Book of Mormon Personal Notes

I have decided to pursue a project I have been considering for a while -- I am going to be writing out some commentary on the Book of Mormon here.

I have no particular authority to do so, other than the permission to take my own notes and share them. These notes should not be considered authoritative or representative in any way. 

In particular, I'm sure that my understanding of anything that I write down will evolve. Even if it doesn't, there's neither time nor room to write down every understanding I have now. The Title Page alone would wear both me and the reader out, and that's no way to make progress on a project.

If it is of use to some others in their study of the Book of Mormon, well enough. 

If it is not useful to you, please set it aside. I don't want to put stumbling blocks up for you.

[Edit 20240406: Yes, this is another of those projects that isn't going anywhere. I may yet post "gems" from my personal studies or something like that, but no formal commentary level stuff.]

Sons of God in Genesis -- Superhuman?

This is from something I posted to a thread on eXTwitter:

If Genesis 6 is read as if it started at Genesis 6 and did not continue from Genesis 5, the wording of the first two verses of ch. 6 could be read as that the sons of God were not mortal humans, and many have so read it.

But chapter 6 is a continuation from ch. 5.

And chapter 5 is a continuation from ch. 4.

Chapter 4 tells about a division among the children of Adam.

Cain and Abel seem to have both started okay, but Abel received and accepted instruction from the Lord, and made his sacrifice accordingly. In contrast, from verse 7, we are given to understand that Cain, when he brought his sacrifice, did so at Lucifer's direction.

The Lord said, if you don't follow me, you won't get it right. And if you don't do right, you start into the path of sin. (If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? And if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door.)

And that's what Cain did. He ended up committing murder and he and his children left Adam and the rest, and no longer followed God. Some might ask why Cain was not subject to capital punishment. As I understand it, especially in the first generation of Adam's children, and since Cain did promise to refrain from further killing, God considered it better to let Cain continue to have children to populate the world.

When Seth was born, Eve expressed hope that this son would follow God, and v. 26 indicates that Seth and his children did follow God.

So we see that, among the children of Adam and Eve, some followed God and some didn't. In other words, some were children of God and some were not.

Chapter five is not much more than a listing of the lineage of Noah and his children – of interest to us among those who followed God because of Noah. These are not the only ones of the descendents of Adam who followed God, they are just those in the direct lineage of Noah.

Thus, when we get to verse 2 of chapter 6, we can see that what it is saying is that (unsurprisingly) some of the children of those who followed God (the sons of God) were seduced away into intermarrying and joining in with the children of those who did not follow God (the sons of men).

(I think we can safely assume that at least some of the intermarriage involved children of those who did not follow God going the other direction, joining with those who did follow God, even though it's not explicitly stated in Genesis.)

Looking back to chapter 4, those who did not follow God tended to focus on specialized (technological) skills instead of continuing to learn greater things from God. (See Jabal and Jubal and Tubal-cain.)

And we also see in both Cain and Lamech that Satan was already teaching people to do conspiracies. (This Lamech, of course, is a different person than Noah's grandfather.)

We do not need to doubt that God taught His followers – His children – all the things that the children of men learned in their specializations, and much more. Thus the children of the children of God knew more about nutrition, physics, etc. than the children of men, and were of great stature – men (and women) of great renown among them.

Great stature – knowing about nutrition and health, many of them would well have been of significant physically greater stature, much as better nutrition and health in the last century has led to a sudden generational increase in height and physical strength, with children towering over parents.

These children of the believers would had great knowledge from their parents, but, in many cases, not the ethics and morals to use that knowledge well and wisely.

We can see them constructing a society with all the evils that we have in our modern society. That's why it concerned God that theirs thoughts were continually evil.

And now we can begin to see why God might have found it necessary to send the a big slushball comet or asteroid to cause the floods, and start the world fresh again with Noah.

Is Over 900 an Unreasonable Age for Adam and Certain of His Posterity?

(This is from a reply to a FaceBook acquaintance's post.)

I once had this possibility suggested to my mind, that it would be reasonable to assume that the lifespans mentioned in the Bible for Adam and certain of his descendants made sense in month counts instead of years.

I considered it – for all of about the hour or two of reading that it took to ascertain that it does not fit with certain important details of the lives of the patriarchs.

I felt a certain kind of disappointment, because it would make the Book of Genesis more "reasonable", and provide a defense from friends who disparaged the scriptures for being "unreasonable". But friends who insist that the Bible is unreasonable will not be placated by merely making the lifespans fit better with our experience in the modern world.

The scriptures do not need to be that kind of reasonable. God is capable of doing things we don't understand. Nature herself does lots of things we only pretend to understand.

If we think about reasonability, we must think about what the world was like back then. The world would not have had all the pollutions society has imposed on it since men started building cities. Adam and Eve, if we can trust the scriptures at all, would have had nearly perfect genetic material, undamaged by pollutions or mutations. Long lifespans would, on the contrary, be reasonable.

We know that modern humans can live to over a hundred. Without disease, accident, or war and other such violence, we can easily well exceed a hundred. Japan, for example, has several tens of thousands of people over the age of 100, many of them still out working their farms.

Adam and his righteous descendants were taught many things from on high, it is only reasonable to expect that they were taught how to take care of their health. It is very reasonable to expect lifespans well over a hundred. Given the healthy conditions, it is not particularly reasonable to expect lifespans over 200. When we see things in such light, hundreds of years is not at all unreasonable, and nearly a thousand certainly isn't too much of a stretch.

Which God among the N-thousand?

It's a common question when discussing the reality of God --

Joe: Which God, of which religion? There are thousands of religions.

Bob: Uhh,

Joe: There are so many. Why is the Mormon God the only true God?

Jean: Well, for one thing, there is no Mormon God. The Book of Mormon teaches about Jesus Christ, His Father, and the Holy Ghost. We are Christian.

Joe: Then why the Christian God? What's wrong with, for instance, the Japanese or Greek Gods? 

Carrie: Every religion feels just as strongly about their God.

Bob: Can I quote one of our Articles of Faith?

Joe: Why?

Bob: It just might help.

Carrie: I guess I don't mind.

Joe: Will it explain why the Mormon God is the one true God?

Jean: Number Eleven?

Bob: That's the one I have in mind.

Jean: It's definitely relevant. 

Joe: Okay, if you insist, let's hear it.

Bob: It goes like this:

We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.

Joe: I don't get it. All that says is that you want to worship the God of your own invention.

Jean: I think you missed the last clause.

... let them worship how, where, or what they may.

Carrie: You don't mean that. 

Bob: No?

Carrie: You don't. Millie was telling me all about how all the other religions are wrong and just leading everyone to hell.

Jean: Unfortunately, some members of our Church don't seem to mean it, or don't seem to understand it.

Carrie: Millie said she wasn't sure you, in particular, understood God.

Bob: Unfortunately, some of our members are particularly unwilling to apply this to fellow members of the same Church. 

Jean: But this is an Article of Faith. It's official, published by the Church.

Let them worship how, where, or what they may.

Bob: Not limited to people who aren't members of the Church. All men. All human beings. Even in the Church. It says

We ... allow all men the same privilege, ...

Carrie: Privilege?

Jean: 

... the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience ...

Bob: And it's for everyone, so -- according to their conscience, according to your conscience.

Joe: But your Almighty God.

Jean: 

... how, where, or what they may.

Carrie: "Almighty God". That's your God.

Bob: You'd rather worship a weak God?

Jean: It's a description.

Carrie: Maybe I would prefer a weak God, that wouldn't be always sending me to hell. 

Jean: That's not what God does.

Joe: And you say there is only one God.

Carrie: Why do you send all those missionaries out?

Bob: There is only one God, but there are thousands of ways to view that God.

Jean: More like billions. One for every person on the planet.

Bob: And considering that our understandings evolve, I guess, more than billions.

Jean: Every one of us. It's what we do most of our lives.

Bob: It's probably the most human thing we do.

Carrie: What's the most human thing we do?

Bob: Try to understand God.

Jean: Try to figure out what our own highest priorities should be. 

Joe: What does figuring out priorities have to do with God?

Carrie: Isn't it bad enough you're trying to tell us we have to worship the God you made up? And now you're talking about priorities?

Bob: A person's set of priorities is what that person thinks is most important, right?

Carrie: Well, yeah. You don't get to tell me what I should think is most important.

Bob: Right. That's not my business.

Jean: ... let them worship how, where, or what they may. It's your job to set your own priorities.

Bob: You have to choose what's important to you, what is, in effect, the God that rules your life.

Joe: I ain't letting no God run my life.

Jean: But you choose what you think is important.

Joe: Damn sure.

Bob: Of course. What we're saying is that asserting all people's privilege of following their own conscience, as individuals, is the same thing as asserting all people's privilege of worshiping the God of their own choice. And that's the same thing as asserting the privilege that we all have of setting our own priorities, of choosing what's most important to us.

Joe: Then why do you have to call it God?

Bob: Because what you believe about how you and the world around were created, and about who is running things, is probably the biggest factor in how you set your priorities.

Jean: Although what you think is important also depends a lot on how you think you and the world came to be, and who is in charge.

Joe: Pretty soon, you're going to be saying the same thing Millie says, that evolution is my religion.

Jean: Isn't it a big part of what you have instead of religion?

Carrie: I don't have anything instead of religion.

Bob: Don't you have a philosophy about life?

Joe: Sure, but that's not a religion. I don't believe in any God.

Bob: There are religions that do not claim a God, you know.

Carrie: Such as?

Jean: Most branches of Buddhism claim not to have a God.

Joe: That's different.

Jean: Yes it is. But it's also the same. There was somebody in Japan that told me the short piece of really thick rope over his door was his Shintō Kami -- his God. It showed him how to be persistent.  

Carrie: And you told him that would lead him to hell, right?

Jean: No, I thought it seemed like a good metaphor and a good ideal, and I told him so.

Joe: But calling it God?

Jean: I felt an impression that it was his high priority, and Shintō allows changing Kami, changing priorities.

Bob: And when we claim the privilege of worshiping according to our own consciences, we also claim that everyone who doesn't call it worshiping or God or religion has the right to claim their own philosophies and priorities and stuff, according to what they believe is right.

Jean: I don't trust you. You send out missionaries.

Bob: I think the biggest failures of our missionary program is when a missionary hasn't figured out that each person has to follow his or her own conscience, I mean, ...

Carrie: His or her, I heard that. Pronouns are important!

Bob: So is grammar. It's hard for me to mix plural and singular forms without getting confused, and the only true neutrals for people in English are plurals. You're changing the subject.

Carrie: My privilege. I don't want to talk about this any more.

Jean: Okay, let's talk about something else. 

Joe: But why do you send missionaries out?

Jean: Well, our missionaries are supposed to be inviting people. 

Bob: And why do certain people publish books and lecture about how their version of God doesn't exist? People like to share what they think.

Joe: But it's irrational!

Jean: Humans are all a little crazy. It's okay. Sharing what we think about helps us all keep sane.

I Am the [True] Vine, Ye Are the Branches

John 15: 5 　 ヨハネ１５章５節 :

I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.

わたしはぶどうの木き、あなたがたはその枝えだである。もし人ひとがわたしにつながっており、またわたしがその人ひととつながっておれば、その人ひとは実みを豊ゆたかに結むすぶようになる。わたしから離はなれては、あなたがたは何一なにひとつできないからである。

This is a verse we have been focusing on at church for a couple of weeks.

これはこの先の二週間ほど、教会の集会で注目している聖句です。

Note that the Japanese 「葡萄の木」(grapevine) is a bit more specific than the English "vine" (つる＝蔓、つる植物). 

つまり、日本訳の「ぶどうの木」とは、英語の "vine" よりも詳しい意味です。葡萄の木なら, "grapevine" でしょう。Vine とは、一般的につる植物の類を示す。

Related scripture:

関連の聖句

Luke 13: 6 - 9 　 ルカ１３章６〜９節 :

He spake also this parable; A certain man had a fig tree planted in his vineyard; and he came and sought fruit thereon, and found none. 

それから、この譬たとえを語かたられた、「ある人ひとが自分じぶんのぶどう園えんにいちじくの木きを植うえて置おいたので、実みを捜さがしにきたが見みつからなかった。

Then said he unto the dresser of his vineyard, Behold, these three years I come seeking fruit on this fig tree, and find none: cut it down; why cumbereth it the ground? 

そこで園丁えんていに言いった、『わたしは三年間ねんかんも実みを求もとめて、このいちじくの木きのところにきたのだが、いまだに見みあたらない。その木きを切きり倒たおしてしまえ。なんのために、土地とちをむだにふさがせて置おくのか』。

And he answering said unto him, Lord, let it alone this year also, till I shall dig about it, and dung it:

すると園丁えんていは答こたえて言いった、『ご主人様しゅじんさま、ことしも、そのままにして置おいてください。そのまわりを掘ほって肥料ひりょうをやって見みますから。 

And if it bear fruit, well: and if not, then after that thou shalt cut it down. 

それで来年らいねん実みがなりましたら結構けっこうです。もしそれでもだめでしたら、切きり倒たおしてください』」。

Posted that last night before I went to bed so I could refer to it this morning (Sunday 25 June). But the scripture in Luke was not what I talked about at Church today. (Five minute sermon meant I had to keep close to the Spirit's instruction.)

昨晩寝る前に、今日（日曜日の６月２５日の）の集会にすぐ見つけて話ができるように投稿したものです。ただし、私が今朝、教会で発表したことはこのルカの聖句と違う。（５分限定は神聖な霊感から外れる暇がなかったのです。）

I referred to, but did not quote from, concepts in (among other places) the following scriptures:

以下の聖句を引用せず、そのような箇所に見つけ出せる観念に触れた。

Mosiah 2: 21 　 モサヤ２章２１節 :

...  him who has created you from the beginning, and is preserving you from day to day, by lending you breath, that ye may live and move and do according to your own will, and even supporting you from one moment to another ...

…初めからあなたがたを造り，あなたがたが自分の意のままに生きて動き，行動できるようにあなたがたに息を与えて日々守り，いかなる瞬間にもあなたがたを支えてくださっている御方…

Doctrine and Covenants 88: 5-13 　 教義と聖約８８章５〜１３節 :

... through Jesus Christ his Son — 

He that ascended up on high, as also he descended below all things, in that he comprehended all things, that he might be in all and through all things, the light of truth; 

... which giveth life to all things, which is the law by which all things are governed, even the power of God who sitteth upon his throne, who is in the bosom of eternity, who is in the midst of all things.

…神の子イエス・キリストを通じて来る。

イエス・キリストは高い所に昇り，また万物の下に身を落とし，それによってすべてのことを悟って，万物の中にあり，万物を貫いてあり，真理の光となった。

…万物に命を与える光であり，万物が治められる律法，すなわち御座に着き，永遠の懐にあり，万物のただ中におられる神の力である。

From these verses we gain some perspective on how we are connected to the Father and the Son.

この聖句から、御父と御子と私達とはどんな繋がりができているかが少し見えてきます。

From there, I referred back to John 15: 5, to the idea of the fruit we, as branches of the vine, might bring forth, and quoted Galations 5: 22 - 23:

こういうところから、ヨハネ１５章５節の、葡萄の木でも蔓でも、その木の枝である私達が実る実の概念にもどって、ガラテヤ人への手紙５章２２〜２３節を引用しました。

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.

しかし、御霊の実は、愛、喜び、平和、寛容、慈愛、善意、忠実、柔和、自制であって、これらを否定する律法はない。

And I used the time limit as an excuse to stop there and avoid quenching the Spirit.

そして、５分の制限を理由に、御霊の邪魔にならないようにここに話しを留めた。

McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, and White Supremacism

There are some who rather vocally ask this question: 

Did Bruce Redd McConkie ever recant the white supremacist ideas in his book, Mormon Doctrine?

I don't like to put sacred things up in public for people to take pot shots at, but this is already out there, and lots of people have already misinterpreted it (and still are doing so, enthusiastically). But the following link is what Elder Bruce R. McConkie, then an Apostle, had to say shortly after the Church announced the policy that is often interpreted too simply as allowing Blacks to participate in the priesthood.

It's a long discussion of what happened, from his point of view, but it gives a lot of helpful background. So I suggest, if this is important to you, that you read from the beginning, and refrain from judging him harshly, at least until you have read the whole thing carefully: 

https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/bruce-r-mcconkie/alike-unto-god/

Did he recant? Did he say that the Church recanted? There's a long paragraph that partially answers that question:

We have read these passages and their associated passages for many years. We have seen what the words say and have said to ourselves, “Yes, it says that, but we must read out of it the taking of the gospel and the blessings of the temple to the Negro people, because they are denied certain things.”

It seems to me he is acknowledging the fundamental false assumption that some of the members of the Church were working under. He continues,

There are statements in our literature by the early Brethren which we have interpreted to mean that the Negroes would not receive the priesthood in mortality. I have said the same things, and people write me letters and say, “You said such and such, and how is it now that we do such and such?” And all I can say to that is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet.

I don't think he is saying, "limit yourself to what the current prophet says!" It is part of our official doctrine that the living prophet is always able to give new revelation from God, according to our needs, now -- according to the wisdom of the Lord as to what will help us follow His example better. This is the end of the paragraph:

Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world.

Those who expounded the ideologies that the Black races were inferior were speaking without the full light. 

He talks at fair length about some of the reasons the Lord would have allowed them to speak without the full light. 

I have my own ideas which go a bit beyond what he says, but I'll refrain from talking about most of them here. In fact, I will refrain from most of the things I had thought to say here.

One thing I will note, I grew up in the 1960s and '70s. I can say from personal experience that McConkie's book was nowhere near universally accepted where I grew up. Our bishops and other leaders recommended studying the scriptures instead of commentary, and often specified Mormon Doctrine as an example of commentary that should definitely be given lower priority than the scriptures.

Also. as for the teachings of the Book of Mormon itself, I have found the verse McConkie quoted from first in the speech above, 2nd Nephi 26: 33, to be more representative of what the Book of Mormon teaches about race than interpretations of discussions of skin color as a curse:

... [The Lord] ... inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, ... .

The reason I stop here is that it is a valid concept, necessarily derived from core principles of the Gospel, that individuals must shoulder the ultimate responsibility for their own faith, their own beliefs, their own understanding, and for their own standing before God.

If it is important to you, read the Book of Mormon yourself. I can't do your homework for you. Even if I had the time -- which I don't -- If I spoke too freely here, many people who otherwise might make time to explore questions related to this that are important to themselves might be offended and waste time arguing with what I said instead of investigating for themselves. 

Of more concern, others might be all too ready to accept what I said as the end of the matter, likewise failing to think or investigate, likewise losing an opportunity for spiritual growth.

Life after

Just a thought

If there is no life after death, if existence ends when the brain ceases to function, I shall never have the disappointment of knowing it.

That means that life after death can only be proven in the positive.

If believing in life after death makes this life more meaningful to me, what do I lose by believing?

I will grant that some people may find life less meaningful, for some reason, if it continues. I don't want to take their hope away, but I still think there might be a better thing to hope for.