Lesson 6: Free to Choose Liberty and Eternal Life
2 Nephi 1-2 (5)
Purpose: To help class members have a greater desire to “choose liberty and eternal life” through Jesus Christ, “the great Mediator of all men” (2 Nephi 2:27)
Lesson Development
1. Lehi exhorts his sons to repent, obey the Lord’s commandments, and put on the armor of righteousness.
2. Lehi testifies of the Atonement of Jesus Christ.
3. Lehi teaches the importance of opposition and the freedom to choose good from evil.
Scripture Discussion and Application
[This is what I’ve written out to make my thoughts clear to myself, but this written lesson runs long; this is the place to shorten it so that there is time for the final exercise.]
I need to clarify something I said in the last lesson I taught, because it has raised questions and maybe some unhappiness in one or two class members.
During that lesson, we read some verses that are traditionally understood as referring to Columbus, the Pilgrims, and the American Revolution, and I asked you whether it was absolutely necessary to read those verses as applying to the history of the United States. My intent was not to say that those verses do not apply to those events, as we have long assumed, but to point out that the scripture is general enough that it might not refer to those events, but to others. Indeed, some of those who have spent much of their lives studying the Book of Mormon think that there may be other legitimate ways to understand those verses
My purpose was not to insist that our traditional understanding is wrong – it may very well be correct. I don’t have a fixed opinion either way. But I’m trying to press you to distinguish between what the Book of Mormon actually says, and the traditions that have grown up about what it all means. That is because I have friends who have come to doubt, even disbelieve, the Book of Mormon because modern science or philosophy disagrees with the Book of Mormon. If these details are wrong, they have decided, then the entire Book of Mormon is a fantasy, and Joseph Smith was a false prophet, and they leave the Church. You may have friends and family who have reached the same conclusion.
The thing is, in my experience, at least, the so-called errors aren’t really in the Book of Mormon at all. The things that anthropology or archeology or genetics has cast doubt on are not what the Book of Mormon actually says, but are what we have misunderstood the Book of Mormon as saying. The problem is not with the text, but with our assumptions and traditional understanding. For example, the Book of Mormon never does say that the descendants of Lehi, plus a handful of Mulekites and a stray Jaredite or two, are the only inhabitants of the Western Hemisphere, nor does it say that the scene for Book of Mormon activity extends over both North and South America. We’ve just assumed that. That has been our traditional understanding.
But along comes 21st century science, with its understanding of genetics, and scientists do not find DNA in any of the peoples they have tested that corresponds with the DNA of the Middle East, as you might expect to find if everyone descended from Lehi. There are many possible reasons for that – the Gospel Topics article at lds.org on DNA and the Book of Mormon explores many of those possibilities. One possible reason is simply that we have made assumptions about the Book of Mormon that the Book of Mormon itself does not state: If there were other peoples in this hemisphere either before or after Lehi and his family came, and if the setting for the Book of Mormon is a relatively small area, as most scholars now believe, then you wouldn’t expect to find Lehite DNA everywhere. It may well be there, but the right tribes or nations may not yet have been tested. It isn’t necessary to throw out the Book of Mormon as a true ancient record just because we have traditionally assumed something about it that is not present in the text itself.
So that’s the reason I challenge you to distinguish between what is in the Book, and what we have often assumed about what is in the Book. I don’t have any idea what the next challenge to someone’s faith will be. But I hope that when it comes, whatever it is, that everyone in this class will consider the possibility that the problem might not be with the Book of Mormon, but with our traditional assumptions about the Book of Mormon – I don’t want to upset anyone by sounding as though I’m claiming that everything we’ve ever said about the Book of Mormon is wrong! I only want us to be aware of the possibility of misunderstanding, and you’ll understand why that matters to me so much.
[Allow class question and discussion, but try to keep it short and to the point.]
Okay, let’s turn to 2nd Nephi, Chapter 1. Lehi and his family have reached the New World. Lehi has grown old and is about to die. Before he dies, though, he calls his sons and Zoram to him – there is, as usual, no mention of his daughters – to teach them one last time. He begins with basically two sermons: the blessings they can expect if they keep the commandments of God, and the judgments they will receive if they break the commandments of God.
2 Nephi 1:9-10
9 Wherefore, I, Lehi, have obtained a promise, that inasmuch as those whom the lord God shall bring out of the land of Jerusalem shall keep his commandments, they shall prosper upon the face of this land; and they shall be kept from all other nations, that they may possess this land unto themselves. And if it so be that they shall keep his commandments they shall be blessed upon the face of this land, and there shall be none to molest them, nor to take away the land of their inheritance; and they shall dwell safely forever.
10 But behold, when the time cometh that they shall dwindle in unbelief, after they have received so great blessings from the hand of the Lord – having a knowledge of the creation of the earth, and all men, knowing the great and marvelous works of the Lord from the creation of the world; having power given them to do all things by faith; having all the commandments from the beginning, and having been brought by his infinite goodness into this precious land of promise – behold, I say, if the day shall come that they will reject the Holy One of Israel, the true Messiah, their Redeemer and their God, behold, the judgments of him that is just shall rest upon them.
Lehi tells his sons that their future will either be blessed, or that the judgments of God will fall upon them – there is no middle ground. Who gets to choose whether they will be blessed or punished?
This sounds dramatic, but it is a well understood principle from early in human history down to our modern, secular life of the 21st century. Let’s take a look at a few lines from Deuteronomy, and the Mosaic Law with which Lehi was completely familiar:
Deuteronomy 11:26-28
26 Behold, I set before you this day a blessing and a curse;
27 A blessing, if ye obey the commandments of the Lord your God, which I command you this day:
28 And a curse, if ye will not obey the commandments of the Lord your God, but turn aside out of the way which I command you this day, to go after other gods, which ye have not known.
We might be a little uncomfortable with the concept of curses, I think perhaps because we think of a curse as being undeserved, or something that is inflicted upon a person or a nation by a witch or some other evil source. But when we compare 2 Nephi to Deuteronomy, we see that the scriptures use “curse” in a different way. Where Deuteronomy says “curse,” what word does the Book of Mormon use? [Judgment] “Judgment” doesn’t seem nearly so harsh a word, does it? God is the one who judges, his judgment is righteous, his judgment is deserved.
What word does Lehi use that corresponds to the word “blessing”?
And, according to Deuteronomy, what is the deciding factor between being blessed or cursed? Who is responsible for whether someone is blessed or cursed?
This concept of freely choosing to be blessed or cursed is part of our world today. When you sign a contract to, say, borrow money or buy a house, what blessing is built right into the contract? [You get the money, or the house.] What curse is also built right into the contract? [If you don’t pay as agreed, or keep other requirements of the contract, you lose the house or incur other specified penalties.] Who decides whether you’re “blessed” or “cursed” in the case of such a contract?
Lehi begins to bless his sons, or at least some of them – have you ever noticed that Nephi, who is recording this material, doesn’t record whatever blessing or warning Lehi gives to him?
I particularly like the blessing that Lehi gives to his son Jacob, one of the children born to Lehi during their journey between Jerusalem and the New World. What I like about it is that it is central to the theme of the Book of Mormon – a central theme that in no way depends upon geography or anthropology or technology or any of the other sciences that might challenge someone’s confidence in the Book of Mormon. Lehi’s blessing to Jacob depends only upon the faithfulness of the Messiah who was to come, something that was not and is not subject to change.
2 Nephi 2:3-7
3 Wherefore, thy soul shall be blessed, and thou shalt dwell safely with thy brother, Nephi; and thy days shall be spent in the service of thy God. Wherefore, I know that thou art redeemed, because of the righteousness of thy Redeemer; for thou hast behold that in the fulness of time he cometh to bring salvation unto men.
4 And thou hast beheld in thy youth his glory; wherefore, thou art blessed even as they unto whom he shall minister in the flesh; for the Spirit is the same, yesterday, today, and forever. And the way is prepared from the fall of man, and salvation is free.
5 And men are instructed sufficiently that they know good from evil. And the law is given unto men. And by the law no flesh is justified; for, by the law men are cut off. Yea, by the temporal law they were cut off; and also, by the spiritual law they perish from that which is good, and become miserable forever.
6 Wherefore, redemption cometh in and through the Holy Messiah; for he is full of grace and truth.
7 Behold, he offereth himself a sacrifice for sin, to answer the ends of the law, unto all those who have a broken heart and a contrite spirit; and unto none else can the ends of the law be answered.
“Justify” can have a number of meanings. Here, it means “to be made righteous,” or pure or holy. What does Lehi mean when he says that “by the law no flesh is justified”? [Suggest two answers: No matter how obedient one might try to be to the law, the law cannot save – salvation requires the Atonement of Jesus Christ; also, if the law is represented by the passage we’ve read from Deuteronomy, the law curses or condemns us all for falling short of perfection, rather than justifying us.]
Trick question: Who decides whether we are “cut off” and “become miserable forever,” or whether we partake of salvation? [Trick question only because it takes both a person’s choice to have “a broken heart and a contrite spirit,” and also the willingness of the Savior to bring about the Atonement.]
In his final words to his sons, Lehi tells them over and over that they have the power within themselves to choose good over evil, to choose being blessed over being cursed, and that the Messiah is the one who makes that choice possible.
2 Nephi 2:26-29 – As we read this, take mental notes of the ways Lehi tells his sons that they are the ones to choose whether they are blessed or cursed
26 And the Messiah cometh in the fulness of time, that he may redeem the children of e from the fall. And because that they are redeemed from the fall they have become free forever, knowing good from evil; to act for themselves and not to be acted upon, save it be by the punishment of the law at the great and last day, according to the commandments which God hath given.
27 Wherefore, men are free according to the flesh; and all things are given the which are expedient unto man. And they are free to choose liberty and eternal life, through the great Mediator of all men, or to choose captivity and death, according to the captivity and power of the devil; for he seeketh that all me might be miserable like unto himself.
28 And now, my sons, I would that ye should look to the great Mediator, and hearken unto his great commandments; and be faithful unto his words, and choose eternal life, according to the will of his Holy Spirit;
29 And not choose eternal death, according to the will of the flesh and the evil which is therein, which giveth the spirit of the devil power to captivate, to bring you down to hell, that he may reign over you in his own kingdom.
In what ways does Lehi tell his sons that they are responsible for their ultimate fate?
We’re going to jump ahead a little bit now, because this is a good place to talk about something that could and should make us a little bit uncomfortable. This is one of those times when I am challenging you to read the Book of Mormon very carefully, and distinguish between what it says, and what we sometimes assume it says.
Following the blessings and warnings that Lehi gives to his son, Lehi dies. Nephi assumes leadership of the family, which is rejected by some of his brothers. For their own safety, Nephi and his followers leave the “land of their first inheritance, to separate from Laman and his followers. All that, and the spiritual lessons associated with it, will be part of next week’s lesson.
But something that is not covered by the lesson manual fits here, where we have been talking about blessings and cursings – the consequences for keeping or breaking the commandments of God.
What we have become uncomfortable discussing is the claim that Laman and his followers were, quote, “cursed with a skin of blackness.” We know what kind of suffering and unjust treatment has been experienced by people of color, we don’t want to think that God punishes the descendants of people like Laman who did not commit the sins of their parents, and some people of our generation have rejected the Book of Mormon entirely because they reject that depiction of God.
Scholars like those at BYU who focus on the Book of Mormon have suggested various theories to explain the situation. They may be right; I don’t know, and we aren’t going to go into their proposals. What I want to do now is have you look very, very closely at what the Book of Mormon actually says, as a possible way of understanding the problem.
2 Nephi 5:20-25 records Nephi’s words on this subject. To me, he appears to be doing what teachers and speakers very often do: He recites the words of God, either from the scriptures, or in Nephi’s case, through direct revelation, and then he adds his own commentary on what those words mean. Then he quotes God again, and then tells us what he, Nephi, understands about it.
I’m going to read these lines, and after each statement I’ll ask you whether Nephi is directly quoting God, or whether Nephi is giving us his commentary, his personal understanding of what God’s words mean.
[Write two headings – “Nephi” and “The Lord” – on the board, and as the class identifies who says what, write a keyword in the appropriate column.]
2 Nephi 20-25
20 Wherefore, the word of the Lord was fulfilled which he spake unto me, saying that: Inasmuch as they will not hearken unto thy words they shall be cut off from the presence of the Lord. [Lord]
And behold, they were cut off from his presence. [Nephi]
21 And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them. [Nephi]
22 And thus saith the Lord God: I will cause that they shall be loathsome unto thy people, save they shall repent of their iniquities. [Lord]
23 And cursed shall be the seed of him that mixeth with their seed; for they shall be cursed even with the same cursing. [Lord]
And the Lord spake it, and it was done. [Nephi]
24 And because of their cursing which was upon them they did become an idle people, full of mischief and subtlety, and did seek in the wilderness for beasts of prey. [Nephi]
25 And the Lord God said unto me: They shall be a scourge unto thy seed, to stir them up in remembrance of me; and inasmuch as they will not remember me, and hearken unto my words, they shall scourge them even unto destruction. [Lord]
Notice that wherever the Lord is quoted, he says what we have noted over and over in this lesson: Failure to keep the commandments results in judging, cursing, being cut off. He adds that the Nephites will find the Lamanites loathsome – that is, they will hate and be disgusted by the Lamanites – and any Nephite who mixes with the Lamanites will be cut off along with them.
But note, too, that the Lord does not say anything about skin color, either about its being a curse or about that being the point the Nephites should find loathsome. It is Nephi, not the Lord, who interprets God’s words as referring to skin color. At each step in his sermon here, Nephi wants us to know that the Lord’s words came to pass – “the Lord spake it, and it was done” – but it’s Nephi, not God, who picks out the evidence to support the Lord’s words.
There may well have been other people in the western hemisphere when Lehi and his family arrived. Laman and his supporters may already have made alliances with these people, accounting both for a change in skin color in the next generation and also for the fear of Nephi and his followers that led to their departure from the land of their first inheritance. Perhaps Nephi had some racial prejudice, and found the “skin of blackness” to be as loathsome as the Lamanites’ ungodly behavior.
But a close reading of what the Book of Mormon actually says does not show God changing the Lamanites’ skin color, or treating that color as a curse. That is Nephi’s interpretation, not God’s directive.
We certainly would like all of our prophets, whether in ancient days or in this dispensation, to be perfect men, free from prejudice and misunderstanding, but we know from experience within our own lifetimes that prophets, while striving for godliness and worthy of serving where they are called, are not perfect, any more than the rest of us are.
We are learning to read the Book of Mormon more closely than ever before. That might, in some cases, result in changing our understanding of this or that detail – that may be uncomfortable for some, and it might allow others to retain their faith in the Book of Mormon as an inspired writing.
One thing that has not changed, and will not change, is the Book of Mormon’s teachings about Jesus Christ: He is the Messiah that Lehi looked forward to; he is our Savior and Redeemer; he is the Son of God; his Atonement makes it possible for us to return to God, to “choose liberty and eternal life.”
Thanks for this. As a Primary teacher, it is wonderful to get a taste of Gospel Doctrine class.
And yes, the idea of cursings is something not often discussed.
And the idea that even Nephi was a human who may have had human failings–like Joseph Smith.
Thanks for this. This is how I have come to understand these verses as well. The Lord says they will be cursed. Nephi says that the curse had something to do with skin color. Nephi’s mistake seems to me to be closely tied to the overarching tragedy of the Book of Mormon summed up by the Lord in section 38: “Beware of pride, lest ye be as the Nephites of old.” We often think of pride in the Book of Mormon as having to do with prosperity, but racial pride was certainly a failing of the Nephites as well, and one that Jacob in particular addressed specifically. In either case, the mistake is the same: the Lord has blessed us and cursed them because we are rich/white and they are poor/dark and therefore we are better.
Nephite racism is not really always obvious, but you see it come out at various points in the narrative. Perhaps the most obvious is the Nephites’ rejection of Samuel the prophet and Jesus’ rebuke for not recording his words. But the story of Zeniff has this really interesting detail that Zeniff basically started a civil war for having the audacity to suggest that maybe they shouldn’t commit genocide against the Lamanites. And you get similar genocidal suggestions later with Alma and the sons of Mosiah, where the Nephites’ response to their suggestion that they should go preach the gospel to the Lamanites was basically not only to say it’s a waste of time, but to go so far as to say rather than preach the gospel to them, we should go seek them out and kill them all before they come get us.
Your handling of the “skin of blackness” and Nephite racism is exemplary, Ardis. And I love your focus on getting past our assumptions and looking at what’s actually in the text. Keep, uh, pitchin’ in!
I have also been amazed at the way people become convinced that they know what is in the scriptures based on the Hill Cumorah Pageant or movies like the Ten Commandents. Yes, they tied Nephi to the mast in the play, because they had to do something, and yes, I personally believe that Nephi’s boat probably had a mast and possibly a keel because it was steerable, unlike the barges of the Jaredites and Noah, but that doesn’t mean that the Book of Mormon says ANYTHING about tying Nephi to the mast. He was just bound. So yea, please READ the book.
I have always struggled with this scripture, and your analysis (who said this? Nephi or the Lord) I found very iinteresting and worth pondering. Thank you for these thoughts. You’ve given me a lot to think about.
Thanks, Tina; you might also find this useful. Alma 3:6 was brought up in class:
“And the skins of the Lamanites were dark, according to the mark which was set upon their fathers, which was a curse upon them because of their transgression and their rebellion against their brethren, who consisted of Nephi, Jacob, and Joseph, and Sam, who were just and holy men.”
A class member wrote this morning: “I also thought that since the Book of Mormon is really a journal, that perhaps it, like the Old Testament, contains revelations, histories of the people, and beliefs of the scriveners (as our journals do). But when the recorders are only expressing their beliefs, does that mean their expressions are scripture? … One of us cited to Alma 3:6 as proof that God cursed the Lamanites with Black skin due to their wickedness. But if we view that statement as merely a long standing historical belief of the Nephites, then it is not God’s belief nor scripture.”
I think we need to be very careful about dismissing teachings as “just the opinion of the writer” when those writers were prophets. But I also think that analyzing scripture and modern teachings within the context of faithfulness is permissible and can lead to new understanding.
I was busy freaking out over the Relief Society lesson I taught yesterday, and didnt go to Gospel Doctrine, so this is a great ‘catch-up’ lesson. Thanks for your thoughts about the skin of darkness issue. I’ve been trying to figure out how that scripture really doesn’t mean what it seems to mean, and your approach helps to calm my worries.
I’m guessing that many members of the Church read the part of the introduction that says if there are faults they are faults of men and immediately assume that is just the author being modest and of course there are no faults in the entire Book of Mormon, so I’m guessing it’s natural for people that have read it that way their entire lives to be distressed that you would suggest that anyone actually take the words of the introduction seriously!
Interesting way of looking at 2 Ne 5:20-25. The first time I have seen that analysis.
If I understand correctly, and please correct me if I’ve got it wrong, the essence of the position is, if it is the Lord speaking directly we accept that as true, but, if it is Nephi or another prophet provided their thoughts, we are free to use a rational explanation (in this case prejudice) as to why the prophet may be mistaken.
Assuming I have the approach correct, it would seem that one possible issue with the approach is that the vast bulk of the BOM consists of prophets commenting on the gospel as they understand it, as opposed to being the words of the Lord speaking directly. Accordingly, using the approach used in your post on 2 Ne 5:20-25 one would be free to reject, based on a rational explanation, any portion of the BOM which is “prophetic commentary” as simply being the conclusions of a fallible prophet.
For example, you say at the end of your post:
“One thing that has not changed, and will not change, is the Book of Mormon’s teachings about Jesus Christ: He is the Messiah that Lehi looked forward to; he is our Savior and Redeemer; he is the Son of God; his Atonement makes it possible for us to return to God, to “choose liberty and eternal life.”
However, if you are using 2 Ne 2:27, which you have quoted earlier in your post, at least in part for the basis for your ending statement, it would seem that the words in v27 would also fall into the prophetic commentary category. That is, the wording in that verse is not the Lord speaking directly but rather Lehi commenting on his understanding of the gospel as revealed to him by the Lord or the Holy Ghost. Accordingly, these words do not appear to be appreciably different than the wording you see in 2 Ne 5:20-25 as simply Nephi providing commentary that we are free to reject.
Also, given that there is wording in 3 Ne 2:14-16 which reflects the concepts expressed in 2 Ne 5:20-25, I’m wondering how you would deal with 3 Ne 2 14-16? Is the position also that those words are simply the mistaken perceptions or conclusions of a fallible prophet?
You very much misunderstand me, Ojiisan, beginning with your second paragraph, so I won’t respond directly to what follows in your comment.
Be clear: I do not believe nor teach that prophets should be ignored or their teachings discounted unless they accompany a teaching with “thus saith the Lord.”
On the other hand, I do not believe in the infallibility of prophets. Neither did Joseph Smith, who taught that “a prophet [is] a prophet only when he [is] acting as such” (HC 5:265). Neither did J. Reuben Clark, who taught that “even the President of the Church, himself, may not always be ‘moved upon by the Holy Ghost,’ when he addresses the people. This has happened about matters of doctrine (usually of a highly speculative character) where subsequent Presidents of the Church and the peoples themselves have felt that in declaring the doctrine, the announcer was not ‘moved upon by the Holy Ghost.’” (J. Reuben Clark Jr., “When Are Church Leaders’ Words Entitled to Claim of Scripture?” Church News, July 31, 1954, 9–10). Neither have, apparently, the many prophets and apostles who have quoted these two statements.
Although I do not believe in prophetic infallibility — either for Nephi or for President Monson — I do not join in the Bloggernacle predilection for exposing and celebrating supposed errors.
My purpose in examining this passage is, as stated in my lesson, to model for my class that it is possible, in all faithfulness, to read the scriptures closely and to arrive at a different understanding from our traditional readings. Certainly traditional readings have been corrected from time to time — such as repudiating the claimed scriptural basis for withholding the priesthood from black men, such as assuming that Lehi’s family are the ancestors of every Native American from the Aleutian Islands to Tierra del Fuego, such as a Book of Mormon headnote regarding coinage when the Book of Mormon discusses relative values but never coins. I do not want anyone in my class to have his or her faith shaken over any misunderstanding, whether the misunderstanding arose in Nephi’s day or in Joseph Smith’s, and it is the *process* of close reading, not the content of any particular example, that is important. I did not, in this lesson, teach class members to disregard the words of prophets; I taught them to read closely, to examine the text — a tool that they can use for whatever is the next challenge to their faith.
Above all, do not carry an illustration, an exercise, too far, and exaggerate it so far beyond anything I taught or intended.
“If I understand correctly …” (you don’t) “please correct me if I’ve got it wrong …” (I have, and you do).
Ojisan, it seems to me that identifying the source of a verse as prophetic commentary, and identifying that prophet as fallible, does not imply that that prophet is necessarily mistaken, or that we should feel absolutely free to reject what is said. 2 Ne. 2:27 was Lehi, and 2 Ne. 5:20 was mostly Nephi quoting the word of the Lord to him, and 2 Ne. 5:21 was Nephi expounding on that, and Alma or 3 Nephi is Mormon’s abridgment/edition of whoever was keeping the large plates at the time, and all of it was brought forth in English by Joseph Smith, and all of it is potentially subject to “mistakes of men,” and yet the whole thing was also brought forth, mistakes and all, by the power of God for God’s own purposes, and I don’t like to be too quick to reject something in it.
So, understanding a verse in the context of prophetic commentary doesn’t necessarily mean that we should feel free to cast aside that verse. However, it does help answer questions like “How can the Church, in the recent ‘Race and Priesthood’ article ‘disavow[] the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse,’ when the Book of Mormon explicitly says that ‘God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them,’ in connection with a curse?” Understanding that that verse reflects Nephi’s potentially flawed understanding allows us to approach the Book of Mormon faithfully and to reconcile it with the message of modern prophets.
Similarly, several verses of Book of Mormon about the afterlife suggest that it’s a simple dichotomy between heaven and hell — which is, of course, not consistent with the revelations of Joseph Smith. It helps if we are able to understand that those verses weren’t inscribed by the finger of God, but came through prophets, who spoke what they understood without the benefit of the revelations later granted to Joseph Smith.
It’s easy to find bitter commentary online where people suggest that the entire book of Mormon must be false, because they disagree with the contents of a few verses, or where other people suggest that the entire church must be in apostasy because it disagrees with what a few verses of the Book of Mormon say. Being careful about the context of the Book of Mormon allows us to face those conflicts without letting them destroy our faith.
Of course, I’m not Ardis, and I may have misunderstood her purpose in interpreting those verses that way. But that’s why such an interpretation has been useful to me.
You get it, Mike R., and said it better than I did.
Ardis:
Thank you for the explanation.
It’s apparently a fine line for some people between a few options.
Option 1) “The Book of Mormon says it, I believe it, that settles it” an adapted Protestant trope, meaning, anything scripture says comes straight out of the divine omniscient Heavenly Encyclopedia. Thus, if it *seems* problematic, take it up with God.
Any pushback on this idea in general or specific is seen as tantamount to denying prophetic or scriptural authority.
Option 2) “The Book of Mormon isn’t inspired because racism.” This option assumes that if God *really* inspired scripture, it would represent the height of scientific, moral, ethical, and doctrinal knowledge from beginning to end and be consistent. When scripture fails this yardstick of inspiration, it is judged uninspired.
This assumption, however, is simplistic and unwarranted.
Option 3) Scripture is written by divinely-inspired human hands. Not by God (removing humanity from the process, or making them mere typewriters), and not by humans alone (cutting out inspiration.) This means that scripture often represents human perspectives and culture, which God must work with. Recognizing the limitations God must work with because he does choose to work with humans is not a rejection of scripture, nor entirely a Pandora’s box.
This option, containing nuance and complexity, is the most defensible option as well as the one that best fits all the data we have in scripture. It’s also the one that requires the most mature perspective, and isn’t taught in Primary. And to someone who only understands the options to be #1 and #2, someone teaching #3 sounds like they’re actually teaching #2.
I like seeing this. I wrote a blog post on these very same observations back in 2013 over at WWE. http://www.withoutend.org/adjusting-narrative-part-2anephi-skin-blackness/
While I’ve been evolving on some of my propositions as included there, I still believe the two key points as you also included are the most important when using 2 Nephi 5 as a skin-color-change proof-text: a) Nephi wasn’t there, and b) Nephi doesn’the explicitly say this is what God told him.
I like thay these observations are getting independently noticed by more readers. Awesome!
David, I’m both pleased and chagrined — pleased that someone else sees the difference between Nephi quoting the Lord and Nephi giving his own commentary …
… and chagrined because I really thought this was my own reading, not having seen it elsewhere. Well, I suppose it *is* still my own, independent reading, but I’m certainly following along in your footsteps.
I really prefer this suggestion of Nephi’s thought processes as something I can readily understand as normal human weakness to the more complex proposals that the “skin of blackness” is a code or metaphor for something else, which introduces unnecessary complications, IMO.