical) picture without so much as a mention of Abraham (although this will be changed later on, with the prophecies of Ether… but that is much later on). This is so curious. And it is strengthened all the more in that two of the three mentions of “the great tower” would seem to draw explicitly on the language of Genesis (though, as mentioned above, the language might be borrowed from the Jaredite record itself). The two texts in question:

…the building of the great tower, at the time the Lord confounded the language of the people and they were scattered abroad upon the face of all the earth… (Mosiah 28:17)

…the great tower, at the time the Lord confounded the language of the people, and swore in his wrath that they should be scattered upon all the face of the earth; and according to the word of the Lord the people were scattered. (Ether 1:33)

The similarities between these two texts, and the similarities between them and the Genesis text are obvious. But worthy of attention as well is the difference between them: while Mormon (in the former) only mentions the event as an event, narratable in the past (the Lord becomes a character in a historical event), Moroni (in the latter) describes it in some more detail, a question of “the word of the Lord” and the fulfillment of an oath (the Lord perhaps functions as a kind of disruption of history… as an event in a far more interesting sense). A full-blown hermeneutic alone could begin to sound the depths of these differences, but I will offer just one thought on them here: inasmuch as Moroni’s focus on wrath plays into the fleshed out story of Jaredite beginnings, it turns out to put a strain on the absoluteness of Jaredite beginnings by making it a question of oaths and “the word of the Lord,” both of which are preeminent themes in the Abraham story. Moroni’s wording, precisely where in differs from Mormon’s earlier summary, points subtly to the irony of Jaredite beginnings: before or at the same time as the Abrahamic covenant, apart from and yet parallel to the Abrahamic covenant, escaping the Jew/Gentile distinction and yet involved in it almost unconsciously, etc.

Too much more remains to be said: it remains to work through the several events of Ether 1. What is the significance of language here? What does this have to do with politics? What does it mean—phenomenologically as well as politically—to confound or not to confound a language? What is the significance of the prayer? Why would the prayer be raised by the unnamed, the “brother” of Jared? Why the leading suppositions about getting out to a land of promise? WHAT IS GOING ON HERE?

Thoughts? Responses? Further work?

25 Responses to “Approaching the Jaredites: the “great tower””

  1. robf said

    Lots to think about. More later. What struck me on this first reading is, I wonder what the name “Moroni” actually means. What if it meant something like “wrath”? You’ve got Captain Moroni, almost always angry. You’ve got Moroni at the end of the BoM who is the final witness to the wrath that destroys the Nephites. You’ve got him focused on wrath in this passage. I’m not taking this seriously, really, but it is curious this connection between Moroni and wrath. How much might we be missing here?

  2. Robert C. said

    A lot—too much!—to think about, Joe, as always. I also think this wrath bit is interesting, esp. how it seems tied to the Gentiles in both the book of Ether and in Nephi’s vision (see here, which also includes a verse from Thessalonians with “wrath” and “Gentiles” in it…).

  3. NathanG said

    Agreed, there are a lot of great things to think about. I’ll attempt a small nibble.

    Language. I’ve always found it interesting the way the story of the tower is described in Genesis.

    4 And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a aname, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.
    5 And the LORD came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded.
    6 And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.
    7 Go to, let us go down, and there confound their alanguage, that they may not understand one another’s speech.

    Particularly verse 6 where the Lord says “and now nothing will be restrained from them.” Does this mean that they could actually accomplish what they were trying? How would their tower reach heaven? What did their unity in language have to do with it? Do we have towers whose tops reach heaven? Were the people building a city and tower where they could administer the covenants and ordinances of God in an unauthorized manner? Is that how they thought to reach heaven? If this is the case, then it’s a simple matter to destroy their unrighteous plan by confounding their language. (At this point I confess that I have the image in my mind of the Living Scriptures and the Jaredites, which if you haven’t seen it, avoid it. I hate thinking of the scriptures as a cartoon.) If this is why the languages were confounded, then the contrasts of the tower and Abraham may have even more meaning as we have the Abrahamic Covenant, but I won’t go that direction.

    So the Jaredites kept the pure, unconfounded language. Perhaps this was important to them because this was the language of the covenants (although God could give the covenant to anyone in any language). They then could build their society on the knowledge that they have God’s covenants because this was the language by which the covenants were given.

    Ability to communicate with each other seems to be essential for a group of people to come together as a community or civilization. And it seems you must have people joined together to have any reason for any politics. The Book of Mormon has at least two examples of language that are interesting. Mosiah I teaches the people of Zarahamla his language (the people of Zarahemla allow Mosiah to be their king) and the priests of Noah teach the Lamanites their language (which seems to ironically allow the sons of Mosiah to teach the Lamanites the gospel).

  4. Joe Spencer said

    Just a note for the moment, given I took so much time writing a response to Nathan in the other thread…

    Rob, I was about to look at the Hebrew when it occurred to me that “Moroni” is explicitly a Jaredite name. Rats.

    If only their language had been confounded! :)

  5. Matthew said

    Great stuff. One point you also made in an earlier conversation (though I didn’t have time to go find the link) is that the Jaredites are not descendants of Abraham, therefore, not the covenant people. Being the covenant people is so much a part of how Israel and the Nephites identify themselves.

  6. Robert C. said

    Joe, based on your other comment regarding King Benjamin, surely you’ve thought a lot about King Benjamin’s speech, which is itself given from a tower, and how this crucial event in Nephite history parallels and contrasts with the Babel-Abrahamic Covenant themes you mention above. The political issues are, for me, hard to even begin thinking about since I haven’t yet thought much about these more obvious and obviously important issues. It seems we see, at the very least, the Abrahamic reversal of the Tower of Babel story being tied closely to the temple and to Nephite politics with King Benjamin’s speech.

  7. Joe Spencer said

    Yes, indeed, Robert. I’m going to run down to eat breakfast, and then I’ll have some further comments to make.

    In the meanwhile, I’ll at least post the link to my early morning seminary podcast on the tower of Babel for those interested: http://othonors.mypodcast.com/2007/09/Genesis_1011-44555.html

  8. Joe Spencer said

    Also this discussion way back in January on the Abraham Seminar: http://readingabraham.blogspot.com/2007/01/genesis-11-12.html

  9. Joe Spencer said

    Okay, so it’s time to work out some further thoughts on Ether 1.

    What first strikes me this morning is the fact that Moroni deals with this lengthy genealogy precisely as he’s making mention of “the great tower” (he mentions the tower in verses 3 and 33, on either end of the genealogy, forming a nice inclusio). This must be of some importance because of the “ethnogony,” as Rosalynde Welch so nicely called it during the Abraham Seminar, that is intertwined with the tower story in Genesis. In fact, there is a kind of inversion of the ethnogony in Ether: in Genesis 10-11, two genealogical registers frame the narrative of the tower, while in Ether 1, two mentions of the tower frame the genealogical register. What can be said about all of this?

    At the very least, it must be said that no necessity pressed Moroni to include the genealogy here: he need only have said, for the time being, that Ether was a descendant of Jared, who came forth, etc. (the genealogy will be traversed in its entirety in the course of the narrative anyway). His inclusion of it seems, for this reason, to be all the more significant and—I expect—all the more explicitly related to the structure and thrust of the Genesis 10-11 account. So: what are the similarities and differences between the two accounts and the functions the genealogies play in each text?

    Besides the inversion of sorts on the organizational level, a few other major differences are apparent. For one, the several genealogies of Genesis 10-11 are focused on populating the earth: the flood has just receded and the progeny of the three sons of Noah are elaborated so as to work toward the historical world in which the founding narrative of Abraham will take place. This mention of Abraham is hardly gratuitous: the whole of the ethnogony is aimed at the Abraham story. This is of major significance, because the tower story is, from the very beginning and through and through, a facet of the Abraham story rather than a story in and of itself. It forms a kind of bridge from the mythical (in the true sense of that word) narrative of Genesis up to this point and the historical events that are about to take place (Ricoeur has some marvelous things to say about this switch… in a number of different places). It is perhaps in this register that the break in the ethnogony that is imposed by the narrative of the tower is so important: the genealogies of chapter 10 are an enumeration of every nation and kingdom, etc., a kind of establishing of the Gentiles as such; but the genealogy of chapter 11, which follows the tower narrative, is a very straight line from Shem to Abraham, bringing the main character of the historical narrative to center stage. The difference between the later genealogy and the earlier is thus of importance as well: Shem is traced to Peleg in both, but then the line differs, almost as if Abraham were from the least of the lines, from an obscure genealogical line that flies under the radar of the elaboration of the Gentiles as such.

    The single genealogy in Ether 1 is more like the Genesis 11 genealogy: it is the elaboration of a single line, the line from Jared to Ether. However, rather than bringing onto the stage of history its first central figure, the genealogy traces backwards from the last central figure of a history to the origins of the line. Already there is, then, a hint of the major reversal that characterizes the entire Jaredite story: while Abrahamic history is the movement from just one to all the families of the earth, the Jaredite story traces the movement from so many families and friends of Jared and his brother to the single figure of Coriantumr. This undoing of history, so to speak, is quite significant politically: the story begins with history and watches it collapse, watches it become merely an abandoned text. (One of course has to note the parallel between the Nephite history and the Jaredite history—the Book of Mormon is perhaps little more, in that sense, than a great Hebraic parallelism, right? But the parallel is antithetical: while the Jaredites and the Nephites both collapse, and while both leave a text behind, only the Nephites are left with the promise that they will be restored, through the seed of their brethren, because of the books that have been written. One could of course tie this to the promise made to Abraham, something the Jaredites missed because of their early departure: without the covenant, the Jaredites come to full-blown destruction, while the Lamanites are preserved because of the promises to Abraham.)

    My recent studies in history are screaming in me to pay closer attention to what is at work in this reversal, to think more carefully about the establishing on the one hand and the collapsing on the other hand of a (thoroughly Gentile) history. But I’ll set that question aside for now.

    Having mentioned texts, there is at least one further point to make about the differences between the genealogies of Ether and Genesis: the genealogy in Ether is a genealogy tied to a text. This is not only because it is drawn from a text—one could well argue that the Abrahamic lineage was also drawn from a text—but because it is introduced with the writerly figure of Ether: “He that wrote this record was Ether, and he was a descendant….” It is thus the text that brings history to its close for the Jaredites, and this text has a genealogy, a line that traces it back to, of all things, the moment of confounding/nonconfounded languages.

    And now the questions proliferate too quickly for me to keep up! More another time.

  10. Nitsav said

    one brief note: It’s unlikely the Jaredites (and Ether) spoke Hebrew. Perhaps a related language, one of the Akkadian dialects, but Hebrew is very unlikely.

  11. Jim F. said

    Apropros of #10: It is also unlikely that, 1,000 years after arriving in the Americas, after that many years and especially after all of the interaction with other cultures that must have occurred, that their spoken Hebrew was very much like the Hebrew they brought with them. It is possible, of course, that those who kept the plates maintained Hebrew as the hierophantic language. Some of the concern over weakness in language, possible mistakes, and the difficulty of writing on the plates could stem from their use of a sacred language that was no longer spoken.

    My only point is that when you consider not only the fact that we are working from a translation that has no available original text, but also the history told by that text, we ought to be very cautious in making backwards deductions to a presumed Hebrew original.

  12. Robert C. said

    Re 10 & 11, doesn’t Joe’s point about the Hebrew word play on “great tower” only really rely on an assumption that this word play existed in the Brass Plates and that Mormon and Moroni as redactors—and somewhat heavy-handed redactors, I suppose—were able to read these plates (um, this might be a dumb question, but do we know anything from the text or otherwise as to the chances Mormon and/or Moroni had access to the Brass Plates??) or able to read an account that preserved such a word play that was in the Brass Plates?

  13. Joe Spencer said

    I’m not sure whether comments 10 and 11 were meant as a critique of my own comments in the post or of something else: I’m not at all trying to speak of the Hebrew or any other language behind the English of the Book of Mormon here. Rather, I’m looking at the Hebrew of the Genesis 11 account, and I’m assuming that the sixth or seventh century Hebrew of the Brass Plates had not been altered even by Moroni’s time. My point is to suggest that the attention paid to the phrase “great tower” seems to betray an awareness of subtle wordplay in the Hebrew text of Genesis 11-12, and that this suggests a rather complex theological context, so far as Moroni would have been concerned, for the provenance of the Jaredites. It is only because of the Hebrew of the Biblical text that it is at all worth discussing the gdwl/mgdwl connection: I’m suggesting that—whatever the language or wording of the gold plates—the occurrence of “the great tower” in English is suggestive of an attentiveness to the Hebrew in the Brass Plates.

    I’m not sure I stated that very clearly, or at least any more clearly than I did in the original post. But at least I hope this much comes across clearly: recognize that I’m doing bad theology here, not bad linguistic analysis! :)

  14. Jim F. said

    Sorry, Joe. I should have been more clear. I was just engaging in a thread jack that happens to be a hobby horse of mine. I wasn’t assuming that you were commenting on supposed Hebrew words behind the text of the Book of Mormon.

  15. Joe Spencer said

    I want to think at some greater length about the place of language here, as difficult as that will inevitably prove to be (I have a kind of ongoing neurotic relationship to language: I’m fascinated by it thematically, but I somehow continue incessantly to keep myself from studying to the point of satisfaction…).

    In Ether 1:33, there is mention both of “the word of the Lord” and of the confounding of the languages, but there is a kind of displacement that keeps the two from linking up: “the word of the Lord” is the oath the Lord makes to scatter the people (in His wrath), but the confounding is presented as happening before the oath is made: “at the time the Lord confounded the language of the people, and swore in his wrath that they should be scattered upon all the face of the earth; and according to the word of the Lord the people were scattered.” Why this displacement? Why is it that the word scatters but does not confound language?

    Since I don’t even have a clue as to how to begin thinking about that, I want to raise some further questions about the verse that follows: “And the brother of Jared being a large and mighty man, and a man highly favored of the Lord, Jared, his brother, said unto him: Cry unto the Lord, that he will not confound us that we may not understand our words.”

    Narratively, it would appear that this verse has moved backwards a bit: verse 33 provides us with the scene as a whole, but verse 34 returns to the beginning of the scene to show how it plays out with this particular family. Or so it appears: one has to ask a few curious questions about what is happening here. If the language of the people has already been confounded, how does Jared communicate with his brother his desire to have him pray? If the language of the people has not yet been confounded, how does Jared anticipate the event? Could it be that some event is being left out here (perhaps there was a revelation to Jared? perhaps the confounding began at one end of the tower’s destruction and was moving rapidly in Jared’s direction? perhaps something else?)? I’m not sure what to do with this conundrum.

    More confusing still, perhaps, is the strange locution Jared employs: “that we may not understand our words.” While this may simply be inclusive language (in some languages, the first person plural is precisely how one would say, “that we may not understand each other’s words”), the phrasing is confessedly strange. All of my research in Freud as of late makes me think what would be the most obvious meaning of the words themselves is worth attention: each person would, after the confounding, no longer be able to make sense of her own words. That is, could this curious phrasing mean that one’s own words are suddenly to become quite strange to oneself, that one will suddenly realize how much one is inhabited by another (say, an unconscious, etc.)? (And might there not be the beginnings of a massive study in that? Could it be worth pursuing the idea that the disconnect between the conscious and unconscious is “behind” or at least connected with the dispersion of languages? How do we think about Oedipus and the proliferation of tongues?) This reading might be all the richer in light of the fact that in Jared’s wording, it is not the language that is to be confounded but “us”: the people are confounded, such that they cannot understand their words. What on earth does one make of all this?

    So I’ll retreat into something a bit safer. There is in this same verse 34 a first hint about the relation between Jared and his brother. Jared is quite clearly the focus of the story: not only is it his genealogy that is recounted, but it is he who is the active figure throughout this whole prayer story (he petitions the prayer, has the ideas and concerns, etc.). His brother enters the story as a kind of mythical figure, an otherworldly kind of character who enters the story without a name. The wording of verse 35 confirms this: the brother of Jared prays, and the Lord has compassion on Jared—no mention of compassion on the brother of Jared is necessary. The brother enters this story as a kind of more-than-prophetic figure, this strange person who for whatever reason has an in with the Lord (“highly favored”).

    And he is without a name! That is too rich. Jared’s families and friends’ families will all depend on this nameless “favored of the Lord.” What a strange situation. How do we even begin to think about this?

    Okay, so mostly questions today, but questions that deserve, I think, a great deal of attention.

  16. Joe Spencer said

    (Don’t worry, Jim. I had more or less assumed that was the case. But lest the threadjack/response led to a misunderstanding of the post… Well, you know. :) )

  17. s james said

    #11 Jim F, some scripture Im sure you are familiar with from
    Mormon 9:32-34:
    And now, behold, we have written this record according to our knowledge, in the characters which are called among us the reformed Egyptian, being handed down and altered by us, according to our manner of speech.
    33 And if our plates had been sufficiently large we should have written in Hebrew; but the Hebrew hath been altered by us also; and if we could have written in Hebrew, behold, ye would have had no imperfection in our record.
    34 But the Lord knoweth the things which we have written, and also that none other people knoweth our language; and because that none other people knoweth our language, therefore he hath prepared means for the interpretation thereof.

    Im assuming that the language that noone else knew was ‘reformed egyptian’; egyptian characters altered over time to reflect the manner of their speech (altered Hebrew?. The fact that these characters were altered to reflect the spoken vernacular may suggest wider usage of reformed egyptian – texts in reformed egyptian accessible to a wider audience, perhaps royal inscriptions.

    #13 And Joe, were the brass plates written in Hebrew? What do you make of these verses in Mosiah 1:
    3 And he also taught them concerning the records which were engraven on the plates of brass, saying: My sons, I would that ye should remember that were it not for these plates, which contain these records and these commandments, we must have suffered in ignorance, even at this present time, not knowing the mysteries of God.
    4 For it were not possible that our father, Lehi, could have remembered all these things, to have taught them to his children, except it were for the help of these plates; for he having been taught in the language of the Egyptians therefore he could read these engravings, and teach them to his children, that thereby they could teach them to their children, and so fulfilling the commandments of God, even down to this present time.

    And it does seem that some Hebrew altering had gone on, more than likely reflecting a process of language shift that Jim refers.

  18. robf said

    Back to Moroni for a moment. In The World of the Jaredites Nibley said that Moroni meant “from Moron”. Moron was a Jaredite land (and king). He claimed that “-on” was a place signifier. So what does “mor” stand for? I can’t find where Nibley ever speculated on that. In Egyptian, mr is the transliteration for both pyramid and canal. Could Moroni mean something like “he from the place of the pyramid”? That might make sense seeing that the Jaredite power center Moron (the place of the pyramid?) would probably have had a ceremonial mound or pyramid.

    In another source I found online, “mor” in Proto-Indo-European may mean something like death–so depending on the language of the Jaredites, perhaps Moron could also be the place of death (which would tie together nicely with Moron being near the “Land of Desolation” in the BoM). I’m just hopelessly playing around here, so maybe somebody with more training here could chip in?

  19. Robert C. said

    rob, do you have an Egyptian reference book you looked this “mr” bit in? Do such books exist? Can anyone recommend any? I’d love to dabble in some Egyptian (reformed Egyptian preferably!).

  20. robf said

    Here’s an online place to start:

  21. robf said

    In the past we’ve thought a bit about how the Title Page to the Book of Mormon might give us a glimpse at what Moroni might have meant by including the Jaredite record in his father’s book(FUTW wiki discussion here). As a quintessential story of one line of favored “Gentiles”, the Jaredite story presumably has great lessons for both Israel (including the Lamanite remnant) and modern LDS (mostly Gentiles adopted into Israel). Somehow the covenant of Abraham is important, yet the blessings of the covenant transcend birthrights, race, and ethnicity? Is this part of a Universalizing lesson of the Book of Mormon? That “the Lord esteemeth all flesh in one; he that is righteous is favored of God” (1 Ne 17:35). Interesting how Moroni ends (with the Jaredite history) where Nephi begins, showing how the righteous are favored while the wicked–be they the inhabitants of Jerusalem or his own seed–are eventually destroyed. The lesson is never “we are favored because we are of chosen birth” but “we are favored if we are righteous”. Of course this speaks volumes to others fixated on chosen lineages or election, as well as those who would overlook the importance on good works in obtaining grace. A spiritual warning or shot across the bow, perhaps?

  22. robf said

    Of course, this all makes me wonder, is there a difference between being “favored” and having a continuation of seed? What of the promises made to the fathers? What can we make of that from the Book of Mormon, and is there a juxtaposition along those lines between the Nephites who obtain promises for their seed through faith, and the Jaredites, of which no promises are recorded, but whose posterity presumably continues through admixture (“grafting in”) with the Nephite and Lamanite lineages?

    Brings us back to the Mulekites, and who exactly were those people of Zarahemla that seem to form a point of tension within the BoM narrative from the time of Mosiah 1 through at least the coming of Christ? How were they related to the Jaredites? How do they fit into the parable of the olive tree?

  23. Joe Spencer said

    Rob, excellent questions. Because my focus (and “expertise,” if there is such a thing) is theology, I can only hope (and pray!!!) that someone will write, sometime soon, a first real engagement of these kinds of questions, something like Sorenson’s book but far more indepth, substantially updated, and without the apologetic edge. I really think there are a lot of important questions being raised here, and they all deserve so much attention. I have to wonder what might result from a well written summons of sorts to this kind of research, a paper that essentially lays out the questions that need to—and can—be addressed.

    Thinking, thinking, thinking.

    • jody b. mann said

      im thinkin the reason why he scatterd the people is for one in gen. he makes the people of all of one language. and when he came down from the heavens to see what his people are doing, he see’s no longer do they speak only of one langues. for the word of god came first and word and god are one. Also The book of mormon aka if you read the introduction. the Book of mormon is a volume of holy scriptures camparable to the bible, aka not the bible, it is the fulness of everylasting gospel among current times, aka modern times that even today jesus christ is still amoung us all, and is just gospel of latter day testamonies of triamphs and struggles that no matter what the situation or enemies we may have now or latter, that having complete faith in one god our god heaven above and jessus our savior can only mean true accoplishments that we made it through this life and that is the goal and is an accievment on its own. and the reason why i lke mormons is cause they dont bash on other religions nor do they focus on going to hell all the time, they focus on what things you need to do to get to heaven, fear god but love him for he will guid your way, focus not on your own understandings, let god be your guid, your shield,and let the bible be your sword. if you notice every time you go to other churches which i do even though im mormon i still like to see the ghospel being spread through out our communities, i could care less if your mormon or if your christian or what ever the religion as long as they belive our one true god heaven above and jessus our savior thats all that matters amen. if you notice in 1 john 4:20 its says stop judging others and love your brother dont hate him. and i leave this with you brothren in the name of jessus christ amen

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

%d bloggers like this: