The non-Binding Theological Exposition of Lehi

[Matthew J. Tandy]

One of the interesting things about the Bible is that it is full of the additions, corruptions, cultural baggage, and other items of the recorders, scribes, and people. It's not just the verses, but the rich tapestry surrounding it that makes it so fascinating. Of course, this also means that not all of it it binding doctrinally, since some were for a people or place or were not necessarily inspired. This is why women can cut their hair, among other things.

The Book of Mormon is also a record from an actual people with all of the same ramifications that comes with that. For instance, I have long thought that Zarahemla didn't exactly openly embrace wandering outsiders and make them kings over them, but since the Nephites wrote the records, the victor always talks about how they brought light to the savages.  Moroni viewed history through the lens of hindsight and chose material accordingly. Items like that.

Today in scripture study, we were reading 2 Nephi 2. Lehi is talking to his son Jacob, when in verse 17 he says:

Quote

And I, Lehi, according to the things which I have read, must needs suppose that...

After which we get what he says are his thoughts after reading the scriptures. In Verse 30 he says this is based on the words of "the prophet", but we don't know who that is, because his exposition doesn't align with Isaiah (usually called the prophet), or what we have of Zenos or Zenock (I would guess Zenos is the source based on theme), or any other Old Testament prophet. It could have been Moses and the book of Genesis, in which case he goes further than the text allows.

Lehi then elaborates on his thoughts, and gives several scriptures that we teach doctrinally. This is like taking something Joseph F. Smith or Bruce R. McConkie expounded on from reading scriptures, and making it binding on members to believe, or saying women really shouldn't cut their hair.

What are some of the doctrines found in Lehi's expounding not found elsewhere or ever said as having been revealed?

1. if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden.... all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end. (v22)
2. they would have had no children;
3. they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin.
4. Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy.

Let's address each of these.

1) " if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden.... all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end. (v22)"

This seems obvious on the surface. No fall, you get to stay. The nuance is in the state of things, as also if this supposition holds true. I am not aware of any revealed scripture that says that God never intended to give Adam and Eve knowledge to progress and eventually leave. In fact, in the temple motif, it is portrayed that Satan thought he could take over God's role of giving the fruit, and he is ticked that God punishes him for doing what God would have done. Further, when God speaks after the fruit is given, he tells Jehovah that they promised to go down and visit Adam. I assume, but cannot prove, that it would be to help them progress. It seems that without Lehi's thoughts on the fall, we are left with what most of Christendom believes: That Adam and Eve could have stayed there forever and had kids. I have not done a thorough search of this, but in a brief overview simply don't see any other scriptures that indicate that Adam and Eve would have stayed there forever. This ties in to the next item.

2) "they would have had no children;"

Again, without this, there is no solid basis for saying there were not or could not have been children before the fall. Our view of this is based off of the following three scriptures:

Quote

 

2 Nephi 2:23 -  And they would have had no children;

Genesis 3:16 - Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; 

Moses 4:22 - Unto the woman, I, the Lord God, said: I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception. In sorrow thou shalt bring forth children,

 

However, if you take out Lehi's musing's the scriptures in Genesis and Moses do not indicate she could not have had children before the fall. It only says her bearing of kids will be greatly multiplied, and that they will be brought forth in sorrow. Much of Judaism and Christianity do not read Genesis 3:16 and read it to mean there were no kids beforehand. In fact, the Babylonian Talmud has a tradition on these verses that Cain had a twin sister and they were born before the fall, while Abel and his twin sister were born after. 

So without Lehi's musing, there seems to be no revealed doctrine that says that Adam and Even could not have a) continued forever in the garden of Eden without taking the fruit (though the temple language indicates that God would have lead them out himself eventually) or b) that they could not have had children without the fall. 

3) "they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin."

This is also not found elsewhere. In fact, I find it troubling and contradictory doctrinally. Eve clearly had sorrow at the thought of there being "no other way". I find it difficult to believe that there never would have been disagreement. In fact, Eve chose to transgress when she chose to eat the fruit, even before it touched her lips. There are other instances in the garden they would have known joy, happiness, etc.I think Lehi takes it too far in his effort to teach about the need for opposition in all things (which is good doctrine).

4) "Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy."

This is basically reiterating  item 2. No where else is it said that Adam fell that men might be (except in the temple motif, which we have been told is a motif). Also, when Adam says it, it is in reference to him finding out he's about to be a lone man in the garden. The funny thing is that in the Temple motif, there is no indication they wouldn't have had children in the garden. The dilemma comes when Eve reminds him they were commanded to multiply, and that since she'll be cast out, he'll be a lone man. Hard to have kids that way, and so Adam chooses to join her. The assumption inherent in it is that neither Adam nor Eve seem to be aware they couldn't have kids in the garden, only that they needed to be together.

So those are my thoughts from today's scripture reading. Maybe I am missing some reference scriptures. I am interested in the thoughts of others.

I am not particularly bothered by this. It doesn't affect my salvation. It actually adds flavor to the Book of Mormon, having a prophet musing, and I appreciate he even says he is "supposing" based on what he has read. Perhaps of course we will get the words of the unnamed prophet, and it will have a revelation on the matter. He is likely referring to Moses, but we don't know. Either way, without knowing who he is talking about, it's hard to say if the source material is clearer.

Personally, I think that Lehi's commentary brings in all sorts of mental gymnastic needs. It requires God to set up opposing commandments, when it could have been that God would have helped them progress later. We have to create reasons why Adam and Eve were incapable of having children before the fall. We have to create a view of the Garden as being in stasis with no joy or sin possible, which doesn't jive with other scriptures or make sense. Did they feel no joy when God visited them? Were they without emotion? No joy to be together, to talk, to care for the earth?

How much of our views of the Garden and Adam and Eve are based off of Lehi "suppose[ing]"?

 

 

Edited February 5, 2016 by Matthew J. Tandy

[CV75]

2 hours ago, Matthew J. Tandy said:

How much of our views of the Garden and Adam and Eve are based off of Lehi "suppose[ing]"?

Who knows whether Lehi was supposing in the first place, or if he was, how much or how often? Alma did it when teaching his son about the resurrection but then clarified his teaching once the Lord taught him with more certainty.

How much is The Book of Mormon is a covenant, or a "binding"? Its overall purpose is rather simple (Title Page), and there are signs that follow the covenant (3 Nephi 21:7).

 

[Matthew J. Tandy]

CV75,

No doubt on the purpose of the Book of Mormon. Since my degree was in ancient studies and focused on textual criticism, I am happy to accept the purpose of the entirety of the Book of Mormon while also diving into the sitz in leben of the text and how we have interpreted it over the years and why.

Lehi of course had documented visions and God spoke to him a few times it appears, in addition to having the Liahona. That is why this particular pericope, which appears to have had considerable influence on our understanding of the nature of the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve, and the Fall, is, according to Lehi, a supposition. 

It could be Lehi is right. It could be he is wrong. Based on the theological difficulties and its conflict with other revealed scripture, I am leaning towards Lehi being off on parts of it.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Matthew J. Tandy said:

CV75,

No doubt on the purpose of the Book of Mormon. Since my degree was in ancient studies and focused on textual criticism, I am happy to accept the purpose of the entirety of the Book of Mormon while also diving into the sitz in leben of the text and how we have interpreted it over the years and why.

Lehi of course had documented visions and God spoke to him a few times it appears, in addition to having the Liahona. That is why this particular pericope, which appears to have had considerable influence on our understanding of the nature of the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve, and the Fall, is, according to Lehi, a supposition. 

It could be Lehi is right. It could be he is wrong. Based on the theological difficulties and its conflict with other revealed scripture, I am leaning towards Lehi being off on parts of it.

I can appreciate your studies. Some additional ideas:

Additional context is that 2 Nephi 2 is what Nephi wrote about what he says his father said. Additional application of Sitz im Leben would call for this being part of the alleged context in which the text was created. It is second hand, who knows how long after, and under a good deal of stress... Plus Nephi was excusing himself for his weakness in potentially erring in choosing what was most sacred to include (1 Nephi 19:6), yet knowing he cannot err by using plainness (2 Nephi 27:20); and surely he was avoiding the precepts of men (2 Nephi 27:20).

Nephi is recording that Lehi is reciting and teaching the things he read (verse 17), “[supposing] …according to that which is written.” In this case, I think he is using “suppose” in the sense of its more certain synonyms, such as “accept,” "hold," "trust" and “understand;”  even "take it for granted." As a “visionary man” it would make sense that he use such phraseology. Having studied the same brass plates as a faithful student, I’m sure Nephi cross-checked his father’s teachings in the same spirit with which he sought the same vision and so deemed them to be sacred enough to include.

Referencing the things he read, Lehi's teaching that not having children is only an extension of the principle that without opposition (verse 11), or that “all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end (verse 22).” Adam and Eve would have remained only a couple (verse 23).

I think it is safe to say that everyone that had and still has anything to do with the Book of Mormon, including (or perhaps especially!) the reader, is off on parts of it!

[Glenn101]

Matthew,

    An interesting take on Lehi's theological exposition. However, other scriptures support Lehi's ideas. The prophet that Lehi just might have been reading could have been Moses from the Brass Plates or maybe even Adam himself.

Remember what Adam said in the Book of Moses, Chapter 5:

" 10 And in that day Adam blessed God and was filled, and began to prophesy concerning all the families of the earth, saying: Blessed be the name of God, for because of my transgression my eyes are opened, and in this life I shall have joy, and again in the flesh I shall see God.

 11 And Eve, his wife, heard all these things and was glad, saying: Were it not for our transgression we never should have had seed, and never should have known good and evil, and the joy of our redemption, and the eternal life which God giveth unto all the obedient."

 

This was Adam speaking, being filled with the Holy Ghost and Eve repeating the same understanding that Lehi expounded on after listening to Adam and his prophecies. I believe that Lehi was speaking here as a prophet of God and using the suppose in the context that CV75 proposed. It makes more sense that way.

 

Glenn

[CV75]

10 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

Matthew,

    An interesting take on Lehi's theological exposition. However, other scriptures support Lehi's ideas. The prophet that Lehi just might have been reading could have been Moses from the Brass Plates or maybe even Adam himself.

Remember what Adam said in the Book of Moses, Chapter 5:

" 10 And in that day Adam blessed God and was filled, and began to prophesy concerning all the families of the earth, saying: Blessed be the name of God, for because of my transgression my eyes are opened, and in this life I shall have joy, and again in the flesh I shall see God.

 11 And Eve, his wife, heard all these things and was glad, saying: Were it not for our transgression we never should have had seed, and never should have known good and evil, and the joy of our redemption, and the eternal life which God giveth unto all the obedient."

 

This was Adam speaking, being filled with the Holy Ghost and Eve repeating the same understanding that Lehi expounded on after listening to Adam and his prophecies. I believe that Lehi was speaking here as a prophet of God and using the suppose in the context that CV75 proposed. It makes more sense that way.

 

Glenn

I am also thinking in terms of the various witnesses represented in the 2 Nephi 2 text: Lehi witnessing of the things he read; Nephi in recording his words witnessing of his father's teachings as well as the things he also read; these small plates establishing the truth of the first, and so forth.

[Matthew J. Tandy]

11 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

Moses, Chapter 5:

" 10 And in that day Adam blessed God and was filled, and began to prophesy concerning all the families of the earth, saying: Blessed be the name of God, for because of my transgression my eyes are opened, and in this life I shall have joy, and again in the flesh I shall see God.

 11 And Eve, his wife, heard all these things and was glad, saying: Were it not for our transgression we never should have had seed, and never should have known good and evil, and the joy of our redemption, and the eternal life which God giveth unto all the obedient."

This is an excellent scripture adding context. This then would be the fourth supporting scripture.

Since it comes from the Book of Moses, which is an expansion of Genesis, it is reasonable then to assume that "the prophet" that Lehi does not name is in fact Moses. Further, it would imply that the Genesis that Lehi had access to on the brass plates was closer to the Book of Moses version than the current form of the first chapters of Genesis.

It is interesting that Adam and Eve don't say they never had joy before. Instead, they are talking of the joy of the redemption. Adam because he will see God again in the flesh, and Even because of redemption in general (which allows one to see God, in the flesh). 

The good and evil is related to knowledge. I am uncertain of how this translates into Eden. It seems unlikely that they could never have hurt or offended or upset the other if they stayed there a thousand years. I suspect it has some other meaning that simply doing good or bad, but is more closely tied to understanding the choices and what they mean, ie, choosing Satan versus choosing God. It's not the same as choosing to be selfish or being upset, because knowledge is key to understanding where our hearts will go. 

Assuming then that Lehi was reading a version of Genesis closer to the Book of Moses, then I still believe he may have extrapolated a bit too far, or that Nephi, in writing it down later, shortened it and thus lost a nuance more evident in the actual text. Perhaps Lehi even shortened it assuming that those around him knew what he was referencing to and didn't feel a need to use more words for what he thought was a given.

Interesting stuff.

[Garden Girl]

I lean toward the innocence factor of Adam and Eve in the garden as expressed by Lehi... Adam and Eve didn't have a knowledge of good and evil until they ate of the fruit and their "eyes were opened" (Gen 3:5-7)...i.e. they did not realize they were naked until they ate of the fruit... and then they realized and, I believe, understrood their nakedness so they constructed coverings for themselves. They would not become as gods, knowing good and evil, unless and until they ate of the fruit... so IMO their innocence and lack of knowledge precluded them from having children until after the fall... and they left the garden.

GG

 

 

Edited February 6, 2016 by Garden Girl

[rodheadlee]

On 2/5/2016 at 0:24 PM, Matthew J. Tandy said:

How much of our views of the Garden and Adam and Eve are based off of Lehi "suppose[ing]"?

 

 

I'm sorry but I have to reject your premise that any of these verses were just supposed. Nephi, Mormon and God edited these verses before they made it to the final cut of what we received in the BoM. 1Nephi 6 tells us in verse 5:  "5 Wherefore, the things which are pleasing unto the world I do not write, but the things which are pleasing unto God and unto those who are not of the world." Mormon says it's the will of God that these things are in our scripture in verse 6 he says "6 But behold, I shall take these plates, which contain these prophesyings and revelations, and put them with the remainder of my record, for they are choice unto me; and I know they will be choice unto my brethren.  7 And I do this for a wise purpose; for thus it whispereth me, according to the workings of the Spirit of the Lord which is in me. And now, I do not know all things; but the Lord knoweth all things which are to come; wherefore, he worketh in me to do according to His will."

[RevTestament]

On 2/5/2016 at 0:24 PM, Matthew J. Tandy said:

One of the interesting things about the Bible is that it is full of the additions, corruptions, cultural baggage, and other items of the recorders, scribes, and people. It's not just the verses, but the rich tapestry surrounding it that makes it so fascinating. Of course, this also means that not all of it it binding doctrinally, since some were for a people or place or were not necessarily inspired. This is why women can cut their hair, among other things.

The Book of Mormon is also a record from an actual people with all of the same ramifications that comes with that. For instance, I have long thought that Zarahemla didn't exactly openly embrace wandering outsiders and make them kings over them, but since the Nephites wrote the records, the victor always talks about how they brought light to the savages.  Moroni viewed history through the lens of hindsight and chose material accordingly. Items like that.

Today in scripture study, we were reading 2 Nephi 2. Lehi is talking to his son Jacob, when in verse 17 he says:

After which we get what he says are his thoughts after reading the scriptures. In Verse 30 he says this is based on the words of "the prophet", but we don't know who that is, because his exposition doesn't align with Isaiah (usually called the prophet), or what we have of Zenos or Zenock (I would guess Zenos is the source based on theme), or any other Old Testament prophet. It could have been Moses and the book of Genesis, in which case he goes further than the text allows.

Lehi then elaborates on his thoughts, and gives several scriptures that we teach doctrinally. This is like taking something Joseph F. Smith or Bruce R. McConkie expounded on from reading scriptures, and making it binding on members to believe, or saying women really shouldn't cut their hair.

What are some of the doctrines found in Lehi's expounding not found elsewhere or ever said as having been revealed?

1. if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden.... all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end. (v22)
2. they would have had no children;
3. they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin.
4. Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy.

Let's address each of these.

1) " if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden.... all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end. (v22)"

This seems obvious on the surface. No fall, you get to stay. The nuance is in the state of things, as also if this supposition holds true. I am not aware of any revealed scripture that says that God never intended to give Adam and Eve knowledge to progress and eventually leave. In fact, in the temple motif, it is portrayed that Satan thought he could take over God's role of giving the fruit, and he is ticked that God punishes him for doing what God would have done. Further, when God speaks after the fruit is given, he tells Jehovah that they promised to go down and visit Adam. I assume, but cannot prove, that it would be to help them progress. It seems that without Lehi's thoughts on the fall, we are left with what most of Christendom believes: That Adam and Eve could have stayed there forever and had kids. I have not done a thorough search of this, but in a brief overview simply don't see any other scriptures that indicate that Adam and Eve would have stayed there forever. This ties in to the next item.

2) "they would have had no children;"

Again, without this, there is no solid basis for saying there were not or could not have been children before the fall. Our view of this is based off of the following three scriptures:

However, if you take out Lehi's musing's the scriptures in Genesis and Moses do not indicate she could not have had children before the fall. It only says her bearing of kids will be greatly multiplied, and that they will be brought forth in sorrow. Much of Judaism and Christianity do not read Genesis 3:16 and read it to mean there were no kids beforehand. In fact, the Babylonian Talmud has a tradition on these verses that Cain had a twin sister and they were born before the fall, while Abel and his twin sister were born after. 

So without Lehi's musing, there seems to be no revealed doctrine that says that Adam and Even could not have a) continued forever in the garden of Eden without taking the fruit (though the temple language indicates that God would have lead them out himself eventually) or b) that they could not have had children without the fall. 

3) "they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin."

This is also not found elsewhere. In fact, I find it troubling and contradictory doctrinally. Eve clearly had sorrow at the thought of there being "no other way". I find it difficult to believe that there never would have been disagreement. In fact, Eve chose to transgress when she chose to eat the fruit, even before it touched her lips. There are other instances in the garden they would have known joy, happiness, etc.I think Lehi takes it too far in his effort to teach about the need for opposition in all things (which is good doctrine).

4) "Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy."

This is basically reiterating  item 2. No where else is it said that Adam fell that men might be (except in the temple motif, which we have been told is a motif). Also, when Adam says it, it is in reference to him finding out he's about to be a lone man in the garden. The funny thing is that in the Temple motif, there is no indication they wouldn't have had children in the garden. The dilemma comes when Eve reminds him they were commanded to multiply, and that since she'll be cast out, he'll be a lone man. Hard to have kids that way, and so Adam chooses to join her. The assumption inherent in it is that neither Adam nor Eve seem to be aware they couldn't have kids in the garden, only that they needed to be together.

So those are my thoughts from today's scripture reading. Maybe I am missing some reference scriptures. I am interested in the thoughts of others.

I am not particularly bothered by this. It doesn't affect my salvation. It actually adds flavor to the Book of Mormon, having a prophet musing, and I appreciate he even says he is "supposing" based on what he has read. Perhaps of course we will get the words of the unnamed prophet, and it will have a revelation on the matter. He is likely referring to Moses, but we don't know. Either way, without knowing who he is talking about, it's hard to say if the source material is clearer.

Personally, I think that Lehi's commentary brings in all sorts of mental gymnastic needs. It requires God to set up opposing commandments, when it could have been that God would have helped them progress later. We have to create reasons why Adam and Eve were incapable of having children before the fall. We have to create a view of the Garden as being in stasis with no joy or sin possible, which doesn't jive with other scriptures or make sense. Did they feel no joy when God visited them? Were they without emotion? No joy to be together, to talk, to care for the earth?

How much of our views of the Garden and Adam and Eve are based off of Lehi "suppose[ing]"?

1. The fall was necessary for Adam to progress to be more like God.

All things would remain the same means to me that Adam would not be able to learn from mistakes. Without learning, he could not progress, and the world would be without purpose.

2. "they would have no children" means to me that no one else could learn from their mistakes and be adopted in as their family. In other words there is no reason from them to teach, thus making the word without import. Without the word, there are no spiritual children.

3. Remaining in a state of innocence means they would have no nakedness before God, and not know they are not like Him, or are nothing in comparison to Him. 

4. Adam falling that men might be, is an echo of Christ condescending Himself that men might learn from Him. That He might have joy in His posterity as our Father.

When looked at from a spiritual point of view these sayings make sense. 

[Matthew J. Tandy]

4 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

I'm sorry but I have to reject your premise that any of these verses were just supposed. Nephi, Mormon and God edited these verses before they made it to the final cut of what we received in the BoM. 1Nephi 6 tells us in verse 5:  "5 Wherefore, the things which are pleasing unto the world I do not write, but the things which are pleasing unto God and unto those who are not of the world." Mormon says it's the will of God that these things are in our scripture in verse 6 he says "6 But behold, I shall take these plates, which contain these prophesyings and revelations, and put them with the remainder of my record, for they are choice unto me; and I know they will be choice unto my brethren.  7 And I do this for a wise purpose; for thus it whispereth me, according to the workings of the Spirit of the Lord which is in me. And now, I do not know all things; but the Lord knoweth all things which are to come; wherefore, he worketh in me to do according to His will."

I reject your premise ;-)

I don't believe that Moroni saying the plates of Nephi are of value is a statement of perfection. He does not edit them, and we get Nephi's words direct.

Nephi asks us to not chew him out over mistakes. I like to trust Nephi.

Further, Nephi writing things that are pleasing unto God appears to be a basic phrase that means spiritually related things. He discusses how this is different than the book of the kings he had already started. It doesn't mean that God ensured everything in there was perfect or some philosphies of men didn't creep in.

Here is the important part to me: The Book of Mormon, including Nephi's book, will get one nearer to God. It doesn't mean it's perfect or that some doctrinal elements might be iffy. But at it's core, being witness of Christ and also being a witness of God leading and blessing the lives of others, it accomplishes its mission. Nephi accomplishes his mission.

I take Nephi at his word on what he remembers Lehi saying. Suppose is not the same as know or had a vision, etc. It doesn't mean he wasn't inspired in his comments, but it indicates he might not have it fully down yet. This is no different than when apostles and prophets today suppose something. You should still listen and search and ponder and pray. 

[CV75]

11 hours ago, Matthew J. Tandy said:

Suppose is not the same as know or had a vision, etc.

But it can (!) depending on the Sitz im Leben -- Lehi also said, "methought I saw..." (1 Nephi 8:4), and so did Alma (Alma 36:22) when reporting on their visions. Visionary people use this manner of speech because they see the various meanings of things on many levels.

Some additional contexts for Nephi's writing this up can also be found in this Ensign article (this month) about Mormon's experience with getting the text down: https://www.lds.org/ensign/2016/02/mormons-miraculous-book?lang=eng

[rodheadlee]

16 hours ago, Matthew J. Tandy said:

I reject your premise ;-)

I don't believe that Moroni saying the plates of Nephi are of value is a statement of perfection. He does not edit them, and we get Nephi's words direct.

Nephi asks us to not chew him out over mistakes. I like to trust Nephi.

Further, Nephi writing things that are pleasing unto God appears to be a basic phrase that means spiritually related things. He discusses how this is different than the book of the kings he had already started. It doesn't mean that God ensured everything in there was perfect or some philosphies of men didn't creep in.

Here is the important part to me: The Book of Mormon, including Nephi's book, will get one nearer to God. It doesn't mean it's perfect or that some doctrinal elements might be iffy. But at it's core, being witness of Christ and also being a witness of God leading and blessing the lives of others, it accomplishes its mission. Nephi accomplishes his mission.

I take Nephi at his word on what he remembers Lehi saying. Suppose is not the same as know or had a vision, etc. It doesn't mean he wasn't inspired in his comments, but it indicates he might not have it fully down yet. This is no different than when apostles and prophets today suppose something. You should still listen and search and ponder and pray. 

The mistake is not the doctrine in these verses, it's the imperfection of the use of the word suppose. I will repeat Mormon's words that you skipped over.

Mormon says in the Words of Mormon "7 And I do this for a wise purpose; for thus it whispereth me, according to the workings of the Spirit of the Lord which is in me. And now, I do not know all things; but the Lord knoweth all things which are to come; wherefore, he worketh in me to do according to his will."

Mormon  says is is the wisdom and the will of the Lord that these words are included in the Book of Mormon. I'm sure if there were false doctrine in the verses of 2nd Nephi that you quote God is fully capable to have them altered or removed to reflect His true doctrine. Moroni further emphasizes that there would be no errors if there were room on the plates to use the Hebrew language to write them in. Mormon 9: 33 "And if our plates had been sufficiently large we should have written in Hebrew; but the Hebrew hath been altered by us also; and if we could have written in Hebrew, behold, ye would have had no imperfection in our record." 

 

The only imperfection here is the use of the word suppose.

Edited February 7, 2016 by rodheadlee
to change imperfect words to clarify the meaning

[CV75]

1 hour ago, rodheadlee said:

The only imperfection here is the use of the word suppose.

I tend to agree, but I think it’s a perfectly good word anyway.

I think if we don’t believe or don’t want to believe a certain doctrine exactly as taught by the Church, or as commonly taught in the Church, there is room in the covenant for us to do so of our own accord. The covenant, or what I take to be the “binding” reference in the OP, is only broken when apostasy rears its ugly head.

It is remarkably easy to find something amiss in almost anything the Lord’s fallible servants might say. But just as disbelief or a nuanced belief in a certain teaching doesn’t require it, it doesn’t justify the alternative belief or teaching. “We believe we are responsible for our own beliefs and not Lehi’s transgression,” so to speak.

[CV75]

On 2/7/2016 at 11:17 PM, Matthew J. Tandy said:

Suppose is not the same as know or had a vision, etc.

I had another thought on this. Saying "suppose" and "methinks" are ways to express belief or faith in something that is not fully comprehended or understood. It is a way of saying what they knew, also knowing they didn't fully know yet. It is still good doctrine even with the acknowledgement that there is more content and significance than what they could ably put into words or fully express.

In 1 Nephi 8:20 Lehi uses an interesting phrase, "as if": “And I also beheld a strait and narrow path [and the tree, the fountain, a field]… as if it had been a world.” There appears to some kind of realization that he was having a "real" "vision," which is also a form of supposition he could, and we can, count on.

 

 

[Matthew J. Tandy]

Rodheadlee, I don't see Mormon's words being comparable. Nephi was a first generation expat. His language would have been purer. His record was unaltered to our knowledge. I believe the text of Nephi regarding Lehi is clear that he is expounding on a scripture. I assume he was inspired to do so, but that does not mean 100% of what he says is inspired. It's similar to a talk from a general authority who references the last battle of the Nephites being in New York. The comment is almost always part of a large, inspired talk about a completely different topic. The mention of Cumorah is based off of not new revelation, but the eprson's understanding. Do we toss out the whole talk? Of course not. We do evaluate what matters, what does not, and how each is applied.

We see differently I suppose (see what I did there... ;-) ). The good news is that both of our views are viable in the framework of the gospel and the topic itself does not impact our salvation. 

Glenn's reference was imminently helpful also.

[CV75]

2 hours ago, Matthew J. Tandy said:

Rodheadlee, I don't see Mormon's words being comparable. Nephi was a first generation expat. His language would have been purer. His record was unaltered to our knowledge. I believe the text of Nephi regarding Lehi is clear that he is expounding on a scripture. I assume he was inspired to do so, but that does not mean 100% of what he says is inspired. It's similar to a talk from a general authority who references the last battle of the Nephites being in New York. The comment is almost always part of a large, inspired talk about a completely different topic. The mention of Cumorah is based off of not new revelation, but the eprson's understanding. Do we toss out the whole talk? Of course not. We do evaluate what matters, what does not, and how each is applied.

We see differently I suppose (see what I did there... ;-) ). The good news is that both of our views are viable in the framework of the gospel and the topic itself does not impact our salvation. 

Glenn's reference was imminently helpful also.

Of course there’s plenty wiggle-room for personal belief, but I’ve noticed that using the fallibility of the Lord’s servants as the basis for deeming a well-established teaching as incorrect and/or non-essential often has negative applications.

With regards to the priesthood ban, for example, nowhere has the current Church leadership attributed its cause and reversal to the fallibility of the former servants and the need to correct them. New revelation confirmed the decision to lift the ban and led to the disavowal of former theories and condemnation of racism. Yet many point to the fallibility of the former leaders to uphold the call for other changes in priesthood organization and covenants.

That Adam and Eve could not have children before the Fall is a well-established teaching (and scripture shows that they had no children before the Fall), evidence that it is an “essential” teaching (or belief in that sense) …I’m still not sure what you mean by “binding”—it’s in the canon, so in that sense it is binding. Arguing that Lehi’s language is imprecise is the same basis on which many uphold the call for other changes in priesthood organization and covenants.

Many of our personal beliefs can be non-essential, but we find this out as we progress and distill our belief into that which is essential. I don’t think we do that by looking for possible faults in how the bona fide teachers have expressed themselves.

[Matthew J. Tandy]

I think you are missing the point of what I am saying, and why. Such is life. I'm not concerned.

I appreciate the comments and take them in the spirit they were given.

[Guest]

11 hours ago, Matthew J. Tandy said:

I think you are missing the point of what I am saying, and why. Such is life. I'm not concerned.

I appreciate the comments and take them in the spirit they were given.

I'd be happy to understand the point you are making; perhaps you can restate it.  As for me, I'm just saying whatever comes to mind!

[CV75]

That was weird... I'm the "Guest" in the post above...