[Page 319]Abstract: This article describes examples of the sacred embrace and the sacred handclasp in the Old, Middle, and New Kingdoms of ancient Egypt, in ancient Mediterranean regions, and in the classical and early Christian world. It argues that these actions are an invitation and promise of entrance into the celestial realms. The sacred embrace may well have been a preparation, the sacred handclasp the culminating act of entrance into the divine presence.

[Editor’s Note: Part of our book chapter reprint series, this article is reprinted here as a service to the LDS community. Original pagination and page numbers have necessarily changed, otherwise the reprint has the same content as the original.

See Stephen D. Ricks, “The Sacred Embrace and the Sacred Handclasp in Ancient Mediterranean Religions,” in Ancient Temple Worship: Proceedings of The Expound Symposium 14 May 2011, ed. Matthew B. Brown, Jeffrey M. Bradshaw, Stephen D. Ricks, and John S. Thompson (Orem, UT: The Interpreter Foundation; Salt Lake City: Eborn Books, 2014), 159–70. Further information at https://interpreterfoundation.org/books/ancient-temple-worship/.]

The Sacred Embrace in Ancient Egypt: Introduction

A number of years ago, while planning to travel to Egypt to visit our son who was studying Arabic there, my wife and I were encouraged [Page 320]to visit the White Chapel of Senusret I at the Temple of Karnak in Luxor, Egypt. There, we were told, we would see a number of scenes of “sacred ritual embrace,” in which the king is depicted being embraced by one of the gods before being received into heaven (the “Fields of Bliss”). We were also told that there were several other scenes of sacred embrace in the temple complex at Karnak. We went expecting to see a few at Karnak and elsewhere but were nearly overwhelmed with the embarrassment of ritual riches we saw there at that time and on a subsequent visit: many scores of scenes of embrace (at least 150) at the temples at Karnak, at the ancient Egyptian Ptolemaic temple at Philae near modern Aswan, Egypt, as well as at the Egyptian Museum in Cairo. Here we will focus on examples of the sacred embrace in the Old, Middle, and New Kingdoms of ancient Egypt.

The Sacred Embrace in Ancient Egyptian Iconography

One of the earliest scenes of sacred embrace may be seen on the (Hor) Qa Hedjet stela (Figure 1), dating from the Third Dynasty of the Old Kingdom around the middle of the 27th century bc.1 The stela itself is made of polished limestone and shows the divine Horus (depicted with a falcon head) embracing the royal Horus with foot by foot, knee facing knee, hand to back, and mouth to nose so that the divine Horus might “inspire” (i.e., breathe life) into the royal Horus.

An eleven-foot pillar from the Middle Kingdom (Figure 2) celebrates the sed (royal jubilee) festival of the Egyptian King Senusret (reigned 1971–1925 bc) in about 1940 bc. Two sides of this four-sided pillar group are illustrated. In the first scene Senusret stands opposite the god Amon, who faces him foot by foot, knee to knee, and hand on back. In the fourth panel Senusret faces the god Ptah from the right; both hands grasp his back, and he stands face to face in order to breathe life into him.

The final scene (Figure 3) is from a New Kingdom relief from the tomb of Tutankhamun who died as a very young king in his teens in the 14th century bc. The discovery of his tomb by the British archaeologist Howard Carter in 1923 created an international sensation. Tutankhamun [Page 321]— known popularly as “King Tut” — ruled Egypt after the death of Akhenaten, the king of Egypt who introduced the monotheistic belief in the solar disk Aten in the 15th century ...

[Page 309]Abstract: In this essay, I examine a letter written by Elder Vaughn J. Featherstone in 1983 and deposited in the cornerstone of the Atlanta Georgia Temple. The letter is addressed to twenty-first century members of the Church and is written with the expectation that these future Saints will have been alive for the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. I consider the claims made about this letter from a recent viral video entitled “7 Year Tribulation in the SEVENTH Seal TIMELINE.”

On March 12, 2020, the video “7 Year Tribulation in the SEVENTH Seal TIMELINE” was released on YouTube.1 Six weeks later it had 375,000 views and had made the rounds on various Facebook groups, including one devoted to discussion among seminary teachers. The video presents a last days timeline that places the Second Coming in the very near future. The video’s creator, Masayoshi Montemayor, makes his points largely through official Church sources, including the Church’s website, institute manuals, and conference reports. However, in other instances, he points to obscure sources, including an April 1983 letter written by Seventy Vaughn J. Featherstone. This letter serves as Montemayor’s final piece of evidence for an imminent second coming. In this essay, I examine this document to understand its limitations for the argument Montemayor makes. My goal is not to criticize Elder Featherstone or to disparage sincere Latter-day Saints — among them presumably this video’s creator — who like myself are eager to be present for our Savior’s coming.

[Page 310]The Letter

On April 6, 1983, Elder Featherstone drafted a letter addressed to twenty- first century members of the Church. It would be deposited in a time capsule at the dedication of the Atlanta Georgia Temple presumably, like other Church time capsules, to be opened fifty years later. This powerful document predicts the millennial ministry of the Savior and the future success of the Saints’ missionary labors in the American South. The opening paragraph describes what Featherstone believed the experience of these future Latter-day Saints would be like fifty years in the future.

Those of you who read this letter have witnessed the second coming of Christ, the day for which we have long awaited. What a glorious experience to live in the day when our Lord, our Redeemer, the very Son of God is reigning personally upon the earth. We can imagine what General Conference must be like, to have the Savior address the people. … Oh what a blessed generation you are and must be.2

Featherstone notes that in his own time the Church was facing great adversity. “I believe we are on the very threshold of great trials. The darkest clouds in the history of the world are on the horizon.”3

Featherstone then turns his attention to the future growth of the Church in the American South.

The Atlanta Temple is the first temple in the South. I can see temples in Charlotte, Columbia, Birmingham, Jackson, Nashville, and in Louisiana and Arkansas. We now have more than 110,000 members of the Church in this area. I can see in my mind[’]s eye great hosts of converts to exceed a million members in the South.

[Page 293]Abstract: The ritual use of hand gestures in covenant-making in ancient times is a topic of peculiar interest to Latter-day Saints. In this article, David Calabro summarizes results drawn from his doctoral research, providing readers with some tools to evaluate ancient gestures. The questions he suggests are novel, as is the way they are couched in an organized scheme. The author concludes that Latter-day Saints, who belong to a tradition saturated with ritual gestures, should be among those most educated about them.

[Editor’s Note: Part of our book chapter reprint series, this article is reprinted here as a service to the LDS community. Original pagination and page numbers have necessarily changed, otherwise the reprint has the same content as the original.

See David Calabro, “Understanding Ritual Hand Gestures of the Ancient Word: Some Basic Tools,” in Ancient Temple Worship: Proceedings of The Expound Symposium 14 May 2011, ed. Matthew B. Brown, Jeffrey M. Bradshaw, Stephen D. Ricks, and John S. Thompson (Orem, UT: The Interpreter Foundation; Salt Lake City: Eborn Books, 2014), 143–58. Further information at https://interpreterfoundation.org/books/ancient-temple-worship/.]

The ritual use of hand gestures in ancient times is a topic of peculiar interest to Latter-day Saints. A book by Alonzo Gaskill on the meaning of gospel ordinances includes several sections devoted to ritual hand gestures.1 Gaskill explores the meaning of these gestures in ancient times in order to illuminate the meaning of these gestures for [Page 294]modern Latter-day Saints. In his discussion of ritual gestures used in covenant-making, he writes, “The meaning of such oath-making rituals is sometimes defined, and at other times left for the participant to discover. But each is clearly laden with symbolic meaning and, consequently, with a divine offering to the inquisitive participant who seeks understanding.”2 According to Victor Ludlow, the ordinances of the temple tune our minds to the significance of the hands as used in worship.3

From 2008 to the present, I have been conducting research on the use of ritual hand gestures in the ancient Near East. Much of this research was gathered in my 2014 doctoral dissertation on Northwest Semitic hand-lifting gestures and handclasps.4 Occasionally, in conversations with fellow Latter-day Saints, I am asked to summarize the findings of my research. Those who ask me this usually wish to gain insights about the ordinances of the Church, particularly temple ordinances, through understanding the ritual gestures of the ancient societies. The possibility of such comparisons is also of interest to me. Indeed, the deeper I delve into the ritual practices of ancient societies, the more I find these practices and those of the Latter-day Saint temple to be mutually instructive.

Nevertheless, like many people who have written a doctoral dissertation, the request to summarize my findings usually leaves me tongue-tied. One reason for this is that research in the humanities involves discovering questions as well as answering them; describing the answers is thus difficult without laying the groundwork of the questions that were asked. This is particularly true with ritual gestures, a topic whose complexity few realize. Discussion of sacred priesthood ordinances is subject to bounds of place and manner, which means that many members of the Church, even though they have reflected extensively on the meaning of ritual gestures, have not considered questions that arise from dialogue with those who hold alternate interpretat...

[Page 237]Abstract: After publishing several articles in peer-reviewed journals, the author published Uto-Aztecan: A Comparative Vocabulary (2011), the new standard in comparative Uto-Aztecan, favorably reviewed1 and heartily welcomed by specialists in the field. Four years later, another large reference work, Exploring the Explanatory Power of Semitic and Egyptian in Uto-Aztecan (2015), was also favorably reviewed2 but not as joyfully welcomed among specialists as its predecessor. While some saw it as sound, more were silent. Some disliked the topic, but no one produced substantive refutations of it. In August 2019, Chris Rogers published a review,3 but John S. Robertson’s response to Rogers’s review4 and my response in the first 24 items rebutted below shed new light on his criticisms. Following on the heels of Rogers’s review, Magnus Pharao Hansen, specializing in Nahuatl, blogged objections to 14 Nahuatl items among the 1,528 sets.5 Rogers’s and Hansen’s articles gave rise to some critical commentary as well as to a few valid questions. What follows clarifies the misconceptions in Rogers’s [Page 238]review, responds to Hansen’s Nahuatl issues, and answers some reasonable questions raised by others.

table {border: 1px solid #dddddd; width: 100%; margin: auto;} table td{border: 1px solid #dddddd; padding: 0 10px 0 0 !important; text-align: left; vertical-align: top;} table.noborder, table.noborder td{border: 0px solid #ffffff;} table.small td{font-size: 85%; padding-right: 5px !important;} blockquote {margin-right: 0;} p.wp-caption-text{text-align: center !important;} p.wp-caption-text:before {content: '' !important;} .uppercase{text-transform: uppercase;font-size: 80%;}

 

Editor’s Note

Critics of the Book of Mormon often argue that no evidence exists for contact between the ancient Near East and the Americas. Accordingly, proof of such contact would demolish a principal objection to Joseph Smith’s prophetic claims. If the thesis of Brian Stubbs’s works is correct, he has furnished precisely that proof.

As might be expected, Stubbs’s efforts have drawn criticism from some, but not all, of his linguistic peers. This article represents a response by Stubbs to those criticisms. Stubbs’s works are admittedly complex and highly technical. They are, therefore, difficult, and it can take quite a bit of work for a reader to assimilate and understand the implications of his arguments. That very complexity and difficulty, though,

Abstract: On the Mount of Olives, just prior to the culminating events of the Passion week, Jesus gave one of the most controversial prophecies of the New Testament, saying, among other things, that the “abomination of desolation” will “stand in the holy place.” In Joseph Smith-Matthew the Prophet renders this passage in a way that radically changes its meaning. Rather than describing how the “abomination of desolation” will “stand in the holy place,” the jst version enjoins the apostles to “stand in the holy place” when the “abomination of desolation” appears. Though several Latter-day Saint scholars have offered interpretations and personal applications of these words as given in modern scripture, it appears that no one has heretofore seriously explored how this change in meaning might be explained and defended. This article will show that other passages in the Bible, in connection with the light shed by Jewish midrash and contemporary scholarship, demonstrate that the idea behind Joseph Smith’s revision of the passage, far from being a modern invention, reverberates throughout the religious thought of earlier times. The article concludes with an appendix that tries to draw out a possibility for a specific interpretation of the prophecy about the “abomination of desolation” at the time of Christ and in the latter days.

[Editor’s Note: Part of our book chapter reprint series, this article is reprinted here as a service to the LDS community. Original pagination and page numbers have necessarily changed, otherwise the reprint has the same content as the original.

See Jeffrey M. Bradshaw, “Standing in the Holy Place: Ancient and Modern Reverberations of an Enigmatic New Testament Prophecy,” in [Page 164]Ancient Temple Worship: Proceedings of The Expound Symposium 14 May 2011, ed. Matthew B. Brown, Jeffrey M. Bradshaw, Stephen D. Ricks, and John S. Thompson (Orem, UT: The Interpreter Foundation; Salt Lake City: Eborn Books, 2014), 71–142. Further information at https://interpreterfoundation.org/books/ancient-temple-worship/.]

Immediately after His prophecy about the destruction of the temple, and just prior to the culminating events of the Passion week, Jesus “went upon the Mount of Olives.”2 Here, in a setting associated with some of His most sacred teachings,3 His apostles “came unto him privately” to question him about the “destruction of the temple, and the Jews,” and the “sign of [His] coming, and of the end of the world, or the destruction of the wicked.” Within this discourse, Jesus gave one of the most controversial prophecies of the New Testament:

When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation … stand in the holy place …

Then let them which be in Judea flee into the mountains:4

The gospel of Mark is at variance with the wording of the gospel of Matthew, though the two accounts agree in general meaning. Instead of saying that the “abomination of desolation” will “stand in the holy place,”5 Mark asserts that it will be “standing where it ought not.”6 Luke, writing to a Gentile audience that was not as familiar with the temple and its [Page 165]customs as were the Jews addressed by Matthew, describes the sign in a more general way, referring to how Jerusalem would be “compassed by armies.”7 Though the interpretation of ...

Abstract: Lehi’s dream symbolically teaches us about many aspects of Heavenly Father’s plan of salvation. The central message of Lehi’s dream is that all must come unto Jesus Christ in order to be saved. Each of us has the choice to pursue the path that leads to eternal joy and salvation or to choose a different way and experience undesirable outcomes. In this paper, elements of Lehi’s dream and supporting scriptures are analyzed to see how they relate to key aspects of the plan of salvation and our journey through life.

Lehi’s dream of the tree of life recorded in the Book of Mormon offers a symbolic portrayal of Heavenly Father’s plan of salvation. Lehi recognized his dream as a vision from God, and after awaking he felt confident in the eternal destiny of his sons Nephi and Sam but was deeply concerned for the eternal welfare of his two oldest sons, Laman and Lemuel.1

In his vision, Lehi was led to a large and spacious field in which he saw a tree that produced brilliant white fruit.2 After partaking of the fruit, which he said “was desirable to make one happy,” Lehi noted that its taste was “most sweet,” and his soul became filled “with exceedingly great joy” (1 Nephi 8:10–12). Lehi quickly became eager to have his family partake of the fruit also. He noted that his wife Sariah and his sons Sam and Nephi partook, but Laman and Lemuel refused to come to the tree.3

Lehi also saw a large and spacious field with a countless number of people in it, many of whom made their way toward a strait and narrow path with an iron rod to its side. The path and the rod extended along the bank of a river and led directly to the tree. After the travelers began their journey on the path toward the tree, they were soon overshadowed by a mist of darkness that caused many to veer off of the path and become [Page 142]lost. Others, however, pushed through the mist of darkness and made their way to the tree by holding onto the iron rod.4

On the other side of the river from the path and the tree was a great and spacious building that “stood as it were in the air high above the earth” (1 Nephi 8:26). Lehi observed that the building was filled with men and women of all ages who wore elaborate, fine clothing and mocked and pointed their fingers at those who had come to the tree to partake of its fruit. The scoffing from those in the great and spacious building caused all who heeded them to feel ashamed, “and they fell away into forbidden paths and were lost” (1 Nephi 8:27–28).

Lehi saw others who “fell down and partook of the fruit of the tree” after having pressed forward along the path while “continually holding fast to the rod of iron” (1 Nephi 8:30). Lehi seems to have included himself and the other righteous members of his family among this group, noting that they also experienced the ridicule of those in the great and spacious building — but, he said, “we heeded them not” (1 Nephi 8:33).

In addition to those making their way to the path toward the tree, many others neglected the path altogether and instead sought after the great and spacious building. Although a large multitude entered into it, not all who journeyed toward the building were able to get there. Many of those pursuing the great and spacious building became lost from Lehi’s view as they wandered down “strange roads,

Abstract: In this article, Michael Morales considers how the building of the Tabernacle had been pre-figured from the earliest narratives of Genesis onward. It describes some of the parallels between the creation, deluge, and Sinai narratives and the tabernacle account; examines how the high priest’s office functions as something of a new Adam; and considers how the completed tabernacle resolves the storyline of Genesis and Exodus, via the biblical theme of “to dwell in the divine Presence.”

[Editor’s Note: Part of our book chapter reprint series, this article is reprinted here as a service to the LDS community. Original pagination and page numbers have necessarily changed, otherwise the reprint has the same content as the original.

See L. Michael Morales, “The Tabernacle: Mountain of God in the Cultus of Israel,” in Ancient Temple Worship: Proceedings of The Expound Symposium 14 May 2011, ed. Matthew B. Brown, Jeffrey M. Bradshaw, Stephen D. Ricks, and John S. Thompson (Orem, UT: The Interpreter Foundation; Salt Lake City: Eborn Books, 2014), 27–70. Further information at https://interpreterfoundation.org/books/ancient-temple-worship/.]

Introduction

That the narratives leading up to the tabernacle have had its cultus in view as a major goal may be surmised by the centrality of the cultus in the Torah, as well as the parallels (lexical and thematic) between those narratives and the tabernacle account.1 By way of introduction, [Page 98]we will consider briefly the former, the centrality of the tabernacle cultus. Unfolding through the events at Sinai recorded in Exodus 19 through Numbers 10, worship via the tabernacle is the literary heart and theological apex of the Torah.2 Even the sheer amount of this narrative is misleading, moreover, inasmuch as much of the literature outside Exodus 19—Numbers 10 has also been demonstrated to be concerned with cultic matters and likely, in Genesis 1—Exodus 18, in such a way as to anticipate Israel’s tabernacle cultus.3

More narrowly, chapters 19-40 of Exodus may be considered, formally, a meticulously composed, coherent story that culminates with the glory cloud’s descent upon the completed tabernacle.4 Justifiably, then, Davies believes “worship” has a strong claim to be the central theological theme of Exodus, linking together salvation, covenant, and law — a theology, what’s more, going back as far as can be discerned in the history of the tradition.5 Now beyond all else to which the tabernacle/המשׁכן cultus and its rituals pertain, one must keep in view the fundamental understanding of it as the dwelling/שׁכן of God (cf. Exodus 25.8-9; 29.45-46), so that “worship” may be defined broadly as “dwelling in the divine Presence.” Already, then, the bookends of the Genesis-through-Exodus narrative begin to emerge: the seventh day/garden of Eden (Genesis 1-3) and the tabernacle Presence of God among his cultic community (Exodus 40).

The building of the tabernacle, then, with the establishment of its cult, may be seen as a major goal of the exodus — a goal that includes the constitution of Israel as a cultic community (עדה ‘edah) living in the divine Presence.6 This goal is evident not only by the centrality of worship in the Torah, but also by explicit statement. At the very outset of the tabernacle narrative, Yhwh’s purpose is manifested: “Let them make me a sanctuary that I may dwell among them” (Exodus 25.8). This narrative goal is repeated in 29.45-6:

I will dwell among the sons of Israel, and I will be their God.

Review of Elizabeth Fenton and Jared Hickman, Americanist Approaches to The Book of Mormon (New York: Oxford University Press, 2019). 456 pages. $99 (hardback), $35 (paperback).

Abstract: Americanist Approaches to The Book of Mormon is an ambitious collection of essays published by Oxford University Press. By “Americanist” the editors refer to their preferred mode of contextualization: to situate the Book of Mormon as a response to various currents of nineteenth- century American thought. The “table rules” in this case determine who gets invited to the table and what topics can be discussed, using what types of evidence. The approach is legitimate, and the contributors offer a range of interesting perspectives and observations. Several essays base their arguments on the notion that the Book of Mormon adapts itself to a series of racist tropes common in the nineteenth century. In 2015, Ethan Sproat wrote an important essay that undercuts the arguments of those authors, but none of them address his case or evidence. This raises the issue of the existence of other tables operating under different assumptions, confronting the same text, and reaching very different conclusions. How are we to judge which table’s rules produce the best readings?

Americanist Approaches to The Book of Mormon is an ambitious collection of essays published in 2019 by Oxford University Press.1 By “Americanist,” the editors refer to their preferred mode [Page 68]of contextualization: to situate the Book of Mormon as a response to various currents of nineteenth-century American thought.

The authors of this collection’s essays approach The Book of Mormon from a variety of methodological and theological perspectives, but all share a commitment to taking seriously the book’s relationship to and impact on the culture into which it emerged. (10)

The editors provide an introduction and then seventeen essays grouped as “Plates and Print,” “Scripture and Secularity,” “Indigeneity and Imperialism,” and “Genre and Generation.” Each essay takes a serious academic tone (for the most part2), and the attitudes vary from respect rooted in deep devotion and broad knowledge (Terryl Givens, Grant Hardy, and Amy Easton-Flake) to friendly (Paul Gutjahr and Elizabeth Fenton) to deeply skeptical (Peter Coviello, Eran Shalev, and R. John Williams). For instance, Flake’s essay “‘Arise From the Dust, My Sons, and Be Men’” explores the Book of Mormon’s view of masculinity in light of nineteenth-century concepts of male and female roles, and concludes that “we find a new vision of ideal Christian manhood that challenges the idea that American religion was feminized in the nineteenth century” (370). Grant Hardy writes about “The Book of Mormon and the Bible,

Abstract: This article explores the biblical pattern that relates the temple-related symbols of the cube, the gate, and measuring tools. The tools of architecture and measurement were associated with the kingship motifs of creation and conquering chaos, and on the day when a person was initiated as a king in ancient Israel, all of these concepts were applied to him.

[Editor’s Note: Part of our book chapter reprint series, this article is reprinted here as a service to the LDS community. Original pagination and page numbers have necessarily changed, otherwise the reprint has the same content as the original.

See Matthew B. Brown, “Cube, Gate, and Measuring Tools: A Biblical Pattern,” in Ancient Temple Worship: Proceedings of The Expound Symposium 14 May 2011, ed. Matthew B. Brown, Jeffrey M. Bradshaw, Stephen D. Ricks, and John S. Thompson (Orem, UT: The Interpreter Foundation; Salt Lake City: Eborn Books, 2014), 1–26. Further information at https://interpreterfoundation.org/books/ancient-temple-worship/.]

The purpose of this paper1 is to draw attention to several sets of matching themes which are found in descriptions of the ancient Israelite temple and portions of the apocalypse written by the apostle John. The information associated with these sets can be applied to the task of interpreting the respective texts where they are found and they can also be used to demonstrate a surprising way whereby the covenant people of the Old and New Testaments were interconnected.

The first point of comparison in the aforementioned matching sets has to do with the most sacred area in the Israelite temple known as the Holy of [Page 42]Holies. The perfectly cubical shape of this room was revealed in a vision to the prophet Moses while he met with the Lord on Mount Sinai (Exodus 25:8–9). Long after Moses incorporated this room into the Tabernacle it was replicated on a larger scale inside of Solomon’s Temple (1 Kings 6:20). Four pillars were placed on the east side of the Holy of Holies of the Tabernacle (Exodus 26:32–33), which logically would have created three narrow gateways that provided access to the room (see Figure 1).

A veil was stretched across these pillars and cherubim, or angelic guards, were embroidered on the veil (Exodus 26:31–32; cf. Genesis 3:24). The exact number of cherubim embroidered on the veil is not stated in any Old Testament text, but, as seen in Figure 2, there may have been been only three: one per gateway. The main reason this idea should be taken into serious consideration is the fact that once it is accepted, a matching pattern then emerges in the last volume of the New Testament.

In chapter 21 of the book of Revelation, the apostle John is shown the heavenly city of New Jerusalem, and he sees that it is shaped like a perfect cube. He also sees that it has three gates on each of its four sides, and one angel is standing guard at each of the gates (vv. 12, 16).

It can be determined with a degree of certainty that the heavenly New Jerusalem and the earthly Holy of Holies were parallel objects because of an important object that each of them contained. The Ark of the Covenant sat in the Holy of Holies of the earthly temple. There are a number of Bible scholars who believe that the Ark of the Covenant was a representation of God’s throne2 — which means that the Holy of Holies would have symbolically represented the throne room of the Heavenly King. When John the Revelator entered into the heavenly New [Page 43]Jerusalem, he saw that the throne of God was there (Revelation 22:3). This explains why John said that he saw no temple inside of the heavenly New Jerusalem (Revelation 21:22). He was standing inside the Holy of Holies of the heavenly temp...

Abstract: In the Book of Mormon, Nephi draws upon his own knowledge of the Jewish people, their culture and language, and the surrounding area to add to his understanding of Isaiah’s words, and commends that approach to his reader. In his book The Vision of All, it is clear that Joseph Spencer lacks knowledge in these topics, and it negatively affects his interpretation of Isaiah. Specifically, this lack of knowledge causes him to misinterpret the role of the Messiah in Isaiah’s teachings, something that was clear to Isaiah’s ancient readers.

Review of Joseph M. Spencer, The Vision of All: Twenty-five Lectures on Isaiah in Nephi’s Record (Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2016). 318 pages. $59.95 (hardback); $29.95 paperback.

Recently, Don Parry reviewed Joseph Spencer’s book on Isaiah1 in what, to this observer, was a kindly and understated but also critical way, pointing out particularly Spencer’s inability to read Hebrew.2 Years ago James Faulconer, Spencer’s undergraduate mentor, had a rule that he would not allow his students to write commentary on a book of scripture unless they controlled the original language of the text. This is a laudable ideal and obviously has much to recommend it. While knowledge of Hebrew is not a prerequisite to study Isaiah, it is very helpful — not least for avoiding serious errors — if one wishes to write about Isaiah as a scholar.

Parry’s review deserves some additional comment because, if anything, Parry was not critical enough. Toward that end, in this review I will add to the conversation by focusing on just one chapter in Spencer’s book.

[Page 30]The Things of the Jews

Not only is Hebrew highly desirable as preparation for writing about Isaiah, but the Book of Mormon points out other prerequisites to understanding Isaiah. It is worth reviewing these, particularly since Spencer seeks to focus on Isaiah in Nephi’s record.3

Nephi instructs his readers, “the Jews do understand the things of the prophets, and there is none other people that understand the things which were spoken unto the Jews like unto them, save it be that they are taught after the manner of the things of the Jews” (2 Nephi 25:5). Therefore, someone who wishes to follow Nephi’s method ideally needs to know the things of the ancient Jews, like their language (through philology), their script, their culture, their history, their material culture (through archaeology), their poetry, and their rhetorical patterns. In short, one needs to be “taught somewhat in all the learning of [Nephi’s] father” (1 Nephi 1:1).

Nephi also notes that he knows “concerning the regions round about” (2 Nephi 25:6). From Nephi’s own words it can be extrapolated that one also needs to be familiar with the cultures surrounding the lands of the Jews. Isaiah provides two lists of these. One is the major sections with prophecies against major nations. The other is the list: “from Assyria, and from Egypt, and from Pathros, and from Cush, and from Elam, and from Shinar, and from Hamath, and from the islands of the sea” (Isaiah 11:11).

Meeting these requirements requires a great deal of effort, more than most people want to invest.