You love the wrong god...

In an effort to proselyte strictly by contrast, avoiding any similarity of faith, some Christians may claim that other religions (denominational or otherwise) disobey the first great commandment by loving a "false" God with all their heart, and as a result merit eternal damnation. A "different Jesus" standard is constructed on mostly ontological foundations.

But there can be little doubt about the devotional direction of the second great commandment. We all have the same neighbor. Almost all religions that worship a deity have some form of the second commandment in common; to do unto our neighbors as we would want our neighbors to do unto us--an idealistic standard, to be sure.

According to biblical verse, obedience to the second commandment necessarily reflects back on the first ("inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of these the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me"), thus it may not matter what one's current traditions or ontological theories are concerning God, because all can show reverence and love to God by showing love to others regardless of academics. In arguing over the specifics on God's ultimate nature, one easily break both of the two great commandments

Somewhere, sometime, in this life or the next these traditions and differences in belief can be straightened out as the Lord's sheep will hear his voice, follow Him, creating one fold and one Shepherd. All must be humble enough to hear that voice when called in order to respond.

I don't feel threatened by the possibility of similarity and agreement with religious faiths that are different from my own. I welcome any similarities I can find and believe any productive dialog should emphasized them for the sake of creating an environment where the Spirit can teach all and bring all closer to a unity of the faith- being one, just as Jesus is one with the Father.

[Juxtaposition of verses/concepts]

And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these. 

(Mark 12:30-31)

And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

(Matthew 25:40)

Nephi's scribal error?

In his new commentary Second Witness: Analytical & Contextual Commentary on the Book of Mormon, Brant Gardner observes that Nephi appears to have made a scribal error in relating Lehi's vision of the tree. Nephi relates the dream from Lehi's perspective, but at the end when he cuts his account short (v. 33) Nephi appears to switch from first person Lehi to first person Nephi:

29 And now I, Nephi, do not speak all the words of my father.
30 But, to be short in writing, behold, he saw other multitudes pressing forward; and they came and caught hold of the end of the rod of iron...
31 And he also saw other multitudes feeling their way towards that great and spacious building.
32 And it came to pass that many were drowned in the depths of the fountain; and many were lost from his view, wandering in strange roads.
33 And great was the multitude that did enter into that strange building. And after they did enter into that building they did point the finger of scorn at me and those that were partaking of the fruit also; but we heeded them not.
34 These are the words of my father: For as many as heeded them, had fallen away.
35 And Laman and Lemuel partook not of the fruit, said my father (1 Nephi 8:29-35).

Gardner's commentary notes:

Nephi makes an interesting editorial slip in verse 33. He has thus far removed himself from the story, and it does not appear that Nephi played an important role in Lehi's dream. Nevertheless at this point his own involvement in the story supersedes his relation of his father's dream, and he inserts "did point the finger of scorn at me and those that were partaking..."

I see the major purpose of the inclusion of Lehi's vision in Nephi's personal account (the small plates of Nephi) as a precursor to Nephi's experience which results from the dream. As with other parts of Nephi's narration, he may begin to relate something from the large plates, but soon abandons that synopsis for the personal effect of the events. Thus we had the story of Laban in great detail precisely because it was of major importance to Nephi. Likewise, Nephi begins by a reasonably faithful narration of his father's vision, but at the end is anxious to get on with his real purpose - the discussion of his own vision. For this reason he hurries the tale at the end, and for this reason he slips in the editorial "I."

I agree with Gardner that Nephi is more interested in relating the dream with the interpretation he personally received for the purposes of his own record. I also do not claim infallibility for the Book of Mormon. It does contain mistakes, as the book itself notes.¹ While I see Gardner's opinion as possible I believe there is an alternate reading that may exonerate Nephi in this instance.

Nephi cuts the description of the dream short in verse 29 saying he isn't going to relate all of his father's words and then sums up the rest of the dream. It's possible that Nephi inserts a few of Lehi's own quotes, so to speak, into his summary. In verses 30-32 Nephi paraphrases using "his" and "he" referring to Lehi. In verse 33 Nephi uses "me" but immediately thereafter says "These are the words of my father: For as many as heeded them, had fallen away." Given that the punctuation for the book was not part of the translation and was added by the typesetter,² it is possible that the punctuation and verse separation here doesn't convey the original intent of the translated sentence. Nephi could be providing a quote from Lehi followed by an explanation to clarify (though it would be awkward). Here is the selection without punctuation and verses:

and it came to pass that many were drowned in the depths of the fountain and many were lost from his view wandering in strange roads and great was the multitude that did enter into that strange building and after they did enter into that building they did point the finger of scorn at me and those that were partaking of the fruit also but we heeded them not these are the words of my father for as many as heeded them had fallen away

Here's how it would look with my interpretation reflected by punctuation:

And it came to pass that many were drowned in the depths of the fountain; and many were lost from his view, wandering in strange roads. And great was the multitude that did enter into that strange building.

"And after they did enter into that building they did point the finger of scorn at me and those that were partaking of the fruit also; but we heeded them not" (these are the words of my father); for as many as heeded them, had fallen away.³

Thoughts?

FOOTNOTES

[1]
"And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ" (Book of Mormon title page).

[2]
"Every chapter, if I remember correctly, was one solid paragraph, without a punctuation mark, from beginning to end...I punctuated it to make it read as I supposed the author intended, and but very little punctuation was altered in proofreading" (John H. Gilbert, "Recollections of John H. Gilbert [Regarding printing
Book of Mormon]," 8 September 1892, Palmyra, New York, typescript, BYU).

[3]
Grant Hardy independently arrived at the same conclusion in his The Book of Mormon: A Reader's Edition:

And he also saw other multitudes feeling their way towards that great and spacious building. And it came to pass that many were drowned in the depths of the fountain; and many were lost from his view, wandering in strange roads. And great was the multitude that did enter into that strange building. And after they did enter into that building they did point the finger of scorn at me and those that were partaking of the fruit also, but we heeded them not. (These are the words of my father.) For as many as heeded them, had fallen away. "And Laman and Lemuel partook not of the fruit," said my father (A Reader's Edition, p. 20).

This post is a continuation of the LoGP series "Likening With Care."

The Secularist's "Golden Questions"

Recently I've been asked by various former members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints some questions which appear to come from a common source, given that they are the same questions in the same order. They are:

• If the church isn't true, would you want to know?

• What could persuade you that the church isn't true?

           I would like to find the common source, if there is one, for this line of questioning. It seems to imply that members of the LDS Church wouldn't want to know if their foundation of faith was nothing but sand. On the face of it, the question seems somewhat condescending. But perhaps it is simply a way to start a discussion in which a critic can discern whether the person with whom they speak would be open to the possibility, and if not the conversation could end there. I can appreciate that feeling; rarely do I feel like debating people who insist that nothing can change their minds. Still, because I value intellectual honesty my answer to the first question might be "of course I would want to know." If the Church isn't true, I would likely try to find something else to occupy my time. I think I would, anyway. I know of many former members who still spend a lot of time talking about, criticizing, finding fault with, or even simply researching, Mormonism after losing their faith.

How would you answer the first question? If the Church isn't true, would you want to know?

The second question deals with what evidence one would accept that would convince one that the church isn't what it claims to be. This one is a bit more tricky because the one asking the question and the one being asked may have different expectations about the reliability and weight of various types of evidence. Maybe I could respond by asking "well what have you got?" Or I could answer by saying "I would accept absolute, solid, incontrovertible, decisive, evidence," but what would that be?  Perhaps a better underlying question would be "what can count as evidence of truth?"


How would you answer the second question: what could persuade you that the church isn't true?