[Page 145]Review of Terryl Givens, 2nd Nephi: A Brief Theological Introduction (Provo, UT: The Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship, 2020). 124 pages. $9.95 (paperback).

Abstract: Terryl Givens’s well-written and enjoyable book does much to equip readers of the Book of Mormon with new tools to appreciate the riches of a text often viewed as the most difficult part of the Book of Mormon. Givens helps us recognize Nephi’s sorrow over Jerusalem and his passionate hope and joy centered in the Messiah, Jesus Christ. He helps us understand the weightier matters that Nephi focuses on to encourage us to accept the covenants of the Lord and to be part of Zion. Readers will better respect 2 Nephi as a vital part of the Restoration with content critically important for our day.

Terryl Givens’s recent book 2nd Nephi: A Brief Theological Introduction,1 part of the Neal A. Maxwell Institute’s series on the books of the Book of Mormon, exceeded my expectations. Givens, of course, is a popular, skilled, and intelligent writer who has done much to expand readers’ appreciation of the scriptures. In spite of that, I approached this book wondering just how much he could do with the constraint of writing about 2 Nephi, a book many less experienced students of the scriptures feel is dull and difficult to understand, in part because of its emphasis on Isaiah and the paucity of action within its pages, rather unlike 1 Nephi with its dramatic tales of fleeing Jerusalem, obtaining the [Page 146]brass plates, journeying across the Arabian Peninsula, and sailing to the New World. Givens surprised me by revealing both the poignancy and the spiritual depth in 2 Nephi with fresh perspectives. While 2nd Nephi: A Brief Theological Introduction is a short work of 124 pages, it is packed with meaning and is a book I am pleased to recommend.

A useful introduction considers just how deeply Nephi must have been affected by Lehi’s prophetic confirmation that Jerusalem had been destroyed and considers Nephi’s possible motivation for starting a second volume in his writings. Givens then begins with a discussion of “The New (and Very Old) Covenant” in chapter 1, reminding us of the background to the grand plan of salvation and the covenant relationship that God invites us to enter into in order to return to Him. Some of this basic knowledge, including a knowledge of the premortal existence, was among the “plain and precious things” (1 Nephi 13:28) Nephi foresaw would be lost in our day but would be restored to those who would hear. Givens then briefly surveys covenant theology from the perspective of modern Protestantism and compares that to covenant theology in the Book of Mormon and shows some of the helpful additions brought by the perspective of the Book of Mormon.

Given notes that the Book of Mormon greatly emphasizes the theme of covenants, using the word far more (174 times) than the New Testament (30 times), and sees the covenant-oriented Book of Mormon as a text that would resonate with growing interest in covenant theology among many Christians in Joseph’s day (22).

Givens discusses the Book of Mormon’s unique combination of New Testament themes and a belief in Christ among Hebrews living the Law of Moses, followed by a “New World John the Baptist figure (Samuel the Lamanite, a descendant of Lehi)” (23) declaring the imminent birth of Christ, followed by the dramatic account of the visit of the Resurrected Lord to the New World, where the Savior then established His Church and commissioned twelve ...

[Page 131]Review of Joseph M. Spencer, 1 Nephi: A Brief Theological Introduction (Provo, UT: The Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship, 2020). 146 pages. $9.99 (paperback).

Abstract: Joseph Spencer’s intimate familiarity with the Book of Mormon text, based upon years of close textual study and informed by a well- developed theological sensibility, is in full evidence in this lead-off volume in Neal A. Maxwell Institute’s new series of books on the various books of the Book of Mormon. Leaving to prophets and apostles the responsibility for “declaring official doctrine,” this new series approaches the book with the tools of the “scholarly practice” of theology. In Spencer’s case at least, his practice is understood to be (1) informed by an emphasis on grace that is skeptical of claims of personal righteousness and (2) very much engaged with contemporary moral and social issues grounded in a fundamental concern for “equality.” Accordingly, Spencer’s reading is much more interested in “what God is doing in history with what we call the Abrahamic covenant” than with the more popular (non-scholarly) concerns of “everyday faithful living;” it is also more interested in Nephi’s “realistic” and “mature” regret over his youthful over-boldness than in his confident statements of righteous faith. In the end, Spencer’s extremely careful but theologically tendentious reading alerts us very skillfully to certain features of Nephi’s imperfect humanity but reveals a consistent preoccupation with any possible faults in the prophet that might be extracted from an ingenious reading of the text. Finally, concerning women in the Book of Mormon, Spencer again expertly raises provocative questions about barely heard female voices but is too eager to frame these questions from the standpoint of the “modern sensibility” of “sexual egalitarianism.”

[Page 132]Joseph Spencer’s academic qualifications for batting lead-off in the Neal A. Maxwell Institute’s important new series of books on the various books of the Book of Mormon are notable. Professor Spencer, who has taught in BYU’s ancient scripture department since 2015, is author of two previous books closely examining the Book of Mormon text1 as well as scores of articles, chapters, and reviews on these and related topics. He is co-editor of the Book of Mormon Series (in which the present title appears) as well as editor of the Maxwell Institute’s Journal of Book of Mormon Studies. (Let us note as well that Joseph Spencer holds a PhD in philosophy and has also published extensively in that demanding field of scholarship.) As he demonstrates in the present work, Spencer has devoted years of close and faithful study to the Book of Mormon and has much to offer the reader who is willing to join him in a fresh and searching engagement with an ancient and inspired text.

Interpretive Grace

Professor Spencer emphasizes that his approach to 1 Nephi is theological. “My first purpose in the following pages is … to show how much we miss in 1 Nephi — how much we miss that’s of a theological nature” (3). In this he echoes the series introduction: “This series focuses particularly on theology — the scholarly practice of exploring a scriptural text’s implications and its lens on God’s work in the world” (viii). It seems that the meaning of this “scholarly practice” is best u...

This is an Interpreter Radio Roundtable for Come, Follow Me Book of Mormon Lesson 47, “To Keep Them in the Right Way,” on Moroni chapters 1-6. The panelists for this roundtable were Steve Densley, Matthew Bowen and Mark Johnson. This roundtable was extracted from the October 25, 2020 broadcast of Interpreter Radio. The complete show may be heard at https://interpreterfoundation.org/interpreter-radio-show-october-25-2020/. The Interpreter Radio Show can be heard Sunday evenings from 7 to 9 PM (MDT), on K-TALK, AM 1640, or you can listen live on the Internet at ktalkmedia.com. Call in to 801-254-1640 with your questions and comments during the live show.

The Interpreter Radio Show is a weekly discussion of matters of interest to the hosts, guests, and callers of the show. The views expressed on the Interpreter Radio Show are those of the individuals involved and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Interpreter Foundation, nor should statements made on the show be construed as official doctrinal statements of the Church.

 

This series is cross-posted with the permission of Book of Mormon Central

from their website at Pearl of Great Price Central

Listen to an audio recording of this Essay:

Download PDF

Download audio recording

 

 

Enoch succeeded in bringing a whole people to be sufficiently “pure in heart”[2] to fully live the final celestial law of consecration.[3] In Zion, the “City of Holiness,”[4] the people “were of one heart and one mind, and dwelt in righteousness; and there was no poor among them.”[5] In contrast to Genesis 5:24 where Enoch is said to have been translated by himself, we are told in the Book of Moses that Enoch’s “people walked with God” and that they were eventually taken into heaven with him:[6]

68 And all the days of Zion, in the days of Enoch, were three hundred and sixty-five years.

69 And Enoch and all his people walked with God,and he dwelt in the midst of Zion;and it came to pass that Zion was not,for God received it up into his own bosom;/span>and from thence went forth the saying,zion is fled.

 

“All the Days of Zion”

The word “Zion,” which probably predates the arrival of the Israelites, may be related to the root ṣwn (so Arabic ṣâna), which means “protect,” “preserve,” “defend.”[7] This is consistent with its description in Doctrine and Covenants 45:66 as “a land of peace, a city of refuge, a place of safety for the saints of the Most High God.”[8]

In contrast to typical biblical usage that associates “Zion” with the environs of Jerusalem, in Doctrine and Covenants 97:21 the Lord applies the name to a group of people: “for this is Zion—THE PURE IN HEART.” Draper et al. observe that in Moses 7:18 it was likewise the Lord “who conferred the name on His people, itself a sacred act.”[9] The Lord called His people Zion because they kept the crowning covenant of consecration, “the law of the celestial kingdom.”[10] In respecting this and all others of the Lord’s covenants, “they were of one heart and one mind, and dwelt in righteousness; and there was no poor among them.”[11]

In Isaiah 51:16 there is a precedent for the Lord’s definition of Zion as a people rather than a place. As part of a passage that evokes a new creation of heaven and earth,[12] God reaffirms his unwavering love by declaring the covenant formula in Isaiah 51:16: “I … say unto Zion, Thou art my people.”[13] To highlight the identification of Zion with a covenant-keeping people, the late Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Manachem Mendel Schneerson, cited Isaiah 1:27: “Zion shall be redeemed with judgment, and her converts [i.e., the Jewish people] with [interpreted as “through”] righteousness.

[Page 75]Abstract: The present work analyzes the narrative art Mormon employs, specifically Mormon’s unique strategies for personalized and personal messaging, which can be seen in how Mormon connects the narration of the baptism at the waters of Mormon in Mosiah chapter 18 with his self- introductory material in 3 Nephi chapter 5. In these narratives, Mormon seems to simultaneously present an overt personalized message about Christ and a covert personal connection to Alma1 through the almost excessive repetition of his own name. Mormon discreetly plants evidence to suggest his intention for the careful re-reader to discover that Mormon was a 12th generation descendant of the first Alma. Mormon’s use of personalizing and personal messages lends emotive power to his narratives and shines a light on Mormon’s love for Christ’s church.

As “Another Testament of Jesus Christ,” the narratives of the Book of Mormon of course focus on Christ; however, the strategies its authors use to direct our attention to Christ also shed light on these authors. Remarkably, our attention on the authors doesn’t distract us from Christ but actually proffers the unique view of Christ as can only be seen through a personal lens. In contrast to the Bible, which “exhibits such a rage for impersonality as must lead to the conclusion that its writers actively sought the cover of anonymity,”1 Mormon, like the other [Page 76]Book of Mormon narrators, has a different approach. He personalizes his messages — enters into the text as a person — for the reader through the use of the first person pronoun (“I” and “we”)2 and his own name to punctuate key theological points for the reader. Brant Gardner calls this interaction with the future reader Mormon’s “author-voice,” as opposed to the “narrator-voice,” which he uses when “writing about the past.”3 In this paper, I am magnifying Gardner’s concept of the “author-voice” to distinguish between two similar but distinct voices: a personalized and a personal voice. In the connected passages in Mosiah 18 and 3 Nephi 5, Mormon uses the repetition of his own name as part of a powerfully personalized message to the reader about Christ. Mormon makes use of his personal presence in the text to teach the reader about Christ — what I call a personalized message. In these same chapters (Mosiah 18 and 3 Nephi 5), Mormon also uses the repetition of his name as a key to unraveling a more subtle, personal message, not necessarily a message focused on Christ, but a message primarily about the person Mormon. This is what I call a personal message — a message about the person,

You can listen to or download the November 8 broadcast of the Interpreter Radio Show below. It will also be included in our podcast feed (https://interpreterfoundation.org/feeds/podcast). The hosts were Terry Hutchinson, John Gee and Kevin Christensen. In this episode, our hosts reviewed the recent Temple on Mount Zion conference as well as claims Joseph Smith made up the Book of Mormon and revelations from the Lord. The second portion of the show was a roundtable discussing the upcoming Come Follow Me lesson #49 (Moroni 10). The Interpreter Radio Show can be heard Sunday evenings from 7 to 9 PM (MDT), on K-TALK, AM 1640, or you can listen live on the Internet at ktalkmedia.com. Call in to 801-254-1640 with your questions and comments during the live show.

Original air date: November 8, 2020. This recording has been edited to remove commercial breaks.

The Interpreter Radio Show is a weekly discussion of matters of interest to the hosts, guests, and callers of the show. The views expressed on the Interpreter Radio Show are those of the individuals involved and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Interpreter Foundation, nor should statements made on the show be construed as official doctrinal statements of the Church.

 

You can listen to or download the November 1 broadcast of the Interpreter Radio Show below. It will also be included in our podcast feed (https://interpreterfoundation.org/feeds/podcast). The hosts were Neal and Jasmine Rappleye, Spencer Marsh and Hales Swift. In this episode, our hosts reviewed recent Interpreter publications and had a discussion of politics in light of the gospel. The second portion of the show is a roundtable discussing the upcoming Come Follow Me lesson #48 (Moroni 7-9). The Interpreter Radio Show can be heard Sunday evenings from 7 to 9 PM (MDT), on K-TALK, AM 1640, or you can listen live on the Internet at ktalkmedia.com. Call in to 801-254-1640 with your questions and comments during the live show.

Original air date: November 1, 2020. This recording has been edited to remove commercial breaks.

The Interpreter Radio Show is a weekly discussion of matters of interest to the hosts, guests, and callers of the show. The views expressed on the Interpreter Radio Show are those of the individuals involved and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Interpreter Foundation, nor should statements made on the show be construed as official doctrinal statements of the Church.

 

This is an Interpreter Radio Roundtable for Come, Follow Me Book of Mormon Lesson 46, “By Faith All Things Are Fulfilled,” on Ether chapters 12-15. The panelists for this roundtable were Bruce Webster and Kris Fredrickson. This roundtable was extracted from the October 18, 2020 broadcast of Interpreter Radio. The complete show may be heard at https://interpreterfoundation.org/interpreter-radio-show-october-18-2020/. The Interpreter Radio Show can be heard Sunday evenings from 7 to 9 PM (MDT), on K-TALK, AM 1640, or you can listen live on the Internet at ktalkmedia.com. Call in to 801-254-1640 with your questions and comments during the live show.

The Interpreter Radio Show is a weekly discussion of matters of interest to the hosts, guests, and callers of the show. The views expressed on the Interpreter Radio Show are those of the individuals involved and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Interpreter Foundation, nor should statements made on the show be construed as official doctrinal statements of the Church.

 

This series is cross-posted with the permission of Book of Mormon Central

from their website at Pearl of Great Price Central

Listen to an audio recording of this Essay:

Download PDF

Download audio recording

 

.h2 {font-size: 24px;} table {border: 1px solid #dddddd !important; width: 100%; margin: auto;} table td{border: 1px solid #dddddd !important; padding: 0 10px !important; text-align: left; vertical-align: top;} p.wp-caption-text{text-align: center !important;} p.wp-caption-text:before {content: '' !important;} .icon {vertical-align: baseline !important;} .indent1 {margin-left: 3em;} .indent2 {margin-left: 6em;} .indent3 {margin-left: 9em;} .indent4 {margin-left: 12em;} .indent5 {margin-left: 15em;} .indent6 {margin-left: 18em;} .indent7 {margin-left: 21em;} .indent8 {margin-left: 24em;} .blue {color: #2f5496;} .green {color: #538135;} .red {color: red;}

 

Having witnessed the abrupt end of the long-awaited coming of the Son of Man in His unexpected crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension; and having now understood that His presence on earth would not halt the wickedness of the world, Enoch again “wept and cried unto the Lord, saying? … Wilt thou not come again upon the earth?”[2]

In this Essay, we will see Enoch’s anguished hope fulfilled at last when the righteous would be gathered to a Holy City and God would make Zion His abode. As we will see, this prophetic expectation appears elsewhere in the ancient Enoch literature and Jewish tradition.

A provisional proposal for the structuring of Moses 7:60–69 into seven sections is given in the appendix.

 

1. The Lord Will Fulfill His Oath

In answer to Enoch’s question about whether God will come again upon the earth, the Lord declares that He will “fulfill the oath” He made to Enoch “concerning the children of Noah”[3] —namely that He would “call upon”[4] them. “In this light,” explain Draper, Brown, and Rhodes, “it becomes evident that the Second Coming will be the crowning moment among the Lord’s contacts with ‘the children of Noah.’”[5] The Lord’s oath is made doubly sure by the use of His own name: “As I live, even so will I come in the last days, in the days of wickedness and vengeance.”[6]

Having sworn that He would return, the Lord at last addresses Enoch’s repeated, unanswered question with the solemn declaration that, indeed, the day would come when “the earth shall rest.”[7]

 

2. Great Tribulations Among the Children of Men and Preservation of the Lord’s People

Jarringly, the Lord immediately followed His welcome promise with a terrible warning of “great tribulations” that would take place “before that day.”[8] The first and perhaps greatest tribulation is that “a veil of darkness [would] cover the earth.”[9] This seems to indicate that communication between heaven and the “children of men” would be severed due to wickedness.[10]

As to the righteous, Elder Neal A. Maxwell comments:[11]

God preserved and prepared Enoch’s people in the midst of awful and enveloping ...

[Page 1]Review of Terryl Givens with Brian Hauglid, The Pearl of Greatest Price: Mormonism’s Most Controversial Scripture (New York: Oxford University Press, 2019). 285 pages. $34.95 (hardback).

Abstract: In recent years there has been an effort among some scholars to make sense of the historical sources surrounding Joseph Smith’s claims to be a translator of ancient records. Terryl Givens, with some assistance from Brian Hauglid, has explored the evidence surrounding the Book of Abraham and suggests that, in this case, Joseph Smith may not have translated an ancient record of Abraham’s writings into English as typically believed in the Latter-day Saint community. Consequently, Givens provides four alternative ways the work of “translating” may have been understood or practiced by the Prophet and his scribes. This essay highlights some evidence that was overlooked, misunderstood, and glossed by Givens, calling into question his fourfold attempt at redefining what it meant for Joseph Smith to translate this ancient record.

ol {list-style-type: none; counter-reset: level1;} ol li {display: block; text-indent: -1em; padding-left: 1em;} ol li:before {content: counter(level1, lower-alpha) ") "; counter-increment: level1;}

Somewhat perplexing about Jared’s remark to his brother in the Book of Mormon’s account of the Tower of Babel is his reasoning that if their language is confounded, they might not understand their own words: “Cry unto the Lord, that he will not confound us that we may not understand our words” (Ether 1:34). Traditional interpretation of the Tower of Babel story posits that the confounding of languages was a sudden multiplying of spoken dialects, making it difficult for one person or group [Page 2]to understand the words of another. Jared’s concern that they might not understand their own words, however, suggests something deeper.

Perhaps this story, as others have suggested, is less about a miles-high building and the sudden onset of the world’s spoken dialects and more about a ritual ascent to “heaven” via a false temple and the confounding of God’s word through subtle changes to its terminology and meaning based on the reasonings of mortals.1 Small changes may seem innocuous at first but might lay the foundations for rifts, divisions, and the fragmenting of religious “languages” over time. Joseph Smith lamented about this kind of confounding when he said “the teachers of religion of the different sects understood the same passage of Scripture so differently as destroy all confidence in settling the question by an appeal to the Bible.”2 In such multiplicity of religious languages, people may use words such as “baptism” or “priesthood” or “God” in their rhetoric, but they may not understand their unadulterated meaning.

In recent years, there has been an effort among some scholars to make sense of the historical sources surrounding Joseph Smith’s claims to be a “translator.”