LDS Sunday School students will soon take a quick leap through 66 chapters of Isaiah in five forty-minute lessons. All too often, some uniquely Mormon interpretations are given to these chapters which merit a critical analysis. In this post I present six Mormonisms often used with the first few chapters of Isaiah which I believe hinder a deeper and more accurate understanding of these prophetic writings.  Let us know if any of these interpretations show up in your Sunday School class!

1. Isaiah 2:2,3 Popular LDS commentary on this verse identifies it as Isaiah’s vision of people from many lands coming to Salt Lake City, Utah.

Many prophecies of Isaiah are dual and can be applied to more than one time, situation or people. I am aware that latter-day prophets and apostles have related this verse to the Salt Lake temple or even to the Conference Center from which the word of the Lord is issuing forth in these days. However, if we insist too strongly on this Mormon-centric view, we can miss the primary application which this verse has to the millennial reign of the Messiah. The word “mountain” as used in the Bible is a metaphor for “nation,” “government,” or “political system.” In verses 2 and 3 Isaiah is speaking of the millennial condition when Christ shall establish the political Kingdom of God upon the earth. This will be established “in the top of the mountains,” or in other words “as the head of the nations.”

2. Isaiah 2:3 Isaiah wrote that the word of the Lord will come from Jerusalem, and the law will come from Zion, the New Jerusalem, located in Jackson County, Missouri. There will be two distinct centers of influence for God’s people.

This may be, but verse 3 should not be used as a proof-text. Here we have a synonymous chiastic parallel where

the Law = the Word of the Lord, and
Zion = Jerusalem (one and the same)

The chiastic structure of this phrase indicates that Isaiah equated Zion with Jerusalem (the one located in Israel!) If we accept this, we will be able to learn more about Zion as it relates to the ancient City of David.

3. Isaiah 2:9 In the Book of Mormon, verse 9 is clarified by adding the word “not” to the following statement: “And the mean man boweth [not] down and the great man humbleth himself [not], therefore forgive him not.”

This verse actually makes much more sense in its original context, without the extra “not” added in the Book of Mormon version. Verse 8 speaks of idols which are found throughout the land. And the mean (common) man and the great (important) man boweth down (to these idols). This version makes more sense coming as it does right after the description of people worshipping idols, the work of their own hands.

4. Isaiah 2:13-17 , see also 2 Ne 12:13-17 Some Mormons still insist that this passage is an example of the restoration in the Book of Mormon of passages that were lost in the Old Testament. As noted in footnote 16a, “The Greek (Septuagint) has ‘ships of the sea.’ The Hebrew has ‘ships of Tarshish.’ The Book of Mormon has both, showing that the brass plates had lost neither phrase.”

Pike and Seely have shown the challenges of accepting this interpretation. I love the poetry of the passage and find that the addition of the extra phrase and other interjected words spoils the beauty of the chiastic tripled bicola. Isaiah used poetic conventions frequently to emphasize his points. The Book of Mormon addition does not enhance the poetic structure of the passage, but instead inhibits it. The Greek “ships of the sea” and the Hebrew “ships of Tarshish” are probably different translations of one original phrase and it is not necessary or preferable to include both. Observe the perfection of the Masoretic text with the pattern of w- (conjunction) + al (preposition “upon”) followed by kol- (“all/every”) and then two words (here in English translation):

For the day of the LORD of hosts shall be

upon every one that is proud and lofty,
and upon every one that is lifted up; and he shall be brought low:

and upon all the cedars of Lebanon, that are high and lifted up,
and upon all the oaks of Bashan,

and upon all the high mountains,
and upon all the hills that are lifted up,

and upon every high tower,
and upon every fenced wall,

and upon all the ships of Tarshish,
and upon all pleasant pictures (fine craft)

and the loftiness of man shall be bowed down,
and the haughtiness of men shall be made low;

and the LORD alone shall be exalted in that day.

(if all this fascinates you, there is a well-reasoned apologetic view here. But I stand by my opinion.)

5. Isaiah 3:16-26 The Daughters of Zion and their apparel show the dangers of worldliness and immodesty.

If your Sunday School teacher identifies this passage (as does the lesson manual) with modesty in dress, s/he has missed the boat! The daughter of Zion, is a poetic term for the covenant people of Israel, and the items of clothing stand for different types of authority. In the Old Testament, authority was passed down with the symbolic action of transferring clothing. Thus the significance of the passing of Elijah’s mantle to Elisha, and Jonathan’s dressing David with his own clothes in 1 Samuel 18. As the son of the reigning king, Jonathan symbolically transferred his claim to the throne to his friend by stripping himself of his clothing and weapons and bestowing them upon David. In Isaiah, the covenant people are struck down because of their pride. Each of the articles of clothing worn by the daughter of Zion represent some authority or privilege which is being misused and thus removed by the Lord.

6. Isaiah 4:1 The Mormon speculation on this verse goes as follows: With so many men killed in war, righteous single priesthood holders are in short supply. Thus, plural marriage is reinstituted, with many women stating they will support themselves in order to receive priesthood covenant protection.

My examination of the Hebrew of this verse makes me confident in translating “one man” as “a certain man.” The verse thus teaches that in the latter day seven women (symbolic number of completeness, denotes the covenant people) shall take hold of a certain man (guess who that would be?) and ask him “let us be called by thy name,” which will take away their reproach (effects of atonement). In my view this verse is Messianic and has nothing whatsoever to do with polygamy.

As Latter-day Saints, we certainly have many resources in our scriptural records and our doctrine to interpret the Book of Isaiah.  But I think we need not go overboard in trying to overpersonalize these passages.  As important as it is to apply Isaiah’s writings to ourselves, we must not lose the historical connotations and meanings within the text.  Since we have only 5 weeks to cover this important book of scripture, let us carefully choose the scripture blocks we will discuss, and maintain a focused and accurate exegesis of the material.

If your ward happens to be just a little bit behind on the Sunday School lessons, you might experience the synchronicity of having the Book of Jonah read on Yom Kippur.  This year, the Jewish holiday falls on September 18 (close enough to Sunday the 19th!) and Jonah is traditionally read as part of the celebration.

Yom Kippur (the Day of Atonement) is the holiest and most widely observed day on the Jewish calendar.  It is a day of fasting, lengthy confession of sins, prayer, and repentance.  Jonah’s prophecy is included in the liturgy for that day as a symbolic spiritual journey that each person undertakes.  I think the symbolism in Jonah’s story is very meaningful and I’d like to explore it in depth here.

The message of Jonah’s prophecy resonates within the human soul. We are born with a subconscious realization of the fact that we have a mission. We seek escape, because our mission is often one that we are afraid to attempt. Jonah’s story begins when he is given a mission from the Lord and he flees to Joppa and there boards a ship to Tarshish.  These places actually exist, but the meaning of the names of these cities are “beauty” and “wealth.”  We comfort ourselves externally by escaping from our inner knowledge of our mission through the pursuit of wealth, and by surrounding ourselves with worldly beauty.

The water journey is powerfully symbolic in literature.  Beginning with ancient sources in a number of cultures and languages, a hero’s voyage across the waters evokes adventure, danger, growth, and self-discovery.  Included in this canon is the ancient Mesopotamian story of Gilgamesh: one man’s search for immortality.  Although widely known for its parallel to the Biblical story of the Flood, this is a work which stands on its own.  It illuminates human relationships, experiences and feelings: loneliness, love, loss, revenge, regret, endurance, joy and sorrow, and the fear of oblivion that comes with death.  The Celtic narrative of Brendan the Navigator is a water quest designed to bring him into engagement with God.  His journey is cyclic; it takes he and his fellow travelers seven years to arrive at a place that was never so far from their starting point.  The Rime of the Ancient Mariner is a more modern water journey — an exploration of the significance of nature in a world characterized by religious uncertainty.  In all of these pieces, the human on a quest for immortality learns something important about death and life, the Divine, and his own inner soul.

In these water journeys, the ship is meaningful and symbolic of the human body. We face moments in life in which the fragility of our bodies is inescapable, as in when we face illness, or confront times of danger that seem to last an eternity until they are resolved. Jonah’s weakness is apparent in the story, but he also shows moments of triumph, as when he asks the sailors to cast him into the sea so that they may continue their voyage unencumbered; or when he prays in the belly of the great fish. As with Jonah, our recognition of our own vulnerability can bring us to finally transcend our ego, surrendering our desire to control events, and beginning at last to accept our mission in life, no matter what it is.  We can suffer the vicissitudes of life, and recognize that we ourselves have caused the storms to toss us back and forth. We can move forward to fulfill our purpose, but we are still not free of conflict and anxiety until we finally recognize that every step along the way, we are embraced by Divine compassion.

The great fish is the symbol of confrontation of the recognition that our ultimate fate is the grave. Each must have his or her days of darkness in the belly of the fish, facing the reality of death. For some, that recognition almost feels like a welcome refuge. For others, facing death forces them at last into pursuing life!

Finally, notice that with his desire to escape his mission, Jonah did not fear failure.  His fear was that his preaching would have an effect on the pagan people he was sent to, and they would also become God’s chosen people.  No, he wasn’t afraid of failure, but success!  This reminds me of an excerpt from Return to Love by Marianne Williamson (often erroneously attributed to Nelson Mandela):

Our Greatest Fear —Marianne Williamson

Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate.

Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure.

It is our light not our darkness that most frightens us.

We ask ourselves, who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous, talented and fabulous?

Actually, who are you not to be?

You are a child of God.

Your playing small does not serve the world.

There’s nothing enlightened about shrinking so that other people won’t feel insecure around you.

We were born to make manifest the glory of God that is within us.

It’s not just in some of us; it’s in everyone.

And as we let our own light shine,
we unconsciously give other people
permission to do the same.

As we are liberated from our own fear,
Our presence automatically liberates others.

Jonah is hardly the only prophet who was reluctant to respond to God’s call. Even Moses, the greatest of all prophets, tried to persuade God to send somebody else. Jonah was not the only prophet to show human weakness.  But in the end, Jonah’s tale even becomes a symbolic representation of the Savior, when the Lord identifies the three days and nights in the fish’s belly as analogous with what he himself will have to face (Matt 12:39-41).  Through his spiritual journey, Jonah learned to “think different“: to embrace his mission, to accept and work with his unique talents and failings, to develop compassion for his fellow man.

It is then that we are ready to return to God. While for each of us the path is our own, and never yet explored by any other person, Jonah knew the beginning and the end of the journey that we all make.

The advantage of blogging the SS lessons instead of teaching them is that I get to cover the chapters that are totally skipped by correlation. (This one [Joshua 5] probably for good reason, but it deserves a mention SOMEWHERE.)

Everyone knows that good Jews are circumcised. God instituted the covenant with Abraham, and faithful Jews have been performing this ordinance on their 8-day-old males ever since, right?

WRONG!

Immediately after Israel crossed the Jordan into the Promised Land under their new leader, Joshua, they were given a commandment. They were told to again circumcise the entire company of the children of Israel.  This was necessary because none of the people who were born during the 40 years in the wilderness had been circumcised.  All the males who left Egypt over the age of 20 had been circumcised but had died in the wilderness.  Joshua circumcised their children, whom Jehovah had raised up in their place. They stayed at the Hill of Foreskins a while to heal.  God told Joshua, “Today I have rolled away (galal) the reproach of Egypt from you” and thus the place was called Gilgal. Gilgal means “heap of stones” or “stone circle”; it sounds similar to galal (“to roll away”).

Given that circumcision was commanded in the Torah, and also a necessary prerequisite to participation in the Passover celebration, why weren’t the Israelites circumcised during that 40-year period?  I think the answer has to do with Moses’ attitude toward circumcision.

Though Moses was born into an Israelite family, it is not certain that he was ever circumcised as a baby.  At least, it is not included in his birth narrative in the scriptural record.  To correct this oversight, some commentators have even tried to assert that Moses was “born circumcised.”  Whether or not this is true, we know that his sons did not inherit this genetic trait!  After marrying and having two sons in the land of Midian, Moses went back to Egypt with his wife and children.  We read about this incident in Exodus 4:18-26:

And Moses went and returned to Jethro his father in law, and said unto him, Let me go, I pray thee, and return unto my brethren which are in Egypt, and see whether they be yet alive. And Jethro said to Moses, Go in peace.  And the Lord said unto Moses in Midian, Go, return into Egypt: for all the men are dead which sought thy life.  And Moses took his wife and his sons, and set them upon an ass, and he returned to the land of Egypt…

And it came to pass by the way in the inn, that the Lord met him, and sought to kill him.  Then Zipporah took a sharp stone, and cut off the foreskin of her son, and cast it at his feet, and said, Surely a bloody husband art thou to me.  So he let him go: then she said, A bloody husband thou art, because of the circumcision.

It appears that Moses and his wife recognized that the Lord was preventing Moses from proceeding because one of his sons had not been circumcised.  We can speculate that Moses circumcised his firstborn son at the proper age, and that Zipporah was appalled at the bloody act.  Perhaps that was why they decided not to circumcise the other son.  When the Lord chose Moses to lead the nation of Israel out of the land of Egypt, it was necessary that he make a decision: circumcise his son, or die!  Zipporah relented, but was not happy about it.  I think that this incident made Moses very conflicted about the practice of circumcision.  He himself may even have been circumcised later in life, a painful experience!  No wonder he was not strict about making sure the nation of Israel complied with this ordinance while in the wilderness.  But when Moses died and the new generation entered Canaan, a ritual was enacted as a type of the plan of salvation.

Tony Badillo explains the symbolism of the events which took place at the crossing of the Jordan and at Gilgal.  A careful reading of Joshua 4:8-9 shows that twelve stones were taken out of the river and placed on the new land as a memorial, and twelve stones were also taken from the dry land and placed in the midst of the Jordan.  The twelve smooth, rounded river stones symbolized Israel circumcised, analogous to the smoothness of the male reproductive organ after circumcision; a new spiritual beginning in a new land.  The twelve rough stones taken from the dry land represented the uncircumcised male organ; placed in the Jordan to signify death to sin.

Reading these OT passages with our SS lesson gives us the opportunity to reflect on the rich symbolic meanings which lie behind the violent act of circumcision.  I tend to identify with Zipporah on this matter, shrinking from the bloody, brutal deed.  But in the latter-day we are asked to circumcise the foreskin of our hearts, removing our pride and exposing our tender, inner selves to the influence of the Spirit.  We have to be “strong and of a good courage” to do this!   It can be more painful and difficult even than the physical act of circumcision.  As Badillo puts it: “Outer circumcision of the flesh may be done by anyone skillfully using a knife; but inward circumcision of the heart can be done only by the Lord’s spirit , and it is this type circumcision (for subduing the sinful inclination ) that Joshua’s men received at the crossing of the Jordan.”

A worthy Sunday School lesson, even if it didn’t make the manual!

At a Passover Seder this week, President Barack Obama’s message to American Jews focused on social justice. Obama said that the message of the Exodus teaches of oppression to be fought and freedom to be won, and that we all have a responsibility to fight against suffering and discrimination wherever we find it. Some Jewish journalists discussing the remarks saw them as a veiled reprimand against Israeli settlements in Palestinian territory. Others heartily agreed that Jews should be particularly sensitive to oppression. The American Prospect’s Adam Serwer enthused:

“I’ve viewed Passover as an opportunity not just to reflect on the historical oppression of my own people but on the suffering of others in the present day… Passover doesn’t exist merely for Jews to congratulate ourselves on our continued existence — although that is no mean feat. The reminder that we were once slaves in Egypt is meant to make us consider contemporary questions of justice… If you’re unable to take away from Passover an understanding of your own role as a Jew in fighting the injustice done to other people who do not also happen to be Jewish, the experience is meaningless.”

It could be that the symbolic elements of the Jewish Passover are more meaningful to Mormons than to any religious group outside the Jews themselves.  We recognize the emblems of the Seder to be representative of the Messiah who came in the incarnation of Jesus Christ.  The lesson material includes several connections between descriptions of the Passover in the Old Testament and Jesus Christ.  It was during a Passover seder that Jesus proclaimed that the meal represented Himself and that He was instituting the New Covenant, which is celebrated by Christians in the form of the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper.  Elder Jeffrey R. Holland admonished Latter-day Saints to view this sacrament as our passover, remembrance of our safety and deliverance and redemption.

In addition, Mormons experienced their own Exodus when they were led out of the boundaries of the United States by their “American Moses,” Brigham Young.  Leonard J. Arrington subtitled his biography of Young “American Moses,” explaining:

“Brigham was the same sort of a leader as Moses in serving people for a long period of time, in achieving their goal of entering into a kingdom blessed by God… Brigham was something for us that Moses was for the people of Israel. He led his people figuratively and quite literally, and they survived because of that leadership and their faith.

I do think the epic stories which identify the early Mormons and the children of Israel as a people persecuted for their religious convictions are meaningful. Obama’s exhortation to use this as a motivator to fight injustice rings true to my “Latter-day Israelite” heart. And this is why I’ve identified so strongly with the plight of the FLDS men of the Yearning for Zion ranch in Texas who are now being sentenced for their plural marriages. I don’t expect any of the readers here at Mormon Matters to agree with me on this.  But I’m sad that the justice system is sending hard-working, religiously-motivated men to prison, depriving their young wives and children of their loving care.  I often wonder why we, with the heritage we have of being misunderstood for our unusual marital practices, are not more sympathetic to the men who have been sentenced this month. In particular, I speak of Merril Leroy Jessop, who was sentenced March 19th to a 75-year prison sentence and $10,000 fine. To me, this seems a clear case of religious discrimination and oppression. Jessop was accused of having sex with a girl who was 15 years old when he was 31 and already married. Even if you think these men are criminals who deserve to be punished and these young women are victims, the sentence is excessive.  A Wikipedia article states that the average sentence for convicted rapists was 11.8 years, while the actual time served was 5.4 years. What sets this case apart from many other similar situations? The prosecution asked the jury to send a message to a collective group of people, to make the price so high to dissuade others from doing the same. This is unconstitutional and in my eyes constitutes religious persecution.

I don’t want to go on about this particular case — it’s only one example of what I see as injustice and oppression, and there are of course many more.  But I do appreciate President Obama’s invitation to connect Exodus and the Passover story with social justice.  I thought I’d share with you what’s going through my mind during this Passover week, and what I’ll be thinking of as LDS Sunday School classes comfortably discuss Moses.

Whether dreams come from the unconscious mind or directly from God, they are valuable sources of revelation. Dreams can tell us important things about ourselves and our relationships that may remain veiled deep in the psyche if we are unskilled at interpreting the symbolic language from which they present. The great attainment of Joseph of Egypt and the message this scriptural character brings to readers of the Old Testament is the importance of developing an ability to decode symbolic dream messages and using them to integrate our conscious and subconscious knowledge.

Joseph had a huge, almost megalomaniac faith in his interpretations of dreams.  Early in his life he risked the rebuke and envy of his father and brothers to describe to them the images of the sheaves and the sun, moon, and stars bowing down to him.  Later, when interpreting the dreams of the chief butler and baker, he attributed his interpretations to God, even though he had no evidence this was so.  His own dreams seemed refuted — far from bowing to him, his brothers sold him into Egypt and he had been cast into prison.  His confidence reminds me of Joseph Smith’s great intrepidity regarding his own visions:

“For I had seen a vision; I knew it and I knew that God knew it, and I could not deny it…”

Joseph Smith once said, after reading Foxe’s Book of the Martyrs, that he had “seen those martyrs, and they were honest, devoted followers of Christ, according to the light they possessed, and they will be saved”  He also saw in vision marchers in Zion’s Camp who had perished from cholera in Clay County, Missouri. He encouraged the survivors of that endeavor, saying, “Brethren, I have seen those men who died of the cholera in our camp; and the Lord knows, if I get a mansion as bright as theirs, I ask no more” .  He foresaw the struggles of the Saints in crossing the plains, their establishment in the Rocky Mountains, and the future condition of the Saints.  Of these and many other spiritual manifestations he remarked, “It is my meditation all the day & more than my meat & drink to know how I shall make the saints of God to comprehend the visions that roll like an overflowing surge, before my mind.”

Joseph of Egypt had this same certainty regarding communications from God through the medium of dreams.  When finally brought before Pharoah, he reiterated his assertion that certain dreams are communications from the Divine:

“And for that the dream was doubled unto Pharoah twice; it is because the thing is established by God, and God will shortly bring it to pass.”

This assurance seems incredible when taken into account that his own early dream had also been repeated twice but not yet brought to pass.

Today we have varying degrees of confidence in the interpretation of our own spiritual experiences.  Some are unimpressed by the fleeting images that pass through their minds in a somnolent state.  But others become adept at the language of symbolism.  They confidently assign meanings to everything from dreams to emotional impressions, and use these to order their actions and their lives.  Psychologists have noted that people tend to dream in images that are familiar to them in their culture.  For example, Native Americans may dream about the spirits of animals and the world of nature, Catholics envision the Virgin Mary, Mormons have visitations involving the temple and their dead ancestors.  This can facilitate dream interpretation, but it can also obscure it, because the images are so familiar that we don’t look deeply at the meaning behind the symbol.  In our modern world, we have emphasized the logical mind so much that we have lost the sensitivity to understand primal and pictoral forms and symbols, even those with which we are well-versed.

Often our lesson manuals apply the scriptural stories to the modern audience, as was done in Lesson 11.  Here Joseph’s rejection of Potiphar’s wife is presented as an example for the righteous member to follow in avoiding moral transgression.  I am curious why, in Lesson 12, although Joseph’s dreams play a prominent part in the lesson material, the class member is not encouraged to become more adept in interpreting dreams and visions or even to pay closer attention to unconscious symbolic messages.  Moving away from the esoteric, the manual broadly associates the scriptural passage in Genesis 40-41 with “talents,” and asks:

How can we give proper acknowledgment to the Lord for our talents and gifts? (We can use them to glorify God and bless others, not for our own glory.)

In the early days of the Church Joseph Smith reprimanded some of the members for using messages from their dreams and visions improperly.  Do we fear this will happen if we freely encourage the widespread scrutiny of these types of unconscious messages?  What does this tell us about our confidence in recognizing inspiration from the Divine?

Though it’s only an “additional teaching idea” in Lesson 12, Jacob’s ladder has captured my imagination due to some conversations I’ve recently had with Christian evangelicals.

The theme of the ladder to heaven is often used by the Early Church Fathers. Their interpretations of Jacob’s symbolic dream in Genesis 28 are similar to those made by Mormon General Authorities. In the 2nd century, Saint Irenaeus described the Christian Church as the ladder of ascent to God. In the 3rd century Origen explained that there are two ladders in the Christian life; one of which is the ladder that the soul climbs on the earth increasing the virtues. In the 4th century Saint Gregory of Nazianzus spoke of ascending Jacob’s Ladder by successive steps towards excellence, interpreting thus the ladder as an ascetic path, while Saint Gregory of Nyssa wrote that Moses climbed on Jacob’s Ladder to reach the heavens where he entered the tabernacle not made with hands, thus giving to the Ladder a clear mystical meaning. The ascetic interpretation is found also in Saint John Chrysostom who wrote:

“And so mounting as it were by steps, let us get to heaven by a Jacob’s ladder. For the ladder seems to me to signify in a riddle by that vision the gradual ascent by means of virtue, by which it is possible for us to ascend from earth to heaven, not using material steps, but improvement and correction of manners.”

The account of Jacob’s Ladder as an analogy for the spiritual ascetic of life is again found in the classical work Ladder of Divine Ascent by St. John Climacus. The ladder in Jacob’s dream represented a symbolic journey where each of the rungs suggest the steps needed to move upward. Man must climb up one level at a time as he participates in the saving principles and ordinances of the gospel offered by the Lord, who stands at the top. Notice how similar this description is to the quote by Marion G. Romney found in our lesson:

“Jacob realized that the covenants he made with the Lord … were the rungs on the ladder that he himself would have to climb in order to obtain the promised blessings—blessings that would entitle him to enter heaven and associate with the Lord” (“Temples—The Gates to Heaven,” Ensign, Mar. 1971, 16).

***
Later Christian interpretation of Jacob’s ladder is quite different than the early Church fathers, and demonstrates the dichotomy of thought between evangelicals and Mormons on the faith and works issue. In this exegesis, Jesus is seen as being the reality to which the ladder points in that he bridges the gap between heaven and earth. According to Martin Luther, Jacob’s vision of the ladder represented the incarnation of Christ. In the Gospel of John 1:51 there is a clear reference to Jacob’s dream pointing towards Jesus Christ, referred to by his title of the Son of Man:

And he saith unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Hereafter ye shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man.

Adam Clarke, an early 19th century Methodist theologian and Bible scholar, elaborated upon this verse:

“That by the angels of God ascending and descending, is to be understood, that a perpetual intercourse should now be opened between heaven and earth, through the medium of Christ, who was God manifested in the flesh. Our blessed Lord is represented in his mediatorial capacity as the ambassador of God to men; and the angels ascending and descending upon the Son of Man, is a metaphor taken from the custom of dispatching couriers or messengers from the prince to his ambassador in a foreign court, and from the ambassador back to the prince.”

In this one Biblical symbol we find differing schools of thought over the issue of salvation: One group views the ladder as a way to reach heaven based on their own actions of improvement and obedience to covenants and ordinances. The other group has access to heaven based on the provisions of God through the Mediator, Jesus Christ, who came to earth and became that ladder or stairway for the sinner to reconnect the relationship with God.

In pondering this issue in the past, I have lamented that such a rift exists between our two faith traditions. It often seems to me that we are closer than we think, and that grace and works are both important. Mormons, I explain, emphasize works so much because we fear that if we don’t, the sinner might lapse into laziness or indifference. Christians emphasize the grace aspect of the equation so that no one will mistakenly trust in legalism rather than the Savior for their salvation. Isn’t the truth a balance between Paul and James? However, the evangelicals have labored hard to convince me that salvation must be accepted upon grace alone. Lately I’ve been pondering why I am reluctant to join them in their assurance. I’ve accepted Christ as my Savior, and it certainly would be a lot easier not to worry so much about whether I was paying my tithing, going to the temple regularly, or doing my visiting teaching. But here’s what holds me back: if Jesus offers me the grace they describe, then I’ll be OK whether I’m doing my works or not. But if the Mormon view turns out to be the more accurate description of the will of God for us, I need to be trying my hardest to do all of those works which are in my power.

Am I living my life based on fear rather than faith? Maybe. Will it count against me in the end?  I don’t see how it could.

What’s your take on Jacob’s ladder? Do we walk up, or does God descend to meet us where we are? Can this scriptural metaphor be of any help to us in our faith journey?

This story is so very, very familiar to us that I think it’s important to look at it with a fresh perspective.  So in this post I am including some pieces from media and the arts that force us to think about Genesis 22.  I promise you in advance that some of these might be disturbing to you.  Probably you will disagree with the portrayal of Abraham’s sacrifice in at least one, if not all, of these pieces.  I hope you will share your reactions in the comments.

One of my favorite poems juxtaposes the story of Abraham with World War I.  The poet, Wilfred Owen, is a tragic figure himself, who was gunned down at age 25 just seven days before the Armistice on November 4, 1918.  This poem invites the reader to consider the effects of extreme religious devotion.

The Parable of the Young Man and the Old
Wilfred Owen

So Abram rose, and clave the wood, and went,
And took the fire with him, and a knife.
And as they sojourned, both of them together,
Isaac the first-born spake, and said, My Father,
Behold the preparations, fire and iron,
But where the lamb for this burnt-offering?
Then Abram bound the youth with belts and straps,
And builded parapets the trenches there,
And stretched forth the knife to slay his son.
When lo! an angel called him out of heaven,
Saying, Lay not thy hand upon the lad,
Neither do anything to him. Behold,
A ram, caught in a thicket by its horns;
Offer the Ram of Pride instead of him.
But the old man would not so, but slew his son,
And half the seed of Europe, one by one.

The next bit of media comes from the BBC’s That Mitchell and Webb Look. The parody pokes fun at believers whose religion keeps them from thinking for themselves:

The image below is an etching entitled The Sacrifice of Abraham by Marc Chagall.   The same study was done as a watercolor, as an oil painting, and as a drawing in pastel and China ink.  Each has symbolic features which are not present in the others.  A review of the etching describes it as follows:

“…the sacrifice of Abraham presents human drama as confrontation of two wills and two freedoms: that of the creator and his creature. Chagall’s rendering of this scene is of great subtlety. Using a mirror effect between the figures of Isaac and the angel, between Abraham’s posture and that of the heavenly messenger, he suggests complementarity and ultimate unity between heaven and earth. In the end, there will be no opposition between the faithful Abraham and his God, because there exists a perfect match between human obedience and divine mercy. The bound and naked Isaac is a symbol of extreme vulnerability and suggests acute sensitivity to the word of God. God answers in kind, rushing his angel in sudden descent to arrest the movement of Abraham’s knife. Thus, although bathed in an atmosphere of frightening proportions, the pictorial narrative speaks of two worlds reconciled by tender love. The latter, tender love, finds its artistic expression in the tiny white ram emerging from the thicket on the left. Too tiny for the giant knife, the ram is a reminder that God does not want sacrifices but love.”

Does this type of yielding and vulnerable submission make you  more comfortable than the more fanatic type? Why or why not?

Now let’s explore what would happen if Abraham did decide to think for himself — to take a critical look at what God was asking him to do. What if that were God’s purpose behind the lesson, after all? This short story comes from the Fob Bible, which I own and I highly recommend. It is called “Abraham’s Purgatory,” and was written by Ben Christensen.

Abraham’s Purgatory (click to read)

I included the lithograph below by Salvador Dali because I think it is interesting how the Abraham and Isaac figures are so small and how the focus of the work is the angel. It dominates the picture and brings to mind the sacred nature of the sacrificial story. Dali’s angel is not an insipid, white robed choir boy. We see the figure from the back and it is both awe-inspiring, unknowable, and a bit frightening.

Abraham, Abraham! by Salvador Dali

As you watch the following comedic sketch, ask yourself the question: “Is it easier to do something God asks if you want to do it anyway?” How much personal interpretation comes into play when we are deciphering God’s will?

Jewish Midrash suggests that it was difficult to dissuade Abraham from the act of sacrificial violence once he had decided to kill his son. The Midrash reads: “…and he said: Lay not thy hand upon the lad. Where was the knife? Tears had fallen from the angels upon it and dissolved it.” It was the tears of the angels, not those of Abraham that dissolved the knife. Yet, even after seeing the knife dissolve, Abraham is unconvinced and persists with the violence. “’Then I will strangle him,’ said he [Abraham] to Him. ‘Lay not thy hand upon the lad,’ was the reply. ‘Let us bring forth a drop of blood from him,’ he pleaded.” Abraham refuses to be deterred. His unaffected and immediate suggestion of an alternative method of sacrifice is shocking. Some may consider this to be steadfast piety, but the violent undertone stands in stark contrast with the Midrashim that emphasize piety over violence. After that method is refused, he then pleads if he may bring forth a drop of blood from his son. The use of the word “pleads” would lead one to assume that Abraham’s plea to G-d was an emotional one. The emotion, it seems, stems more so from an inability to sacrifice his son than from G-d’s request that the sacrifice be made.

The sculpture below by Berruguete is included for its portrayal of the human emotion on the faces of Abraham and Isaac. You will probably hear in your Sunday School lesson the idea that Isaac was a youth in his prime at the time of the sacrifice, while Abraham was an old man. This interpretation promotes the idea that Isaac was a willing participant in the act of submission to God. The sculpture visually portrays this idea, picturing Isaac as a strong and virile young man, capable of wresting himself free from his bonds. Though horrified and frightened, he is kneeling and complaisant.

The final piece of media I would like to include for your consideration is a biblical canticle written by Benjamin Britten. During this two-person opera, one singer assumes the role of Abraham while the other takes that of Isaac. Through the homophony of the two singers, God’s voice emerges as if it were a third solo singer. The use of the older tenor and the younger alto voices in the vignette below to sing the words of God is very moving.

GOD: Abraham, my servant, Abraham,
Take Isaac, thy son by name,
That thou lovest the best of all,
And in sacrifice offer him to me
Upon that hill there beside thee.

Abraham, I will that so it be,
For aught that may befall.

As they sing “Abraham,” the notes are first discordant, then resolve, aptly representing the theme of the story.

Abraham and Isaac by Benjamin Britten

The story of Abraham and Isaac is a powerful one. It is the most dramatic moment in the life of one of the most important of the Biblical prophets. I think that its inclusion in the Bible is meant to be disturbing and to evoke turmoil and discomfort. I hope that the Sunday School portrayal of this section of the scriptural record will not be too soft and fluffy.

One of the beautiful things about the Old Testament and also one of the most frustrating is its use of symbols, types and shadows,  signs,  and tokens.  It is said that a picture is worth a thousand words and the same can be true of a symbol or type.  A symbol can represent something that is often hard to explain or cannot be expressed in a small amount of words.

Our entire life is full of symbols and other devices to represent an idea, or even a rule.  Symbols like the $, £ or € are readily identified as types of money.  Others, such as: ©, §, ™ each has a special meaning, which we might recognize,  but would require a long explanation to fully understand it. Others still, like traffic signs are very obvious like a STOP sign, but others such as the one pictured here, need training to understand what it means and how we are to use it.

And so it is with the symbols, types and shadows, signs and tokens of the Gospels. A general rule that might be applied, as described in 2 Nephi 11:4 is that all things typify of Christ.  In other words, all things somehow point to Jesus Christ. Our task is to figure out how.

So just what are symbols, types and shadows, signs,  and tokens.

Symbols – According to The Merriam-Webster Dictionary a symbol is: ”an authoritative summary of faith or doctrine: or 2 : something that stands for or suggests something else by reason of relationship, association, convention, or accidental resemblance. “

“Symbols are teaching devices. Symbols are the language in which all gospel covenants and all ordinances of salvation have been revealed. From the time we are immersed in the waters of baptism to the time we kneel at the altar of the temple with the companion of our choice in the ordinance of eternal marriage, every covenant we make will be written in the language of symbolism.”  (Donald W. Parry, Joseph Fielding McConkie, Guide to Scriptural Symbols, 1990 Page 1)

Examples of Gospel Symbols

Noah’s Ark is a symbol of the Savior Jesus Christ because for Noah’s family and mankind from that point forward, it was the Ark that figuratively saved them from destruction in much the same way as the Savior saves us from eternal destruction.

The Arm is a symbol of power and strength, such as:

“With him is an arm of flesh; but with us is the LORD our God to help us, and to fight our battles.  And the people rested themselves upon the words of Hezekiah king of Judah. (2 Chronicles 32:8)”

The Passover is rich with symbols such as the unleavened bread, the Matzah, which reminds us of the haste in which the Israelites left their captivity and the sweetness of freedom. The Bitter Herbs, which reminds us of the bitterness of slavery and the bitterness of sin and finally, the unblemished firstborn Lamb, sacrificed for freedom,  a symbol of Jesus Christ, the greatest sacrifice of all who frees us from sin and brings us freedom through repentance.

Types and shadows – “a person or thing (as in the Old Testament) believed to foreshadow another (as in the New Testament)” (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/type). A type can be a person, an event or a place or location. (Alonzo L. Gaskill, The Lost Language of Symbolism, Salt Lake City 2003)

Examples of Types and Shadows

People – There are a significant number of examples where people are types for others, mainly the Savior.  Adam, Enoch, Noah, Moses, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and David, etc. are all types for Jesus Christ, for example. Cain is a type for Satan/Lucifer. The story of Esau and Jacob has Esau as a type for the old Covenant and Jacob representing the Gospel of Jesus Christ or the new Covenant.

Events- the Renting of the Veil typifies the ability for us to return to Our Heavenly Father and our new found access to Him though the Atonement of Jesus Christ.

Place or Location – Kolob is a place that typifies Jesus Christ.

“And I saw the stars, that they were very great, and that one of them was nearest unto the throne of God; and there were many great ones which were near unto it;

And the Lord said unto me: These are the governing ones; and the name of the great one is Kolob, because it is near unto me, for I am the Lord thy God: I have set this one to govern all those which belong to the same order as that upon which thou standest.” (Abraham 3:2 – 3)

Jesus stands next to the Father and is certainly one of the great ones. And at the Father’s right hand, He is the nearest to Him.

Signs – “something material or external that stands for or signifies something spiritual or  something indicating the presence or existence of something else.”  ( http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sign)  Signs are typically given to show or warn the people of, a future event. The sign can mark a good event or a bad event. The most common usage for signs is to inform the people of the impending Savior’s birth, or to describe how the last days before the second coming of Christ will play themselves out (i.e. the Signs of the Times).

Examples of Signs

The birth of the Savior – “Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.” (Isaiah 7:14)

To show the power of God – “And thou shalt take this rod in thine hand, wherewith thou shalt do signs.” (Exodus 4:17)

Keeping the Sabbath Day Holy – “Speak thou also unto the children of Israel, saying, Verily my sabbaths ye shall keep: for it is a sign between me and you throughout your generations; that ye may know that I am the LORD that doth sanctify you. Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people.” (Exodus 31:13 – 14)

Token – an outward sign or expression (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/token) The token is usually a physical thing that represents a covenant between God and man or the sealing of a covenant between God and man.

Examples of Tokens

The rainbow – After the Flood, The Lord told Noah, “This is the token of the covenant which I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations: I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth.” (Genesis 9:12 – 13)

Circumcision – And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you. (Genesis 17:11). This token was done away with by the Atonement of Jesus Christ.

The blood on the door post during the Passover – The Lord instructed the Israelites to take the blood of the lamb and apply it to their door post as a token of their obedience to the Lord’s instructions. Did the Angel of death or the Lord need the blood on the door to identify the faithful?  Of course not. But the Israelites needed to do it to show their obedience.

“And the blood shall be to you for a token upon the houses where ye are: and when I see the blood, I will pass over you, and the plague shall not be upon you to destroy you, when I smite the land of Egypt.” (Exodus 12:13)

These are but a small example of the symbols, types and shadows, signs and tokens contained in the Old Testament. As you study them, please keep in mind these guidelines given by Gerald Lund in the Book, “Literature of Belief: Sacred Scripture and Religious Experience,” edited by Neal A. Lambert:

1.   Look beyond the symbol for its intended meaning.

2.   Look for the interpretation of the symbol in the scriptures themselves.

3.   Look for Christ in the symbols and imagery of the scriptures.

4.   Let the nature of the object used as a symbol contribute to your understanding of its spiritual meaning.

5.   Seek the reality behind the symbol.

Although our SS lesson for this week presents Adam and Eve as two literal, physical characters, the temple ceremony hints that we can benefit by viewing their story as figurative. I am often dismayed that symbolism, while given lip service, is so little understood in LDS circles. Since the majority of Mormons believe in a literal Adam who will return to the earth in his physical resurrected body and fulfill a major role at Adam-ondi-ahman, there is little reason to investigate the allegorical aspects of the Adam and Eve story. Thus, they have become “unidentified figurative objects” whose symbolic impact is veiled.

What would we find if we began to look at Adam and Eve in allegory? One possibility that appeals to me is to identify Adam, who was created first, as our spirit, or our divinity. Adam was created by God, as was our spirit. Eve was created from man, and can represent the physical being or the human self. The order that they were created, and the fact that Eve is intended as a companion for Adam, implies that Adam is supposed to be in charge. This has nothing to do with the relationships between men and women. Instead, it teaches us that we are to identify with our divinity and follow its intentions. What are the intentions of the spirit part of our being? To become one with the bodily or physical nature so together they can grow in wisdom, express divinity and fulfill God’s plan.

I enjoy looking at Adam and Eve this way because it takes us out of male/female role expectations and places us in a position to embrace the whole spectrum of characteristics described. The same type of exercise is encouraged in Isaiah, where the “daughter of Zion” represents the covenant people, males AND females. Her struggles are not merely feminine foibles, but real challenges faced by everyone who is trying to live a covenant relationship with God.

Several religious traditions accept the Adam and Eve story as containing important religious symbols. Abdul-Baha (of the Baha’i faith) explained:

“…this story of Adam and Eve who ate from the tree, and their expulsion from Paradise, must be thought of simply as a symbol. It contains divine mysteries and universal meanings, and it is capable of marvelous explanations. Only those who are initiated into mysteries, and those who are near the Court of the All-Powerful, are aware of these secrets. Hence these verses of the Bible have numerous meanings.”

When Nephi investigated the dream of his father Lehi, he was shown the symbolism of the items in the dream, and told what they represented. If we are willing to look at the several items in the Adam and Eve story symbolically, as Abdul-Baha suggests, could we, Nephi-like, be shown meanings which would have great significance to our spiritual path? The items below are found in the Moses 4 account and are very obviously replete with symbolic meaning. I have linked to a variety of sites which may spark further contemplation of their metaphorical meanings:

• the tree of life
• the tree of knowledge
• the other trees in the garden
• Adam
• Eve
• the serpent
• the fruit
• the fig-leaf aprons
• the coats of skins
• the consequences which the Lord lays upon Adam and Eve
• the Garden of Eden
• the cherubim and flaming sword

Do you think Latter-day Saints have become so accustomed to thinking of the Adam and Eve story as literal that they are blinded to the more symbolic meanings? Are you more comfortable studying and/or teaching this story as literal, figurative, or both?

The Books

You would think that for scriptures as old as the Old Testament is that everyone would agree on what books are included in the canon.  But that is certainly not the case. In the table shown below and mentioned in the last post, the Old Testament can be anywhere from 39 to 47 books.

In the Hebrew Bible, the TaNaKh, this anagram stands for the three divisions:

• Torah, the Law
• Nevi’im, the Prophets
• Ketuvim, The Writings

The Hebrew Bible contains 39 books and canonization occurred between 200 BCE and 200 CE. A popular position is that the Torah was canonized circa 400 BCE, the Prophets circa 200 BCE, and the Writings circa 100 CE.  (McDonald & Sanders, ed., The Canon Debate, page 4)

The order of the books are different than most Christian versions.  This table comes from Wikipedia, “Books of the Bible.”

1. ^ ^{a b c d e f} Names in brackets are the Septuagint names and are often used by the Orthodox Christians.
2. ^ ^{a b} Some Eastern Orthodox churches follow the Septuagint and the Hebrew bibles by considering the books of Ezra and Nehemiah as one book.
3. ^ ^{a b c} The Catholic and Orthodox Book of Esther includes 103 verses not in the Protestant Book of Esther.
4. ^ ^{a b c d} The Latin Vulgate, Douay-Rheims, and Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition place First and Second Maccabees after Malachi; other Catholic translations place them after Esther.
5. ^ ^{a b} Eastern Orthodox churches include Psalm 151, not present in all canons.
6. ^ The Book of Odes includes the Prayer of Manasseh. This book is not present in the Catholic or Protestant Old Testaments.
7. ^ ^{a b} New English Translation of the Septuagint
8. ^ ^{a b c} In Catholic Bibles, Baruch includes a sixth chapter called the Letter of Jeremiah. Baruch is not in the Protestant Bible or the Tanakh.
9. ^ Britannica 1911
10. ^ Eastern Orthodox Bibles have the books of Baruch and the Letter of Jeremiah separate.
11. ^ ^{a b c} In Catholic and Orthodox Bibles, Daniel includes three sections not included in Protestant Bibles. The Prayer of Azariah and Song of the Three Holy Children are included between Daniel 3:23-24. Susanna is included as Daniel 13. Bel and the Dragon is included as Daniel 14. These are not in the Protestant Old Testament.

The extra books found in the Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox, and Slavonic Bibles are known as the “Apocrypha,” a greek term meaning “having been hidden away.” These are books which did not necessarily make the cut when the Old Testament canon of scripture was determined and are considered by some as useful, but not necessarily divinely inspired. The books have gotten a bad reputation as the term, apocrypha became synonymous with false or unreliable rather than hidden away.

Some apocryphal books were included in the Septuagint with little distinction made between them and the rest of the Old Testament. Origen, Clement and others cited some apocryphal books as “scripture,” “divine scripture,” “inspired,” and the like. On the other hand, teachers connected with Palestine and familiar with the Hebrew canon excluded from the canon all of the Old Testament not found there. This view is reflected in the canon of Melito of Sardis, and in the prefaces and letters of Jerome.^[4] A third view was that the books were not as valuable as the canonical scriptures of the Hebrew collection, but were of value for moral uses, as introductory texts for new converts from paganism, and to be read in congregations. They were referred to as “ecclesiastical” works by Rufinus. (1911 Encyclopædia Britannica)

These are not the only extra-biblical Old Testament books around. The list includes: the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Pseudepigrapha

The Dead Sea Scrolls

The Dead Sea scrolls consist of about 900 documents, including texts from the Hebrew Bible, discovered between 1947 and 1956 in eleven caves in and around the Qumran Wadi near the ruins of the ancient settlement of Khirbet Qumran, on the northwest shore of the Dead Sea.  The scrolls are thought to have been in the possession of the Essenes, a Jewish religious group who inhabited the west side of the Dead Sea area.

The Dead Sea Scrolls are traditionally divided into three groups: “Biblical” manuscripts (copies of texts from the Hebrew Bible), which comprise roughly 40% of the identified scrolls; “Apocryphal” or “Pseudepigraphical” manuscripts (known documents from the Second Temple Period like Enoch, Jubilees, Tobit, Sirach, non-canonical psalms, etc., that were not ultimately canonized in the Hebrew Bible), which comprise roughly 30% of the identified scrolls; and “Sectarian” manuscripts (previously unknown documents that speak to the rules and beliefs of a particular group or groups within greater Judaism) like the Community Rule, War Scroll, Pesher (Hebrew pesher פשר = “Commentary”) on Habakkuk, and the Rule of the Blessing, which comprise roughly 30% of the identified scrolls. (Abegg, Jr., Martin, Peter Flint, and Eugene Ulrich, The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible: The Oldest Known Bible Translated for the First Time into English, San Francisco: Harper, 2002)

The Pseudepigrapha

The term Pseudepigrapha refers to numerous works of Jewish religious literature written from about 200 BC to 200 AD  Not all of these works are actually pseudepigraphical but include the following:

• 3 Maccabees
• 4 Maccabees
• Assumption of Moses
• Ethiopic Book of Enoch (1 Enoch)
• Slavonic Book of Enoch (2 Enoch)
• Book of Jubilees
• Greek Apocalypse of Baruch (3 Baruch)
• Letter of Aristeas
• Life of Adam and Eve
• Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah
• Psalms of Solomon
• Sibylline Oracles
• Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch (2 Baruch)
• Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs

LDS are not uncomfortable with the idea of extra-biblical texts as we have the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price as part of our canon of scriptures. And, the Book of Jasher, considered part of the pseudepigrapha, was popular amongst the LDS community for a long time.

Jewish Biblical scholars also have extra-biblical literature, The Talmud. While considered as commentary on the scriptures, it is studied by Jews as if it were scripture.  The Talmud, which reflects centuries of Rabbinic thought on the oral and written law, is extensive (hundreds of pages) and complex. There are even commentaries which help to explain the Rabbi’s thoughts reflected in the Talmud.  In other words, commentaries on the commentaries.  The fascinating thing about it is that is a running discussion and, in some cases, a running argument on  particular points of Jewish Law.  The Rabbi’s might agree with a comment by another Rabbi, or they might disagree. Or, they might agree, but expand on the answer given by another Rabbi.  This led to the famous joke that if there are two Jews having a discussion, you get three opinions.

Next time we’ll discuss the different translations, their relationship to the New Testament, and how they influenced the Old Testament quotes from the Savior in the Gospels.

1. God created Adam, the origin of the human family and the primal parent of our race, in his express image.
2. Creation was first spiritual and then physical.
3. Humans do not result from a development of lower orders of the animal creation.
4. The whole animal creation will be perfected and perpetuated in the Hereafter, but they were not made in God’s image, nor endowed with godlike reason and intelligence.

Faced with the difficulty of reconciling human origins based on an evolutionary model and a very real Adam who was created from the dust of the earth, Latter-day Saints have responded in a number of ways. Recent generations of Mormons have become increasingly willing to embrace symbology as a viable alternative of interpreting the scriptural record. Instead of viewing Adam or Noah as literal human beings, their stories are seen to embody spiritual truths from which we can learn helpful principles. The scriptural record is seen as archetypal and may be based on events which are more limited than they aver. Writings about Noah and the flood which accept this approach can be seen here and here. Adam is more problematic, because of the role he plays in LDS eschatology as a literal priesthood leader who will return in his physical body to preside at Adam-Ondi-Ahman.

There are at least three options that believing Latter-day Saints have in considering the Adam and Eve scriptures. First, we can accept them as historical persons. This necessitates either rejecting the scientific evidence as incomplete or incorrect; or compartmentalizing our beliefs so that they don’t need to be reconciled. If you find yourself within this category of belief, how do you deal with discoveries such as “Ardi?” Are you more likely to “put it on the shelf,” or do you turn to creationist apologetics?

Another choice is to see our First Parents as purely symbolic figures — fictional characters in a fictional story that intends to teach theological truths about God and humanity. This can be a deeply satisfying endeavor, and is even supported by instructions in the Temple that we are to see our First Parents as “simply figurative.” If we subscribe to this option, however, we must revise our eschatology and relegate the Adam of the Last Days to symbolic status as well. If you are in this camp, are you ready to give up the Adam who will physically return to the American Zion holding the keys to his dispensation? And what do you do with the many authoritative statements describing this event?

Lastly, we may view Adam and Eve as representative figures — a pair of hominids who God miraculously modified into the first homo sapiens about 150 thousand years ago. This theory has promise because it works with modern science, the scriptural account, and last days theology. It certainly has a great appeal to the modern Mormon armchair theologian.  However, it does not jibe with the First Presidency statements on the origin of man, which pointedly specify that human beings did not evolve from lower orders of the animal creation. There is no precedent for this train of thought, and adherents must weave a new hypothesis ex nihilo.

One of these days, if I ever get to where I can speak to Mother Eve, I want to thank her for tempting Adam to partake of the fruit. He accepted the temptation, with the result that children came into this world. … If she hadn’t had that influence over Adam, and if Adam had done according to the commandment first given to him, they would still be in the Garden of Eden and we would not be here at all. We wouldn’t have come into this world. So the commentators made a great mistake when they put in the Bible … “man’s shameful fall.”

However, the archetype has not proven easy to overcome.  Even the LDS continue to draw upon the Eve myth for the defining of cultural roles and for the justification of women’s status in the Church hierarchy.  In the temple ritual, Eve, after having partaken of the fruit, is portrayed as an adjunct to the man Adam.  She promises to listen to his counsel while he is given access to the Lord.  She stands by passively  while he is addressed and taught by spiritual guides.  It is interesting to see how this portrayal has subtly softened and shifted over the years.  In the Church, as well as in other settings, the Eve archetype is slowly being reinterpreted.  I have been excited to see how this has been happening at the grass roots level of Mormon experience.  Lately there have been a few examples which I would like to highlight.

Brooke, at the Exponent 2 blog has written an original poem which contains an exploration of the Eve myth and its meaning to women:

Things I Tell Myself When I Eat Apples

I do not believe in the necessity
of breaking teeth to eat an apple,
only in the necessity of breaking skin.

There also cannot be one true way
to eat the apple. Or to share it.
But I’ll say it again, the skin must break
(even if the skin itself is not eaten).
But there is no need to scrape your gums on it,
or break your jaw. And if you are peeling
or slicing it, be careful with that knife.

Do you hear me? You don’t have to hurt yourself
to eat the apple. you don’t have to eat the skin
or seeds
or stem
or bruises.
God,
you don’t even have to eat
this apple.

Follow the link above to read a fascinating discussion of the shades of meaning in this poem.  Here Brooke allows Woman to escape the paradigm — to decide for herself what parts of the apple she will consume, what effect it will have, or even if she will eat the apple at all.  After reading the poem, it becomes evident that we ourselves make choices about how we will experience our religion and how we will read and interpret our archetypal stories.

An LDS artist recently displayed online a work she has created depicting Eve about to bite into an apple. This apple has teeth — menacing teeth which are bared in opposition to her determination. Galen, the illustrator, has linked her drawing to other sketches: one of Eve slaying the angel, and a study of Alexander Louis Leloir’s Jacob wrestling the angel. Taken together, these efforts betray an interest in a re-interpretation of the Eve myth, one in which Eve wrestles with Deity’s intent for her. In these pictures, Eve takes strong and purposeful control over he destiny. This coincides with LDS rhetoric on Eve, perhaps even more than the woman we encounter in the Temple, or even in the Proclamation on the Family.

I first saw this image on facebook, and I immediately wrote a response to it, a poetic little quotation which I posted as my status: “The knowledge Heaven gives us hath torrid teeth. And, as Eve, we must meet it with our own determined bite, and welcome the crimson pain, and swallow the iron tang.” But as I pondered these words that came out of my subconscious I realized that my take on the Eve story is a bit different than Brooke’s, or Galen’s. I look at the knowledge offered Eve as painful, and necessary, and difficult. I see the universal condition of women to be something which takes courage and perhaps even violence to face and to swallow. So, as much as I admire the new visions of the Eve story that I see coming to the fore through Mormon women as well as modern feminists, I can glimpse a bit of the medieval mindset in my own psyche.  I’m excited about the opportunity that these two works have given me to consider the messages I’ve taken in, and find new ways to retell and experience them.

I thought I’d offer our women readers here at Mormon Matters an opportunity to explore their reactions to the Eve archetype. I wanted to ask if they are comfortable with the social roles women have inherited with this myth, or if they would like to reinterpret it, to tell the story another way, to picture the meaning differently. But then I realized that perhaps men aren’t all that comfortable with what they’ve gotten from their progenitor, Adam, either. I know some men who don’t want to perpetuate the myth of the male provider figure in their lives. To some of you it might be stifling or burdensome to feel you must always bear the weight of this responsibility. Others might feel uncomfortable in a leadership role, with a wife covenanted to hearken to you. What would it mean to be able to reconstruct your societal and spiritual role? Would you like to do it, and if so, how would you go about it?

Finally, since Church doctrine on the subject of men’s and women’s roles as relating to Adam and Eve is fairly vague and malleable, do you feel empowered to interpret the Eve (or Adam) myth in new and creative ways, as early Church leaders did? Do you feel comfortable playing with the sacred narrative, as these artists have? If you would like to share a poem or a drawing with our readers, even better! Give us a link in the comments.

I was talking with a friend recently about addictions. Things like alcohol, caffeine, meth, and heroin (among many other substances) all seem to rob the addict of their free will to some extent. At some point in the conversation we started talking about mythology, and he mentioned how vampires could be viewed metaphorically as heroin addicts. (There is even a movie with the vampire/heroin metaphor, “The Addiction” staring Christopher Walken as a vampire who abstains from blood through fasting and meditation.)

Of course being LDS I couldn’t resist making the comparison to Twilight. I’ll spare you the plot synopsis but the “good” vampires in the story also abstain from human blood. This is incredibly difficult for some. The temptation is so great that they need a lot of social support as well as constant effort to stay on the straight and narrow. Even the sight of blood triggers their urge to the point that it is nearly uncontrollable. As they progress, they may be more in control but still feel the temptation, as Edward often does with his human girlfriend Bella. The father in the story is the most controlled of all, having abstained for decades.

Pornography seems to be the major addiction of choice in Mormon culture. Granted, there are other addictions that members face, but this one seems to stand out above everything else. Twilight is, like it or not, THE vampire mythos of choice for Mormons. Edward Cullen may as well be a metaphor for a porn addict because he wants more than anything to be with Bella, but he is constantly fighting off his urge to drink her blood, just like an addict may end up destroying, or at least ending, their family or marriage if ultimately they succumb.

This conversation led my friend to remark how unfortunate it is that someone who drinks a lot is not seen to have a problem until they’re a raging alcoholic. There is no middle ground in mainstream society for someone to “have a problem” with alcohol. They either enjoy drinking, and you wouldn’t dare say they had a problem, or they drink all the time and they have a disease.

I think that Mormon culture is on the opposite end of the spectrum, and it may serve to exacerbate the problems of addiction. A drop of alcohol, a quad shot of espresso, a glance at a porn site all spell a serious problem. Note that I am not justifying any of those actions. I DO think abstinence is the best rule to follow in those cases. However, it is often not the reality, and I think it would be more effective to view problems with addictions as being on a spectrum. The flaxen cord in the Book of Mormon illustrates this very well. One cord isn’t going to be that strong, but many will be binding. Each choice we make contributes to who we will become.

One evening when my wife and I had the opportunity to reflect on the timeless story of Adam and Eve, it struck me that their different responses to God’s commandments, and to Lucifer’s “temptation”, perfectly exemplified the different mindsets of TBMs and NOMs, and symbolically portrayed the age-old struggle between Orthodox and Liberal in any faith. And as I meditated on their dramatic dialog with Lucifer, with each other, and with God, it donned on me that Adam and Eve were the perfect TBM-NOM couple.

For those of you who are unfamiliar with the TBM and NOM labels, allow me to briefly explain. Generally speaking, the mantra of TBMs is “follow the Prophet” while the mantra of NOMs is “follow your conscience.” This is not to say that TBMs don’t believe in following their conscience, nor that NOMs don’t believe in following the Prophet. Rather, the main difference between TBMs and NOMs relates to who they believe holds the “trump card” in situations where their personal views differ from Church leaders’ views. In such cases, TBMs typically believe they must yield to the authority and judgment of Church leaders, while NOMs typically believe they must follow their conscience even at the expense of disobeying Church leaders. This deference to authority by TBMs, and deference to personal conviction by NOMs, is typically an outgrowth of their divergent views about Church history. TBMs truly believe the Church’s official historical narrative (which supports Church leaders’ exclusive claim to priesthood authority and their special status as Prophets, Seers, and Revelators), while NOMs disbelieve or seriously doubt the Church’s official history (and therefore seek a new order or approach that gleans all the goodness Mormonism has to offer while pruning away the doctrines and practices that don’t bear fruit for them). These divergent views about Church history are usually accompanied by differing views about the nature of prophets and apostles. TBMs typically view prophets and apostles as authoritative guides who “will never lead us astray” in spiritual, temporal, and even political affairs, while NOMs believe that even prophets and apostles unavoidably “see through a glass darkly” when it comes to discerning God’s will, and may therefore occasionally lead us astray despite their best and most sincere intentions — hence NOMs’ inclination to rely ultimately on their own convictions.

Because TBMs typically view Church history and prophetic accuracy as clear-cut, black-and-white matters, they typically view obedience to Church leaders as a simple choice between good and evil. By contrast, NOMs’ murky view of Church history and prophetic discernment causes them to view obedience to authority as a complicated challenge where one must constantly navigate through innumerable “gray areas” of inconsistency and ambiguity, continually confronting the dilemma of choosing between the lesser of two evils, or the greater of two goods.

With that generalized description of TBMs and NOMs in mind, let’s examine how Adam and Eve exemplified these two different approaches.

Adam’s “TBM Response” to Lucifer’s Suggestion to Eat the Forbidden Fruit

Adam’s response to Lucifer when he suggests that Adam eat the forbidden fruit reflects a typical TBM mindset. When Lucifer suggests that Adam eat the forbidden fruit, Adam’s has an instant, knee-jerk rejection. With almost child-like disbelief that Lucifer would even dare suggest that Adam break the rules, Adam responds to Lucifer that because God told him not to eat the fruit, he would not eat it.

Adam’s response to Lucifer exemplifies the typical TBM mindset where all proposed actions are screened to determine whether they would conflict with any pronouncement by Authority, and if so, they are immediately rejected. Adam’s almost-automated thought process resembles that of a computer that refuses to do X simply because it was pre-programmed not to do X. Adam’s response to Lucifer demonstrates that he does not condition his obedience on his understanding or agreeing with God’s rationale for forbidding him from eating the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge; the mere fact that God has forbidden it is enough to persuade Adam not to do it.

Of equal significance is what Adam does not do when Lucifer suggests he eat the forbidden fruit. He does not carefully ponder Lucifer’s proposal before deciding to reject it; he does not weigh the pro’s and con’s of eating the forbidden fruit or consider how doing so might fit into God’s larger plan. Nor does Adam even consider the possibility that eating the forbidden fruit might actually be necessary to fulfill God’s other commandments. In addition, Adam does not engage in any dialog with Lucifer before deciding to quickly brush aside his suggestion to eat the forbidden fruit; Adam is clearly not interested in learning the rationale behind Lucifer’s suggestion. The mere fact that Lucifer is suggesting he do something that would violate one of God’s commandments is enough to cause Adam to completely distrust and discount Lucifer’s proposal.

In addition, it is interesting to note that when Lucifer tempted Adam to eat the forbidden fruit, he did so with the enticement that it would make Adam “wise”. Adam’s instant rejection of Lucifer’s offer to become wise through unapproved means demonstrates Adam’s absolute trust in Authority; it displays Adam’s confidence that if there is something important to know, God will reveal it to him in due time, and that he therefore need not go behind God’s back and obtain wisdom from alternative sources.

Although Adam’s TBM approach is admirable for the absolute trust and loyalty to God that it displays, it is sobering to recognize that Adam’s unquestioning and absolute obedience –if not tempered by Eve– would have ultimately prevented their spiritual development and unwittingly foiled God’s plan for all mankind. But to be fair to Adam and his like-minded TBMs, we can’t really blame them for taking God and his Prophets seriously when they speak. Just as nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition, nobody expects God to tell us, whether personally or through his authorized representatives, not to do something that is actually necessary for our eternal progression.

Eve’s “NOM Response” to Lucifer’s Suggestion to Eat the Forbidden Fruit

Eve’s response to Lucifer’s suggestion to eat the forbidden fruit is the polar opposite of Adam’s. Rather than immediately rebuffing Satan, she actually engages in dialog with the enemy of righteousness. The notable fact that Eve does not immediately dismiss Lucifer’s suggestion to break God’s commandment seems to indicate that: (1) Eve’s mind is at least open to the possibility that God’s commandments must sometimes be broken; and (2) she must rely on her own judgment to determine whether, when, and how she should obey, rather than absolutely and unquestioningly obeying all commandments at all times.

When Lucifer suggests that Eve eat the forbidden fruit for the purpose of gaining knowledge, Eve apparently sees some merit in his unorthodox proposal. Apparently recognizing that knowledge of good and evil is a necessary part of her eternal progression, Eve considers Lucifer’s proposal further by asking whether disobeying God and eating the forbidden fruit is the only way to obtain that knowledge. It seems here that, unlike Adam, Eve intuits the concept of “necessary evil” — situations where we must break one of God’s laws in order to obey a higher law or accomplish a greater purpose. In such cases, technical disobedience to lesser laws enables obedience to higher laws — although the Adams of the Church (TBMs) may interpret such measured disobedience as just plain rebellion at worst, or a lukewarm commitment to God at best.

When Lucifer assures Eve there is no other way to obtain knowledge than by disobeying God’s commandment and partaking of the forbidden fruit, Eve believes Lucifer and partakes. Of course, Eve’s decision to eat the forbidden fruit could be seen as incredibly gullible and foolish. After all, how could she trust that Lucifer was telling her the truth when he said there was no other way to obtain knowledge? And how could she use Lucifer’s assurance as a basis to disregard God’s clear and direct command not to eat the forbidden fruit? Accordingly, Mother Eve’s act of disobedience has been viewed by many as the Original Sin for which she and all mankind have been deservedly punished.

But LDS leaders have taught that Mother Eve should be lauded and revered as a heroine of mankind for her decision to disobey God, not chastised and vilified as a disobedient rebel. As Elder Dallin H. Oaks has explained:

When Adam and Eve received the first commandment, they were in a transitional state, no longer in the spirit world but with physical bodies not yet subject to death and not yet capable of procreation. . . .

For reasons that have not been revealed, this transition, or “fall,” could not happen without a transgression—an exercise of moral agency amounting to a willful breaking of a law (see Moses 6:59). This would be a planned offense, a formality to serve an eternal purpose. . . .

It was Eve who first transgressed the limits of Eden in order to initiate the conditions of mortality. Her act, whatever its nature, was formally a transgression but eternally a glorious necessity to open the doorway toward eternal life. . . .

Some Christians condemn Eve for her act, concluding that she and her daughters are somehow flawed by it. Not the Latter-day Saints! Informed by revelation, we celebrate Eve’s act and honor her wisdom and courage in the great episode called the Fall. (Dallin H. Oaks, “‘The Great Plan of Happiness’,” Ensign, Nov 1993, 72.)

Is it possible that one of the reasons God required a “willful breaking of a law” in Eden was to teach mankind the paradoxical principle that we sometimes need to disobey ecclesiastical authority and break “the rules” to fulfill God’s greater purposes for our existence? When I consider Brigham Young’s words: “I am fearful they [Church members] settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation,” I wonder, specifically what “purposes of God in [our] salvation” are “thwart[ed]” by “a reckless confidence” in our Church leaders? In light of the LDS doctrine that God’s purpose is to help us become like him, does Brigham Young’s statement mean that it is actually un-Godlike to give unquestioning, absolute Adam-like obedience to our ecclesiastical authorities? Was he advocating a more examined, Eve-like approach to decision-making that recognizes sometimes disobedience is paradoxically necessary to accomplish God’s greater purposes?

Adam’s Redeeming Love

Regardless of what people may think of Adam’s initial failure to recognize the wisdom of eating the forbidden fruit, his loving response to Eve when she informs him of her disobedience and inevitable expulsion from Eden more than redeems him. When Eve informs Adam of her disobedience to God, his choice is a stark one: become separated from Eve and remain innocent and uncompromisingly obedient in a sheltered paradise, or stay with Eve by joining in her disobedience and expulsion. Adam’s willingness to endure disapproval, chastisement, and exile to remain with Eve demonstrated that his love for her exceeded his concern for his own comfort, safety, and approval. By recognizing that the greatest good was to stay together with Eve, and that the greatest evil was to be separated from her, Adam demonstrated he ultimately understood what the Gospel is truly all about.

Adam the Head and Eve the Neck: Both Members of the Body of Christ

When I shared these thoughts with my wife after separately reflecting on the Adam and Eve story, she responded: “Those are interesting observations, but there’s one big problem with your theory: even though it was Eve who made the right decision, Adam was given stewardship over her.” And my wife was right. God’s decision to give Adam stewardship over Eve is another puzzle in an ancient story already filled with paradox. After all, if it was Eve whose “wisdom and courage” made humankind’s existence possible as Elder Oaks has explained, and if it was Adam who was too slow to figure out something as quickly as Eve, then why not just put Eve in charge?

My response to my wife’s valid observation was along the following lines:

You’re right that it seems unfair that Adam was put in charge when it was Eve’s wisdom and courage that led to the right decision and the right result, but that’s exactly how it works in the Church today too. Although the Adams of the Church are put in charge, it’s the Eve’s of the Church that ultimately set the Church’s course. Just about every major change in Church policy and practice has been preceded by a chorus of Eves pleading with the Adams in charge to implement a change of course. For example, Lowell Bennion publicly disagreed with the Church’s priesthood ban long before 1978 and was fired from his CES job as a result of his “rebellious” views. But when the Church abandoned the priesthood ban in 1978, Elder McConkie acknowledged to a conference of CES instructors that he and other prophets and apostles had previously spoken with “limited understanding” when they had supported the priesthood ban. So in effect, there you had an Adam of the Church acknowledging that the Eves of the Church had been right all along. So it’s like the mother said in My Big Fat Greek Wedding: the man may be the head of the family, but the woman is the neck, and she turns the head in whatever direction she wants.

In light of the lessons we learn from Adam and Eve’s divergent approaches to deferring to authority versus relying on personal judgment, perhaps TBMs and NOMs can show greater appreciation for one another. As the Apostle Paul said, we are all “the body of Christ, and members in particular.” (Cor. 12:27) Hopefully, none of us will ever be guilty of saying to another member of the body of Christ: “I have no need of thee.” (Cor. 12:21.) Hopefully, the Adams of the Church (TBM’s) can recognize the valuable role that the Eve’s in the Church (NOM’s) play in moving us all closer to a correct understanding of God’s will, even if occasionally it appears their calls for change seem to be rebellion, disobedience, or disrespect for authority. As the Apostle Paul taught, we must show proper respect to all members of the body of Christ, and particularly those members that seem less honorable: “those members of the body, which we think to be less honourable, upon these we bestow more abundant honour.” (Cor. 12:23.)

Likewise, hopefully the Eves of the Church can be patient and take hope in the understanding that the Adams of the Church have good motives: they want to obey God, they want to do what is right, and they want to protect and preserve the truths God has given us in times past. Although their role as guardians of truth causes them to view any proposed change of course with great suspicion, they do ultimately come to recognize the wisdom of the course changes proposed by the Eves of the Church, and on a timetable that, although not swift enough for some, hopefully occurs before large numbers of members of the body of Christ decide to amputate one another.

So here’s to Father Adam and Mother Eve’s opposing but complementary approaches to learning, to life, and to love.

Here’s the parable:

51 Behold, I will liken these kingdoms unto a man having a field, and he sent forth his servants into the field to dig in the field.  (What exactly are they digging for?)

52 And he said unto the first: Go ye and labor in the field, and in the first hour I will come unto you, and ye shall behold the joy of my countenance.  (So, rather than a team huddle and off they go, he talks to them one at a time.)

53 And he said unto the second: Go ye also into the field, and in the second hour I will visit you with the joy of my countenance.  (What if the guy is skylarking?  I don’t think he’s going to get “the joy of his master’s countenance” in that case.)

54 And also unto the third, saying: I will visit you;

55 And unto the fourth, and so on unto the twelfth.  (So, is this about the twelve apostles specifically and seeing the face of the Savior?  Otherwise, why 12?)

56 And the lord of the field went unto the first in the first hour, and tarried with him all that hour, and he was made glad with the light of the countenance of his lord.  (Light and joy seem to be synonymous here.)

57 And then he withdrew from the first that he might visit the second also, and the third, and the fourth, and so on unto the twelfth.  (So, he withdraws from the first.  He can’t visit everyone all at once.  Only one at a time.)

58 And thus they all received the light of the countenance of their lord, every man in his hour, and in his time, and in his season— (They received it, but it was time bound when it was “expedient”?)

59 Beginning at the first, and so on unto the ^alast, and from the last unto the first, and from the first unto the last;  (This only showed from the first to the last, but then it goes on to add from the last to the first and the first to the last.  Does he do this 3 times in reverse order in between?)

60 Every man in his own ^aorder, until his hour was finished, even according as his lord had commanded him, that his lord might be glorified in him, and he in his lord, that they all might be glorified.  (So, they got a full hour with the lord in which they and the lord were both glorified.)

61 Therefore, unto this parable I will liken all these ^akingdoms, and the ^binhabitants thereof—every kingdom in its hour, and in its time, and in its season, even according to the decree which God hath made.  (Earthly kingdoms or 3 degrees of glory?  Are these planets?)

62 And again, verily I say unto you, my ^afriends, I leave these ^bsayings with you to ^cponder in your hearts, with this commandment which I give unto you, that ye shall ^dcall upon me while I am near— (So, the Lord is not always near?  Does that mean sometimes he won’t hear us?)

• Who are the servants?  Everyone?  The 12 apostles?  Prophets through time?  Those that are called or who seek the Lord’s face?  Only those who have received the second comforter?
• Why are the workers sent out one at a time, each in his season?  Are the workers all working alone like the kids in “Holes”?  Does this mean it refers to our time on earth?
• What is the significance of the workers digging in a field, but with no other specified purpose?  Is the digging symbolic of something (e.g. seeking for treasure, preparing the ground for planting), or is it meant to signify a meaningless and mundane yet difficult and dirty task?
• What is the “joy of my countenance”?  Seeing the face of God literally (the second comforter)?  Receiving inspiration?  Obtaining a testimony or other spritual experience?  This is a phrase unique to this passage of scripture (“light of thy countenance” is also in Psalms; “full of joy with thy countenance” is found in Acts.)

Discuss.

BACKGROUND

After the Israelites were instructed by the Lord to prepare for the final plague that would free them from slavery in Egypt and allow their return to the land of their inheritance, the Lord told them to observe the Passover “for an ordinance … forever” (Exodus 12:24).

We know this requirement ended with the atonement of Jesus Christ, which ended the Mosaic law and all its practices. Jewish people throughout the world continue to observe the Passover each year in remembrance of the escape from Egypt.

In actuality, the Passover celebration, which is eight days in length, consists of two feasts-the Feast of the Passover and the Feast of the Unleavened Bread.  The Feast of the Passover occurs on the first night of the Passover celebration in commemoration of the sacrifice of the paschal lamb and the angel of death “passing over” the houses of Israel. The remainder of the seven days is the Feast of the Unleavened Bread, which commemorates the Israelite’s freedom from bondage.  Because true observance of the Feast of the Passover requires the actual sacrifice of a paschal lamb, Jews do not actually celebrate the Passover.  Sacrifices are no longer permitted due to the final destruction of the temple in Jerusalem in A.D. 70.  In fact, Jews refrain from eating any roasted meat during their Passover Seder in order “to avoid even the impression that they are partaking of an ‘imitation’” of the sacrifice (Leo Trepp, The Complete Book of Jewish Observance [New York: Simon and Shuster, 1980], pp. 178-79).

THE PASSOVER SEDER

On the fourteenth day of the month of Nisan (formally Abib) of the lunar-based Jewish calendar, Jews throughout the world celebrate the beginning of the eight-day Passover celebration with a service called a Seder, which in Hebrew means “order.”  The celebration is observed in the home rather than in the synagogue and is a retelling of the story of the Israelite oppression and deliverance from Egypt.  A book called the Haggadah (“the Telling”) is used along with symbolic foods to illustrate the story. The celebration culminates with eating the Passover meal and the afikomen (dessert).  Jesus and his disciples ate a Passover meal as the Last Supper.

KEY SYMBOLS OF THE PASSOVER

The Lamb

“In the tenth day of this month they shall take to them every man a lamb.. , . “Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male of the first year….

“And ye shall keep it up until the fourteenth day of the same month: and the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill it in the evening” (Exodus 12:3, 5-6).

In the Book, Christ In the Passover, Ceil and Moishe Rosen  point out that “the family had to watch  it [the lamb] carefully for four days before the Passover to make sure it was healthy and  perfect in every way…. It must have won the affection of the entire household” (Chicago: Moody Press, 1978], pp. 25-26).

Killing the lamb truly became a sacrifice.  The price that had to be paid foreshadowed the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.  The scriptures refer to Jesus as the Lamb of God over forty times.  Just as Israel was saved by the blood of the paschal lamb, we are saved by the blood of Jesus Christ, “our passover [who was] sacrificed for us” (1 Corinthians 5:7).  It is important to point out the following parallels between the paschal lamb and the life of Christ:

1.   Both were the firstborn, without blemish (see Exodus 12:5).

2.   Both were to have no broken bones; the paschal lamb was to be prepared whole (see Exodus 12:46).

3.   Both the paschal lamb’s and Christ’s blood were to be used as a token and sign of redemption (see Exodus 12: 13).

4.   Both the paschal lamb’s and Christ’s blood was spilled; the blood of the paschal lamb flowed into the bason (see Exodus 12:22).

At the Seder, an unbroken, roasted shankbone now represents the lamb and its sacrifice.

The Unleavened Bread (Matzah)

Matzah symbolizes the haste in which the Israelites left Egypt; they did not have time to wait for their bread dough to rise.  Leaven, referred to in the scriptures and by Church leaders as both a good symbol (as in the parable of the leaven in Matthew 13:33) and a symbol for sin (as in Matthew 16:6), is used to increase the mass of bread dough prior to baking.  In Hebrew, the word matzah means sweet.  The Hebrew word for leavened bread is chomatz, which also means sour or bitter.  The same leavening agents that make bread rise can also spoil it if they ferment too long.  Thus, the Apostle Paul said, “Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened….

“Therefore let us keep the feast, not with the old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth” (1 Corinthians 5:7-8).

As part of their preparation for the Passover, Jews remove all the leaven (bread and its ingredients) from their homes, they neither eat nor have leavened items in their homes for the entire eight-day period (see Exodus 12:19).

At the beginning of the modem Seder, three pieces of matzah are wrapped in a cloth and set aside for use during the ceremony.  Jews have a number of different interpretations of what the three matzot (plural form) represent.  Some say the matzot symbolize the three divisions of Judaism-priests, Levites, and Israelites-united as one.  Others say they represent the three great patriarchs: Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.  We may see allusions to the three personages of the Godhead: Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.  This last interpretation is compelling as we see how these three matzot are used.

After the first cup of wine and the washing of the hands (see John 13:4-5), the middle of the three matzot (the Son) is broken into two pieces, a large piece and a smaller one.  The large piece, called the afikomen (the dessert), is wrapped in a napkin and hidden in the room for later use, after the meal is consumed, the children search the room for the missing afikomen. When the children find the afikomen, the leader of the Seder must pay a ransom to the child who found it.  After the leader pays the ransom, the afikomen can be eaten by all.  It is the last thing eaten at the Seder.  At this point in the Last Supper, Jesus instituted the sacrament.  Jesus and his disciples ate the afikomen, which represented his body, and drank the third cup of wine, the cup of redemption, which represented his blood (see Luke 22:19-20).

The Door

In Exodus 12:22, the Lord, through Moses, commanded the Israelites to mark their doors with the blood of the paschal lamb and to stay inside the entire night: “And ye shall take a bunch of hyssop [an herb], and dip it in the blood that is in the bason [a ditch running alongside the house], and strike the lintel [top] and the two side posts with the blood that is in the bason; and none of you shall go out at the door of his house until the morning.”

The action of marking the door from bottom to top and from side to side is symbolic of the sign of the cross on which Jesus would be crucified.  The bloody spots also point to the wounds in Jesus’ head, hands, feet, and side, as well as the drops of blood the Lord would shed in Gethsemane (see Rosen, Christ in the Passover, pp. 30-32).

The door through which the Israelites were told not to pass represents their path to redemption from bondage following the night of terror.  The door can be seen to represent Jesus himself:  “I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture” (John 10:9).

Elijah the Prophet

To represent their ongoing hope for the coming of the Messiah, Jews await the arrival of the prophet Elijah on Passover night.  All families set a place at their tables for him and near the end of the Seder, they pause to open their doors in hopes that he will enter.

Doctrine and Covenants 110: 13-16 chronicles the return of the prophet Elijah and his appearance to the Prophet Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery in the Kirtland Temple on 3 April 1836.  It is interesting to note that that date was during the time of the Jewish Passover.

Other Symbols and Their Meaning

Other foods traditionally eaten during the modern seder as well as their significance are listed below:

• Bitter herbs remind us of the bitterness of slavery or the bitterness of sin in our lives.
• Roasted eggs represent the second offering, known as the “festival or pilgrim offering.” The egg may also represent new life or the resurrection.
• Haroset is a mixture of apples, dates, nuts, and grapes that represents the mortar used with bricks to build the Egyptian cities.
• Greens dipped in salt water (to represent tears) symbolize the arrival of spring or the newness of life out of bondage.

The rich symbolism of the first Passover and the Jewish observance can be used to teach about the Lord’s use of types and symbols, particularly in the Old Testament, and to help better understand the scriptures.

Nephi taught: “Behold, my soul delighteth in proving unto my people the truth of the coming of Christ; for, for this end hath the law of Moses been given; and all things which have been given of God from the beginning of the world, unto man, are the typifying of him” (2 Nephi l1:4). All things point to Jesus Christ, his coming, his life and mission, and his sacrifice that enables us to fulfill our Heavenly Father’s plan.

To the right is a statue of the First Vision.  Actually, I kind of like this one, although I’m not a fan of the medium the artist used.

This one is from Jesus’ little-known Sermon in Stepford.  Much discussion has been had elsewhere about the problematic placement of the rose and whether this is supposed to be a picture of Jesus with his polygamous wives.  The artist has apparently denied that interpretation, but without an explanation of the phallic rose.

A Moroni tree-topper.  Not exactly art, but kitschy.  It’s almost so bad that it’s good in a Nebraska salt and pepper shaker way.

This Nativity inspired painting is both beautiful and thought-provoking.

This toothy-grinned Jesus is not nearly as good as its unsmiling counterpart.  This picture doesn’t make Jesus look very smart, IMO.  Like he didn’t get the joke, but he’s laughing anyway.

This just looks like it belongs in a mini golf course to me.  Art?  Really?  Was this before wide-spread adoption of the Word of Wisdom?  Just plain weird.

This painting of the sacred grove always looks like it was inspired by the Redwood Forest rather than anything actually growing in upstate NY.  Accuracy aside, though, it’s nice enough with the effect of the light filtering through the trees.

This tattooed man (those are prophets’ portraits on his back) spells one word to me:  “devotion.”  I’d like to see him add one of E. Oaks since the “no tattoos” pronouncement.

I like this more Art Deco version of Moroni, although that trumpet looks a little bit improbable, like a straightened ear horn or gramophone.  Or a yard-long beer.

I have also noticed that many other religions seem to like our Jesus pictures, particularly these two:

 and

So, what do you think?  What Mormon artists do you like and which ones do you not like?  Why is there so much bad taste in Mormon art (kitschy or weird stuff) or is this just true of all religious art?  Is it because that’s what sells or is that blaming the victims?  Or does religious feeling inspire otherwise unskilled and inartistic people to create “art”?

Do you disagree with any of the above artistic assessments (beauty being in the eye of the beholder and all)?

Discuss.

If you interpret Oliver’s “gift of Aaron” in Section 8 as a divining rod, it makes for some interesting reading.  Oliver’s gift has told him many things (verse 6).  The gift only works for Oliver because of the power of God (verse 7).  If he has faith in his gift, he will use it to do marvelous things (verse 8).  Oliver’s gift is the work of God (id.).

When I first learned of what “the gift of Aaron” might be, my initial reaction was that it was, well, odd.  I mean, a divining rod?  I knew about Joseph Smith and folk magic, but I sort of put the idea aside.  Then, I read the heading for Section 11 which says, “This revelation was received through the Urim and Thummim in answer to Joseph’s supplication and inquiry.”  And I thought, “Whoa.” 

Faithful Mormons accpet that Joseph used the Urim and Thummim and a seer stone to translate the Book of Mormon.  He used the Urim and Thummim to receive revelations that became scriptural passages of the Doctrine & Covenants.  Is a divining rod any stranger than a Urim and Thummim?  At least I have seen a divining rod.  I have heard people talk about divining rods.  I have never seen a Urim and Thummim.  And that got me thinking about revelation.

Divining rods and seer stones and interpreters are certainly outside our daily experience, and it is easy to think them odd.  But weren’t they just aids that Joseph (and perhaps Oliver) used for a while in seeking inspiration and revelation from God?  Don’t we all use tangible objects to help us believe and seek God’s guidance?

I have long thought that part of the power of ordinances is their tangibility.  You know precisely when you were immersed in water, and that meant something to you.  You know when hands are placed upon your head.  When you eat the bread and drink the water, it is a signal to your soul (the tangible and the intangible part) that you are seeking for God’s spirit.  When I think about it, I see lots of examples of tangibility as an aid to revelation and faith.

Easton, a commenter at Gospel Doctrine Underground, raised a couple of interesting ideas.  He referred to a talk by Dallin Oaks who said that reading the scriptures can be like a Urim and Thummim.  By that, Elder Oads meant that we can receive revelation through scripture study, not just on the topic we are reading about, but on any topic.  Easton also referred to a statement by Brigham Young that Joseph Smith had taught that everyone could and should have their own seer stone.  I don’t know if Joseph was speaking literally, but I think we all use tangible things to seek revelation.  The temple might be the ultimate example.  Among other things, don’t lots of people who really need revelation and guidance go to the temple because they believe being in a sacred place, a building, will help them find it?

I guess it is natural to think that things outside our experience, like the Urim and Thummim and seer stones, are kind of strange.  But we have a wealth of tangibility that Joseph and Oliver did not have:  sacrament emblems blessed by the priesthood, the laying on of hands, celestial rooms.  All these things help us find inspiration and direction from God.  Maybe God just finds ways to work through the tools we have.

What do you think?  Can tangible things help us get revelation?  Do you have a “seer stone”?  What is it?

The original citation is found in Matthew.  Here it is in context:

Matthew 16: 13-20.  When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?  And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.  He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?  And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.  And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.  And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.  And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.  Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.

Why did Jesus say “Thou art Peter” first?  Was it just a play on words, or was he saying that Peter was the rock upon which he would build his church?  Most Christians would say that Peter is the rock (nevermind the fact that the Romans killed Peter and buried him and then built the church on his remains a couple hundred years later when they converted).  An LDS person would revert back to the larger context of the discussion to say that REVELATION was the rock, a very different meaning indeed.  (BRM specifically said this in a 1981 GC talk).  So which is more accurate or plausible?  Or are they both just a little off?

Supporting evidence that “the rock” isn’t Peter:

• Size matters.  The word for “Peter” was “petros” meaning stone or little rock (pebble?).  The word for “rock” used was “petra” meaning bedrock (Fred Flintstone’s hometown).
• What kind of rock?  “Rock” was a nickname Jesus gave Peter (kind of like the wrestler?).  His actual name was Simon.  JST states that the name he was given was Cephas which meant “seer stone.”  So, not just some rock you throw at enemies or whores (hey, it’s the Bible!), but a rock you use for translation or revelation.  Is this an accurate translation or wishful thinking on JS’s part?  There is certainly Biblical precedent for rocks being used as translators (Urim & Thummim).  Was that the intention?

I checked, and rocks are used in many symbolic ways throughout the scriptures.  Here’s a laundry list:

• Rock = place of sacrifice (like an altar).
• Rock = wellspring (water springs from a rock).
• Rock = “the Lord” or even someone else’s God is their rock.  Figuratively in the same sense, rock is used to mean one’s “salvation” or “defense” (as poetic equivalents for “Lord”)
• Rock = a refuge, a hiding place for people (either in a rock or under a rock); also the Savior’s tomb
• Rock = a place where animals live
• Rock = objects God throws around to demonstrate his power  (e.g. “rent in twain” at crucifixion)
• Rock = a good place to build a house
• Rock = a bad place to plant seeds
• Rock = doctrine or gospel
• Rock is molten to make tools or stones that are useful for people.

Almost all of the above can also be symbols that refer back to the Savior, and in fact, that’s another way to interpret the scripture, although not what is usually suggested.  Maybe the rock wasn’t Peter but was in fact the Savior’s mission and atonement.  It’s a little odd for Jesus to refer to himself in the 3rd person (who knows?  maybe he pointed to himself?), but maybe he viewed his mission/atonement as separate from himself in a sense, the way someone might refer to their role or job.  Or perhaps the text is just missing something in translation.

Which do you think is more plausible?  That the rock is Peter or that the rock is revelation or something else entirely?  What is the better rock to build on?  Is the text missing something?  Was it a clever wordplay that actually made it harder to understand (I hate when that happens!)?  Discuss, and rock on!

This is not the point of my post here, though. I recently had a conversation with my fiancee about Rastafarianism, mentioning that Rastas believe that Jesus Christ was black. I admitted that, though I personally don’t see much evidence for that, I did concede that Jesus probably looked very different than what most Mormons envision.

A lot of new Mormon art depicts a very clean, good-looking Christ. There is “beauty, that we may desire him.” Here’s an example from a very popular artist among Latter-day Saints, Simon Dewey:

I’ve always preferred the depictions of Christ done by Harry Anderson. They seemed marginally more authentic to me than the newer, “shinier” depictions of a Christ who had, apparently, full access to conditioner, a washing machine, a toothbrush, a nice hairbrush, etc.

However, even Anderson’s paintings have a “familiar” feel to them. Most portrayals of Christ that I see in our meetinghouses follow the same general pattern: Christ is medium-to-tall height, has a generally thinnish build, very Caucasian-looking, has a full head of long hair, a beard. He has a long face, a long, thin nose (what you’d call a “Roman” nose), robes and sandals. He is generally a handsome man.

I’ve always mused to myself on the possibilities of what Christ truly looked like. Could he have been short? Prematurely bald? Could he have been missing teeth? Could he have looked more like George Costanza from Seinfeld?

Furthermore, Christ is generally portrayed as Caucasian in our artwork, but we know he was a Jew. I’ve almost thought numerous times that the only one of Christ’s Twelve Apostles in paintings that looks “Jewish” (according to the stereotype generally pushed in the American media) is Judas Iscariot, who can be seen cruelly and evilly clutching his money bag. Interesting. So was Christ white? Did he look “Jewish”? Did he look like an Arab? How jarring would it be to the average, white, Mormon American to see a (hypothetical) photograph of Christ in mortality that looked like he could be Osama bin Laden’s brother?

We only have passing clues in the scriptures as to what he looked like in mortality, and a couple interesting details about the post-mortal Christ from Joseph Smith. There is, of course, a famous “Mormon Urban Legend” about the accuracy of this piece of artwork:

This depiction of Christ is rather racially ambiguous. He has a slightly darker (ruddy?) complexion and hair that could “go either way.” It’s an interesting depiction to say the least, especially considering the debunked mythology surrounding its supposed accuracy.

However, I’ve found that I can forgive the white bread, homogenous view of Christ in our artwork for a couple reasons.

I’ve gleaned from a few sources on the Internet some diverse pictures of Christ. Images of Christ painted by black artists and displayed in predominantly black churches may be black. Here is an example I actually found quite touching, called Black Jesus Blesses the Children, by Joe Cauchi:

I love how the Black Jesus in this picture looks so determined, and he has a definite look of determination as he blesses the children. It’s as if he’s searching the distance for danger as he embraces them. The protection portrayed in this image is just as real to me, and represents the Christ I know, as tangibly as any “white” picture I’ve seen. I want Christ to protect me like he’s protecting these children.

Images of Christ painted by Asian artists may have Asian skin-tone and characteristics. Here is a Chinese example from the 1800s:

I think many people and artists might tell you that this is more for comfort and familiarity rather than an attempt at being historically accurate. So it would make sense for a white artist living in a white culture (like Utah, or in a broader sense, Mormonism) to depict Christ as a being who would “fit in.”

It is also useful for artists to have a common language for images such as Christ, and it is not useful to have images of Christ that are difficult to identify. If an artist wishes to paint Christ, say, teaching a group of people, how can he communicate without words the identity of the Teacher in his painting? There were many teachers in the scriptures: Paul, Ammon, Elijah, Enoch, etc., so a painting of a man with his mouth open, teaching other people by itself may not clearly identify the Teacher. It’s useful to be able to look at a new painting and say, “Hey, it’s a picture of Christ.”

Therefore, to me, the image of Christ is, of course, a symbol. It is a symbol in the same way that a Cross is a symbol, or the Angel Moroni is a symbol. It is one of the many pictures that we use in our religious language to communicate ideas, and it’s a useful one. However, as the Church grows, we will continue to adapt to new symbols and new images.

So, questions.

The LDS faith is now moving to many new countries across the world, and is being embraced by many ethnicities and cultures, nationalities and skin colors. Will we one day see Latino Christs in our temples? Asian Christs? Black Christs? If we admit that our image of Christ is just a symbol, would we allow a painting of a black Christ in an African temple? What about the Logan Temple?

Do we marginalize minorities in the Church by portraying a white Christ?

Is it “wrong” to portray a Christ that is probably historically inaccurate?

This got me thinking about something I’ve never been quite sure about. How do we Mormons really feel about the cross? It’s one of those things that we don’t really discuss very often, but over the years I’ve heard everything from respect to disdain from Mormons for the symbol of Christianity. Some reasons that I’ve heard the cross being absent from Mormon life is that:

a) It’s more of a Catholic or Protestant symbol and we are neither
b) The cross represents some terrible crimes that have been committed in the name of Christianity, such as the Crusades, and we don’t want to be associated with that
c) The cross has become nothing but a fashion statement for most
d) We want to focus on the Resurrection and not so much the Crucifixion

Non-LDS Christians are often quick to notice the lack of crosses in LDS chapels and materials. When they’ve asked me about it, I usually give them the speech citing reason d), about how we don’t use the cross because we prefer to focus on Christ’s resurrection and the fact that we believe that He lives, instead of focusing on his death. I don’t feel like I’m lying when I give them the speech, but I have wondered about other possible reasons. I will summarize a story that I remember reading once, which illustrated how some Mormons feel about the cross. A non-LDS Christian woman entered the home of an LDS family. The non-LDS woman was wearing a cross, and somehow the subject came up. When asked why they did not use the cross, the LDS woman said that she could explain it this way: “If one of your loved ones was killed in a car accident, would you wear a car around your neck to remember them?”

• Have you or would you wear a cross or crucifix to meetings in the LDS Church?
• Would you display a cross, crucifix, or a traditional Christian work of art where the cross is prominent, in your home?
• Do you think that we should be more open to using and displaying the cross (at least outside of official LDS Church capacities), or will we lose our unique Christian-Mormon identity by doing so?