Lehi and appearing before the Lord three times a year

[Leaf474]

This has been on my mind lately, so I figure I might as well just ask about it 🙂

 

In Exodus 34, the Israelites are told

"Three times in the year all your males shall appear before the Lord God, the God of Israel. 24 For I will drive out nations before you and enlarge your borders; neither shall any man desire your land when you go up to appear before the Lord, your God, three times in the year."

 

In the beginning part of The Book of Mormon, Lehi and his family are told to leave Jerusalem and eventually travel to America.

 

This is while the Temple is still standing, the instruction to appear before the Lord would still be in place. What's going on? What is the Saints' view?

[Benjamin McGuire]

This is a really brief sort of summary - and I am working from memory here so ...

The passage in Exodus 34 is a bit of a challenge for lots of people. Why? Because it claims to be the 'ten commands' that were given to Moses the second time after he smashed the first set following the incident with the golden calf (Ex. 34:1-2). But clearly these commandments don't share a high degree of similarity with the other two versions of the Decalogue.  So, this is one of the poster-child passages for the various academic theories of the authorship of the Old Testament. For LDS, its even a bit more complicated from this perspective since the JST of Ex. 34:1-2 provides a fascinating explanation of the possible changes (and one that we don't generally accept in the context of the text of the passage). The Decalogue presented here in Ex. 34 plays a role in the way that scripture is referenced in the Book of Numbers, but not in Deuteronomy. So we just need to be aware that not only do we discuss a potential chronological issue with Lehi and the temple, we have a chronological considerations of Lehi and the text.

Next we have the problem of the Josiah's reform. To back up just a moment, you suggest that the temple was still standing for Lehi. Which is true. But what you don't note is that there is no temple when Moses receives the tablets in Exodus 34 (there isn't even an Ark of the Covenant yet). And, not until a generation or two before Lehi does the commandment make any sense in such a context - that is, not until after the northern kingdoms have been cleared out and Judah is reduced to a relatively small geographical state stuck between the two super-powers does the idea of this passage referring to a three-times a year presentation at the temple even begin to make sense. Prior to that point in time, there were a number of places where both the northern and southern kingdoms could go for their religious observances. The best known of these places were Jerusalem and Shiloh - and Jerusalem really didn't see its prominence go up until after the separation of the kingdoms. The north continued to have their observances at Shiloh (where the Ark was kept for several hundred years). Part of Josiah's reform was to make the point that you had to make your observances at the temple in Jerusalem. And this brings up the question (as the three articles from the link above suggest) as to whether or not Lehi was pro or anti Josiah's reform. If he was pro-Josiah's reform, then it is much more likely that he would have seen the requirement to worship at the temple as a commandment. If he was not, then any of the alternate altars would have worked.

Then we have the three days journey into the wilderness. There is a sense (particularly in Exodus) that there are cultic limitations to the idea of gathering at the temple. When Moses leads Israel out of Egypt, he notes that they have to travel three days into the wilderness - to avoid offending Egypt and their religious observances. When Lehi leaves Jerusalem, the narrative is recast as a new Exodus - and like Moses, Lehi takes his family three days into the wilderness before celebrating religious observances there. This seems to me to be a deliberate repudiation of the temple in Jerusalem (for whatever reason). It also works with the idea that regardless of how the notion of traveling to the temple was understood, Lehi understood it to have limitations found elsewhere - once they had traveled a sufficient distance from Jerusalem, the stipulation lost most of its weight. And then, of course, we have the Nephites building a temple as soon as possible after their settlement in their promised land.

Finally, (and this goes to the language of the text), it takes very little to read the text as having Israel see God instead of just presenting themselves to God. This was certainly a part of the original narratives in that once they sin, they can no longer be in God's presence but required intermediaries. After Lehi leaves Jerusalem, he has his vision in which he sees God. In describing this, Nephi invokes Numbers 12. And this is in the parts of Numbers that tend to focus on this part of the Book of Exodus. And for me, this also suggests that Nephi/Lehi may have had a different interpretation of the Exodus text than we generally follow today (assuming that they even had it).

I think that there is a lot of room for different views on the part of LDS members. I think that the most common view is to simply ignore it. LDS theology has largely focused on the JST version of 34:1-2 and doesn't spend much time at all on the rest. When it does come up, we are more likely to see it in connection with certain Book of Mormon passages like the gathering of the people for Benjamin's speech, and the like. And within modern LDS practice, making the temple a place for personal ordinances instead of an assembly of the people has made the idea much less relevant. We don't have any holy day observances (let alone three different ones) that require a trip to the temple. So we don't really view this as some sort of long-lasting commandment of the sort we associate with the other versions of the Decalogue.

[Leaf474]

6 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

This is a really brief sort of summary - and I am working from memory here so ...

The passage in Exodus 34 is a bit of a challenge for lots of people. Why? Because it claims to be the 'ten commands' that were given to Moses the second time after he smashed the first set following the incident with the golden calf (Ex. 34:1-2). But clearly these commandments don't share a high degree of similarity with the other two versions of the Decalogue.  So, this is one of the poster-child passages for the various academic theories of the authorship of the Old Testament. For LDS, its even a bit more complicated from this perspective since the JST of Ex. 34:1-2 provides a fascinating explanation of the possible changes (and one that we don't generally accept in the context of the text of the passage). The Decalogue presented here in Ex. 34 plays a role in the way that scripture is referenced in the Book of Numbers, but not in Deuteronomy. So we just need to be aware that not only do we discuss a potential chronological issue with Lehi and the temple, we have a chronological considerations of Lehi and the text.

Next we have the problem of the Josiah's reform. To back up just a moment, you suggest that the temple was still standing for Lehi. Which is true. But what you don't note is that there is no temple when Moses receives the tablets in Exodus 34 (there isn't even an Ark of the Covenant yet). And, not until a generation or two before Lehi does the commandment make any sense in such a context - that is, not until after the northern kingdoms have been cleared out and Judah is reduced to a relatively small geographical state stuck between the two super-powers does the idea of this passage referring to a three-times a year presentation at the temple even begin to make sense. Prior to that point in time, there were a number of places where both the northern and southern kingdoms could go for their religious observances. The best known of these places were Jerusalem and Shiloh - and Jerusalem really didn't see its prominence go up until after the separation of the kingdoms. The north continued to have their observances at Shiloh (where the Ark was kept for several hundred years). Part of Josiah's reform was to make the point that you had to make your observances at the temple in Jerusalem. And this brings up the question (as the three articles from the link above suggest) as to whether or not Lehi was pro or anti Josiah's reform. If he was pro-Josiah's reform, then it is much more likely that he would have seen the requirement to worship at the temple as a commandment. If he was not, then any of the alternate altars would have worked.

Then we have the three days journey into the wilderness. There is a sense (particularly in Exodus) that there are cultic limitations to the idea of gathering at the temple. When Moses leads Israel out of Egypt, he notes that they have to travel three days into the wilderness - to avoid offending Egypt and their religious observances. When Lehi leaves Jerusalem, the narrative is recast as a new Exodus - and like Moses, Lehi takes his family three days into the wilderness before celebrating religious observances there. This seems to me to be a deliberate repudiation of the temple in Jerusalem (for whatever reason). It also works with the idea that regardless of how the notion of traveling to the temple was understood, Lehi understood it to have limitations found elsewhere - once they had traveled a sufficient distance from Jerusalem, the stipulation lost most of its weight. And then, of course, we have the Nephites building a temple as soon as possible after their settlement in their promised land.

Finally, (and this goes to the language of the text), it takes very little to read the text as having Israel see God instead of just presenting themselves to God. This was certainly a part of the original narratives in that once they sin, they can no longer be in God's presence but required intermediaries. After Lehi leaves Jerusalem, he has his vision in which he sees God. In describing this, Nephi invokes Numbers 12. And this is in the parts of Numbers that tend to focus on this part of the Book of Exodus. And for me, this also suggests that Nephi/Lehi may have had a different interpretation of the Exodus text than we generally follow today (assuming that they even had it).

I think that there is a lot of room for different views on the part of LDS members. I think that the most common view is to simply ignore it. LDS theology has largely focused on the JST version of 34:1-2 and doesn't spend much time at all on the rest. When it does come up, we are more likely to see it in connection with certain Book of Mormon passages like the gathering of the people for Benjamin's speech, and the like. And within modern LDS practice, making the temple a place for personal ordinances instead of an assembly of the people has made the idea much less relevant. We don't have any holy day observances (let alone three different ones) that require a trip to the temple. So we don't really view this as some sort of long-lasting commandment of the sort we associate with the other versions of the Decalogue.

Thanks for the informative response ❤️

 

It looks like we read significant portions of the Bible differently. But that may not be a big deal, if I'm understanding your post correctly...

 

...because God may simply have told Lehi "Never mind". (That was actually an option I had forgotten about: ongoing revelation.) I don't mean that to sound snarky in any way. The way I heard it put in the Navy was "Belay that".

 

Thanks again for your post 🤗

Edited January 18, 2024 by Leaf474
Typos

[Pyreaux]

I think most LDS academics try not to use ongoing revelation as the answer to Biblical issues whenever possible. Without new revelation, the Bible has its own internal web of inconsistency that allows for interpretations that aren't traditional. I think we'd say the law isn't exactly being ignored here, there just are other legit ways to go before the Lord when one is away from Jerusalem. The Lord appeared before Abraham at his altar under a great tree of Mamre and the Lord appeared at the Pillar Temple Jacob built that he called Bethel (the "House of God", though Deuteronomy forbids altars by a tree or pillar, and though the Temple's Menorah is a tree, and the Temple Pillars were trees).

Lehi built an altar in the Valley of Lemuel and they eventually build a temple as soon as they were able. Even after the Jerusalem Temple was built, there were many other legit Israelite sanctuaries to appear before the Lord at. David dedicated the sword of Goliath to God at the large Temple at Nob (staffed with 85 priests; 1 Sam 21:10; 22:10). Even after Josiah's Temple Reform, other countries still had functioning Temples where Josiah's reform couldn't reach. Such as Elephantine Island, in Egypt, was the Israelite Temple of ancient Yeb.

There were many Israelite factions that didn't agree with the "Deuteronomic" Levitical scribes that tried to consolidate worship into Jerusalem by destroying other temples, and with this modern academia at hand, Lehi might be one of those. Soon after the reform, Josiah is killed in battle, Lehi left, then Jerusalem's temple was razed to the ground (first time obedience to Deuteronomic Law didn't protect them) and all the Books of the Law were destroyed, the books were only rewritten from memory 75 years later by the same punished establishment who had a lot of opportunity to corrupt/fix the Law of Moses just as the establishment did during Jeremiah's time ("the lying pen of the scribes has made it (the Law) into a lie." (Jeremiah 8:8). The books are credited to Ezra, who reformed the Levitical Priesthood that had impure temple practices, Ezra imposing mass divorces were unnecessary and wrong (Malachi 2:16) creating the schism with Sameria. 

Also: I've heard an interesting interpretation that Lehi's dream was about forsaking the Temple of Jerusalem (The Great and Spacious Building doomed to fall) and instead go into the wilderness and worship at an arboreal shrine (The Tree of Life the proud people mocked). I can see that.

Edited January 20, 2024 by Pyreaux

[Stargazer]

2 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

alters

Please, Pyreaux, it's "atlars" not "alters."

Granted they're pretty much pronounced the same, but they don't mean the same time. From the Grammarist:

"Alter, meaning to change or adjust, is always a verb (except in the phrase alter ego, meaning a second self). Altar, meaning an elevated place or structure before which religious ceremonies may be enacted or on which sacrifices may be offered, is always a noun. The words are homophones, but their origins are different; alter comes from a Latin word meaning other, and altar comes from the Latin altāria."

[Pyreaux]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

Please, Pyreaux, it's "atlars" not "alters."

Granted they're pretty much pronounced the same, but they don't mean the same time. From the Grammarist:

"Alter, meaning to change or adjust, is always a verb (except in the phrase alter ego, meaning a second self). Altar, meaning an elevated place or structure before which religious ceremonies may be enacted or on which sacrifices may be offered, is always a noun. The words are homophones, but their origins are different; alter comes from a Latin word meaning other, and altar comes from the Latin altāria."

:.. I know how to spell it, I just... phonics worked for me. Man, I did it several times and didn't notice. My dad was bemused by my younger self writing things misspelled yet perfectly understandable if you say it out loud. I still sometimes type and catch myself writing "anchient".

Edited January 20, 2024 by Pyreaux

[Stargazer]

39 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

:.. I know how to spell it, I just... phonics worked for me. Man, I did it several times and didn't notice. My dad was bemused by my younger self writing things misspelled yet perfectly understandable if you say it out loud. I still sometimes type and catch myself writing "anchient".

I'm constantly typing out Josepth when I want to type Joseph. No idea why.

[InCognitus]

11 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

My dad was bemused by my younger self writing things misspelled yet perfectly understandable if you say it out loud.

This reminds me of a poem titled, "An Owed to the Spelling Checker", by Jerrold H. Zar.  I won't quote the entire poem, but the first part goes like this:

I have a spelling checker.
It came with my PC.
It plane lee marks four my revue
Miss steaks aye can knot sea.

Eye ran this poem threw it,
Your sure reel glad two no.
Its vary polished in it's weigh,
My checker tolled me sew.

[Leaf474]

21 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

I think most LDS academics try not to use ongoing revelation as the answer to Biblical issues whenever possible. Without new revelation, the Bible has its own internal web of inconsistency that allows for interpretations that aren't traditional. I think we'd say the law isn't exactly being ignored here, there just are other legit ways to go before the Lord when one is away from Jerusalem. The Lord appeared before Abraham at his altar under a great tree of Mamre and the Lord appeared at the Pillar Temple Jacob built that he called Bethel (the "House of God", though Deuteronomy forbids altars by a tree or pillar, and though the Temple's Menorah is a tree, and the Temple Pillars were trees).

Lehi built an altar in the Valley of Lemuel and they eventually build a temple as soon as they were able. Even after the Jerusalem Temple was built, there were many other legit Israelite sanctuaries to appear before the Lord at. David dedicated the sword of Goliath to God at the large Temple at Nob (staffed with 85 priests; 1 Sam 21:10; 22:10). Even after Josiah's Temple Reform, other countries still had functioning Temples where Josiah's reform couldn't reach. Such as Elephantine Island, in Egypt, was the Israelite Temple of ancient Yeb.

There were many Israelite factions that didn't agree with the "Deuteronomic" Levitical scribes that tried to consolidate worship into Jerusalem by destroying other temples, and with this modern academia at hand, Lehi might be one of those. Soon after the reform, Josiah is killed in battle, Lehi left, then Jerusalem's temple was razed to the ground (first time obedience to Deuteronomic Law didn't protect them) and all the Books of the Law were destroyed, the books were only rewritten from memory 75 years later by the same punished establishment who had a lot of opportunity to corrupt/fix the Law of Moses just as the establishment did during Jeremiah's time ("the lying pen of the scribes has made it (the Law) into a lie." (Jeremiah 8:8). The books are credited to Ezra, who reformed the Levitical Priesthood that had impure temple practices, Ezra imposing mass divorces were unnecessary and wrong (Malachi 2:16) creating the schism with Sameria. 

Also: I've heard an interesting interpretation that Lehi's dream was about forsaking the Temple of Jerusalem (The Great and Spacious Building doomed to fall) and instead go into the wilderness and worship at an arboreal shrine (The Tree of Life the proud people mocked). I can see that.

It sounds like another possible way of looking at it is that "...the Bible has its own internal web of inconsistency..."

 

Thanks for your input ❤️

[Benjamin McGuire]

On 1/20/2024 at 10:36 AM, Pyreaux said:

Lehi built an altar in the Valley of Lemuel and they eventually build a temple as soon as they were able. Even after the Jerusalem Temple was built, there were many other legit Israelite sanctuaries to appear before the Lord at. David dedicated the sword of Goliath to God at the large Temple at Nob (staffed with 85 priests; 1 Sam 21:10; 22:10). Even after Josiah's Temple Reform, other countries still had functioning Temples where Josiah's reform couldn't reach. Such as Elephantine Island, in Egypt, was the Israelite Temple of ancient Yeb.

I figured, that I probably ought to make a comment here.

This seems more than a little incoherent to me.

1: There wasn't any Israel at the time of Lehi - so we can't really speak of 'Israelite sanctuaries' where the Israelites could appear before the Lord. This is a technicality, but its an important one when we are talking about the chronology - both of the text and of the way they are observed. It is important to note, for example, that between the first and second temple, there is none of this going on. After the second temple, this doesn't happen either - and the post-second temple practice leads to modern observances, which don't include three annual pilgrimages to Jerusalem (for the men). The chronology is also important because you mention the temple of Nob. There is no temple in Jerusalem at the time that David goes to Nob to retrieve (not dedicate) the sword of Goliath which was being kept there. Of course, there is a strong political element going on here. At this point in time the center of the religious observances in the unified kingdom was in Shiloh, and Nob was a non-state sanctioned site for worship (the size of the place is irrelevant). And it is the political aspects of this event that provided Saul with the motivations for wiping the place out shortly after David gets the sword. So it's problematic to use these kinds of examples - particularly when you invoke Josiah's reform (which happens after the unified kingdom is split, after the 'lost tribes' are lost, and after the kingdom of Judah is reduced to a relatively small state under the control of the two super-powers that it becomes a buffer between. It is at least partly this sort of event and context that Josiah is using his reform to eliminate. It is also a part of Josian reform to try and stamp out blended religion (the Asherah groves and other mixed use sites that we see).

2: Elephantine doesn't make for a good example for a number of other reasons. Why? First, it is constructed after the destruction of the first Jerusalem temple. And it is built by a mixed community of Palestinian refugees (which included both Jews and Samaritans). Just as interesting, when the local Egyptians trashed the place in the 400s, they population in Egypt sent a request for assistance in rebuilding their temple - the requests went to Samaria and to Jerusalem (as well as to other places). Johanan (the high priest in Jerusalem) agreed, and support was given to rebuild the temple. So we have some sense that at this time the rules that we are talking about either weren't interpreted the way that this thread suggested in the OP, or they simple weren't being strictly enforced (in a way consistent with the OP). The issue though should be clear when we look at the chronology. Josiah's reform occurs before the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem, which occurs before the building of the temple in Elephantine. And all of this suggests that it isn't about whether or not Josiah's reform could reach Elephantine that matters. I note in passing that the time frame is also important because the Jews who traveled to Elephantine would have done so only during periods of Assyrian or Babylonian oppression. And it should be noted that the temple site for the Jews was not limited to YHWH worship. Right next to the altars to YHWH that were there was a temple to the Egyptian deity Khnum. When the Egyptian temple was eventually expanded (around 350 BCE), it simply took over the space used by the Palestinian groups. Evidence also suggests that in the Jewish/Samaritan temple along with YHWH, they also worshiped other divinities - perhaps this was a polytheistic community - of the sort that Josiah was trying to get rid of.

3: The building of the altar and the emphasis on this in the Book of Mormon narrative is made problematic because of its literary nature. Nephi is doing his best in the Book of Mormon to recast Lehi as a Moses figure, and the journey from Jerusalem into the wilderness as a parallel to Moses leading Israel out of Egypt. To that extent, the text really wants us to understand that one of the most important features of the altar that Lehi builds in the valley of Lemuel is the three day journey into the wilderness that occurs before it is built. Exodus 3:18 helps us understand why this is important (in a literary context): "thou and the elders of Israel, unto the king of Egypt, and ye shall say unto him, The Lord God of the Hebrews hath met with us: and now let us go, we beseech thee, three days’ journey into the wilderness, that we may sacrifice to the Lord our God." And then later, Moses and the Israelites are allowed to make this three day journey into the wilderness to offer sacrifices. The deliberateness of the textual connections and the deliberate way in which the departure from Jerusalem is described isn't meant to be read as a way of playing nicely with Josiah's rules for the temple, or the Exodus 34 requirements. It is a rejection of the authority of the temple at Jerusalem. It is a statement that they cannot offer sacrifices at the temple in Jerusalem and still meet the requirements of the commandment.

4: It is important to understand that it is unlikely that the offerings at the altar in the Valley of Lemuel have anything to do with the commandments in Exodus 34. While the commandment is about the men appearing at the temple three times a year, earlier the specifics of these appearances are spelled out. They are for three specific feasts - Passover, the Feast of Firstfruits, and the Feast of Booths. This is the Exodus version. In Deuteronomy there is a different trio of feasts with a complication - Weeks, Firstfruits and Booths. The challenge in Deuteronomy is that the text says that the passover lamb had to be ritually slaughtered at the temple in Jerusalem (this would be a change made during the Josian reform). This is in Deuteronomy 16. Deuteronomy 16 doesn't play a significant role in the Book of Mormon (unlike Deuteronomy 17 and 18 which are referenced a lot). I had something to say about this years ago when I published my article on Nephi and Goliath. In any case, we really don't see any sort of emphasis at all in the Book of Mormon on this idea of a necessary pilgrimage to the temple until we get to King Benjamin's sermon at the temple (which ostensibly fits a description of the feast of booths). Even when the Nephites build a temple, there isn't any sort of reference to Exodus 34 or similar texts that would suggest that it's purpose was in part a way to fulfill that commandment. And this tells me that trying to forge a connection between the two is problematic at best - we have this concern over it, those in the Book of Mormon simply don't.

On 1/20/2024 at 10:36 AM, Pyreaux said:

There were many Israelite factions that didn't agree with the "Deuteronomic" Levitical scribes that tried to consolidate worship into Jerusalem by destroying other temples, and with this modern academia at hand, Lehi might be one of those.

But, in the links I provided initially, you will see that there is the other side to this opinion. Bill Hamblin argued that:

Quote

I believe that Josiah’s reforms were necessary and inspired. The first thing to note is that no biblical prophet ever opposed or criticized Josiah’s reforms. No biblical prophet ever endorsed the worship of the goddess Asherah. No biblical prophet ever endorsed the worship of any god other than Yhwh. No biblical prophet ever endorsed the worship of idols. Now, one could in theory argue this is because the Deuteronomists decided which books to include in the Bible and consciously suppressed alternative viewpoints from non-Deuteronomistic prophets. But the fact remains that in the surviving texts, all the prophets agree with at least these three basics of Josiah’s reforms: (1) Israel should worship only Yhwh; Israel must not worship foreign gods; (2) Israel must not worship idols (or worship Yhwh as an idol), or follow other Canaanite cultic practices; and, to the extent they discuss it, (3) Israel must worship only in the Jerusalem temple.

I don't really have a stake in the debate (which is perhaps why Interpreter asked me to write that introduction - I have a long history and a lot of respect for both Hamblin and Christensen). This merely illustrates the underlying problem - it is difficult to really assess what happened historically when the things that we do have all require a great deal of interpretation and narrative building to bring them together into a coherent discussion. Is Lehi's departure connected (at least in part) to an apostasy supported by Josiah? Or is it, as Hamblin suggests, and Lehi represents the failure of the Josian reform to really take hold among the people (and you see how we might put up the temple at Elephantine as an example of this failure)? I will note one thing in all of this - the Book of Mormon has relatively little to say about Josiah's reform. It is far more worried about leadership issues and kings.

On 1/20/2024 at 10:36 AM, Pyreaux said:

all the Books of the Law were destroyed, the books were only rewritten from memory 75 years later by the same punished establishment who had a lot of opportunity to corrupt/fix the Law of Moses just as the establishment did during Jeremiah's time ("the lying pen of the scribes has made it (the Law) into a lie." (Jeremiah 8:8). The books are credited to Ezra, who reformed the Levitical Priesthood that had impure temple practices, Ezra imposing mass divorces were unnecessary and wrong (Malachi 2:16) creating the schism with Sameria. 

I have no idea where all of this comes from, but it is mostly inaccurate. We can argue over your sources if you want. I would recommend you start with Fried's 2014 Ezra and the Law (especially Chapter 9).

One thing that I think is really important. We ought to be open about why we are having these discussions. The OP discusses an issue that comes across as a claim for a potential anachronism (of some sort) in the text of the Book of Mormon. But the idea isn't very well spelled out, and it is consistent with a very cursory sort of overview of biblical theology - something that is very different from our (recognizably limited) understanding of the historical reality. In this question, we want to discuss what Lehi's relationship to the temple was precisely because of the altar that Lehi builds in the wilderness and the problems that this has with a more Hamblinesque approach to Josiah's reform. In the long run, it isn't an issue outside of that very narrow context - because of the historical chronology that we do have some understanding of. Depending on when Lehi actually leaves Jerusalem (estimates for LDS range between 588 and 605 BCE - depending on which feature of the text you want to emphasize), there is only a small window of opportunity for there to be longer term considerations (after all, the temple is gone by 586 BCE) - perhaps it has been leveled even before Lehi's group have even gotten on the boat. And, as I note, the Book of Mormon takes a literary approach to this issue of this sacrifice in the wilderness - its inclusion in the text and what is said about it is entirely dependent on a specific Old Testament narrative about Moses and the Israelites exodus from Egypt. For us to try and force that narrative into a different discussion (as if it represents the entire and complete view of the Nephites on the question of temple worship) is trying to force the text to tell us things that the text clearly doesn't contain. Deep readings of the text only take us further from the question about the application of Exodus 34 to Lehi's altar, not towards some sort of resolution. When we try to create an apologetic to answer that concern, we will always end up going in the wrong direction - because the question itself isn't addressed in the text. We create the question by interpreting the biblical text and the historical record in a certain way, and by interpreting the Book of Mormon in a certain way - and from my perspective, all of those interpretations seem to be highly problematic. And if the interpretations are wrong, then both the criticism based on them and the apologetic response to that criticism have no real place in building an appropriate understanding.

Edited January 22, 2024 by Benjamin McGuire

[JAHS]

On 1/17/2024 at 1:29 PM, Leaf474 said:

This has been on my mind lately, so I figure I might as well just ask about it 🙂

 

In Exodus 34, the Israelites are told

"Three times in the year all your males shall appear before the Lord God, the God of Israel. 24 For I will drive out nations before you and enlarge your borders; neither shall any man desire your land when you go up to appear before the Lord, your God, three times in the year."

 

In the beginning part of The Book of Mormon, Lehi and his family are told to leave Jerusalem and eventually travel to America.

 

This is while the Temple is still standing, the instruction to appear before the Lord would still be in place. What's going on? What is the Saints' view?

Someone may have mentioned this already but maybe they did but it was just not recorded in the gold plates. Or it could have been in the original records but Mormon chose not to include that information.

[teddyaware]

On 1/17/2024 at 4:29 PM, Leaf474 said:

This has been on my mind lately, so I figure I might as well just ask about it 🙂

 

In Exodus 34, the Israelites are told

"Three times in the year all your males shall appear before the Lord God, the God of Israel. 24 For I will drive out nations before you and enlarge your borders; neither shall any man desire your land when you go up to appear before the Lord, your God, three times in the year."

 

In the beginning part of The Book of Mormon, Lehi and his family are told to leave Jerusalem and eventually travel to America.

 

This is while the Temple is still standing, the instruction to appear before the Lord would still be in place. What's going on? What is the Saints' view?

I guess you missed the part where the prophets of that time were warning the people that Jerusalem was about to be invaded and conquered by Babylon, and that temple was going to be utterly destroyed? I’d say it would be ill advised to linger in an city that was very soon going to be laid waste because the population had so ripened in iniquity that they were killing the prophets whom God had sent to warn them of the impending calamity. How  does one present himself before the Lord in a temple that no longer exists?

[Leaf474]

7 hours ago, JAHS said:

Someone may have mentioned this already but maybe they did but it was just not recorded in the gold plates. Or it could have been in the original records but Mormon chose not to include that information.

It's an interesting idea. Thank you for your input ❤️

[Leaf474]

2 hours ago, teddyaware said:

I guess you missed the part where the prophets of that time were warning the people that Jerusalem was about to be invaded and conquered by Babylon, and that temple was going to be utterly destroyed?

No, that was prophesied beforehand.

 

And the people were told to serve the king of Babylon.

 

For example,

Jeremiah 27:12

I spoke to Zedekiah king of Judah according to all these words, saying, “Bring your necks under the yoke of the king of Babylon, and serve him and his people, and live.

 

2 hours ago, teddyaware said:

I’d say it would be ill advised to linger in an city that was very soon going to be laid waste because the population had so ripened in iniquity that they were killing the prophets whom God had sent to warn them of the impending calamity.

Daniel was a righteous man, he stayed and was carried away to Babylon.

 

2 hours ago, teddyaware said:

How  does one present himself before the Lord in a temple that no longer exists?

I think that's kind of the point of the exile: a person can't keep the law of Moses that was in place until Christ fulfilled it without the Temple. For 70 years, as prophesied, they had to be up to their necks in idolatry. After a remnant returns from the exile, idolatry is never listed as a problem in Israel again.

 

Psalm 137 - By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down.

    Yes, we wept, when we remembered Zion.

2 On the willows in that land,

    we hung up our harps.

3 For there, those who led us captive asked us for songs.

    Those who tormented us demanded songs of joy:

    “Sing us one of the songs of Zion!”

4 How can we sing the Lord’s song in a foreign land?

5 If I forget you, Jerusalem,

    let my right hand forget its skill.

6 Let my tongue stick to the roof of my mouth if I don’t remember you,

    if I don’t prefer Jerusalem above my chief joy.

[Leaf474]

I came across this YouTube short in a few days ago. I woke up this morning with a strong feeling that I should post it here. So here goes...

https://youtube.com/shorts/MkSA1EQOPBc

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, Leaf474 said:

I came across this YouTube short in a few days ago. I woke up this morning with a strong feeling that I should post it here. So here goes...

https://youtube.com/shorts/MkSA1EQOPBc

And how do you feel about that?  Does it trouble you or bring you joy (it does me) or something else?

[Leaf474]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

And how do you feel about that?  Does it trouble you or bring you joy (it does me) or something else?

It brings me some amount of joy, because now I feel like I understand my Latter-Day Saint friends better ❤️

 

That the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints isn't based on any particular scriptures was something I've thought for a while. But my attempts to articulate it were rebuffed.

 

Two of my friends reacted positively morning. And I take your response to be positive, so that makes three 👍

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Leaf474 said:

That the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints isn't based on any particular scriptures was something I've thought for a while. But my attempts to articulate it were rebuffed.

 

We use scripture to inform and to teach, but living prophets AND the Spirit tell us what parts are important to us as a community or as individuals.

You will likely get many Saints who do not see it that way, especially given the way we study scripture and are supposed to be reading it daily, etc.  But that explains to me why there is not seen a need to deep dive it for the meaning it held to those who wrote or compiled it, but mostly discuss how it affects us in the here and now.

Hopefully they do see the Spirit is needed to confirm the truth of scripture rather than scripture stands alone without need to be tested.

Yes, we are Bible based in the sense we are doing what they were meant to do in the Bible…listen to our living prophets and the Spirit.

There are those Saints who say if any teaching is not confirmed by scripture it is false, but if that were true, we could never receive new revelation, it would just be repeating old revelation.

There are those Saints who say new revelation can never contradict scripture.  My issue with that is what interpretation can’t be contradicted?  How do we identify the right interpretation?  And once we do, we are no longer talking about scripture, but the interpretation we have provided for scripture.

And how do we know the ancient Saints who wrote the scriptures down (assumption that they were Saints is a big one imo) and passed them along the way to the form we have now even understood correctly what the Spirit or God told them?  Or be sure nothing not inspired got included in because someone liked a story for propaganda purposes or even because they felt like it made their family look better than another one?  Or they just liked the story and thought it should be well known?

Edited October 5, 2024 by Calm

[Anonymous Mormon]

On 1/18/2024 at 6:30 AM, Benjamin McGuire said:

Finally, (and this goes to the language of the text), it takes very little to read the text as having Israel see God instead of just presenting themselves to God. This was certainly a part of the original narratives in that once they sin, they can no longer be in God's presence but required intermediaries. After Lehi leaves Jerusalem, he has his vision in which he sees God. In describing this, Nephi invokes Numbers 12. And this is in the parts of Numbers that tend to focus on this part of the Book of Exodus. And for me, this also suggests that Nephi/Lehi may have had a different interpretation of the Exodus text than we generally follow today (assuming that they even had it).

@Benjamin McGuire - Can you please either expound on this or provide the best resource for me to learn more about this. This in particular piqued my interest.

[Leaf474]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

We use scripture to inform and to teach, but living prophets AND the Spirit tell us what parts are important to us as a community or as individuals.

You will likely get many Saints who do not see it that way, especially given the way we study scripture and are supposed to be reading it daily, etc.  But that explains to me why there is not seen a need to deep dive it for the meaning it held to those who wrote or compiled it, but mostly discuss how it affects us in the here and now.

Hopefully they do see the Spirit is needed to confirm the truth of scripture rather than scripture stands alone without need to be tested.

Yes, we are Bible based in the sense we are doing what they were meant to do in the Bible…listen to our living prophets and the Spirit.

There are those Saints who say if any teaching is not confirmed by scripture it is false, but if that were true, we could never receive new revelation, it would just be repeating old revelation.

There are those Saints who say new revelation can never contradict scripture.  My issue with that is what interpretation can’t be contradicted?  How do we identify the right interpretation?  And once we do, we are no longer talking about scripture, but the interpretation we have provided for scripture.

And how do we know the ancient Saints who wrote the scriptures down (assumption that they were Saints is a big one imo) and passed them along the way to the form we have now even understood correctly what the Spirit or God told them?  Or that something not inspired got included in because someone liked a story for propaganda purposes or even because they felt like it made their family look better than another one?

Thanks for the information ❤️

[ZealouslyStriving]

We are taught that mountains can serve as Houses of the Lord when an actual edifice is unavailable. 

[Leaf474]

10 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

We are taught that mountains can serve as Houses of the Lord when an actual edifice is unavailable. 

Interesting ❤️ that would go along with believing in living Prophets, I think

[Dario_M]

You can interpret that in differend ways i guess. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

On 1/20/2024 at 11:13 AM, Stargazer said:

it's "atlars"

Pardon, but what is an “atlar”?

[Calm]

3 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Pardon, but what is an “atlar”?

A horse.

https://www.seslisozluk.net/en/what-is-the-meaning-of-atlar/