Lehi and appearing before the Lord three times a year

[Stargazer]

On 10/5/2024 at 5:47 PM, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Pardon, but what is an “atlar”?

Pardon me, I'm rolling on the floor, laughing, at this time!

I thought everyone knew what an "atlar" was! 🤣

I can type at 60 wpm, and of course the occasional fat-finger occurs. Embarrassing, nevertheless. I usually catch it, but obviously not often enough. 

Thanks for making me laugh!

[teddyaware]

On 1/22/2024 at 5:35 PM, Leaf474 said:

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.

 

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

 

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.

It appears what you’re asserting is that the Lord wouldn’t command any of his people to flee Jerusalem as long as the prophesied to destruction Jerusalem temple was still standing, and that after the temple’s destruction the only justifiable course of action for any of the inhabitants of the Holy Land was to either passively allow themselves to be slain or carried away into Babylon to endure a well deserved servitude.

The Book of Mormon’s Parable of the Olive Tree, as well as many other passages in the Book of Mormon that testify to the fact that the Lord commanded certain parties of his faithful followers to flee Jerusalem prior to it’s most assured destruction, clearly attest to the fact that your notion is a faulty one. Perhaps you’re correct in the belief that the wicked inhabitants of Jerusalem, who had ripened in iniquity, were divinely consigned to pay the penance of their rebellion as slaves in Babylon, but why would Jerusalem’s righteous inhabitants, like the righteous Lehi and and Nephi, who were faithful followers of the Messiah, necessarily be condemned to suffer the same fate as those who had utterly ripened in iniquity?

Why wouldn’t the Lord be justified in making it possible for some of his righteous and faithful followers in Jerusalem to not have to suffer the same fate as those who were in a state of utter rebellion against their God? In fact, the Book of Mormon does testify that many of the righteous inhabitants of the Holy Land didn’t have to suffer the same fate as the wicked who were condemned to either death or servitude. The Lord’s judgements of condemnation to which you refer were on the unrepentant wicked, not necessarily upon the repentant righteous.

 

 

Edited October 7, 2024 by teddyaware

[Leaf474]

3 hours ago, teddyaware said:

It appears what you’re asserting is that the Lord wouldn’t command any of his people to flee Jerusalem as long as the prophesied to destruction Jerusalem temple was still standing, and that after the temple’s destruction the only justifiable course of action for any of the inhabitants of the Holy Land was to either passively allow themselves to be slain or carried away into Babylon to endure a well deserved servitude.

As I read it, it's not really related to the destruction of the temple, but to the time that the people of Judah are told to serve the king of Babylon 

Jeremiah 27:9

But as for you, don’t listen to your prophets, to your diviners, to your dreams, to your soothsayers, or to your sorcerers, who speak to you, saying, “You shall not serve the king of Babylon"

 

After the 70 years are up, Persia conquers Babylon and those Jewish people who want to are allowed to return 

Daniel 9:2

in the first year of his reign I, Daniel, understood by the books the number of the years about which the Lord’s word came to Jeremiah the prophet, for the accomplishing of the desolations of Jerusalem, namely seventy years

 

2 Chronicles 36:22 Now in the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, that the Lord’s word by the mouth of Jeremiah might be accomplished, the Lord stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia, so that he made a proclamation throughout all his kingdom, and put it also in writing, saying, 23 “Cyrus king of Persia says, ‘The Lord, the God of heaven, has given all the kingdoms of the earth to me; and he has commanded me to build him a house in Jerusalem, which is in Judah. Whoever there is among you of all his people, the Lord his God be with him, and let him go up.’”

 

But you are correct that sometimes God provides a way out 

Genesis 18:23 Abraham came near, and said, “Will you consume the righteous with the wicked? 24 What if there are fifty righteous within the city? Will you consume and not spare the place for the fifty righteous who are in it? 25 May it be far from you to do things like that, to kill the righteous with the wicked, so that the righteous should be like the wicked. May that be far from you. Shouldn’t the Judge of all the earth do right?”

 

3 hours ago, teddyaware said:

The Book of Mormon’s Parable of the Olive Tree, as well as many other passages in the Book of Mormon that testify to the fact that the Lord commanded certain parties of his faithful followers to flee Jerusalem prior to it’s most assured destruction, clearly attest to the fact that your notion is a faulty one. Perhaps you’re correct in the belief that the wicked inhabitants of Jerusalem, who had ripened in iniquity, were divinely consigned to pay the penance of their rebellion as slaves in Babylon, but why would Jerusalem’s righteous inhabitants, like the righteous Lehi and and Nephi, who were faithful followers of the Messiah, necessarily be condemned to suffer the same fate as those who had utterly ripened in iniquity?

Why wouldn’t the Lord be justified in making it possible for some of his righteous and faithful followers in Jerusalem to not have to suffer the same fate as those who were in a state of utter rebellion against their God? In fact, the Book of Mormon does testify that many of the righteous inhabitants of the Holy Land didn’t have to suffer the same fate as the wicked who were condemned to either death or servitude. The Lord’s judgements of condemnation to which you refer were on the unrepentant wicked, not necessarily upon the repentant righteous.

Sounds great, if the Book of Mormon is true!

[Leaf474]

Big picture, it looks to me like it shouldn't really matter what recorded prophecies or instructions from God we have in the Bible. The key would be what do the Living Prophets say. At least from the Saints point of view ❤️ 

 

This thread had been dead for about 8 months, and that was fine with me. 

 

But then I felt led to post that video back on Friday (it's about 1 minute long, but if someone wants the full version, I can put the link to that)

 

Given what the guy in the video says, does it make sense to dispute the finer points of the law, or any scripture message, for that matter? 

 

Ecclesiastes 12 Furthermore, my son, be admonished: of making many books there is no end; and much study is a weariness of the flesh. The conclusion, when everything has been heard is: Fear God and keep his commandments; for this is the whole duty of man.

[GoCeltics]

4 hours ago, teddyaware said:

The Book of Mormon’s Parable of the Olive Tree, as well as many other passages in the Book of Mormon that testify to the fact that the Lord commanded certain parties of his faithful followers to flee Jerusalem prior to it’s most assured destruction

What groups that fled Jerusalem are identified in the parable you mention?

[teddyaware]

7 hours ago, GoCeltics said:

What groups that fled Jerusalem are identified in the parable you mention?

The Book of Mormon leaves the identities those other righteous exiles from the Holy Land unidentified, with the exception of the people of Zarahemla who first arrived in ancient America under the leadership of a man named Mulek, who was one of the sons of king Zedekiah. But the Book of Mormon does give a sure prophetic promise that the identities of the other righteous groups who were commanded to leave the Holy Land and resettle elsewhere will be revealed in the Lord’s own due time.

What follows is a portion of the Book of Mormon that speaks of the people of Zarahemla, who were the descendants Mulek, and the others who traveled with Mulek to the ancient American promised land…

12 Behold, I am Amaleki, the son of Abinadom. Behold, I will speak unto you somewhat concerning Mosiah, who was made king over the land of Zarahemla; for behold, he being warned of the Lord that he should flee out of the land of Nephi, and as many as would hearken unto the voice of the Lord should also depart out of the land with him, into the wilderness—

13 And it came to pass that he did according as the Lord had commanded him. And they departed out of the land into the wilderness, as many as would hearken unto the voice of the Lord; and they were led by many preachings and prophesyings. And they were admonished continually by the word of God; and they were led by the power of his arm, through the wilderness until they came down into the land which is called the land of Zarahemla.

14 And they discovered a people, who were called the people of Zarahemla. Now, there was great rejoicing among the people of Zarahemla; and also Zarahemla did rejoice exceedingly, because the Lord had sent the people of Mosiah with the plates of brass which contained the record of the Jews.

15 Behold, it came to pass that Mosiah discovered that the people of Zarahemla came out from Jerusalem at the time that Zedekiah, king of Judah, was carried away captive into Babylon.

16 And they journeyed in the wilderness, and were brought by the hand of the Lord across the great waters, into the land where Mosiah discovered them; and they had dwelt there from that time forth. (Omni 1)

Edited October 7, 2024 by teddyaware

[GoCeltics]

18 hours ago, teddyaware said:

The Book of Mormon leaves the identities those other righteous exiles from the Holy Land unidentified, with the exception of the people of Zarahemla who first arrived in ancient America under the leadership of a man named Mulek, who was one of the sons of king Zedekiah. But the Book of Mormon does give a sure prophetic promise that the identities of the other righteous groups who were commanded to leave the Holy Land and resettle elsewhere will be revealed in the Lord’s own due time.

What follows is a portion of the Book of Mormon that speaks of the people of Zarahemla, who were the descendants Mulek, and the others who traveled with Mulek to the ancient American promised land…

How does this relate to the parable of the olive tree in the Book of Mormon that you referenced earlier?

[teddyaware]

5 hours ago, GoCeltics said:

How does this relate to the parable of the olive tree in the Book of Mormon that you referenced earlier?

The people of Zarahemla (aka the Mulekites) are a specifically identified group, among other as yet unidentified groups of exiles, who escaped from the Holy Land immediately prior to its overthrow by the Babylonians. And since the Mulekites fled doomed Jerusalem to find refuge in a distant land, they perfectly fit the description of one of the several transplanted groups of exiles from the house of Israel spoken of in the Parable of the Olive Tree.

Edited October 8, 2024 by teddyaware

[GoCeltics]

21 hours ago, teddyaware said:

The people of Zarahemla (aka the Mulekites) are a specifically identified group, among other as yet unidentified groups of exiles, who escaped from the Holy Land immediately prior to its overthrow by the Babylonians. And since the Mulekites fled doomed Jerusalem to find refuge in a distant land, they perfectly fit the description of one of the several transplanted groups of exiles from the house of Israel spoken of in the Parable of the Olive Tree.

What verses are you referring to?

[Benjamin McGuire]

On 10/4/2024 at 6:35 PM, Anonymous Mormon said:

On 1/18/2024 at 8:30 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.

@Anonymous Mormon I have not been around much - and I spent the entire month of October traveling, so I am just seeing this (this is my apology for responding to an old thread).

Numbers 12:6 is central to the first few chapters of First Nephi. The verse (in the KJV) reads:

Quote

And he said, Hear now my words: If there be a prophet among you, I the Lord will make myself known unto him in a vision, and will speak unto him in a dream.

It is effectively quoted in 1 Nephi 2:1. This is the core of the identification -

Quote

For behold, it came to pass that the Lord spake unto my father, yea, even in a dream, and said unto him: ...

The first part of Number 12:6 can easily be found in 1 Nephi 1 - especially verse 8 which reads:

Quote

And being thus overcome with the Spirit, he was carried away in a vision, even that he saw the heavens open, and he thought he saw God sitting upon his throne, ...

This doesn't have the same strength of verbal contact (which isn't to say that verbal overlap is the best indicator), but if we recognize the use of Numbers 12:6 as significant (especially in light of the verbal overlap in 1 Nephi 2:1) then it is easy to read it here. These are just what I would label as the markers of the allusion. The real argument plays out in the topic of the narrative which is to identify first Lehi and then Nephi as belonging to the prophetic tradition. So Nephi (or the author of the text) is using this language to establish the proposition laid out in Numbers 12:6 - "If there be a prophet among you." By using this language from Numbers 12 to describe what Lehi experiences, we are being asked to read this narrative as evidence that Lehi is a prophet. The argument is further developed - especially in Jacob - that Lehi and Nephi were prophets like Moses (using a different set of texts).

I have a lot more in my personal notes on this issue, but this is the beginning of identifying the intertext and the exploration of its significance as part of the rhetorical strategy of the text.

When I discuss this in the narrative context of the two texts referencing the Exodus from Egypt, there is more there that lends to this identification. The first five verses of Numbers 12 tell us:

Quote

And Miriam and Aaron spake against Moses because of the Ethiopian woman whom he had married: for he had married an Ethiopian woman. And they said, Hath the Lord indeed spoken only by Moses? hath he not spoken also by us? And the Lord heard it. (Now the man Moses was very meek, above all the men which were upon the face of the earth.) And the Lord spake suddenly unto Moses, and unto Aaron, and unto Miriam, Come out ye three unto the tabernacle of the congregation. And they three came out. And the Lord came down in the pillar of the cloud, and stood in the door of the tabernacle, and called Aaron and Miriam: and they both came forth.

This is one of those incidents that occurs in the Exodus narrative. Miriam and Aaron have this sort of mini-revolt against Moses - challenging his authority over this issue of Moses taking a non-Israelite wife. The follow through in the rest of the chapter in Numbers shows the anger of God coming against Aaron and Miriam. After the Book of Mormon narrative transitions between Lehi as prophetic leader and Nephi as prophetic leader (this occurs at 1 Nephi 16:20 when we get "and also my father began to murmur against the Lord his God") - we have a very similar scene play out when Nephi prepares to build the ship. The brothers challenge him, and (among other things) we read in 1 Nephi 17:18: "And thus my brethren did complain against me, and were desirous that they might not labor, for they did not believe that I could build a ship; neither would they believe that I was instructed of the Lord." Nephi responds by invoking the Exodus narratives (1 Nephi 17:23 ff.) and then he begins drawing a more direct comparison - in verse 42: "And they did harden their hearts from time to time, and they did revile against Moses, and also against God; nevertheless, ye know that they were led forth by his matchless power into the land of promise." Finally, to drive the point home, we get this in verse 53:

Quote

And it came to pass that the Lord said unto me: Stretch forth thine hand again unto thy brethren, and they shall not wither before thee, but I will shock them, saith the Lord, and this will I do, that they may know that I am the Lord their God.

It seems likely that we have a dialogue going on here between the two texts at the same time that we have distinct narratives - that in the context of the the events in Numbers 12 (and see also 1 Kings 13) that there is an expectation of what could happen. And so the text here in verse 53 answers that concern and moves in a similar but different direction.

The general gist of this is that 1 and 2 Nephi tend to make more of Number 12 in identifying the calling of a prophet, the rest of the Book of Mormon texts tend to focus more on Deuteronomy 18. These kinds of distinctions help us understand how the text relates to issues like the question about Exodus 34 in the OP.

I hope this was helpful.

Now, as a final thought and in reference to the video that @Leaf474 linked, I would also point to Numbers 11 (with it's proximity to the discussion above). Moses has called out 70 of the elders of Israel to help him lead the people. Two of the men who were called out don't follow Moses, and don't go through all of the steps that the others did - and yet (vss 26-28):

Quote

But there remained two of the men in the camp, the name of the one was Eldad, and the name of the other Medad: and the spirit rested upon them; and they were of them that were written, but went not out unto the tabernacle: and they prophesied in the camp. And there ran a young man, and told Moses, and said, Eldad and Medad do prophesy in the camp. And Joshua the son of Nun, the servant of Moses, one of his young men, answered and said, My lord Moses, forbid them.

And Moses's response is fitting - especially in the context of Lehi and Nephi and the beginning of the Book of Mormon:

Quote

And Moses said unto him, Enviest thou for my sake? would God that all the Lord’s people were prophets, and that the Lord would put his spirit upon them!'

Jacob in the Book of Mormon discusses the issue of how we should prioritize different prophetic traditions. But, I believe that Mormonism teaches that the most important revelation is the revelation that we receive individually.

[Dario_M]

On 1/17/2024 at 10:29 PM, Leaf474 said:

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

 

 

At that time only Indians lived in America. For the rest there was nothing.