IN GOD'S IMAGE AND LIKENESS | CREATION, FALL, AND THE STORY OF ADAM AND EVE JEFFREY M. BRADSHAW This is not just a book for Mormons. Dr. Bradshaw draws on a wide range of material from many cultures and eras: Jewish, Christian and Muslim. He shows how to read and understand the stories of a prephilosophical culture, and reveals them as sophisticated insights into the human condition. He takes as his starting point the Genesis material in Mormon tradition, and then sets it in a wider context than many would have thought possible, exploring the human and spiritual state of humanity, the nature of our knowledge about the Creation, the nature of revelation itself. He has wise words on the creationism debate. This remarkable book makes an important contribution to understanding not only the material in Genesis, but also the way in which that heritage has been shared among all the Peoples of the Book. Margaret Barker, former President of the Society for Old Testament Study; Methodist local preacher; prolific author of studies recon- structing the background of the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament Attempting to match the cosmic scope of the vision of Moses, this wide-ranging and comprehensive commentary brings to the text of the book of Moses a stimulating collection of scholarship from many disciplines and a wealth of stunning artistic and literary images. The reader will find in this volume much thought-provoking discussion about the doctrines that are central to the Gospel: the Godhead, Creation, the Fall, the Atonement, and the role of the Temple and its teachings in bringing to pass “the immortality and eternal life of man.” David R. Seely, Professor of Ancient Scripture, Brigham Young University; co-author of Solomon's Temple: Myth and History and Glimpses of Lehi’s Jerusalem In this book, Jeff Bradshaw analyzes LDS scriptures from the perspective of a professional scholar and scientist. The result is a uniquely modern and honest treatment with considerable material that has not appeared before. Of particular interest to me as a scientist is the book's detailed analysis of the creation scriptures in light of modern scientific knowledge. The book is lavishly illustrated with works taken from the world’s treasury of religious art. It is highly recommended for anyone who wishes to understand this important aspect of modern Mormonism. David H. Bailey, Chief Technologist, Computational Research Department, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory; author of several articles on science and Mormonism Dr. Bradshaw has succeeded in weaving a most interesting tapestry of comment on the book of Moses, drawing upon ancient and modern sources that form a warp and weft that invite reflection. He shines a light on both bright and dim threads of this important text that, in its own way, draped the Prophet Joseph and his contemporaries. S. Kent Brown, Emeritus Professor of Ancient Scripture and Former Director of the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (FARMS), Brigham Young University; co-author of The Pearl of Great Price: A Verse-by- Verse Commentary Jeff Bradshaw's encyclopedic exploration... digs, probes, examines, reflects, speculates, and appreciates, ... making this a resource of rich and unique value for Latter-day Saints. E. Douglas Clark, International Policy Director for United Families International; author of The Blessings of Abraham Bradshaw has drawn from an extensive array of sources, both LDS and non-LDS, in crafting this new and enlightening commentary on the first part of the book of Moses. Kevin L. Barney, editor of Footnotes to the New Testament for Latter-day Saints, author of many articles on LDS scripture A must read for any serious student of the Pearl of Great Price. I was delighted by the use of fine art in the manuscript and the extensive reference work. Trent Stephens, Professor of Anatomy and Embryology, Idaho State University; co-author of Who are the Children of Lehi? DNA and the Book of Mormon and Evolution and Mormonism: A Quest for Understanding Eborn Books TempleThemes.net Cover design by Jonathan D. Bradshaw Cover image: First Parents by Jay Bryant Ward IN Gop’s IMAGE AND LIKENESS 1 CREATION, FALL, AND THE STORY OF ADAM AND EVE FRONTISPIECE. First Parents, 2005. Jay Bryant Ward, 1971- IN Gop’s IMAGE AND LIKENESS 1 CREATION, FALL, AND THE STORY OF ADAM AND EVE Jeffrey M. Bradshaw TempleThemes.Net Eborn Books 2014 © 2014 Jeffrey M. Bradshaw, http://TempleThemes.net All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form without written permission from the author, Jeffrey M. Bradshaw. The views expressed herein are the responsibility of the author and do not necessarily represent the position of Eborn Publishing, LLC. This work is not an official publication of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The views that are expressed within this work are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect the position of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or any other entity. 2014 13 12 11 10 5 4 3 2 1 Eborn Books 254 S. Main Street Salt Lake City, UT 84101 EbornBooks.com Hardbound and Leather editions printed in Hong Kong Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Bradshaw, Jeffrey M. In God’s Image and Likeness 1: Creation, Fall, and the Story of Adam and Eve / Jeffrey M. Bradshaw.—1st ed., Updated Formerly titled “In God’s Image and Likeness: Ancient and Modern Perspectives on the Book of Moses” For more information, see TempleThemes.net Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN-13: 978-1-890-71863-3 (Hardbound) ISBN-13: 978-1-890-71864-0 (Leather) ISBN-13: 978-0-9828082-0-7 (PDF) ISBN-13: 978-1-8907189-1-6 (set of 2 vols.) (Softbound) ISBN-13: 978-1-4952041-7-3 (vol. 1) (Softbound) ISBN-13: 978-1-4952047-5-3 (vol. 2) (Softbound) To my parents, Mark J. and Elma S. Bradshaw IN Gop’s IMAGE AND LIKENESS 1 CREATION, FALL, AND THE STORY OF ADAM AND EVE Table of Contents Ack inowle Ce meits: scstccasescacacacuasiceisvccagsenssasterastutandvcdsacuetievedawatiananiaacetinn xiii PISS Ce CIS acaasncicctusdvcvrcneamcsedeetmancuearaurcius memumamennnataces xvii PECEACE sscssesvassistarsiacavsnitovvancavivbncaeseiessnbarasnseten ten sausenisatosnsnsonspbnensancansveesnnests xxi soul tne 201 Dp dated Eamon ccs ccct tiers setesatactns ecco scenenicaentenats xxvi Bir ObeSoscasss0scss:i vassupnissoubesciaseedosuobvessios sesenaauenehvsssibuctas lesasngsedeassnnceaaiunees xxvii EIN PRO WDUIC TION. cseussiacceuasiusccutadavegasasaierieuavassatessuweawaldaseusasaseutanacseaioidans 1 The Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible sicsciis. css ciasinseeaiseataanis 1 A Detailed Lookat the jst Old Testanient sccascccsces acces vccstecssesie tscee tao 1 Ts Genesis aiid te Book Of MSCS cssscceresccccncesoicceacrcetcceecestecceeacor eects 8 Official Status of the King James Version and the JST.......:.sssssesserees 9 BPTI LENT SO ian eats vee tan arn ati pana elo gd arec seat cee 10 Atrangenient of the Text aid Uist ais evcucshcsccoiiereeheerestvenervecioees 12 SOLE CS UME CLA ONS “acisca achasascasscsbsto nea ns lvctyanedassh nd cnuGeas cusgpstseabdabeeuboes 13 TC TRC 0h, ANCHE TNT sores hn cece ascii ara teh en tated, 14 PPC IVOU ES seas saadi capeadiansts tant alenned duvhalclanoedsloniadnenct subectalenness Ualadbaiawionueeeadaaanenass 19 MOSES 1: THE VISION OF MOSES wis cccscssessennedacausucaseccanderdeecucasiteduecans 32 OVEE VIEW cciurinicnisacinieaceins ieee ahaireame mal onon mei ees 33 Historical Background: Alternations of Darkness and Light .............-. 33 THe SOL aH GUE 0) MOSES Sc fas cxpca tac ctat wi cessneeste tcdeattelaantinccubsielns 36 Moses Is Text dind Give mat y so tosin ete cnctt loro ie arn erornemianed 40 APART Se aa cons sancvy ate xeeavacnetasncech del aminaredeata niaene estes naa mem eianaten ales 71 BVM OUCS ss eccsasteasnsdsnsbtad snaat decssnedailvvus ds onsbudensatcasoaileons hlsnaddeeubed une sad aaa eheasnsbbates 75 MOSES 22 THE CREATION svccssssecaatinscavesssssersanscnedusdessdectnbaasseveceasienraueden 82 DVL esau acacia wrasse et nec age ce cana mena ats 83 Contributions of the Books of Moses and Abraham .......sssssssseereeeee 83 Creation as Progressive Distinction and Separation .......ssscesceree 85 THE OMeranil Here CHONt 0) HEAR be ccceccycntlupcas pea veeaceoutactedctensht 87 Wiases: 22 Text aii) (Oma ITIAE < scsnasheochenaayensand sasathcatiahacotarnaniennnsioreectos 92 le A Si reepeningordth canoe reeay inee aaceeee ae enant 119 BG OUES cansak ceva icone tag lamar dnaana nme Rietaua aa 125 MOSES 3: THE GARDEN OF EDEN sssssssssesessicsosasasedssacesserscssedsassedecsave 132 COVER VICW iisirenscisate daciassandiiraoeienctboncstscaucaiianleceiitenian nevonntapaiinhewaiantiaass 133 SORTA AVE OM cseterscesincsrnsenacsininsnies sae ewsahnideieanncinaataniosastctahaiaaeicncesiinsas 134 Tne Spiritual Creation of Mankttidd ass cccesscscssssss ton scseasseaeptatiaacsaliends 136 Te Spiritual Creation Of Een sce. ctatisccessta sus tase ae ieee nuetstaracdssseehs 139 The Garden of Eden and the Creation as Models for the Temple...... 146 Miosee-3 2 Text aiid (GS Omael aE Vs cocswrsiguaessopearaupscardvnasnaanusenanomnrene 150 A AIG ei ecieena runnin ean ae ee eens 187 PE EVE OLS eevee vec cessec cose cecueacetavieceeuaces ar eareee ses eee eaear ote 197 Viii TABLE OF CONTENTS MOSES 42 THE PAU ssspcssssecsousansuis sisusesioussirecunteussedouseseiusinansanneacatetadsieun 214 OCW ccivecss lien pcenintdeacipenicearn tad ei tinelaaten ctor eal eben teevengaueD 215 Te EV CtlaSiie COV OMAN ccsicerencisu scarp ucts alten ehecoaceeiatares ater taeaneine 216 DHE GHA COUNCHS csscsessvatansavasstuncatiraussasiad eseed aivat ueiull sense siaadsasuiss 220 PAGER HN TICUVON casos csctdtacnceiscncavaneereastsonmnsaam sieaattnacestaienavenls 223 DV SOV CROW TEI ashi asiccses iia as coe tan seas banaike Pade tute cebe dela ec tigl amen 227 ‘The Nakedness and the Clothing of Adam and Eve .........sssssseseseeees 234 Wioses 4: Tex taiidl C OmaimMent ary .<ccsaicncunsmiatamnoesmnrsieclentiemaaenncien 242 Niassa castrate sr aap ast eta ne crus cetca te ad eaa ev awe aamsiaaaneanaate 283 PIOUS cease deacetact adit alana sosee sven aewaao disse ania ai nadsabinea lScaavabecoushtcae 298 MOSES 5: THE TWO) WAYS wiessssissssicsassxeacsnsssiasastinsaisenaasundonsexcatarseseones 322 MOTE Waa essa res snncnece ena adagtn deat aiGutanea at gahmcamoabeanaatttoauataadeneAG 323 Te IGP TONES Bf AAAI i cece cceicaieiched gh terhledeta edad akeecthe: 325 Tie TOC G Of He TWO Wy Scie tec real Sonecticestoren tea teendeys 328 Te WA OF SOU sate ices cre tic at nts endser aed eaten anne 329 TIE VN TRAN eg acter ea aaah een aeeeests 338 Moses.5: lext dined! Commentary viscsiscsiiucitaticiaiaicsai ascites dedi 3o2, SSA ea asteascenteaveds Ua sathasysivaaierae Aiuetlaattaceevenn alipeaaeaneuratlentueomndaaetaaes 402 ETVATOLES oscxtisesnssosnsosesticueonnsshvebisusienccorsenantcttunbusstanstenaaansestiioandia tet cabenduedad 432 MOSES 6:1-12: ADAM THE PATRIARCH ..........cccsscscsocsscoessccssesesoonsee 454 ROVE E LEW icra bist canscenant buscanvictairieeatevnoahaah acenbnaahaprnanini ua caantin mackinacaniqnaintt 455 The Patriarchal Priesthood and the Line Of SCH ..cccccncoicrcncdenscdeces 456 The Great Council at Adam-ondi-ANMan......scsssssessssesseeeseresseeenenes 457 BETS (GONE FOR TNE OO) WICH OY cca rccstacccsscoscca te seccietccteet oemtectaciaes ets 460 Le WHOle CAR Ie Of GRE LGW: sisvatassdessisctoniincttesieswedasgaaveeiovie® 463 WiGses O) = 12% Text aiid (Omit tary iis assisied ctv sstttaboesnaaviacaincansnendaanens 474 CRE ANAT TGS sc acess sq asndy chasiany camutiac sanhsea buchate aotersid andi vgoouinnaces un pueneamiaabeanaodens 485 OU esttineet act cena teaiat ae ae te se nectar 491 EX CURSUS sissssicsssscasuwsanssiocapivessiscasssideantucasysesshyieqspancassenashsdcinannendetsassniles 510 Le Speen: WEIN, Gi Revelation cca vucitsceoanannmopeaaeutensmnecnsatuentioiensnn a2 2: Ancient Cone pis. Gr Wis Ottis 25ers rate rceiecc ree aen ieee cetecet 516 3: Temple Blessings in the Oath and Covenant of the Priesthood........ 519 AeChance atid. Par pose ii Creations ansiscstuswasiavcsar etatertnsicniatiateanarees 524 SPOCletice dild MOONS Ws. casivheccnannnisen toca tcecneddianateneadel 526 Oo The Authority atid Power Ser ip tt oa isactesstassteriacrteeanstonecreecans 531 7. Dine aiie: PIChiLy 2; c.niiicnaindent aenamnuaaaaiea nati neues aor 8: The Origin and Premortal Existence of Human Spirits... 540 9: The Premortal Organization of the Human Family... eee 544 VO: The Great Cliaitt OF Beit iscsccc csc Sonatas std teens alsa aes atvecr Mheedansnaas 546 My Te Se C10 CG cpatoiss corscescomnasonmcaneetnutnenrnenentacencoammccrnts 547 12 Sete Epcry aiid CS ORES IS ssa ifsarrrnisansAveactimntnnnnananinnammensinnate: 549 Ese Sonne Perspectives On EIStOricily isco iurteeainnGaeiceccewctiaue pod. 14: The Garden of Eden as a Prototype for the Temple 0.0... eee Boe 15: Description of the LDS Temple Endowmeitt :iissssisceserscesnedeonvecee 557 TABLE OF CONTENTS 16; The Role of Revelation in Temple Building... cjcrsncssssoatscrsartensansttasecst 561 7 er Tie: Veil ot tiie Teta 6 pean ce vaerte gies caninicaleioe Ava eatalagesn stan 564 TOW sacasacedicsceccaacavelvce veetsad eauteeaietaees eo teatime 565 192 "Tf You Gould Hie t6. Kolo cssscscesassctssascecestoseedesscactaccesseseedvaasats Bizet 566 20: The Circle atid: thie SGU dle esses cceeconnccrsaeinceavaennsemennmaea: yi 21: The Power and Prémortal Statusof Satati ngewe continedstarcatsctcic 575 22: The Nature of Satanis Premortal Proposal siscacasccosssdscessassrcadiancortessenss 577 23; The Roles of ChristAdatn, atid: Michael occ. ccccssccu cadens cechannccrtstecsos 582 DAS TINS WVU ES escapee ms cctantuat vaacaes uae ate adeneente Snaeeadngeameslceannt 585 25: The Tree of Life as the Hidden Throne of God... eeeeeeseeteseeeeee 591 26s PUStieCAL GH ANC SAMOA CATION aces csscessscasierhascesssaeooenicenspescturtamioneetins 596 272 Diligence, Opedic nice: Aird, Pred SHO sssnasansrsarncsnanceweanaonenrnnatis So7 26: Ritual Aprens in AmCiGnt Wiie6 5:5. as ctieseeiiaserienionidee Mecittendoianece: 600 29: The Development of Extracanonical Literature on Adam and Eve 601 30: Adam-God Theory and the Heavenly and Earthly Adam............... 603 Sle ne HOspitality Ot Arabians cctectsegi aacgstecgeceetnetca cnet teatateicns 606 32: Freedmanis Analysis of the Primary HistOry siisccstsssiecisesseicossosserssenss 607 SSe Tne estar aliOn (Ol SARC S suteessccosetnesese ce cetein eercunts pesatpeencereetas teens 609 Sue Tine Law Ot © GRSCCLAMON cope teases atria me ecient anemers 611 So: Lamechs “Swotd SONG a tiiaiesiciineneiaiiaadnaiaiabaniens 612 OG; Tine Leserd i te Tie C086 exch cna pace teeth tai eet ecto: 614 B72 Traditions A bowtie Role Of ADE) cic. coest dad ten are eect gale 617 38: The Meaning of “Adam-ondi-Ahmamn” ......... ee ceeeeseeseseeeseeseseeneseneeee 622 39: “The Locationcof Acamm-otnd Ait ay csccts caret ctatertsctrrmciececermncs 623 40: Dating Joseph Smith’s Vision of Adam-ondi-Ahman..............c. 625 41: William Blake's “Jerusalem”: A Vision of the Kingdom ................. 627 AD MeO ec SZ att EAE psd ccc ck caorca cn ececch ec abneretsccyeten tetera 632 435; Adati ard Eve it Mozart s “Magic PLQte a ssviiesivssteavncsicnmisersctsbaced: 634 44: Shakespeare Creates a World: “The Tempest” ...........cssssscssesseseeeeseees 635 45: Impact of the “Black Death” on Art and Literature 0... 640 46: The Origin and Meaning of the Term “Atonement” .......... eee 642 47: Islamic Perspectives Relating to Redemption... eee 645 48: The Nature and Scope of Premortal Covenant ...........secesssseeseeeees 649 Os Tie PeOpole Cite: BOOM ances ans deresac csnessendacdesneeeteaatvannanteceulstveraseoead 651 SOS Pt Ki at Ga cssaincscnsceyissneis den cesnentetiaseanaswsantandenetesnnciynantecssodeastanns 654 bl? The Five Lost Things of the Vetaple ccscsscssisv.ceicvacestoscssnusceademacstaincces 658 52: Washing, Anointing, and Clothing Among Early Christians.......... 661 53: Comparative Explorations of the Mysteries icici. cciesscscicactanscstasceete 663 The Mysteries of Aaron, Moses, and Melchizedek.........s.ssseseseseveee 663 THOR VC OF TVS ree crectctcereane sect seeptorieechneannn Seereastaene perma! 669 Tie TA eUeSt NC WIV SUCRE SS cata excreta actainactel etasiistartaoaicaer nines eats 675 Jewish and Christian Analogues to the Cista Mysticd?.......cecceeee 679 TIER TOSIS <tctoc sh ns cnokctsesacteiascoanesetommeautuemccanesacteundactesumeeeaticetisttoannnaun 681 1x TABLE OF CONTENTS 54: Table of Parallels with the Apocalypse of ADTAhAM .......secssecseseeeeeee 694 55: Mesoamerican Stories of Creation and Original Transgression .....697 HETUCUOTOL CG xiscictuctatat uk geese opcasstiioast aro tavetetsiiondes sho oo yoascanoeaawicen banarancaoncnains 702 APPENDIX: THE ORIGIN OF MAN scpcecsisccsecenediaiuandscusttsceaceuiadseceseene 785 DB VON PACS ty UO cassie cis iets erates nape iateauineiseeen minarets 786 TipeM ren Of Wat TOD asda ts cae ad aacia eee ae een ciate re arecits 786 Words in Season from the First Presidency, 1910 .......-.s:ss-sssosreeneeseos: 791 Vane VICW OF EV ONION TOD ica heels tie eat cae temcetts 791 TROUT CT DOT) atest casita. cei aida sei esatda Melani nialstieees arsenate eens ei 792 Background of the BYU Evolution Packet ssssccscscccssiscscscosse:scisestsseeastennsecs 794 William E. Evenson: Evolution Packet Defined, 1992 .........1sce 794 Context for Statements in the BYU Evolution Packet.......1.csceeee 795 Additional Material Relating to the Origin of Man ou... eeeeeeeeeeeee 798 Improvement Era Editorial: Creation of Adam and Eve, 1910.......... 798 President Joseph E Smith: Philosophy and Church Schools, 1915.....798 President David O. McKay: Design Permeating All Creation, 1952 .799 President David O. McKay: Convictions Can Be Expressed, 1956....800 President Spencer W. Kimball: Creation of Adam and Eve, 1976.....800 john L. Sorenson: Origin of Matt, 1991 sscscctsscccstssettyestascetieeectinis 801 President Gordon B. Hinckley: Organic Evolution, 1997 .0.....1..10 802 President Gordon B. Hinckley: The Origin of Man, 2002 .........1.:0++ 802 HE TVGl ETOCS ics scecos nse since tonsoastionsensor sensu shtiten ene stoepona eraanensanessneeaeusenembarnctuamiates 803 BIBLIOGRAPHY sis sssssnssssocssnsiacdssedssaasaisiectassonnadeuasitesssisaasiccnssseseasraccuats 805 [Goitg ey aU el 0a 1u eentene enter toe ee Renn ecenen Pen ere e eter Te rer ore STATE rete re 805 Antiotated Bibliography of ANcleiit Texts ssciacssasesorcasveienantatanssus 805 Avicient Near PGStCrHt TORIES issascstsset scstnasdadctatetspnaasestodcdosmnctanasccdeneseenes 806 Early Old Testament Manuscripts and Translations .......1..1ss1eseee 813 Tie Qld TOStatMertl A DOCIV DG socscaissastaies es Deccan paasiniye tase avautieants 815 The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha si..cscisiscncia etn necnuwnasieds 817 The Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Related Texts.......scssecsssscsesecseseceeeees 822 JOWISHE TOUS savccoscaeceasssecsazet sae stesutiusesvid wen siatases atic iestateetacecbeiocaisbateieee 830 CISA TIS sss cet b sce scser sesso cestanacea tected ee sheacsnatansechoesee ts a naseccctageorates 838 Nag Hammadi Codices and Various Gnostic Texts ......c.scsssesseeseees 849 LO ASIII TIS siete at aces opence aetna aniedguishansatviageuethaysuendeteaady accuses 856 DAA COI oie sce cheat se aseer nth eterna ele teen aes ates 863 MIGHICHGCAN TOXIS siccsiniccsurssessnsesiastescatuoatessenesessbnsstateercwnsadeabentdesimessitios 883 TSIGITIG DEKES yonisitcccscaessncessotsevostedvsvenlaveavasensnssaicabheatsustecasumsdvstputeesipaseucebes 896 PI SUOU ES 33s iccaaiena nes bitasnabdascunsiaansatvaszanancassiaceobiaadalixcaias eecba naa iasiatacan baud 903 REFERENCES scssscssasusevisGesndsadslssiuesivssscsstiaussuasasiaduenscuuadunsvaunesdvavousweeshaesnes 911 COLOR PLATES swisisiinicsinrassinasincstindiiniaeiiniindiniiiiaestinnion 1010 INDEX ES casiicnissstinsconioniandecandidnctonaponainianiaininincdnsuniien 1041 go y0ce) ose at Bibetates. qi cog ar (:1 is -(cgucneeee emer enerear tar ener ener se seiren ee ene rere 1042 PVC LP UIT CUTIES. 2 asicds eruisiad snare rarer ia aneennna deem NeNTeRNnpRAE 1051 Tacdecar Motterday Propet siactscniseiscoss tun ieestandtibaeaseion 1069 pis jester: BI Gaol > ete ene meres irrerre creme etree’ serine renee rent renrr entre serene rece 1071 Xi xii Acknowledgments Iam grateful to Bret and Cindy Eborn for enabling this book to come to publication ona very challenging schedule. Their persistence and personal support are warmly appreciated and, I hope, will also be adequately rewarded. Joanne Bolton of Bolton Associates, introduced to us by Kathy Low and John Skinner of Press Check, Inc., was a literal answer to our prayers in helping us find a printer who could satisfy our difficult requirements. Joanne and her associates at Regal Printing attended to every detail with superb professionalism. I appreciate the kindness of the following individuals, who provided helpful comments, conversations, encouragement, and tangible support at various points along the way: Millie Anderson, David H. Bailey, Richard Barker, Kevin L. Barney, Michael H. Bourne, Matthew B. Brown, S. Kent Brown, Thomas Butler, James Carroll, Delton W. and Cherrie Clark, E. Douglas Clark, James E. Faulconer, Brant Gardner, Scott Gordon, Bill Hamblin, David K. Hart, Bryce Haymond, Daryl R. and Annie Hague, Ronan James Head, Matthew K. Heiss, Rich and Laura Hoffman, Richard J. Ingebretsen, Nicoletta Isar, Kent P. Jackson, Stephane and Agnés Janda, Robin S. Jensen, Bruno and Magali Kahne, David J. Larsen, Jeff Needle, Andrei Orlov, Virgil and Jackie Parker, Donald W. Parry, Daniel C. Peterson, Assaf Pinkus, George Potter, Glenn H. Robinson, Serge Ruzer, David R. Seely, Rudi and Sylvie Sordes, Trent D. Stephens, John Tvedtnes, John W. Welch, Kent White, and Diane E. Wirth. Margaret Barker deserves a special thanks: first, for her courageous, careful, and broad- minded scholarship that paved the way for many aspects of my own study; second, for numerous insightful comments on the manuscript; and third, for her exceptionally generous and encouraging manner—in itself, paramount evidence of her sincere Christian devotion.’ Chris Miasnik, a cherished friend since the days we were companions in the Belgium- Brussels mission, meticulously read through several drafts of the manuscript and offered many corrections, suggestions, and questions that greatly improved the finished result. Without the generous help of Chris and his wife Angie on many fronts, this book could not have appeared. A close friend and colleague at IHMC, Paul Feltovich, likewise reviewed the entire book and spent many hours with me in delightful conversations about it. Marcel Kahne, a pioneer of the Church in Belgium whose devotion and scholarship I have long admired, also spent many hours in correction of the manuscript. Steve Whitlock generously allowed me to incorporate the results of his previous research into the annotated bibliography, and spent many hours in helping me to expand it, as well as in sharing his views, materials, and photographs. Steve also kindly accompanied me to Oxford in order to take high-quality photographs of the Codex Sylvester. Kerry Shirts kindly made the impossible-to-find 1995 edition of Eugene Seaich’s Ancient Texts and Mormonism available to me,” and Todd Compton likewise graciously responded to a 1 For those not familiar with Barker’s voluminous work, a helpful introduction may be found in two of her briefer volumes: Temple Theology and The Hidden Tradition of the Kingdom of God. Kevin Christensen has provided an overview of some of the many points of contact of Barker’s writings with LDS doctrine and scripture (Paradigms; Temple). Barker herself has directly discussed the plausibility of the preexilic setting of 1 Nephi (Joseph Smith and themes relating to Melchizedek in LDS scripture) and sources relating to Melchizedek and the priesthood named for him (Who was Melchizedek). 2 J. E. Seaich, Ancient Texts 1995. xili Xiv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS request for a copy of his 1985 Epoché article on mystery symbolism in Greek recognition drama.’ Richard Livingston granted permission for me to excerpt from a recording on Truman G. Madsen’s Claremont Mormon Studies Student Association inaugural lecture on Mormonism and Philosophy. Anne Feltovich identified and provided helpful background information on the loutrophoros of Plangon, and graciously shared her expertise as we spent many happy hours together in and around Athens. Edward L. Kimball graciously commented on the question of authenticity for an anecdote about his father, Spencer W. Kimball. I owe thanks to Edward J. Brandt, who introduced me to the spare eloquence of biblical Hebrew during a beginners course at the University of Utah Institute of Religion many years ago. Like so many LDS students of scripture, I am deeply indebted to the pioneering work of Hugh Nibley in Pearl of Great Price and temple studies.* It seemed that each time I began an examination of what I thought was a remote and unexplored corner of the research terrain, I soon discovered that Nibley—like Kilroy—had already been there first. This book would be significantly slimmer had not Hugh Nibley and Associates generously permitted the liberal use of quotations from his works throughout this book. Among the many favorite works of art appearing in this book, I am honored to have received permission to include works from several contemporary LDS painters, illustrators, and photographers who deserve thanks by name: Wulf E. Barsch, Val Brinkerhoff, Jerry Harston, Brian Kershisnik, David Lindsley, David Linn, John M. Lundquist, Michael P. Lyon, J. Kirk Richards, Liz Lemon Swindle, Valeriano Ugolini, and Jay Bryant Ward. Bobbie Reynolds and her colleagues at the Church Intellectual Property Office deserve a special thanks for their careful review of the manuscript and their willingness to allow me to include Church-copyrighted material. Robert O. Davis, curator of the LDS Museum of Church History and Art, promptly responded to requests for help in locating illustrations and pinpointing artists. Walter Rane also generously provided help in this regard. Dr. Bruce Barker-Benfield, Senior Assistant Librarian at the Department of Special Collections at the Bodleian Library in Oxford, and Carole Menzies and Jennifer Griffiths of the Taylor Bodleian Slavonic and Modern Greek Library were exceptionally helpful in coordinating requests for difficult-to-find sources. Pat Williams was patient and persistent in helping me obtain the permission to use the numerous quotations and illustrations that originally appeared in Deseret Book publications. Joany Pinegar, Richard Holzapfel, and Kent P. Jackson patiently worked with me to obtain permission for the use of material in the table describing the time sequence of the jst Old Testament translation. Alison Coutts and Don Brugger of the Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship at Brigham Young University were exceptionally cordial, efficient, and generous in the process of obtaining necessary permissions for the use of materials from their publications. Alison Correnti of the Copyright Clearance Center assisted in the process of obtaining permission to use Steven Monte’s masterful translation of Victor Hugo's Conscience. Acknowledgments for the help and generosity of organizations, library staff, and artists who provided permission and access to the many high-quality images used in this book are given in the Figure Credits section below. 3 T. M. Compton, Token. 4 For an assessment of Nibley’s scholarship, especially his own use of sources, see S. S. Ricks, Sure Foundation. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Iam grateful above all for the warm support of my immediate and extended family. Sakiusa and Seru Vakalala, Sr., providentially, put us in touch with Press Check, Inc. My sister Judi Morrell and her husband John have lent their loving, patient, and wise listening ear to me since I was very small. In quiet and important ways they have helped to mold me and this book. My younger brother Scott, my first and best childhood friend, and his wife Linn have been models of devotion in their service to God and family, and in their ever-ready welcome for me and for others in need. My sister Bonnie B. Robinson, who nurtured (and patiently endured) my budding “creativity” as a child, lovingly provided tangible support and was an important guiding voice to me as a novice to publishing for LDS readers. The wholehearted consecration of her talents in service to others has blessed many lives. Jonathan D. Bradshaw, an admired and admirable example of everything an older brother should be, designed the beautiful book cover and, along with his kind and perceptive wife An, have been friends to me in the highest sense of the word. My son Samuel H. Bradshaw spent countless hours of vacation time working on the book, and was responsible for many aspects of the overall book design as well as the definition of styles and templates.* Samuel and I also worked together on the layout, typesetting, and indexing of the book. The project could have not been completed without his generous, patient, and highly-skilled help. My other children and their spouses ((Robert W. and Camille James Bradshaw, M. Elizabeth and Sakiusa Vakalala, Jr., Thomas M. and Lisa Paulson Bradshaw) offered their support and encouragement, and contributed helpful perspectives and feedback. Robert, Thomas, and Samuel also worked together to produce a Web site relating to the book. My wife Kathleen lovingly accommodated the many inconveniences of the writing process and was, as always, honest and insightful in her comments and unfailing in her support. This book is lovingly dedicated to my parents, Mark John and Elma Singleton Bradshaw, students of scripture and disciples of Christ. 3 Typesetting was performed on an Apple Macintosh with Adobe InDesign CS4. Set in Adobe Minion Pro. Figure Credits Cover and Frontispiece: Jay Bryant Ward, http://www.jbwstudios.com/. Originally commissioned for the cover of the January 2006 Ensign magazine. P-1. Liz Lemon Swindle, with the assistance of Karalyn Fugal of Repartee Gallery and Pat Williams of Deseret Book. In L. L. Swindle et al., Joseph Smith, p. 44; P-2. From D. Macaulay, Moments, plate xxvi. Copyright © 1978 by David Macaulay. Reprinted by permission of Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. All rights reserved. 0-1. Community of Christ, with the assistance of Robert Lewis. See S. H. Faulring et al., Original Manuscripts, Plate 2, p. 406b; 0-2. Brigham Young University Religious Studies Center, with the assistance of Joany Pinegar, Richard Holzapfel, and Kent P. Jackson. Adapted from S. H. Faulring et al., Original Manuscripts, pp. 57-59. See also R. J. Matthews, Plainer, p. 96; 0-3. Liz Lemon Swindle; 0-4, 0-5. Tate Gallery Picture Library, with the assistance of Cressida Kocienski; 0-6. Jay Bryant Ward, http://www.jbwstudios.com/. 1-1. © Original at the chapel of the Frederiksborg Castle, Denmark. Used by permission of the Frederiksborgmuseum, with the assistance of Erik Westengaard. Thanks also to the LDS Church Visual Resources Library, and the assistance of Carrie Snow, Nancy Sargent, and Bruce Pearson; 1-2. The British Museum Picture Library, with the assistance of Clive Coward and Axelle Russo; 1-3. David Linn. In All Things, p. 57; 1-4. Brian Kershisnik, http://www.kershisnik.com/, with the assistance of Lori Andersen. In L. Norris et al., Kershisnik, p. 87; 1-5. The M. C. Escher Company BV, with the assistance of Margareth Verbakel; 1-6. Figure © Jeffrey M. Bradshaw; 1-7. Photograph IMGP2175, 26 April 2009, Stephen T. Whitlock, with special thanks to Carole Menzies and Jennifer Griffiths of the Taylor Bodleian Slavonic and Modern Greek Library. From P. P. Novickij (Novitskii), Otkrovenie Avraama; 1-8. Bibliotheque Nationale de France. 2-1. EMB-Service for Publishers, Adligenswil, Switzerland, with the assistance of Franz Gisler. Detail from the Sistine Chapel fresco; 2-2. The M. C. Escher Company BV, with the assistance of Margareth Verbakel; 2-3. EMB-Service for Publishers, Adligenswil, Switzerland, with the assistance of Franz Gisler. Detail from the Sistine Chapel fresco; 2-4, 2-5, 2-6. The M. C. Escher Company BV, with the assistance of Margareth Verbakel; 2-7, 2-8. EMB-Service for Publishers, Adligenswil, Switzerland, with the assistance of Franz Gisler. Detail from the Sistine Chapel fresco. 3-1. Picture Library, The Royal Collection, with the assistance of Karen Lawson © 2007 Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II; 3-2. Rome, Galleria nazionale darte moderna e contemporanea. With the permission of the Ministero per i Beni e le Attivita Culturali, and assistance from Chiara Mutti; thanks also to Studio Fotografico, with the assistance of Giuseppe Schiavinotto; 3-3. Tate Gallery Picture Library, with the assistance of Cressida Kocienski; 3-4. Public Domain, http://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Image:Great_Chain_of_Being 2.png. From D. Valades, Rhetorica; 3-5. Public Domain, http:// en.wikipedia.org /wiki/ Image:Ein_sof.png; 3-6. © David Lindsley, http://www.davidlindsley. com; 3-7. Public Domain, from A-F. Prévost, Voiages, vol. 8. See http://www.columbiauniversity.org/ itc/mealac/pritchett/00generallinks/prevost/southasia/zadamspeakceylon.jpg; 3-8. Duncan Baird Publishers, with the assistance of Louise Glasson. From J. R. Porter, Guide, p. 28; 3-9. The Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship, Brigham Young University, with the assistance of Alison Coutts and Don Brugger. From D. W. Parry, Garden, pp. 134-135; 3-10. John M. Lundquist. From J. M. Lundquist, Meeting Place, p. 45; 3-11. Mary Evans Picture Library, from J. B. Villalpando, Ezechielem. 4-1. Photograph © 2007 Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, with the assistance of Erin Schleigh. The Art Object: Thomas Cole, American (born in England), 1801-1848, Expulsion from the Garden of Eden, 1828, Oil on canvas, 100.96 x 138.43 cm (39 % x 54 % in.), Gift of Martha C. Karolik for the M. and M. Karolik Collection of American Paintings, 1815-1865, 47.1188; 4-2. The William Blake Archive, with the assistance of William Shaw. Original in The British Museum; 4-3. Museo Nacional del Prado, with the assistance of Concha Ocampos; 4-4. Public Domain, http://iraq.iraq.ir/cpg/displayimage. php?album=5&pos=11; 4-5. Photography and Rights Department, The Pierpont Morgan Library and Museum, RA 2001.76. Appreciation to Wayne Schrimsher for the digital scan; 4-6. Tate Gallery Picture Library, with the assistance of Cressida Kocienski; 4-7. Rachel Milstein. From R. Milstein XViii FIGURE CREDITS et al., Stories. Original in Topkapi Saray Museum Library, H. 1227: Ms. T-7, Istanbul, Turkey; 4-8. Art Resource, Inc., with the assistance of Jennifer Belt. Original at San Niccolo al Carmine, Siena (aka Santa Maria del Carmine), Pian de’ Mantellini, Siena, Italy; 4-9. Photographic Service, Royal Museum of Fine Arts of Belgium, Brussels, with the assistance of Nadia Ben Hamou; 4-10. Bibliothéque Nationale de France, Add. 144.a. Fol., with the assistance of Mme Zerkane and Ingrid Appert, as well as the help of Elizabeth Witchell of the Warburg Institute. From R. Green et al., Hortus, Vol. 1, Original fol. HD 17r. (Figure 21); see also Vol. 2, p. 31, Figures 17-18, from the Bastard Calques plate 12, tracings of the original made ca. 1840; 4-11. British Museum Images, with the assistance of Valentina Talian; 4-12. David Wilder, The Jewish Community of Hebron, http://www.hebron.com; 4-13. Alain Guilleux, alain.guilleux@free.fr; 4-14. Photograph DSC00996, 28 June 2006, © Jeffrey M. Bradshaw; 4-15. Department of Visual Services, National Gallery of Art, Washington, DC, 2000.3.1 (PA). Appreciation to Wayne Schrimsher for the digital scan; 4-16. EMB-Service for Publishers, Adligenswil, Switzerland, with the assistance of Franz Gisler. Detail from the Sistine Chapel fresco; 4-17. Kirk Richards, http:// www. jkirkrichards.com; 4-18. The British Library, with the assistance of Sandra Powlette; 4-19. Figure © Jeffrey M. Bradshaw. Compare G. A. Anderson, Perfection, p. 80; 4-20. Public Domain per http:// wwwaarchive.org/details/christianantiqui02smituoft. From W. Smith et al., Dictionary, 2:1307. See also M. B. Brown, Girded, p. 137; 4-21. The Fitzwilliam Museum, University of Cambridge, PD 29-1949. Appreciation to Wayne Schrimsher for the digital scan. 5-1. Art Resource, Inc., with the assistance of Tricia Smith. Original in the Cathedral of St. Bavon at Ghent, Belgium; 5-2. XIR24940 Credit: St. Michael Overwhelming the Demon, 1518 (oil on canvas) by Raphael (Raffaello Sanzio of Urbino) (1483-1520) ©Louvre, Paris, France/Giraudon/The Bridgeman Art Library, with the assistance of David Savage. Nationality/copyright status: Italian/out of copyright. Original in the Musée du Louvre, Paris, France; 5-3. Osterreichische Nationalbibliothek, Vienna, Bildarchiv, E 1546-C, with the assistance of Crista Miller and Silke Pirolt; 5-4. Public Domain, from P. Henry, Moldavie, 2:246, with the assistance of Imaging Services, The British Library; 5-5. Jerry Harston, with the assistance of Pat Williams of Deseret Book. From B. K. Packer, Mediator 1978, p. 9; 5-6. Art Resource, Inc., with the assistance of Tricia Smith. Original in the Basilica di Santa Maria della Salute, Venice, Italy; 5-7. Scala Archives, with the assistance of Michael Slade. Original in the Galleria Nazionale d’Arte Antica, Rome, Italy; 5-8. Art Resource, Inc., with the assistance of Tricia Smith. Permission also granted from the Musée d’Orsay, Paris, France; 5-9. Public Domain, http:// catholic-resources.org/Dore/Images/OT-012.jpg. From J. J. Bourasse et al., Vulgate; 5-10. Art Resource, Inc., with the assistance of Tricia Smith. In L. Ouspensky et al., Icons, p. 198. Original in the Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow, Russia; 5-11. Figure © Jeffrey M. Bradshaw; 5-12. Public Domain, per http:// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image: Daniel_Webster_and_the_Devil_argue_in_court.jpg. From S. V. Benét, Devil, p. 12; 5-13. The Warburg Institute, with assistance of Elizabeth Witchell. From R. Green et al., Hortus, Vol. 2, p. 352, Orig. Fol. HD 215v. (Plate 124). Photograph of C. M. Engelhardt, Hortus, Plate IX, located in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York City, New York, with the assistance of Eileen Sullivan. 6-1. Art Resource, Inc., with the assistance of Tricia Smith. Original in the Church of San Francesco, Arezzo, Italy; 6-2. Adapted from D. H. Ludlow, Encyclopedia of Mormonism, 2:923, with the permission of the Brigham Young University Copyright Licensing Office and with the assistance of Nick Coakley and Carl Johnson; 6-3. Assaf Pinkus. In A. Pinkus, Impact, p. 167 and A. Pinkus, Workshops, Illustration 63. Original located at the Heiligkreuz minster in Schwabisch Gmiind, Germany, south-east portal; 6-4. Basilica di S. Giovanni Battista in Monza, Italy; 6-5. Photograph DSC00183, 14 September 2009, © Jeffrey M. Bradshaw; 6-6. http://www.frankwesleyart.com, with the assistance of Athalie Wesley, Ralph Willis, and Naomi Wray. In N. Wray, Wesley, p. 45; 6-7. Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna, with the assistance of Florian Kugler and Christa Hummel; 6-8. The British Library, C. 188.a.17. In W. Tyndale, New Testament 1526; 6-9. Wulf E. Barsch, http://webpac.lib.utah.edu/fa/UtahArtists/artists/barsch/ index.html; 6-10, 6-11. Courtesy of The Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship, Brigham Young University, with the assistance of Alison Coutts and Don Brugger. In H. W. Nibley, Message 2005, p. 452; 6-12. Art Resource, Inc., with the assistance of Tricia Smith. Original in Cappella Spagnuolo, Basilica di Santa Maria Novella, Florence, Italy; 6-13. Photograph DSC03665, 23 September 2008, © Jeffrey M. Bradshaw; 6-14. Bayerisches Nationalmuseum. In H. W. Nibley, Message 2005, p. 456. FIGURE CREDITS E1-1. The British Museum, with the assistance of Clive Coward and Axelle Russo; E2-1. National Galleries of Scotland Picture Library, with the assistance of Rachel Travers; E8-1. Assaf Pinkus. Original at the Heilig-Kreuz-Miinster (Holy Cross Minster) in Schwabisch Gmiind, Germany, south portal of the choir; E12-1. Les Editions Gallimard, with the assistance of Geneviéve Fumeron. From Antoine de Saint Exupéry, Dessins, p. 461; E12-2. Laurent de Galembert. Figure translated from L. de Galembert, Grandeur 2001, p. 52.; E19-1. Public Domain, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:WW Phelps.gif; E19-2. Lebrecht Music and Arts Photo Library, with the assistance of Katharine Ryall. Additional thanks to David Betts and Stephen Connock of the RVW Society, and to Hugh Cobbe; E19-3. Valeriano Ugolini, http://www.ugolinifineart.com/; E20-1, E20-2. Val Brinkerhoff, http://cfac.byu. edu/valbrinkerhoff/signs-2/; E20-3. Public Domain, from A. F. Kendrick, Textiles 1, Frontispiece; E24-1. Tate Gallery Picture Library, with the assistance of Cressida Kocienski; E25-1. Figure © Jeffrey M. Bradshaw; E25-2. Photographic Services and Permissions, New York Public Library, Spencer, Pers. Ms. 46. In R. Milstein, et al, Stories, Plate 13; E36-1. Copyright Clearance Center (www.copyright. com). From L. Ouspensky et al., Icons, p. 148. E36-2. Photograph IMG_2770, 24 May 2008, Laura E. Hoffman; E37-1. Herzogin Anna Amalia Bibliothek in Weimar, Germany, with the assistance of Julia Glesner; E41-1. The Huntington Library, with the assistance of Donna Stromberg. For a facsimile of the entire Preface, see W. Blake, I/luminated Blake, p. 216; W. Blake, Illuminated, p. 295; W. Blake, Milton, p. 94; E42-1. Tate Gallery Picture Library, with the assistance of Cressida Kocienski; E43- 1. Public Domain, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Wolfgang-amadeus-mozart_1.jpg; £44-1. Public Domain, http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2d/Miranda_-_The_ Tempest_JWW.jpg; E50-1. Imaging Services, The British Library, with the assistance of Graham Hutt; E53-1. Figure © Jeffrey M. Bradshaw; E53-2. Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana. From a 12th century illuminated version of the Homilies of James of Kokkinobaphos from Byzantium (Vat. gr. 1162, fol. 35v.). See A. Eastmond, Narratives, plate 14; E53-3. Public Domain, http://upload.wikimedia. org/wikipedia/commons/3/32/AshburnPenatuchtFolio076rMosesReceivingLaw.jpg. Bibliotheque Nationale, nouv. acq. lat., no. 2334, folio 76 recto; E53-4. Copyright Clearance Center (www. copyright.com). From L. Ouspensky et al., Icons, p. 166. E53-5. Val Brinkerhoff, http://cfac.byu.edu/ valbrinkerhoff/signs-2/; E53-6. Photograph DSC03079, 24 May 2008, © Jeffrey M. Bradshaw; E53-7. Photograph Untitled-e1-2884x2471, 1977, Stephen T. Whitlock. Scanned from Kodachrome slide; E53-8. The Morgan Pierpont Library, from the Crusaders Bible, MS M.638, f. 40r. See http://www. themorgan.org/collections/swf/exhibOnline.asp?id=278 and G. R. Murphy, Gemstone, p. 34. E53-9. G. Ronald Murphy. Thanks also to Walter Milutzki, Director of the Dioezesanmuseum Bamberg, Bamberg, Germany. From G. R. Murphy, Gemstone (excerpt), p. 10. E53-10. Photograph DSC02379, 8 March 2008, © Jeffrey M. Bradshaw; E53-11. University of California Press, with the assistance of Kim Hogeland. From P. H. Jolly, Eve and Adam, p. 25; E53-12, E53-13. Photographs IMGP2167 and IMGP2179, 26 April 2009, Stephen T. Whitlock, with special thanks to Carole Menzies and Jennifer Griffiths of the Taylor Bodleian Slavonic and Modern Greek Library. From P. P. Novickij (Novitskii), Otkrovenie Avraama; E53-14. Photograph DSC00198, 14 September 2009, © Jeffrey M. Bradshaw; E53-15. From E. R. Goodenough, Dura Symbolism, Photograph of the Cycle of Ezekiel, Vol. 11, Plate XXI. © Princeton University Press. Reprinted by permission of Princeton University Press, with the assistance of Watson Wang. Subsequent images are from Kraeling, Carl H., C. C. Torrey, C. B. Welles, and B. Geiger. The Synagogue. The Excavations at Dura-Europos Conducted by Yale University and the French Academy of Inscriptions and Letters:. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1956. Plates 69- 72; E54-1. © Jeffrey M. Bradshaw; E54-2. Photograph IMGP1821 by Stephen T. Whitlock. Detail of Patriarchs Window, Holy Trinity Church, Stratford-upon-Avon, England, 24 April 2009; E55-1. By permission of The University of Oklahoma Press, from M. Graulich, Myths, p. 55; E55-2. Dr. Sandra Noble and FAMSI, the Foundation for the Advancement of Mesoamerican Studies, Inc. Detail of image at http://www.famsi.org/research/loubat/Telleriano-Remensis/page_19r.jpg. See also E. Q. Keber, Telleriano-Remensis, Folio 19r (misnumbered as 13r); E55-3. Dover Books, from restored rendering in G. Diaz et al., Codex Borgia, Plate 66; E55-4. John E. Clark, on behalf of the New World Archaeological Foundation. From V. G. Norman, Izapa Part 2, p. 202 Figure 4.13, b; E55-5. John E. Clark, on behalf of the New World Archaeological Foundation. From V. G. Norman, Izapa Part 2, p. 202 Figure 4.13, c. B-1. Public Domain, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mandean.jpg. From the frontispiece of E. S. Drower, Water. Thanks to Nick Wetton, representing the publisher John Murray. xix FiGure P-1. Go with Me to Cumorah, 1997. Liz Lemon Swindle, 1953- PREFACE PHOGACE is ssdcicscssceestincetcdoess danscedelbccéaiscccesceleestuwenlcctceedscees dotwerevasdioesdedeeuisews xxi Eni Gi Gt6S' 0; sssesovcissicccisscexsseosissceses socesesesees0s00sseepeseveess des sesessassecsssedoneseses’ Xxvii I took my stand halfway between awe and love; a yearning for Paradise invited me to explore it, but awe at its majesty restrained me from my search... I revered what lay hidden and meditated on what was revealed... Joyfully did I embark on the tale of Paradise— a tale that is short to read but rich to explore. My tongue read the story’s outward narrative, while my intellect took wing and soared upward in awe as it perceived the splendor of Paradise— not indeed as it really is, but insofar as humanity is granted to comprehend it.’ This book was made possible by the unexpected blessing of a yearlong “sabbatical” in France. Though the book of Genesis has long been a favorite of mine, the project became possible only because our family’s move to a new time zone afforded extra early morning study time before the day’s e-mail messages began to arrive from across the Atlantic. My original thought had been to focus on the poignant Jacob-Joseph story cycle, which has long attracted me. However, as I began the project in earnest, my thoughts were con- tinually—and at first, I admit, reluctantly—led back to the book of Moses, a revelatory expansion of the first chapters of Genesis. My reluctance stemmed from a cognizance of my ignorance. Though the sobering demeanor of this marvelous book had become beautiful to me through long acquaintance,” I felt I had neither the time nor the expertise required to assimilate—let alone credibly contribute to—the mountain of prophetic writings and schol- arship that had already addressed the many enigmas woven deeply into the fabric of this foundational work of scripture. In short, it seemed a story far too old for a green author.’ Despite my early misgivings, I found tangible reassurance and ongoing direction in the intimate dialogue of prayer, and friendly encouragement in the splendid scaffolding previously assembled by the patient labors of prior exegetes, to whom I acknowledge my 1 Ephrem the Syrian, Paradise, 1:2-3, p. 78. 2 See Endnote P-1, p. xxvii. 3 W. Shakespeare, Venus, 806, p. 1714. See Endnote P-2, p. xxvii. Xxi PREFACE dOvsadd XXil IN Gop’s IMAGE AND LIKENESS 1 — PREFACE deep indebtedness.* Looking back, I acknowledge with grateful surprise that the major ideas came together much more quickly than I had thought possible. A few months after our return from France, I had a reasonably complete draft of the commentary in hand. The bibliography and excursus sections followed. While fellow Latter-day Saints will have little problem comprehending my still-growing attachment to Joseph Smith’s translation of the early narratives of Genesis, many of my friends and colleagues will find it mystifying that I have devoted so much time and attention to a study of what may understandably seem to be no more than a fanciful collection of worn- out fables—one more shard among the dusty discards of the almost bygone religious passage of Western culture. In that regard, it must also be admitted that the central historical claims of Mormonism—and Christianity? itself, for that matter—hardly appear any less fantastic to the modern mind than the stories of Adam and Eve.° Even in the nineteenth century, Charles Dickens’ approved as Hannay charged the Mormons with “the absurdity of seeing visions in the age of railways” —simultaneously commending our “immense practical industry” while decrying our “pitiable superstitious delusion.” His conclusion at that time is one that would be met with understanding nods by many perplexed observers of Mormonism in our day: “What the Mormons do, seems to be excellent; what they say is mostly nonsense.’ In contrast to the predominantly polemical bent of apologetic and scholarly literature that appeared during the first century of Mormonism, recent decades have happily witnessed hundreds of broad studies of the founding stories and scriptures of the Latter-day Saints that can be appreciated by both members and non-members of the Church alike.’ It is regrettable that serious studies of the Joseph Smith Translation (jst) of the Bible have been relatively late in coming, explorations of its textual foundations having begun in earnest only in the last forty years with the pioneering work of Richard P. Howard and Robert J. Matthews.’° Now, at last, as the book of Moses—and the related book of Abraham—are beginning to receive their due in the spotlight of scholarly scrutiny, they may well prove to be among the strongest witnesses of the prophetic mission of Joseph Smith.'! For example, noted Yale critic of secular and sacred literature Harold Bloom, who classes these two books among the “more surprising” and “neglected” works of LDS scripture,” is intrigued by the fact that many of their themes are “strikingly akin to ancient suggestions”!’ that essentially restate “the archaic or original Jewish religion, a Judaism that preceded even the Yahwist.? While expressing “no judgment, one way or the other, upon the authenticity” of LDS scripture, he finds “enormous validity” in the way these writings “recapture... crucial elements in the archaic Jewish religion.... that had ceased to be available either to normative Judaism or to See Endnote P-3, p. xxvii. See Endnote P-4, p. xxvii. See Endnote P-5, p. xxvii. See Endnote P-6, p. xxviii. J. Hannay, Smith, p. 385, cited in R. J. Dunn, Dickens, p. 4. A non-LDS observer similarly wrote of the Mormons in 2009: “What would do you do if you met people you admired greatly, who reminded you of the best examples of your fellow believers, yet whose faith rested on what you saw as patent absurdities” (W. Lobdell, Losing, pp. 121-122). He goes on to concede, however: “Yet what’s so strange about Mormonism compared to traditional Christianity... The details of Mormonism are fresher, but not much more strange and mythical” (ibid., pp. 126, 127). See Endnote P-7, p. xxix. 9 For broad perspectives from LDS and non-LDS scholars on the wide influence of Joseph Smith's life and work, see J. W. Welch, Worlds and R. L. Neilson et al., Reappraisals. 10 R.P. Howard, Restoration 1969; R. J. Matthews, Plainer. 11 See Endnote P-8, p. xxx. 12. H. Bloom, Names Divine, p. 25. 13 See Endnote 2-28, p. 130. CONAN IN Gop’s IMAGE AND LIKENESS 1 — PREFACE Christianity, and that survived only in esoteric traditions unlikely to have touched [Joseph] Smith directly?* Having spent more than three years in focused study of the book of Moses, I have also been astonished with the extent to which its words reverberate with the echoes of antiq- uity—and, no less significantly, with the deepest truths of my personal experience. Indeed, I would not merely assert that the book of Moses holds up well under close examination, but rather that, like a fractal whose self-similar patterns become more wondrous upon ever closer inspection, the brilliance of its inspiration shines most impressively under bright light and high magnification: there is glory in the details.’° I owe my awakening to the literary beauty of scripture to a Brigham Young University (BYU) “Reading the Scriptures” course taught by Professor Arthur Henry King, or “Brother King” as he preferred to be called in class.'* Converted to Mormonism in Britain during his later years, Brother King was a Shakespearian scholar and professional “stylistician” —in other words, an expert in how the nuances of linguistic expression reveal to their readers, both intentionally and unintentionally, not only the literary characters but also the authors themselves. Indeed, Brother King often mentioned how it was the very style of the First Vision account that convinced him that Joseph Smith was telling the truth.’” Brother King believed strongly in the virtues of reading the scriptures aloud.'* He taught the members of our class how to experiment with different approaches to reading the same verse, how to listen to the wisdom of the spoken voice, and how the varying of emphasis and pauses for breath could highlight different shades of meaning in the text. Under his direction, we sang the scriptures as if they were music. The Prophet Joseph Smith said that scripture should be “understood precisely as it reads.”!” Likewise, Brother King taught us to read slowly, and to persist in reading until the plain sense of the words became clear to us.” This approach differs from the facile skimming for rapid information ingestion that is the stuff of our daily business—the great Jewish scholar Martin Buber went so far as to term the application to scripture study of the modern unre- flective method “the leprosy of fluency.””! Once having gained confidence in our grasp of the plain sense of the words of scripture, we must still decode its pervasive imagery. Our problem in that respect is that we live on the near side of a great divide that separates us from the religious, cultural, and philosophical perspectives of the ancients.” The Prophet Joseph Smith was far closer to this lost world than we are—not only because of his personal involvement with the recovery and revelatory expansion of ancient religion, but also because in his time many archaic traditions were still embedded in the language and daily experience of the surrounding culture.”? Barker describes the challenges this situation presents to contemporary students of scripture: 14H. Bloom, American Religion, pp. 98, 99, 101. See Endnote P-9, p. xxx. 15 See Endnote P-10, p. xxx. 16 See Endnote P-11, p. xxxi. 17 A.H. King, Account, pp. 42-43, 45; A. H. King, Joseph. See Endnote P-12, p. xxxi. 18 A.H. King, Afterword, pp. 233-236; A. H. King, Rhetoric, pp. 201-204; A. H. King, Child, pp. 101-102; A. H. King, Education, pp. 240-242; cf. D. Packard et al., Feasting, pp. 18-20, 199-203, 209-213. 19 J. Smith, Jr., Words, 29 January 1843, p. 161. See Endnote P-13, p. xxxi. 20 A.H. King, Afterword, pp. 233-234; D. Packard et al., Feasting, pp. 8-10. 21 See Endnote P-14, p. xxxi. 22 ~~ C.S. Lewis, Descriptione; G. d. Santillana et al., Hamlet’s Mill, p. 10. See Endnote P-21, p. xxxv. 23 A.H. King, Joseph, pp. 287-288. Xxiii PREFACE dOvsadd Xxiv IN Gop’s IMAGE AND LIKENESS 1 — PREFACE FiGure P-2. Inflatable Cathedral, 1978 David Macaulay, 1946- The things of God are of deep import; and time, and experience, and careful and ponderous and solemn thoughts can only find them out.' In vivid contrast to Joseph Smith’s statement, David Macaulay's tongue-in-cheek simulation is “intended to create a distinguished setting at a moment's notice”” While the concept was just a gleam in Macaulay’s eye when he created this drawing, inflatable churches are now available for rent or purchase. A Web site proudly proclaims: “The attention to detail is heavenly, complete with plastic ‘stained glass’ windows and airbrush artwork which replicates the traditional church. Inside it has an inflatable organ, altar, pulpit, pews, candles and a gold cross. Even the doors are flanked by air-filled angels. The church can be built in two hours and disassembled in less than one... It can be set up anywhere, from your garden to Malibu Beach, it’s up to you. No problem with ‘high heels.” J. Smith, Jr., Teachings, 25 March 1839, p. 137. D. Macaulay, Moments, caption for plate xxvi. Inflatable Church. Like the first Christians, we still pray “Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven,” but many of the complex system of symbols and stories that describe the Kingdom are not longer recognized for what they are.” It used to be thought that putting the code into modern English would overcome the problem, and make everything clear to people who had no roots in a Christian community. This attempt has proved misguided, since so much of the code simply will not translate into modern English... The task, then, has had to alter. The need now is not just for modern English, or modern thought forms, but for an explanation of the images and pictures in which the ideas of the Bible are expressed.”° These are specific to one culture, that of Israel and Judaism, and until they are fully understood in their original setting, little of what is done with the writings and ideas that came from that particular setting can be understood. Once we lose touch with the meaning of biblical imagery, we lose any way into the real meaning of the Bible. This has already begun to happen and a diluted “instant” Christianity has been offered as junk food for the mass market. The resultant malnutrition, even in churches, is all too obvious.”” 24 Matthew 6:10. 25 M. Barker, Hidden, p. 128. 26 See Endnote P-15, p. xxxii. 27M. Barker, Earth, pp. 1-2. IN Gop’s IMAGE AND LIKENESS 1 — PREFACE Consistent with Barker’s observations, many observers have documented a worldwide trend toward a religious mind-set that prizes emotion”’ and entertainment” as major staples of worship. Even when undertaken with evident sincerity, religious gatherings of this sort scarcely rise above the level of a “weekly social rite, a boost to our morale;’*’ with perhaps a few exhortations on ethics thrown in. When the Bible is consulted at all, it is too often “solely for its piety or its inspiring adventures”! or its admittedly “memorable illustrations and contrasts” rather than its “deep memories” of spiritual understanding.” All this has resulted not only in a regrettable “secularization of religious symbolic language,”*®’ but also in what Prothero calls a widespread “religious amnesia” that has dangerously weakened the foundations of faith.** Bloom concludes that since the current “American Jesus can be described without any recourse to theology” we have become, on the whole, a post-Christian nation.*° Similarly, Herberg characterized our national “faith in faith” as a “strange brew of devotion to religion and insouciance as to its content.”** Little wonder that the teaching of the central doctrines of the Gospel has been a significant focus of LDS Church leadership in recent years.*” In this connection, Elder Neal A. Maxwell once remarked: “God is giving away the spiritual secrets of the universe,’ and then asked: “but are we listening?”** I am fully conscious of the fact that an understanding of “the doctrine of the kingdom”” does not come by mere “study” alone, but “also by faith’*? as we are asked to give loving and whole-hearted expression in our lives of what we feel and believe. I concur with Elder Marion G. Romney that: “One cannot fully learn the gospel without living it?*! Indeed, as Elder Dallin H. Oaks has said about the most common way that we receive spiritual understanding: “revelation comes most often when we are on the move.” Such learning “by faith” is the supreme test—and among the sweetest rewards—of discipleship during this mortal “season of unanswered questions.” Thus, for each of us who love to study the scriptures, there is both encouragement and a warning in the wise words of the Danish Christian philosopher, Soren Kierkegaard: When you read God’s word eruditely—we do not disparage erudition, far from it—but remember that when you read God’s word eruditely, with a dictionary, etc., you are not reading God's Word... If you are a learned man, then take care lest with all your erudite reading (which is not reading God’s Word) you forget perchance to read God’s Word. If you are not learned— ah, envy the other man not, rejoice that you can at once get to the point of reading God’s Word! And if there is a desire, a commandment, an order [that you read],... then be off at 28 B.C. Hafen, Anchored, p. 3. 29 On the origins of today’s “praise and worship” services, “patterned after the rock concert of secular culture,’ see E Viola et al., Pagan Christianity, pp. 164-166. 30 PP. Tillich, cited in R. Coles, Secular Mind, p. 5. See also ibid., p. 18. 31 ‘J. E. Seaich, Ancient Texts 1995, p. vii. 32 + M. Barker, Hidden, p. 34. 33 J. H. Charlesworth, Protestant View, p. 84. 34 _ S. Prothero, Literacy, pp. 105-112. 35 H. Bloom, Names Divine, p. 104. See Endnote P-16, p. xxxiii. 36 Cited in S. Prothero, Literacy, p. 113. See Endnote P-20, p. xxxv. 37 See, e.g., H. B. Eyring, Jr., Power; S. D. Nadauld, Principles, pp. 88-89; B. K. Packer, Plan of Happiness; B. K. Packer, Children, p. 17; B. K. Packer, Do Not Fear, p. 79; B. K. Packer, Errand, pp. 307-312; M. K. Jensen, Anchors. LDS writers have often noted the fact that “God gave unto [men] commandments, after having made known unto them the plan of redemption” (Alma 12:32, emphasis mine). See Endnote P-17, p. xxiii. 38 N.A. Maxwell, Cosmos, p. 2. 39 =D&C 88:77. 40 D&C 88:118; cf. D. A. Bednar, Seek. 41 M.G. Romney, Oath, p. 19; M. K. Jensen, Anchors, p. 59. See Endnote P-18, p. xxiv. 42 D.H. Oaks, Sharing, p. 7. See also B. C. Hafen, Anchored, pp. 3-5. 43 L. B. Wickman, But If Not, p. 30. PREFACE dOvsadd Xxvi IN Gop’s IMAGE AND LIKENESS 1 — PREFACE once to do accordingly. “But,” you perhaps would say, “there are so many obscure passages in the Holy Scriptures, whole books which are almost riddles.” To this I would reply, “I see no need of considering this objection unless it comes from one whose life gives expression to the fact that he has punctually complied with all the passages which are easy to understand.’ Is this the case with you? [Thus a godly man must act:] if there were obscure passages, but also clearly expressed desires, he would say, “I must at once comply with the desire, then I will see what can be made of the obscure passages. Oh, but how could I sit down to puzzle over the obscure passages and leave the desire unfulfilled, the desire which I clearly understood?” That is to say: When you read God’s Word, it is not the obscure passages which impose a duty upon you, but that which you understand and with that you must instantly comply. If there were only a single passage you did understand in Holy Scripture—well, the first thing is to do that; but you do not first have to sit down and puzzle over the obscure passages. God’s Word is given in order that you shall act in accordance with it, not in order that you shall practice the art of interpreting obscure passages.“ About the 2014 Updated Edition Thanks to the readers who noted errors in the hardback volume, a first corrected edition of this book was published in softcover and in pprF format soon after the supply of the hardback was exhausted in early 2010. Though print-on-demand services for the softcover edition allowed the book to remain in print, vendor constraints regrettably required the book to be broken up into four volumes (with each volume to be numbered starting at page 1, wreaking havoc with the page numbers of internal cross-references) and to be reduced to a smaller page format. This edition allows the book to return to its original 8 1/2 x 11 page size in two volumes. Unfortunately, printing the book in color in a print-on-demand arrangement currently remains unaffordable. However, in the ppF version of this book, black-and-white versions of images have been updated to color throughout the interior when available. When I wrote this book, I did not anticipate that there would be additional books of commentary forthcoming in this series. As a result of the 2014 publication of a second book written with the assistance of David J. Larsen (In God’s Image and Likeness 2: Enoch, Noah, and the Tower of Babel), I have had to change the title of the present volume to avoid confusion. Many topics treated in volume 2 are updates and expansions of topics treated here in volume 1. In some cases my study of Enoch, Noah, and the Tower of Babel has led to new perspectives, making corrections and updates to volume 1 desirable. Here and there throughout this new edition, I have made changes accordingly. For example, I’ve updated the discussion of the “drunkenness” of Noah on pp. 592, 731 to reflect a recollection of Joseph Smith’s view (corresponding to the opinions of some ancient and modern exegetes) that Noah “was not drunk, but in a vision?*° Where new sources have been consulted, I have added them to the References section. It is important to understand, however, that my updates to this volume have been selective—a comprehensive reworking of the content of this book must await a true second edition, if that ever becomes possible. I have made minor stylistic, formatting, and layout changes throughout the book. Although in a few cases a line or a paragraph may have shifted to a new page, page numbers for sections and headings remain identical to the 2010 edition. In order to maintain consistency with previous editions, no new sections of the Excursus have been added and the numbering of previously existing Endnotes and Footnotes remains unchanged. Further suggestions and corrections from readers for future editions will be warmly welcomed. 44 Cited in S. Kierkegaard, Parables, p. 80; cf. S. Kierkegaard, Self-Examination, 12:318, pp. 28-29. See also J. E. Faul- coner, Dorrien, pp. 433-435. 45 Joseph Smith, Jr., as reported by William Allen to Charles Lowell Walker (C. L. Walker, Diary, 12 May 1881, 2:554). XXvVil Endnotes P-1 p-2 P-3 p-4 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 Said the Prophet Joseph Smith: “[H]e who reads [the sacred volume] oftenest will like it best, and he who is acquainted with it, will know the hand wherever he can see it” Coogan sums up the situation with respect to biblical studies as follows: The Bible is probably civilization’s most over-studied book. Since academics have to publish to get jobs and keep them, and since there are fewer and fewer original things to say about the primary texts, biblical studies have often moved, understandably, to the fringes. Enormous amounts of time and energy are spent performing minute analyses of texts, themes and artifacts that more sensible historians regard as insignificant, or on studying studies of the Bible.*” Nibley reassuringly quipped that “It is better to be ignorant and interested than ignorant and not interested, and there’s no third alternative here. We're ignorant in any case, so you might as well be ignorant and interested in these things?*® Donald Knuth, a well-known computer scientist, wrote in the preface to his book of Bible commentary: “I can't say that my scientific background makes me a better Bible student, but I don’t think it’s a handicap either”? C. S. Lewis, in fact, observed that the perspective of an amateur may sometimes be helpful to other beginners: “The fellow-pupil can help more than the master because he knows less. The difficulty we want him to explain is one he has recently met.’ Thus, explained Lewis about his own venture into unfamiliar scholarly territory: “I write for the unlearned about things in which I am unlearned myself... I write as one amateur to another, talking about difficulties I have met, or lights I have gained... with the hope that this might at any rate interest, and sometimes even help, other inexpert readers. I am ‘comparing notes, not presuming to instruct... The thoughts [this book] contains are those to which I found myself driven in reading the [scriptures], sometimes by my enjoyment of them, sometimes by meeting with what at first I could not enjoy””’ Thus Malcolm Muggeridge’s poignant question, “Would something like the miracle of Bethlehem even be allowed to happen in our day?” In humanistic times like ours, a contemporary virgin... would regard a message from the Angel Gabriel that she might expect to give birth to a son to be called the Son of the Highest as ill-tidings of great sorrow... It is, in point of fact, extremely improbable, under existing conditions, that Jesus would have been permitted to be born at all. Mary’s pregnancy, in poor circumstances, and with the father unknown, would have been an obvious case for an abortion; and her talk of having conceived as a result of the intervention of the Holy Ghost would have pointed to the need for psychiatric treatment, and made the case for terminating her pregnancy even stronger. Thus our generation, needing a Savior more, perhaps, than any that has ever existed, would be too humane to allow one to be born; too enlightened to permit the Light of the World to shine in a darkness that grows ever more oppressive.” Already in 1905, Chesterton could write: “Atheism itself is too theological for us today?” Likewise, Taylor provides an eloquent discussion of the process and consequences of the loss of “immediate certainty” of the moral/spiritual in Western culture.*? This point is illustrated by Peterson in his discussion of an essay by Jacob Weisberg that views “reliance upon religious faith in general, not merely Mormonism, ‘as an alternative to rational understanding of complex issues’... Weisberg regards all religious doctrines as ‘dogmatic, irrational, and absurd. By holding them, someone indicates a basic failure to think for himself or see the world as it is?>* More commonly held creeds have simply been granted an unmerited patina of respectability by the sheer passage of time. ‘Perhaps Christianity and Judaism are merely more venerable and poetic versions of the same. But a few eons makes a big difference”°° Peterson also cites a critical review of Bushman’s biography of Joseph Smith which implied that Bushman was overreaching himself in crafting a book that tries to make a place for “both inspiration and rational discourse.” Peterson notes the “apparent assumption that rational discourse and inspiration are radically incompatible” and cites the J. Smith, Jr., Teachings, 22 January 1834, p. 56. M. D. Coogan, Gulf. H. W. Nibley, Apocryphal, p. 266. D. E. Knuth, 3:16, p. 2. C. S. Lewis, Psalms, pp. 1-2. M. Muggeridge, Jesus, p. 19. G. K. Chesterton, Heretics, p. 40. C. Taylor, Secular Age—see, e.g., pp. 11ff. See also T. Asad, Construction, pp. 47-52. See Asad for a view that “the reasons for a person’s attachment to a given way of life, or conversion to another, cannot be reduced to an idealized model of scientific theory building” (T. Asad, Criticism, p. 235). D. C. Peterson, Reflections, pp. xxiii-xxiv. See J. Weisberg, Romney’ Religion. PREFACE dOvsadd XXVili P-6 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 IN Gop’s IMAGE AND LIKENESS 1 — PREFACE ENDNOTES reviewer's declaration “that, in order to earn a secular historian’s acceptance, ‘Smith’s revelations would need to be explained materially as a product of his cultural or physical environment:”*° Nonmember historian Jan Shipps’ experiences in responding to media questions about Mormonism il- lustrate the kinds of issues that arise for believers of all faiths in our day: I remember very well how the voice of one reporter coming across the telephone wire expressed both exasperation and astonishment. “How,” he wailed, “can perfectly sane people believe all this crazy stuff?” Because I had spent the first half of the 1980s writing a book designed to answer that very ques- tion, I had a ready reply... It usually began with my pointing out that the idea that Joseph Smith found golden plates and had revelations was not any more absurd than the idea that Moses and the Hebrews walked across the Red Sea without getting wet or that Jesus, who was dead, is now alive.>” That debates about the reality of Jesus’ resurrection are not a new phenomenon of the age of science is emphasized by Wright, who reminds us: “We didn’t need Galileo and Einstein to tell us that dead people don’t come back to life”>* Getting to the nub of the problem, Neusner concludes that “among our colleagues are some who do not really like religion in its living forms, but find terribly interesting religion in its dead ones. That is why an old Christian text, one from the first century for example, is deemed a worthy subject of scholarship. But a fresh Christian expression (I think in this connection of the Book of Mormon) is available principally for ridicule, but never for study. Religious experience in the third century is fascinating. Religious experience in the twentieth century is frightening or absurd”? While not accepting the historicity of the Book of Mormon, non-Mormon scholar O’Dea is one who at least took the book seriously “as a legitimate work of religious literature” and acknowledged that most of the theories of its origin advanced by its critics were unconvincing.” He observed with irony that “the Book of Mormon has not been universally considered by its critics as one of those books that must be read in order to have an opinion of it?*! Dickens later spoke admiringly of an uneducated but orderly group of Mormon emigrants he observed in Liverpool, concluding to his own surprise that if he hadn't have known who they were: “I should have said they were in their degree, the pick and flower of England.” “Dickens related his experience to Richard Monckton Milnes, Lord Houghton, who said that he had himself written on the topic of the Latter-day Saints in the Edinburgh Review in January 1862. In his article Milnes refers to a House of Commons inquiry in 1854...: “The Select Committee of the House of Commons on emigrant ships for 1854 summoned the Mormon agent and passenger-broker before it, and came to the conclusion that no ships under the provisions of the ‘Passengers Act’ could be depended upon for comfort and security in the same degree as those under his administration... [T]he Mormon ship is a Family under a strong and accepted discipline, with every provision for comfort, decorum and internal peace:”® Dickens’ contemporaries John Stuart Mill and Thomas Carlyle also wrote sympathetically about the Mormons. In his 1859 essay On Liberty, Mill decried “the language of downright persecution which breaks out from the press of this country, whenever it feels called on to notice the remarkable phenomenon of Mormonism? While characterizing the religion as “the product of palpable imposture,’ all the more incredible because of its appearance “in the age of newspapers, railways, and the electric telegraph,” Mill was not at all partial to the teachings of the Church. However, it deeply concerned him that “its prophet and founder was, for his teaching, put to death by a mob; that others of its adherents lost their lives by the same lawless violence; that they were forcibly expelled, in a body, from the country in which they first grew up; while, now that they have been chased into a solitary recess in the midst of a desert, many in this country openly declare that it would be right (only that it is not convenient) to send an expedition against them, and compel them by force to conform to the opinions of other people.” That legitimate means of persuasion could be used to counter its teachings seemed acceptable. “But when the dissentients have conceded to the hostile sentiments of others, far more than could justly be demanded; when they have left the countries to which their doctrines were unacceptable, and established themselves in a remote corner of the earth, which they have been the first to render habitable to human beings; it is difficult to see on D.C. Peterson, Reflections, p. xxx. See L. EF Maftly-Kipp, Who’ That, p. 11. J. Shipps, Sojourner, pp. 282-283; cf. R. L. Bushman, Mormonism, pp. 113-114. N. T. Wright, Surprised, p. 294. J. Neusner, Vocation, p. 117. A. L. Mauss, Near-Nation, p. 307. T. E O'Dea, Mormons, p. 26. C. Dickens, Traveler, 22, 4 July 1863, p. 262. P.E. Kerry, Carlyle, pp. 266-267. 64 65 66 67 68 IN Gop’s IMAGE AND LIKENESS 1 — PREFACE ENDNOTES Xxix what principles but those of tyranny they can be prevented from living there under what laws they please, provided they commit no aggression on other nations, and allow perfect freedom of departure to those who are dissatisfied with their ways” In his 1854 draft of Essay on the Mormons, Carlyle described Mormonism as “a gross physical form of Cal- vinism... but in this one point incommensurably (transcendently) superior to all other forms of religion now extant. That it is believed, that it is practically acted upon from day to day and from hour to hour; taken as a very fact, the neglect or contradiction of which will vitiate and ruin all other facts of the day and of the hour. That is its immeasurable superiority”® Elder Neal A. Maxwell expressed his “special appreciation for my friends who, though resolutely irreligious themselves, were not scoffers. Instead, though doubtless puzzled by me and their other religious friends, they were nevertheless respectful. I admire the day-to-day decency of such men and women. Though detached from theology, their decency is commendable” Among the many religious non-Mormon friends is historian Jan Shipps. She put her finger on part of the problem that people encounter in understanding LDS beliefs when she observed that “Mormonism is a really complex theological system... All its parts fit together beautifully. But if you just know a little bit about one of them, or part of them, it seems weird.”®” The well-known Vatican astronomer, Guy Consolmagno, found that two religions were universally dismissed by the subjectively-selected sample of scientists and engineers he interviewed as “obviously wrong”: Scientology and Mormonism. However, he also notes a difference between the two: “... no scientist of my acquaintance has ever had something good to say about Scientology—rather ironic, given its name. But as it happens, I know a number of techies who are Mormons, including my thesis advisor at MIT?® As one who has experienced both the perplexity and the generosity of spirit of his non-LDS colleagues, prominent Mormon historian Richard L. Bushman shared the following: I have lived an academic life ever since I graduated from Harvard College in 1955 and then later re- ceived a Ph.D. in the history of American civilization from that same institution. Since then I have taught at Brigham Young University, Boston University, and the University of Delaware, been visiting professor at Brown and Harvard universities, and now am Gouverneur Morris Professor of History at Columbia University. In these many years as an academic, I have never been belittled for my religious beliefs or felt excluded. I have published books, contributed to conferences, entered into scholarly con- troversies, and had my share of honors without once feeling that my well-known faith raised a barrier. Only now and then have I caught a glimpse of the wonder my colleagues must feel that a rational, mod- ern man believes the stories and doctrines of the Latter-day Saints. Soon after I was hired as professor of history and chair of the department at the University of Delaware, a member of the search commit- tee invited me to lunch. While we were driving along, I mentioned my work on a biography of Joseph Smith, the founder of the Latter-day Saint Church. My colleague, doubtless to reassure me, turned quickly and said, “Dick, we took all that into account and decided it didn't matter” Apparently he was thinking of the peculiar tic in my intellectual makeup that allowed me to hold these strange beliefs. A similar reaction greeted me on coming to Columbia in 1989. Introduced to a member of the faculty, he said jovially, “Oh, you're the Mormon,’ an entirely amiable remark meant to make me feel at home. But one can imagine the repercussions if a new faculty member at Brigham Young University was greeted with “Oh, you're the Jew,” or “Oh, you're the Catholic.” The extravagant nature of the Latter-day Saint religion probably accounts for the perplexity of my colleagues. Christian and Jewish doctrines, weathered by time, no longer strike people as bizarre or unusual. One can hold to one of the moderate versions of these ancient religions without startling one’s friends. But Joseph Smith saw the angel Moroni less than two hundred years ago and then brought home gold plates and translated the Book of Mormon. These miraculous events, happening so close to home, strain one’s credulity. How can anyone in this day of science and skepticism believe that God sends angels to speak to humans and requires such unlikely acts as the translation of an ancient history with the aid of a Urim and Thummim? My sophomore tutor, the distinguished historian of science, J. S. Mill, Liberty, pp. 163-166. Cited in P. E. Kerry, Carlyle, p. 270. N. A. Maxwell, Inexhaustible, p. 216. M. Luo, Test. For an insightful essay charting the historical evolution of charges that Mormonism is not Christian, see J. Shipps, Sojourner, pp. 335-357. For general overviews of changes in public perceptions of the Mormons in America, see T. L. Givens, Viper; J. Shipps, Sojourner, pp. 51-123. G. Consolmagno, God’s Mechanics, p. 98. Consolmagnos masters thesis advisor was John S. Lewis, who joined the Church in Boston while teaching at MIT, and is currently an internationally-respected professor of planetary science at the University of Arizona. PREFACE dOvsadd P-8 p-9 P-10 IN Gop’s IMAGE AND LIKENESS 1 — PREFACE ENDNOTES I. B. Cohen, once coyly mentioned to me that many people thought LDS beliefs were pure garbage. He doubtless was trying gently to bring me to my senses after my sheltered upbringing as a member of the Church. While Mormons regard many of the doctrinal elaborations that occurred during the early centuries of Christianity as unwarranted intrusions of Greek philosophy into the straightforward historical truths of the Gospel, some non-Mormons see LDS theology merely as simplistic and naive. For example Cahill writes that Mormonism resembles Manichaeism in its philosophical impoverishment, being “full of assertions, but [yielding] no intellectual system to nourish a great intellect?”” While a strong rebuttal of Cahill’s claim could be buttressed with arguments from a long line of scholars, both Mormon and non-Mormon, who have recognized the unique riches of the LDS tradition,’! such an argument would distract attention from a more central point: Like all religious traditions with which I am personally acquainted, the primary interest of Mormonism is in developing a universal community of saints not an elite cadre of scholars.”” In his essay on the Difference between a Genius and an Apostle, Kierkegaard eloquently captures this distinction between what he calls a “genius” and an “apostle”: The genius, an aristocrat of the spirit, has had gifts lavished upon him by nature that distinguish him from his fellows. The apostle may be a commoner, a fisherman, a one-talent man by nature, or he may have ten talents—yet all that he has is dedicated to the service of the Eternal and as such is lifted up. The genius speaks with brilliance and charm. The apostle speaks with authority. The way of the genius is a way closed to all but a few. The way of the apostle is a way open to all as individuals—even to the genius hee if he can forsake the absorbing satisfactions of a brilliant self-sufficiency and be ready to will one thing. Several serious LDS studies of the book of Abraham are now available.” Significantly, non-Mormon scholars W. D. Davies and Krister Stendahl separately noted their common view that “there is no other Christian community or community out of the Judeo-Christian tradition which has as positive and non-anti-Semitic ways of speaking about the Jews as have the Mormons?”° The way in which my “intellectual conversion” to the book of Moses was added to my spiritual witness recalled for me Elder B. H. Roberts’ description of the greater appreciation he experienced of the Atonement as he finished the writing of a manual on that subject for the Seventy: [W]hile religion must appeal to and satisfy the emotional nature, it must also appeal to and satisfy the intellect... [T]his late inquiry into that subject has had a wonderful effect upon my own thought and state of mind... It has been a matter of faith with me and knowledge, by the testimony of the Spirit of God to my soul; but upon close inquiry, by deeper delving into the subject, my intellect also gives its full and complete assent... I account it for myself a new conversion, an intellectual conversion, ... and Ihave been rejoicing in it of late exceedingly.”° I could also relate to the experience of Catherine Thomas, who found that needed episodes of spiritual illumination came “in context” through her work of teaching, and following an order and timing which only later became fully apparent: It was a time of germination. I had always been aware that thoughts came to me that illuminated life and the Gospel. Now I had an outlet for them. My writing began as I felt the need to explain some gospel principle or other to my students... I was always coming at a particular understanding in a way that needed context.” 69 R.L. Bushman, R. L. Bushman, pp. 79-80. 70 ‘T. Cahill, Irish, p. 49. 71 See, e.g., C. L. Blomberg et al., Divide; H. Bloom, American Religion; R. Jospe et al., Covenant; T. G. Madsen, Reflections; T. G. Madsen et al., Human Nature; T. G. Madsen, Eternal Man; S. M. McMurrin, Theological; R. L. Millet, Different; R. L. Millet, Vision; R. L. Millet et al., Bridging; R. L. Millet et al., Claiming; D. W. Musser et al., Dialogue; H. W. Nibley, Temple and Cosmos; B. T. Ostler, Attributes; B. T. Ostler, Theism; B. T. Ostler, God; S. J. Palmer, Mormons and Muslims; D. L. Paulsen, Embodiment; D. L. Paulsen, Are Christians Mormon; J. W. Welch, Worlds. 72 J. E. Faulconer, Tracy; J. Siebach, Response. 73 S. Kierkegaard, Purity, from Translator’s Introduction, p. 21. For a similar point of view, see H. W. Nibley, Prophets. See also J. S. Tanner, Men and Mantles, pp. 159-160 and J. L. Kugel, How to Read, pp. 679-689. 74 See, e.g., E. D. Clark, Blessings; J. Gee et al., Astronomy; H. W. Nibley, Drama; H. W. Nibley, Message 2005; H. W. Nibley, Abraham 2000; H. W. Nibley, Teachings of the PGP; M. D. Rhodes, Hor; J. A. Tvedtnes et al., Traditions. 75 K. Stendahl, Third Nephi, p. 151. 76 B.H. Roberts, 8 April 1911, p. 59. Also quoted in T. G. Madsen, Nine Reasons, pp. 110-112. 77. M.C. Thomas, Light, p. 347. P-11 P-12 IN Gop’s IMAGE AND LIKENESS 1 — PREFACE ENDNOTES XXXi The way in which the glory of God’s work is ultimately revealed in the simple details of texts, events, and godly persons is brilliantly described by Chesterton:”* The wise man will follow a star, low and large and fierce in the heavens; but the nearer he comes to it the smaller and smaller it will grow, till he finds it the humble lantern over some little inn or stable. Not till we know the high things shall we know how lowly they are. Meanwhile, the modern superior transcen- dentalist will find the facts of eternity incredible because they are so solid; he will not recognize heaven because it is so like the earth. See Birch”? for a vivid description of King’s approach to scholarship and classroom style. Wrote King: When I was first brought to read Joseph Smith’s story, I was deeply impressed. I wasn’t inclined to be impressed. As a stylistician, I have spent my life being disinclined to be impressed. So when I read his story, I thought to myself, this is an extraordinary thing. This is an astonishingly matter-of-fact and cool account. This man is not trying to persuade me of anything. He doesnt feel the need to. He is stating what happened to him, and he is stating it, not enthusiastically, but in quite a matter-of-fact way. He is not trying to make me cry or feel ecstatic. That struck me, and that began to build my testimony, for I could see that this man was telling the truth.*° By this, I do not think that the Prophet meant that a given passage of scripture can be understood in isolation, apart from the context in which it stands. Rather, for example, when he interpreted a parable, his “key” to “ascertain its meaning” was to “dig up the root,’ i.e., to “enquire [as to] the question which drew out the answer?! He was democratic in his desire to have the scriptures unfolded to all, decrying those who supposed that their plain truths were “mystery... and, therefore, are not to be understood.” He declared that all the Saints could come to an understanding of such things “if [they] will but open [their] eyes, and read with candor”®” Buber described this as: ... a disease of the spirit that can lead us to imagine that we already know what we are reading, causing us to blithely and triumphantly read past the text... The spiritual task of interpretation... is to affect or alter the pace of reading so that one’s eye and ear can be addressed by the text’s words and sounds—and thus reveal an expanded or new sense of life and its dynamics. The pace of technology and the patterns of modernity pervert this vital task. The rhythm of reading must, therefore, be restored to the rhythm of breathing, to the cadence of the cantillation marks of the sacred text. Only then will the individual absorb the texts with his or her life breath and begin to read liturgically, as a rite of passage to a different level of meaning. And only then may the contemporary idolization of technique and information be ansanet and the sacred text restored as a living teaching and instruction, for the constant renewal of the self. In an account of a personal incident from his university days, Faulconer describes his introduction to such an approach to reading scripture: Before studying [Genesis] with Professor Goldman, I memorized doctrines and scanned scriptures for evidence that would support the doctrines I believed. After studying with him I realized that although that kind of scripture study is essential, our learning is vastly improved if it is done against the back- ground of close reading I learned from Professor Goldman... The heart of [this approach] is asking questions—asking questions of the scriptures and letting them answer, asking questions about details rather than about abstractions and generalities. What does “dominion” mean? Why does Adam say what he does in the way that he does? What does the form of his answer to God suggest? Why is the story told in this order rather than another? Often Professor Goldman's questions had no single, correct answer. Even when he had a plausible answer to one of his questions, he never assumed that he knew everything he needed to know. He might ask the same questions today that he asked a year ago and criticize his previous answers. He focused on questioning in a productive way rather than on merely answering, but asking those questions naturally led to ideas I had never considered. It surprised me how often such questions about details led to insights into my life. 78 G.K. Chesterton, William Blake, p. 210. 79 A.J. Birch, King. 80 A. H. King, Joseph, p. 288. 81 J. Smith, Jr., Teachings, 29 January 1843, pp. 276-277. 82 Ibid., December 1835, p. 96. 83 Cited in M. Fishbane, Spirituality, p. 12. PREFACE dOvsadd XXXil P-15 84 85 86 87 88 A S IN Gop’s IMAGE AND LIKENESS 1 — PREFACE ENDNOTES As I imitated Professor Goldman, I began to wonder if my understanding of the Gospel was adequate. That too became a source for questions. To see whether the scriptures would refine my understanding. I began to ask questions like, I have always heard that such and such is true and I have always believed that this passage of scripture teaches that doctrine. Does it? Such questioning often showed me that my knowledge of the scriptures was shallow, that the verses I had used as supports for doctrines I believed not only supported those doctrines but also had a great deal to teach me.** a result of his experiences, Faulconer gives the following guidance to scripture readers: Assume that the scriptures mean exactly what they say and, more important, assume that we do not already know what they say. If we assume that we already know what the scriptures say, then they cannot continue to teach us. If we assume that they mean something other than what they say, then we run the risk of substituting our own thoughts for what we read rather than learning what they have to teach us.... [A]ssume that each aspect of whatever passage we are looking at is significant and ask about that significance. To assume that some things are significant and others are not is to assume, from the beginning, that we already know what scripture means. Some things may turn out to be irrelevant, but we cannot know that until we are done.®° Similarly, Wright comments that if you read in this way: ... the Bible will not let you down. You will be paying attention to it; you won't be sitting in judg- ment over it. But you won't come with a preconceived notion of what this or that passage has to mean if it is to be true. You will discover that God is speaking new truth through it. I take it as a method in my biblical studies that if I turn a corner and find myself saying, “Well, in that case, that verse is wrong” that I must have turned a wrong corner somewhere. But that does not mean that I impose what I think is right on to that bit of the Bible. It means, instead, that I am forced to live with that text uncomfortably, sometimes literally for years (this is sober autobiography), until suddenly I come round a different corner and that verse makes a lot of sense; sense that I wouldn't have got if I had insisted on imposing my initial view on it from day one.®° By way of contrast, Kugel notes the “subtle shift in tone” that has come with “the emphasis on reading the Bible [solely] in human terms and in its historical context” without the counterbalance provided by traditional forms of scripture reading: As modern biblical scholarship gained momentum, studying the Bible itself was joined with, and eventually overshadowed by, studying the historical reality behind the text (including how the text itself came to be). In the process, learning from the Bible gradually turned into learning about it. Such a shift might seem slight at first, but ultimately it changed a great deal. The person who seeks to learn from the Bible is smaller than the text; he crouches at its feet, waiting for its instruction or insights. Learning about the text generates the opposite posture. The text moves from subject to object; it no longer speaks but is spoken about, analyzed, and acted upon. The insights are now all the reader’s, not the text’s, and anyone can see the results. This difference in tone, as much as any specific insight or theory, is what has created the great gap between the Bible of ancient interpreters and that of modern scholars.°” About the abandonment of ancient modes of biblical interpretation, Kugel observes: What [modern exegetes] generally share (although there are, of course, exceptions) is a profound discomfort with the actual interpretations that the ancients came up with—these have little or no place in the way Scripture is to be expounded today. Midrash, allegory, typology—what for? But the style of interpretation thus being rejected is precisely the one that characterizes the numerous interpretations of Old Testament texts by Jesus, Paul, and others in the New Testament, as well as by the succeeding generations of the founders of Christianity... Ancient interpretive methods may sometimes appear artificial, but this hardly means that abandoning them guarantees unbiased interpretation... At times, [modern] interpretations are scarcely less forced than those of ancient midrashists (and usually far less clever).°8 J. E. Faulconer, Study, pp. 6-7. Ibid., pp. 11-12. N. T. Wright, Authoritative. See Berlin's seven principles of biblical hermeneutics for a detailed description of such an approach to scriptural understanding (A. Berlin, Search). J. L. Kugel, How to Read, p. 666. Ibid., pp. 674, 676; cf. M. Barker, Christmas, pp. 29-30. IN Gop’s IMAGE AND LIKENESS 1 — PREFACE ENDNOTES XXxiii P-16 Since at least the time of Norman Vincent Peale’s The Power of Positive Thinking (1952), a parade of quasi-religious books have, in the words of Prothero: ... preached therapy more than theology, happiness rather than salvation. Then, as today, debating (or even discussing) religious doctrines was considered ill-mannered, a violation of the cherished civic ideal of tolerance, so it was difficult for children to learn or for adults to articulate what set their religious traditions apart from others.® Current interest in contemplative practice has caused “spiritual but not religious” folks to redis- cover such neglected resources inside Christianity and Judaism as centering prayer and Kabbalah. But it has also led them to Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism, and other Asian religions in search of various forms of meditation, yoga, and tai chi... Here too, however, the trend is toward religion stripped down to its “essentials’—essentials that in this case are confined almost entirely to the experiential or moral dimensions. This development is well advanced in the American Buddhist community, where some have argued that Buddhism can get along just fine without such staples as karma and reincarnation. “Buddhism Without Beliefs,” as this movement has been called, aims to distill the Buddhist life down to nothing more than one’s favorite sitting or chanting practice, and then to put that practice at the service of such American preoccupations as happiness. The tendency to shirk from doctrine is particularly pronounced in the “multi-religious America” camp. Here even the minimal monotheism of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic model must be sacrificed since many Buddhists don’t believe in God and many Hindus believe in more than one. The only common ground here seems to be tolerance itself. When pluralists gather for interreligious dialogue, their discussions always seem to circle back to ethics... [without] a whisper of theology.” P-17__ Also of relevance is the significant effort currently being devoted to The BYU New Testament Commentary: Approved by the BYU administration and its Board of Trustees..., the project foresees the production of fifteen volumes of commentary on individual books of the New Testament. The public announcement reads as follows: The Board of Trustees of Brigham Young University has recently approved the publication of a multi-volume commentary on the New Testament. A broad-based team of Latter-day Saint scholars have joined forces to produce the set. Planned to take about ten years to complete, this fifteen-volume series will combine the best ancient linguistic and historical evidence with Mormon interests and doctrinal perspectives.... This commentary will be the first to combine scholarly expertise and Mormon scripture. Each book in the New Testament will be examined word by word. In addition, relationships between the New Testament and the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants will be carefully examined. The commentary will be not just another scholarly commentary, but particularly a Latter-day Saint Commentary. It will focus on passages of particular interest to Latter-day Saints; it will draw from all the LDS standard works; and we strive for it to be written with inspiration... [Part] of our purposes is to demonstrate the proper treatment of text transmission and translation— that is, to make use of what seems to be correct and offer alternate meaning for what seems to be incorrect. Each volume will contain substantial introductory and contextual material where questions of provenance, setting, authorship, intent and purpose will be addressed. Discussion of manuscript tradition and transcription will also be considered, as well as thematic or topical questions contained in the text being examined. The actual commentary will address the text as found in the King James Version. Pericopes, that is sections of the text divided into similarly- themed verses, generally no more than a dozen at a time, sometimes fewer, will be treated verse by verse, and word by word. Analytical commentary will be offered in terms of linguistic analysis, including alternative translation possibilities based on literal Greek meanings of words, historical background, and theological significance. Where issues of textual transmission arise, consultation will be made of Greek texts unavailable to the King James translators, some newly discovered and of early date, others the synthetic product of 400 years of additional research, textual comparison, and new discovery. Sources for linguistic considerations will include not only well known recent translations of the New Testament, but importantly the Joseph Smith Translation in what places 89 S. Prothero, Literacy, p. 113; cf. C. Lasch, Revolt, pp. 216ff. 90 __ S. Prothero, Literacy, p. 117 PREFACE dOvsadd XXXIV P-18 P-19 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 IN Gop’s IMAGE AND LIKENESS 1 — PREFACE ENDNOTES New Testament passages are addressed. Standard scholarly commentaries such as the Anchor Bible Commentary or Sacra Pagina, as well as many scholarly monographs and articles, will also be consulted. When Greek is cited it will be transliterated into the Roman alphabet used in English so as to be accessible to our readers. In this vein, both Greek and Latin references will be given in the original language and in a translated English form. For purposes of interpretation and comment, consideration will be given to writings spanning two thousand years from Apostolic Fathers and pre-Nicene Christian authors to the important truths revealed in latter-day scripture and the teachings of leaders of the Restoration from the time of Joseph Smith to the present day. Historical background, as it pertains to particular New Testament passages, will provide detailed discussion of the world at the time of Christ from cultural, political, and legal perspectives. A Board of five editors, all senior and experienced BYU professors, directs the project.”! Elder Neal A. Maxwell wrote that: ... gaining knowledge and becoming more Christlike “are two aspects of a single process?** This process is part of being “valiant” in our testimony of Jesus. Thus, while we are saved no faster than we gain a certain type of knowledge,”? it is also the case, as Richard Bushman has observed,” that we will gain knowledge no faster than we are saved... [B]ehaving and knowing are inseparably linked.” Similarly, C. S. Lewis writes: Most of us [should be] less urgently concerned with the Pauline question [of why it is theoretically impossible for us to perfectly obey the moral law] than with [the practical implications of] William Law’s simple statement: “if you will here stop and ask yourselves why you are not as pious as the primitive Christians were, your own heart will tell you that it is neither through ignorance nor inability, but purely because you never thoroughly intended it?*° Kugel echoes the same spirit from a Jewish perspective: In Judaism, Scripture is ultimately valued not as history, nor as theology, nor even as the great, self-sufficient corpus of divine utterances—all that God had ever wished to say to man. Judaism is not fundamentalism, nor even Protestantism. What Scripture is, and always has been, in Judaism is the beginning of a manual entitled To Serve God, a manual whose trajectory has always led from the prophet to the interpreter and from the divine to the merely human. To put the matter in, I admit, rather shocking terms: since in Judaism it is not the words of Scripture themselves that are ultimately supreme, but the service of God (the “standing up close”) that they enjoin, then to suggest that everything hangs on Scripture might well be described as a form of fetishism or idolatry, that is, a mistaking of the message for its Sender and the turning of its words into idols of wood or stone... For Judaism, the crucial element has always been the imperative that Scripture’s very existence embodies... the basic divine commandment reflected in Deuteronomy’s exhortation “to serve the Lord your God with all your heart and all your soul”®” and similar pronouncements. To flesh out this commandment was the purpose of all of Scripture and all later interpretation. With such a purpose foremost, the Bible’s original component texts easily lent themselves to flexible reinterpretation.... The Bible, it seems to me, remains the most accessible... basic program for the service of God in daily life... We have seen that, since ancient times, the trajectory of being God’s servants inevitably led from words of God to merely human words, and that the latter have had a great deal to do with the essence of the Bible, turning all of it into a manual of “what to do.” So, while I could not be involved J. E Hall, Translated Correctly. C. T. Warner, Truth, p. 1490. J. Smith, Jr., Teachings, 10 April 1842, p. 217; cf. Alma 12:30. R. L. Bushman, Faithful History, p. 18. N. A. Maxwell, Inexhaustible, pp. 212-213. See also A. S. Miller, Atonement and Testimony. C. S. Lewis, Pain, p. 59. See W. Law, Serious Call, 2, p. 57. On the other hand, one might also admire those who, in an artless and unconscious manner, simply do good out of their very nature—or even out of a spontaneous burst of repentance, as in the delightful French Christmas story La Pastorale des Santons de Provence. There it was said of the miserly Roustido, following an sudden and uncharacteristic act of kindness inspired by the presence of the Christ child and His Mother: “Tl venait de gagner le paradis sans le faire exprés” (= “He had just won a spot for himself in Paradise without knowing it.”) (Y. Audouard, Pastorale, p. 76). Deuteronomy 10:12. In Gop’s IMAGE AND LIKENESS 1 — PREFACE ENDNOTES XXXV ina religion that was entirely a human artifact, it would, in theory at least, be enough for me if God said what He is reported to have said in Exodus and Deuteronomy: “Do you want to come close to Me? Then do My bidding, become My employees.” The fleshing out of that primal commandment takes place in Scripture and outside of Scripture, and it is all one sacred precinct; indeed, the divine presence suffuses every part of it.°8 ‘The idea of the primacy of service must, of course, be tempered by the knowledge that God’s call to action “always comes through the filter of human understanding, and God asks for a creative, loving response on our part, not mere compliance.” McLachlan compares it to the call one might see in the face of a loved one. “Whether and how I will respond” to such an encounter “is up to me”? Augustine phrased his approach to this issue in terms of a balance: No man has a right to lead such a life of contemplation as to forget in his own case the service due to his neighbor; nor has any man a right to be so immersed in active life as to neglect the contem- plation of God.'°° However, I resonate more strongly with the view of Elder Bruce C. Hafen who argues that “a ‘balanced’ approach simply won't be enough when we encounter the most demanding experiences of our spiritual growth. When we find ourselves stretched to our extremities, we need a new level from which to draw more deeply on our Hebrew roots than our Greek roots?!°! To adopt such a perspective is not to devalue the life of the mind in religion, but rather, with C. S. Lewis, to reject the idea: ... which lingers in the mind of some modern people that cultural activities are in their own right spiritual and meritorious—as though scholars and poets were intrinsically more pleasing to God than scavengers and bootblacks... The work of a Beethoven and the work of a charwoman become spiritual on precisely the same condition, that of being offered to God, of being done humbly “as to the Lord?!” P-20 As an example, Prothero cites a statement by Eisenhower to a Soviet official in a December 1952 meeting that “our form of government has no sense unless it is founded in a deeply felt religious faith, and I don’t care what it is”!°? The same fierce loyalty to an abstract “idea” of God divorced from any particulars is expressed more prosaically in an off-the-street comment made to a sociologist by a high-school student in the Middle West, “Yeah, we smoke dope all over, in our cars, walking around before class, anytime, but that doesn’t mean we don't believe in God or that we'll let anybody put God down” 104 P-21 Efforts have been made to bridge this gap through books that explain the meaning of specific symbols 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 used in scripture and temple worship. However, most of us not only struggle with the meaning of individual concepts and symbols, but also—and perhaps more crucially—in understanding how these concepts and symbols fit together as a whole. Scriptural and temple symbols and concepts are best understood, not in isolation, but within the full context of teachings to which they belong. In this respect, Chesterton has compared our position to that of a “sailor who awakens from a deep sleep and discovers treasure strewn about, relics from a civilization he can barely remember. One by one he picks up the relics—gold coins, a compass, fine clothing—and tries to discern their meaning”! But the essential meaning is to be found not so much in the individual relics as in a grasp of the milieu that produced them. J. L. Kugel, How to Read, pp. 685, 687, 689. The primacy of good deeds vs. Torah study was a matter of debate among the Jewish Sages. For example, according to one among them, the first question that will be addressed to man on Judgment Day is “Have you dealt honestly in the conduct of your business?” and the second question will be “Did you set fixed times for the study of Torah?” Another sage, however, stated: “Man's trial will begin with an examination of his study of Torah” (A. J. Heschel, Heavenly Torah, p. 206). J. McLachlan, Reply, p. 209. Augustine, City, 19:19, p. 413; cf. Pirke Avot: “Anyone whose wisdom exceeds his good deeds... [is like] a tree whose branches are numerous but whose roots are few; then the wind comes and uproots it and turns it upside down” (M. Lieber, Pirkei Avos, 3:22, p. 201). B. C. Hafen, Reason, pp. 27-28. See S. Kierkegaard, Fear, pp. 20, 79-100, 189-192: “the teleological suspension of the ethical”; cf. discussion in R. Coles, Secular Mind, pp. 15-20. C. S. Lewis, Learning, pp. 55-56. S. Prothero, Literacy, p. 113. P. Fussell, Class, p. 150. P. Yancey, introduction to G. K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy, p. xiii. PREFACE = . 4 | G MMe netation / : : tt rin f . nee K Ag la hid re, A Slave Caceled | y hea te Le efor ¢ ule r€ “a oer She Asdqd *) stall lefhys hands tl nel ata 4 . fer?” “ards shy + vie , ater Con Athatd f, . 4 lei ¥o hag cork fer PLR) Hore té 4, f/f “eM Wome t tng Ktyalltn Cu neny Fh SY, ng fu tea 1 4 / y ; a Veo te ” at Wn l dss FEY san Lol % ald Lord if th tha lf ati 7 tat Show laohecl Y Le Aik Fle hide ; has uterdts no (B64 p21 Orvglin ‘thing ; Onbea Lad media /, ; : A i060 bs Ey Aero at Li Sb 1-0 te te oars, PROC fm Meshes te for CVE Mere hi k Ml gtantaiss % ae / “4 V4 rs / metendl WV ad. tnsgls xX ¢ wre “tees Kt fee Meche ot Frat MAS P10 Yaeh > te phremere’ ylms Ys » te wmade Cota 4 vat aod « Paes Vatsh ~ ne f ) Fe + Sais Priel of Cod tr ‘ , .. hus wa Otali iP , Ae - , feed, tin & rye whe } py d (ia sn tlly eh len Ghee, / ale YY ene fal nas glory Kray “bt ofa % aa “Cornea (i he tr Aeemlis | fetl tomate Fey i sR Sind, oy ‘4 : 7 JA eros Mead sate in setent- fa enti > 5 ™ 0 7* ae ee OO DMM ods Tan ef, Pritts x 4 lle Ww YE 94 , oe FRc Poet A vi Yo tag ew d Ge. Ada Kewae haat tot ft FR Nem che Meade as “et Co.., tenet hte t tn Fe "aot of YHend én mite Jaen see rend nd higeltin x Werk, KOA ter le-ink tect ti Gms A 1 OEY 5 tet fon pt nat pt h, oe oy i. - NAHE te bent ty h cs ; fel / i dA Cape fet, bite a a fron a yo Can fastes Vt be, Gad o> Ay my ton & ihe nec. fers Pual Add tae Ag the ge Ox y 2 cel Mt Fhe f ret fs f - / tt, ZL a one Mpa tet Yue owe thafors C4 ate £ , : «chi 4 me a nal Cart @ Cad & Je. Gud 2” raul sfkin FE a Fo te ra Aw) o. ot tacel, Cwods tan Onsite A, “Can ate hi fant hase Y Pru tebe,. 4 Pong Aat Gilme ben ; otk ’ (%e to glo and rout At hen tee ‘ halen Wall news lan ber teet “pe FIGURE 0-1. Old Testament Manuscript 1, Page 1, 1830 A revelation given to Joseph the Revelator, June 1830. This page, in Oliver Cowdery’s handwriting, records the text of Moses 1:1-19. The account of this marvelous vision seems to have been dictated by the Prophet “without the slightest contempla- tion, hesitation, or uncertainty” (K. P. Jackson, New Discoveries, p. 154). INTRODUCTION The Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible... eesssesesesseeseeseeeeseeeees 1 A Detailed Look at the js9 Old Testanient ys cescescccsisesstecaatiievied tasect tisetaneiee 3 jst Genesis anid the Book Of MOSES: sc ccccssscasssnsnssnsnsesoonsseovassdiosniamenteseeeneen 8 Official Status of the King James Version and the JST .cs..sivesessinecnscvoassavoens. 9 PD at WS RG assee os caus cess seceaseuaees ex caps ncacs ockancnesiaweeesee eee 10 Arransement onthe Text and Mlustrations .s,.ciss.cssisnpsaasetitdenienats 12 RB OMECE Sanne). Chat iTS. s:5:4ca5 gt cacsaccted ide cnceety ceasiincsennnsesemengnestanneesen Saas iosemanese 13 ithe Use Or Amie ene Nemes scncconcinces des tiicsninriceseia eamesineacmnaes 14 TRAC. eancascanscictanntattn auaws cs asians resin ee eee nie eeimnetaenes 19 The Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible However, the Joseph Smith Translation (jst) was unique in that both the commission to translate and the means of performing the translation were the M ANY new editions of the Bible appeared in America between 1777 and 1830. result of revelation from God.’ Kent P. Jackson briefly relates the history as follows: Not long after the Church was organized in the spring of 1830, Joseph Smith began a careful reading of the Bible to revise and make corrections in accordance with the inspiration he would receive. From that labor came the revelation of much truth and the restoration of many of the “precious things” that Nephi had foretold would be taken from the Bible.” In June 1830, the first revealed addition to the Bible was set to writing. Over the next three years, the Prophet made inspired changes, additions, and corrections while he filled his calling to provide a more correct translation for the Church. Collectively, these are called the “Joseph Smith Translation” The first revelation of the Joseph Smith Translation is what we now have as Moses 1 in the Pearl of Great Price—the preface to the book of Genesis. Beginning with Genesis 1:1, the Prophet apparently had the Bible before him and read aloud from it until he felt impressed to dictate a change in the wording. If no change were required, he read the text as it stood. Thus dictating the text to his scribes, he progressed to Genesis 24, at which point he set aside the Old Testament as he was instructed in a revelation on March 7, 1831.’ The following day, he began revising the New Testament.* When he completed John 5 in February 1832, he ceased dictating the text in full to his scribes and began using an abbreviated notation system. From that time on, it appears that he read the verses from the Bible, marked in it the words or passages that needed to be corrected, and dictated only the changes to his scribes, who recorded them on the manuscript. Following the completion of the New Testament in February 1833, Joseph Smith returned to his work on the Old Testament. He soon shifted to the abbreviated notation system for that manuscript also... [During this last phase of Old Testament translation] he dictated only the replacement words, as he had done earlier with the New Testament. At the end of the Old Testament manuscript, after the book of Malachi, the scribe wrote the following words: P. L. Barlow, Bible, pp. 46-47. 1 Nephi 13:23-29. See D&C 45:60-62. See Endnote 0-1, p. 19. See Endnote 0-2, p. 19. Bm wOND INTRODUCTION NOILONGOULNI INTRODUCTION — THE JOSEPH SMITH TRANSLATION OF THE BIBLE “Finished on the 2nd day of July 1833.” That same day the Prophet and his counselors— Sidney Rigdon and Frederick G. Williams, both of whom had served as scribes for the new translation—wrote to Church members in Missouri and told them, “We this day finished the translating of the Scriptures, for which we returned gratitude to our Heavenly Father”° Joseph and his scribes had been carrying many other responsibilities during this period of rapid Church expansion from New York to Ohio and Missouri. Therefore, one can easily imagine what relief they must have felt as they completed this phase of the work. Unfor- tunately, though the jst had progressed to the point where the Prophet was planning its publication, continual lack of time and means prevented it from appearing in its entirety during his lifetime.° In August 1832, the first extract from jst Genesis, Moses 7, was published in the Church's newspaper, The Evening and Morning Star. Publication continued with additional extracts from the new translation’ in March and April 1833.8 Two years later, several verses from Moses 2-5 were used in the publication of the Lectures on Faith in the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants.’ Finally, Moses 1 appeared in the January 16, 1843 edition of the Times and Seasons. Drawing on the earlier newspaper publications, Elder Franklin D. Richards included portions of Moses 1-8 in the first edition of the Pearl of Great Price, printed in England in 1851. However, subsequent editions of the Pearl of Great Price relied on the version of Moses 1-8 that had been published by the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (RLDS, now officially named the Community of Christ). The Prophet’s wife, Emma, kept the original jst manuscripts until 1866, when they were given to the RLDS Church. Based on a review of original manuscripts by an RLDS publication committee, the “Inspired Version” (I.V.) of the Bible first appeared in 1867. In 1944, the RLDS Church brought out a carefully prepared “new corrected edition” However, because LDS scholars had not yet had an opportunity to compare the I.V. to the original manuscripts, its initial acceptance by Church members was limited.'° An exhaustive study by Brigham Young University (BYU) religion professor Robert J. Matthews was published in 1975.'! He established that the 1944 and subsequent editions of the “Inspired Version? notwithstanding their shortcomings, constituted a faithful rendering of the work of the Prophet Joseph Smith and his scribes—insofar as the manuscripts were then understood." With painstaking effort over a period of eight years, and with the generous cooperation of the Community of Christ, a facsimile transcription of all the original manuscripts of the jst was at last published in 2004." A detailed study of the text of the portions of the jst relating to the book of Moses appeared in 2005.'* Taken together, these studies allow us to see the process and results of translation with greater clarity than ever before." 5 K. P. Jackson, Cooperstown Bible, pp. 59-60. See J. Smith, Jr., Documentary History, 2 July 1833, 1:368. 6 R. J. Matthews, Plainer, p. 391. See Endnote 0-3, p. 19. 7 Moses 6:43-68, 5:1-16, and 8:13-30. 8 K. P. Jackson, Book of Moses, p. 14. 9 See Endnote 0-4, p. 19. 10 ___‘T.E. Sherry, Changing. 11 For additional background on Matthews’ work, see R. L. Huntington et al., Robert J. Matthews; B. M. Hauglid et al., Community of Christ. 12 R.J. Matthews, Plainer, pp. 200-201. See also K. P. Jackson, Book of Moses, pp. 20-33. 13. S.H. Faulring et al., Original Manuscripts. For additional background, see R. L. McConkie, Miracle. 14 K.P. Jackson, Book of Moses. 15 See Endnote 0-5, p. 19. INTRODUCTION — THE JOSEPH SMITH TRANSLATION OF THE BIBLE Scripture Reference Date Place Scribe Manuscript Reference Moses 1; Community of June 1830 Fayette, NY or | Oliver oT1-1, line 1 to oT1-3, Christ D&C 22 Harmony, PA | Cowdery line 14 Moses 2:1-5:43; I.V. Genesis | Between June and Harmony, PA | Oliver oT 1-3, line 15 to oT1- 1:1-5:28; Genesis 1:1-4:18 October 21, 1830 and Fayette, Cowdery 10, line 5 NY Moses 5:43-5:51; I.V. October 21, 1830 Fayette, NY John oT 1-10, lines 6 to 23 Genesis 5:29-5:37; Genesis Whitmer 4:18-24 Moses 5:52-6:18; I.V. November 30, 1830 Fayette, NY John oT 1-10, line 24 to oT1- Genesis 5:38-6:16; Genesis Whitmer 11, line 40 4:25-5:11 Moses 6:19-6:52; I.V. December 1, 1830 Fayette, NY Emma oT1-11, line 41 to oT1- Genesis 6:17-6:53; Genesis Smith 14, line 1 5:12-21 Moses 6:52-7:1; I.V. Genesis | Between December 1 Fayette, NY John oT1-14, line 1 to oT1- 6:53-7:1 and December 10, 1830 Whitmer 15, line 16 Moses 7:2-7:69; I.V. Genesis | Ca. December 10 and Fayette, NY Sidney oT1-15, line 16 to oT1- 7:2-7:78 31, 1830 Rigdon 19, line 34 Moses 8:1-8:30; I.V. Genesis | Probably between Probably in Sidney oT1-19, line 35, oT1- 7:78-24:42; Genesis 5:22- February 1 and March | Kirtland,OH | Rigdon 61, line 5 24:41 7, 1831 LV. Genesis July 20-31, 1832 to July | Hiram and Frederick G. | oT2-59, line 1 to oT2- 24:42-Nehemiah 10:30; 2, 1833 Kirtland, OH | Williams 81, line 20 Genesis 24:41-Nehemiah 10:30 Nehemiah 11-Psalm 10 Between late July 1832 | Kirtland,OH | Joseph oT2-81, line 21 to oT2- and July 2, 1833 Smith 83, line 32 Psalm 11-Malachi Between late July 1832 | Kirtland,OH | Frederick G. | or2-83, line 33 to or2- and July 2, 1833 Williams 119, line 5 FIGURE 0-2. Time Sequence of the Joseph Smith Translation of the Old Testament!® A Detailed Look at the jst Old Testament A chart describing the circumstances of the jst additions and revisions to various portions of the Old Testament is shown above. It shows only the time of original translation. Subsequent Old Testament revisions were extensive but generally minor in substance. Overall, 3,410 verses in the printed editions of jst differ in textual construction from the King James Version (KJV), using the numbering of the IV. as the basis for comparison.'” Of the total of 1,289 verses changed in the Old Testament, 25 correspond to the additions of Moses 1, and 662 occur in Genesis.'* Hence, more than half of the changed verses in the JsT Old Testament and 20% of those in the entire jst Bible are contained in Moses 1 and Genesis, with the most extensive modifications occurring in Genesis 1-24. As a proportion of page count, changes in Genesis occur four times more frequently than in the New Testament, and twenty-one times more frequently than in the rest of the Old Testament. The changes in Genesis are not only more numerous, but also more significant in the degree of doctrinal and historical expansion. 16 Excerpted from S. H. Faulring et al., Original Manuscripts, pp. 57-59; R. J. Matthews, Plainer, p. 96. From 8 March 1831 to sometime between 20-31 July 1832, the translation of the New Testament took place. 17 See Endnote 0-6, p. 19. 18 _R.J. Matthews, Plainer, p. 424. INTRODUCTION NOILONGOULNI INTRODUCTION — THE JOSEPH SMITH TRANSLATION OF THE BIBLE Certainly the importance of the early Genesis chapters justifies the proportionately greater time and attention they received. However, the JstT translation schedule may also provide a clue to the reason why the first half of Genesis contained the overwhelming share of the Prophet’s modifications. The original version of the translation of st Genesis through chapter 24 was performed over the course of five to nine months.’ These chapters contained very detailed revisions and rich prophetic additions to the original Genesis text. Work on the Old Testament was interrupted by first phase of New Testament translation, which began on 8 March 1831. By the time the Old Testament translation was resumed sixteen months later, the Prophet had stopped the practice of writing out the verses in full and instead adopted an abbreviated notation system he had developed for the New Testament. As Howard notes, this naturally led to fewer and briefer revisions.” Thus, it is no surprise that the first manuscript of the remainder of Genesis through the end of Malachi was completed at a much faster pace than the first half of Genesis. None of this, however, ultimately changes the general conclusion that Genesis 1-24 was a priority in the overall translation process. Though we cannot know how much of Joseph Smith’s daily schedule the translation occupied during each of its phases, it seems clear that Genesis 1-24—the first 1% of the Bible, corresponding to 24% of the overall three-year translation period—received a significantly more generous share of the Prophet's time and attention than did the remaining 99%. What important things could Joseph Smith have learned from translating Genesis 1-24? To begin with, the story of Enoch and his righteous city would have had pressing relevance to the mission of the Church, as the Prophet worked to help the Saints understand the law of consecration and to establish Zion in Missouri. Thus, it is no coincidence that this account was first published in 1832 and 1833.7! However, we should not allow the salience of these immediate events to overshadow the fact that the first jst Genesis chapters also relate the stories of other patriarchs, especially Adam, Noah, Melchizedek, and Abraham. In consideration of this fact, and other evidence from revelations and teachings of this period, I have been led to believe that a very significant aspect of the translation process as a whole was the early tutoring in temple-related doctrines received by Joseph Smith as he revised and expanded Genesis 1-24, in conjunction with his later translation of significant passages in the New Testament and, for example, the Old Testament stories of Moses and Elijah.” I believe that the book of Moses throws much more light on temple worship than has been previously supposed, and that it goes far beyond the obvious passages on the Creation, the Fall, and early events in the lives of Adam and Eve. A corollary, in making this argument, is that a detailed understanding of the covenants and sequences of blessings associated with current forms of LDS temple worship were revealed to Joseph Smith several years before he began to teach them in plainness to the Saints in Nauvoo.*? It has been generally supposed that in Kirtland the Prophet knew only a little about temple ordinances, and taught all of what he then knew to the Saints; and that when he got to Nauvoo the rest was revealed to him, and so he taught them something more. However, I think such a conclusion is mistaken. My study of the book of Moses and others of the initial revelations and teachings of Joseph Smith has convinced me that he knew early 19 Starting somewhere between June and October 1830 and ending 7 March 1831. 20 R.P. Howard, Restoration 1969, pp. 92-93. See also R. J. Matthews, Plainer, p. 80. See Endnote 0-7, p. 20. 21K. Muhlestein, Flow, pp. 52-62. 22 ‘J. M. Bradshaw, Temple Themes. 23. Cf. Matthew 17:9. INTRODUCTION — THE JOSEPH SMITH TRANSLATION OF THE BIBLE FIGURE 0-3. Go With Me to Cumorah, 1997 Liz Lemon Swindle, 1953- Wherefore I give unto you that ye may now translate it, that ye may be prepared for the things to come.! The process of translating the Bible laid the foundation for many of the revelations of Joseph Smith. 1 D&C 45:61. 2} R. J. Matthews, Role of jst. on much more about these matters than he taught publicly, contradicting the view of those who consider the temple ordinances a late invention.” Indeed, in some cases, we know that the Prophet deliberately delayed the publication of early temple-related revelations con- nected with his work on the jsT until the later Nauvoo period. For example, in Bachman’s groundbreaking studies on the origins of D&C 132, which has not only to do with celestial marriage but also the whole context of temple work, he convincingly argued that nearly all of that section was revealed to the Prophet as he worked on the jst. This was more than a decade previous to 1843, when the revelation was first recorded.” Likewise, Joseph Smith waited until 1843 to publish the first chapter of the book of Moses. In that revelation, he had been specifically commanded not to show it “unto any except them that believe until I command you.””* Some of what the Prophet learned as he worked on the jst and other translation projects” may have never been put to writing.*® Brigham Young is remembered 24 See, e.g., the overviews of Moses 1 (p. 37) and Moses 5 (pp. 341-350) as well as Excursus 3: Temple Blessings in the Oath and Covenant of the Priesthood, p. 519. See Endnote 0-8, p. 20. 25 D.W. Bachman, New Light. 26 Moses 1:42. 27 ‘See, e.g., Book of Abraham, Facsimile 2, explanations of figures 8-22. 28 See Endnote 0-9, p. 20. INTRODUCTION NOILONGOULNI INTRODUCTION — THE JOSEPH SMITH TRANSLATION OF THE BIBLE FIGURES 0-4 AND 0-5. Moses Indignant at the Golden Calf, ca. 1800 Rock Sculpted with Ark and Annunciation, 1827 William Blake, 1757-1827 SEE COLOR PLATES 0-4 AND 0-5. And in a day when the children of men shall esteem my words as naught and take many of them from the book which thou shalt write, behold, I will raise up another like unto thee; and they shall be had again among the children of men. The illustration on the left depicts Moses with the broken tablets from God at his feet in anger at the Israelites’ idolatrous worship.” Note the contrast of “the magnificent angular figure of the indignant Moses with the graceful dancers on the left, behind whom stands Aaron” and the golden calf, upper left. Blake saw Moses as a symbol of the iron-hard rationality and repression of the Old Testament law that required redemption through “the power of the creative imagination and the worth of continual artistic labor.” Figures of Moses, like other Blake protagonists, are “seen characteristically lifting their arms apart and breaking rocks or books into two, continually dividing material objects as they themselves are divided into various faculties’ 4 Tn contrast, as shown in the second illustration prepared for Dante's Divine Comedy, Blake compared the Ark of the Covenant to a “Dove of Peace” and a symbol of liberation. Dante had depicted purgatory as a high mountain with a narrow path leading up to the Garden of Eden, whose climb was necessary to overcome the effects of the Fall of Adam and partake of the Tree of Life. In canto 10, white marble carvings on the wall of the cliff offered examples of the virtue of humility—in this instance, the humility of Mary, the Lord’s handmaiden, at the Annunciation, and that of David, the humble Psalmist who, in humble dress, dances before the Lord around the altar of the temple in celebration of the return of the Ark.® Here, these two juxtaposed images are meant to symbolize loss and recovery of ‘plain and precious things”” as recounted in the Joseph Smith Translation: On the one hand, jst Exodus 34:1-2 tells why the ordinances of the higher priesthood were generally withheld from the people following Israel's rebellion. On the other hand, jst Genesis affirms the lost truth that Moses and the Patriarchs took part in this holy order, and received the necessary understanding of the laws and ordinances of the Gospel that would allow them to ascend the mountain of the Lord and partake of the Tree of Life® Moses 1:41. Exodus 32:19. M. Butlin, Blake, p. 75. P. Ackroyd, Blake, pp. 183. 184. See Endnote 0-12, p. 21. H. W. Nibley, Drama, p. 18., see D. Alighieri, Commedia. 1 Nephi 13:26-40. See Excursus 53: Comparative Explorations of the Mysteries, p. 663. CNA UNE WH Fe as stating “that the Prophet before his death [spoke] about going through the translation of the scriptures again and perfecting it upon points of doctrine which the Lord had restrained him from giving in plainness and fulness at the time”” The extensive nature of the restored prophecies concerning Joseph and his posterity in jst Genesis chapters 44 and 48 leads one to wonder what further revisions could have been made had the Prophet’s schedule allowed for more time spent on the translation. For instance, consider the account in Genesis 49 of the patriarchal blessings that Jacob gave to his sons. From the perspective of the jst, this account is important both because of its doctrinal significance and also because the original texts are laden with difficulties for the translator. Yet, despite significant jst additions to the surrounding chapters 48 and 50, Genesis 49 was left disappointingly untouched.” 29 Cited in G. Q. Cannon, Life, pp. 147-148. See Endnote 0-10, p. 21. 30 See Endnote 0-11, p. 21. INTRODUCTION — THE JOSEPH SMITH TRANSLATION OF THE BIBLE Philip Barlow observes that Joseph Smith made six basic types of changes in the jst: 1. The first consists of the long revealed additions that have little or no biblical parallel, such as the visions of Moses and Enoch, and the passage on Melchizedek... *! 2. A second type, which overlaps other categories, is a “common-sense” change [e.g., Genesis 6:6 “And it repented the Lord that he had made man...” is revised in Moses 8:25 to read: “And it repented Noah, and his heart was pained that the Lord had made man”*’]... God, who is perfect, needs no repentance... 3. A third category is “interpretive additions, often signaled by the phrase “or in other words, which the Prophet appended to a passage he wished to clarify...*° 4. “Harmonization” represents a fourth type of change... Smith reconciled passages that seemed to conflict with other passages...** 5. Many changes Smith made are not easily classified; one can observe only that frequently the meaning of a given text has been changed, often idiosyncratically...*° 6. The final and by far most common type of change the Prophet made in the Bible includes grammatical improvements, technical clarifications, and modernization of terms...*° It should be noted that the 1828 Phinney Bible used by Joseph Smith often used more contemporary forms of King James words than other Bibles—in fact, Phinney was a more modern text than the one used in the current LDS Bible edition.” This has sometimes led to confusion in trying to sort out which changes were deliberately made by the Prophet and which simply arose from differences in the edition of the Kyv he used.** Explains Jackson: 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 It is difficult to say whether the modernized spelling and usage of the Phinney Bible had an influence on the language of the Joseph Smith Translation. In sections of the new translation «>> that have no counterpart in the Bible, both indefinite articles, “a” and “an? are used before words that begin with a pronounced letter “h” In passages on the manuscripts that are found in the King James translation, again both articles are found, despite the near-consistent use of “a in the underlying Phinney Bible. The inconsistency in the manuscripts suggests that this particular modernization was not a high priority for Joseph Smith. But many other changes he made definitely had the effect of making the Bible more understandable for modern readers. The frequent changes to word order and modernizations in language, such as “wot” to “know”[—the manuscript at Exodus 32:1 revises “wot” to “know” with a note that “know” “should be in the place of ‘wot’ in all places”—]“saith” to “said? “that” and “which” to “who? and “ye” and “thee” to “you,” show that the language of the Joseph Smith Translation was a more radical break with the tradition of the King James Version than were Phinney’s limited efforts to update the spelling. Even so, those changes were applied inconsistently in the manuscripts, and the best suggestion is that even though the modernization of spelling and word usage was part of the new translation, other objectives were even more important.*® Moses ch. 1, 7:20-67; and jst Genesis 14:25-40. See Endnote 0-13, p. 21. Cf. Jeremiah 18:8. E.g., jsT Genesis 14:36, Luke 6:29. E.g., Matthew 27:3-8 and Acts 1:18-19; John 1:18 and Exodus 33:11. E.g., Proverbs 18:22; Matthew 2:13, 19; Matthew 8:10. E.g., Matthew 3:4, “meat” changed to “food”; Matthew 6:4 “which: changed to “who”; 2 Corinthians 3:4 “to God-ward” changed to “toward God” (P. L. Barlow, Bible, pp. 51-53). See Endnote 0-14, p. 22. K. P. Jackson, Cooperstown Bible, pp. 55-56. R. J. Matthews, Plainer, pp. 174-175, 393. K. P. Jackson, Cooperstown Bible, pp. 60, 62. INTRODUCTION NOILONGOULNI INTRODUCTION — THE JOSEPH SMITH TRANSLATION OF THE BIBLE Regarding the completeness of the JsT as we have it, Matthews has written: ...the manuscript shows that the Prophet went all the way through the Bible from Genesis to Revelation. But it also shows that he did not make all the necessary corrections in one effort. This situation makes it impossible to give a statistical answer to questions about how much of the translation was completed or how much was not completed. What is evident, however, is that any part of the translation might have been further touched upon and improved by additional revelation and emendation by the Prophet.” By 1833, we do know that Joseph felt it was sufficiently complete that preparations for publication could begin.’ JST Genesis and the Book of Moses The material in the book of Moses was originally divided into six parts, titled as follows: - A Revelation given to Joseph the Revelator June 1830 [= Moses 1]** ¢ A Revelation given to the Elders of the Church of Christ on the first book of Moses given to Foseph the Seer Chapter first [= Moses 2-4]** ¢ Chapter 2—A Revelation concerning Adam after he had been driven out of the garden of Eden [= Moses 5:1-5:59]"4 ¢ Capter [sic] third <6th>* the genealogy from Adam to Enoch & plan of salvation &c [= Moses 6:1-6:52]*° ¢ Chapter IVth <7th> Enoch prophecy &c [= Moses 7:1-8:12]*” ¢ Chapter V <8>th Noahs prophecy of the deluge &c [= Moses 8:13-Genesis 6:22]** The portions of the book of Moses published by Elder Franklin D. Richards in the first version of the Pearl of Great Price were based on excerpts from Joseph Smith's earliest draft of jst Genesis. This was contained in a manuscript now called Old Testament 1 (oT1). Richards’ excerpts had been taken from their first publication in the Evening and Morning Star” and the Times and Seasons™ as well as from a no-longer-extant personal handwritten copy of some additional unpublished portions of these revelations. Taken together, these represented about three-fourths of the current content of the book of Moses. The bulk of Joseph Smith’s work on a second manuscript (oT2) took place between March 1831 and July 1833, though the Prophet continued to make a few revisions and to prepare the manuscript for printing until his death in 1844. or2 contained many minor revisions in wording over the earlier draft, though relatively little in the way of substantive prophetic additions. 40 R.J. Matthews, Plainer, p. 215. 41 See Endnote 0-15, p. 23. 42 S.H. Faulring et al., Original Manuscripts, p. 83; cf. p. 591. 43 Ibid., p. 86; cf. p. 595. Muhlestein mistakenly states that this heading applied only to Moses 2-3 (K. Muhlestein, Flow, p. 43), whereas it actually encompasses Moses 4 as well. 44S. H. Faulring et al., Original Manuscripts, p. 92; cf. p. 602. Muhlestein mistakenly states that this heading ap- peared just above Moses 4 (K. Muhlestein, Flow, p. 43), when it actually appears just prior to the start of Moses 5. 45 See Endnote 0-16, p. 23. 46 — Ibid., p. 608; cf. p. 101. 47 Ibid., p. 615; cf. J. Smith, Jr., Documentary History, December 1830, 1:133. 48S. H. Faulring et al., Original Manuscripts, p. 624; cf. p. 111. 49 August 1832 to April 1833. 50 January 1843. INTRODUCTION — THE JOSEPH SMITH TRANSLATION OF THE BIBLE When Elder Orson Pratt revised the Pearl of Great Price in 1878, he completely replaced the previously-used Moses material with a version based on the 1867 RLDS publication of the I.V. Unfortunately, the RLDS publication committee had inadvertently failed to incorporate changes made in the later or2 manuscript. At the same time, they had included modifications made in the less-reliable versions printed in Church periodicals and had made some idiosyncratic changes of their own. While many of these problems have been corrected in the most recent editions of the I.V., some have unfortunately persisted in publications of the LDS book of Moses. Several other minor changes in text were also made in 1902 by Elder James E. Talmage, under the direction of the First Presidency, and in 1981 when an updated edition of the Pearl of Great Price was published by the Church.*! Official Status of the King James Version and the Jst The King James Version is the official Bible for English-speaking members of the LDS Church.” Granting that other Bible versions may be more accurate in some respects or easier to read, the kJv is preferred, if for no other reason, because of its lexical and stylistic correspondence to the Book of Mormon and modern-day revelation.” In 1979 and 1981, the Church first published new editions of the scriptures which con- tained, along with various study aids, extracts of many (but not all) revisions from the yst.** Elder Boyd K. Packer heralded this publication event as “the most important thing that [the Church has] done in recent generations.” Although it is not the official Bible of the Church, the jst is seen as an invaluable aid in scripture study and a witness for the calling of the Prophet Joseph Smith.** The jst texts of Genesis 1-8°’ and Matthew 24° in particular hold a place of special importance in the LDS scriptural canon since they have been wholly incorporated within the Pearl of Great Price. 51 R.J. Matthews, What Is, pp. xxviii, 32, 33, 35, 36. See K. P. Jackson, Book of Moses, pp. 1-52 for details. 52 First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Statement. 53. J. E McConkie, Revelation, p. 126; D. Packard et al., Feasting, pp. ix-x. See also discussion in P. L. Barlow, Bible, pp. 176-177. 54 For more about the selection process for included excerpts and a useful collection of significant changes not contained in the LDS edition of the Bible, see T. E. Sherry et al., Precious Truths. 55 B.K. Packer, Scriptures, p. 53; cf. B. K. Packer, Errand, p. 160. See Endnote 0-17, p. 23. 56 LDS Bible Dictionary, s.v. Joseph Smith Translation. 57 L.e., Moses 1-8. 58 L.e., Joseph Smith-Matthew. INTRODUCTION NOILONGOULNI 10 About This Book A word of explanation is in order concerning the title of this book: In God’s Image and Likeness, a phrase that has implications not only for human nature but also for the form and character of Divinity. Three dimensions of resemblance between God and man stand out. First, there is the idea of physical resemblance. While Church doctrine allows for wide differences of opinion regarding the origin of man, LDS scripture is unequivocal in its teaching that Adam was created “in the image of his [God’s] own body.”*! The Prophet spoke very plainly about the meaning of these words: “If the veil were rent today and... you would see [God] in all the person, image, fashion, and very form of a man, like yourselves. For Adam was a man formed in his likeness and created in the very fashion and image of God?’ Although, in our day, such a concept is rare outside of Mormonism, it was well attested in the ancient teachings of Judaism® and early Christianity.“ For example, in an oft-cited story found in Genesis Rabbah 8:10, “Adam's likeness to God is so exact that Adam must be put to sleep so that the angels might worship the right person... In [Yalqut Shimoni] 1:20 on Genesis 2:9 the angels exclaim when they notice Adam’s resemblance to God, ‘Are there two powers in heaven?”® Jewish scholar Jacob Neusner finds it “stunning” that the rabbinical commentators took this idea » « so literally, averring that even “the angels did not know man from God? “T cannot imagine,” he says, “a more daring affirmation of humanity.’ Regarding the second dimension, Joseph Smith made it clear that the concepts of “image” and “likeness” applied not only to the physical appearance of Adam and Eve, but also to their spiritual nature which was, in the beginning, “innocent, harmless, and spotless.’ After the Fall, they were made to dwell in a mortal world where they could, in the process of time and through “the Atonement of Christ... and obedience in the Gospel,” become sanctified and ultimately “attain to the [full] image, glory, and character of God?” This aspiration is echoed in ancient rabbinical teachings, in New Testament passages,” in standard formulations in the Orthodox Church,” as well as among some in the Western tradition.”' Though admittedly differing in their detailed understanding of such statements, early Christians would have agreed with Joseph Smith in affirming a “double movement” of image and likeness, whereby humans “begin like God and, at the same time, they come to be like Him?” 59 R.E. Friedman, Commentary, pp. 16-17. See also D. N. Freedman, Humanity, pp. 16-17, 22-25, quoted in Moses 2 Gleanings, pp. 122-124. 60 J. L. Sorenson, Origin, p. 1053. 61 Moses 6:9; cf. Targum Yerushalmi: “in the likeness of the presence of the Lord” (J. W. Etheridge, Onkelos). 62 J. Smith, Jr., 7 April 1844, in S. Larson, King Follett, p. 200. See Endnote 2-28, p. 130. Note, however: “The sense in which the Father's body is like a human body must be qualified” (B. Ostler, Attributes, p. 352). “Latter-day Saints affirm only that the Father has a body, not that His body has Him” (C. L. Blomberg et al., Divide, p. 88). See Commentary 1:6- g, p. 48 and Excursus 7: Time and Eternity, p. 537 for a discussion of philosophical and scientific issues. 63 See, e.g., M. S. Smith, Monotheism, pp. 86-93; E. J. Hamori, Embodied God. 64 = See, e.g., D. L. Paulsen, Embodiment. One group of fourth-century desert monks became so incensed at Theophilus of Alexandria's assertions of God’s incorporeality that they rioted and threatened to kill him. In response, he wrote a letter telling them to continue believing “a literal reading of Scripture, that God had bodily parts” (K. A. Shirts, Resurrection, citing E. A. Clark, New Perspectives, p. 147). 65 _P. B. Munoa, Four Powers, p. 101. 66 J. Neusner, Confronting, p. 63. See also D. N. Freedman, Humanity, pp. 16-17. Note the “individual’s close identifica- tion with God” in the rabbinical idea that He will “stroll with the righteous in the Garden of Eden in time to come. The righteous will be frightened in His presence, and the Holy and Blessed One will say, “Why are you frightened of Me? I am just like you” (Sifra Behukotai 111b, cited in A. J. Heschel, Heavenly Torah, p. 192). 67 J. Smith, Jr., Words, 9 July 1843, p. 231, punctuation modernized, bracketed word added for clarification; cf. T. G. Madsen, LDS View, p. 105; J. Smith, Jr., Teachings 2007, p. 52 68 See, e. g., A. J. Heschel, Heavenly Torah, pp. 192-193. 69 E.g., Romans 8:14-19; 2 Peter 1:3-4. 70 See Endnote 0-18, p. 23. 71 See Endnote 0-19, p. 23. See also Figure E2-1, p. 517. 72 J. E. Faulconer, Adam and Eve, 10; cf. Moses 4:28; Irenaeus, Heresies, 5:6:1, pp. 531-532. See Endnote 0-20, p. 23. INTRODUCTION — ABOUT THIS BOOK 11 FIGuRE 0-6. First Parents, 2005 Jay Bryant Ward, 1971- SEE FIGURE P-1. And Adam... begat a son in his own likeness, after his own image.’ In deliberate parallel, this verse portrays the resemblance of a child to his mortal parents with the same words that described the relationship of Adam and Eve to God. We are left to speculate about the identity of the child depicted in this illustration. Is it their firstborn son or daughter?” If so, what were the feelings of their heart, knowing as they did the opportunities and difficulties that would befall their posterity because of their choice in Eden? Is the baby Cain—or Abel?? What parent fully comprehends how fragile and unpredictable may be the life of a child? At such a moment of high hopes, who could have foreseen the sad fates of these two brothers?* Or perhaps the child is Seth, appointed to carry a righteous line forward, in contrast to the seemingly universal rebellion of their other children.” Jay Bryant Ward is a native of Idaho Falls, Idaho. The painting was commissioned for the cover of the January 2006 Ensign magazine. Admitting that the subject was “a bit intimidating,” he focused on “trying to convey the warmth and magic of... a new child”® Moses 6:10. Moses 5:2 Moses 5:16-17. See Moses 5 Gleanings, p. 405. Moses 6:1-2; cf. 5:13ff. J. B. Ward, News. Ancient and modern revelation describe a third dimension of resemblance between God and man: that of parenthood. Jesus repeatedly used terms “Father””* and “Abba” as He taught and prayed. Paul declared that “we are the offspring of God; and other scriptures clearly affirm a likeness between the role of “human fathers” and that of God as “the Father of our spirits.’”° The parallel between the fatherhood of man and that of God is further reinforced when Seth is described as being “in [Adam's] own likeness, after his own image”” Although, admittedly, the process by which the spirits of mankind come into being has not been revealed—and moreover conceding that there is some aspect of the spirit’s existence that is without beginning’*—LDS doctrine affirms the fact that: “All men and women are in the similitude of the universal Father and Mother, and are literally the sons and daughters of Deity.’” “Be ye therefore perfect,” we read in Matthew, “even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.*° The central message of the book of Moses is not revealed in its stories of the Creation and the Fall, as essential as these accounts may be, but rather in its invitation to conform our lives to the divine pattern whereby we may come to fully reflect God’s image 73 Matthew 5:16-48; 6:1-32; 7:11-21; 10:20-33; 11:25-27; 15:13; 16:17-27; 18:10-35; 23:9; 26:29-53; Mark 11:25-26; Luke 6:36; 9:26; 10:21-22; 11:2-13; 12:30-32; 15:12-29; John 5:17-45; 6:27-65; 8:16-56; 10:15-38; 12:26-50; 14:2- 31; 15:1-26; 16:3-32; 17:1-25; 20:17-21. 74 = Aramaic “father”—see Mark 14:36; cf. Romans 8:15; Galatians 4:6. Barney et al. note: “The popular notion that this was a diminutive form with the intimate connotation of ‘daddy’ in our culture is not correct” (K. L. Barney. et al., NT Footnotes, 1:250). 75 Acts 17:29. 76 Hebrews 12:9. See K. L. Barker, Zondervan, Hebrews 12:9, p. 1913; cf. F. E. Bruce, Hebrews, Hebrews 12:9, p. 341. See Endnote 0-21, p. 24. 77 Moses 6:10; cf. Genesis 5:3. 78 D&C 93:23, 29-30, 33; K. W. Godfrey, Intelligence; P. N. Hyde, Intelligences; see Excursus 8: The Origin and Premortal Existence of Human Spirits, p. 540. 79 J. E Smith et al., Origin; see Commentary 2:27-b, p. 115. See Endnote 0-22, p. 24. 80 Matthew 5:48; cf. 3 Nephi 12:48. See Endnote 0-23, p. 24. INTRODUCTION NOILONGOULNI 12 INTRODUCTION — ABOUT THIS BOOK and likeness.*! In the early chapters of the book of Moses, as in modern LDS temples, the story of events surrounding the Creation, the Fall, and the mortal life of Adam and Eve provides the context for the eventual unfolding of a progressive series of covenants intended to save and exalt mankind.* We read that, through faithfulness to each of these covenants, Enoch and his people became “of one heart and one mind,’ and were taken up to walk in the presence of God.** With similar intent, this wondrous work of scripture has been expressly written to “call [us] out of darkness into his marvelous light.”® Though I have written this book from the perspective of a believing and practicing member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,*° I wish to make it clear that it is not an official publication of the Church, and that the views that are expressed are solely my own. Furthermore, I recognize that the nature of the subject matter has required my delving into many topics for which I claim no special expertise. Mistaken assertions, faulty matters of judgment, typographical errors, and editorial imperfections of many kinds have doubtless made their way into these pages. Thus I gratefully welcome any corrections or suggestions, in the hope that improvements may be made in future editions. It has been my prayer that this book, despite its insufficiencies, may be in its own way a worthy addition to the “great cloud of witnesses”*’ of the truthfulness of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ, and an encouragement to deeper study and appreciation of the book of Moses. Arrangement of the Text and Illustrations This volume contains the complete text of Moses 1-6:12—beginning with the account of the vision of Moses and continuing to the death of Adam. Each of the six chapters of commentary is prefaced by an Overview section discussing selected themes. A Text and Commentary section then follows. In this section, the text of the book of Moses is given at the top of each page, with accompanying commentary below. Bold-formatted words in the scriptural text point the eye to phrases that are the subject of commentary. Next, a Gleanings section appears, containing extended quotations. Endnotes are included at the end of each chapter. Following the chapters on Moses 1-6, a separate Excursus section, containing extended discussions of selected subjects, can be found. An Appendix is dedicated to the topic of The Origin of Man. The Annotated Bibliography of Ancient Texts that follows provides descriptions of non-scriptural sources relevant to the book of Moses and the entire book of Genesis, grouped by the cultural or religious tradition that produced them. Where I thought it might be helpful to the reader, I also included general background information and summaries of pertinent beliefs of the cited groups. Throughout the entire book, abbreviated bibliographic information for each work consulted appears in the footnotes at the bottom of each page,** with additional source details available in the References section. Footnotes also document extensive cross-references to other sections of the book, preceded by an appropriate key word (e.g., Commentary, Figure, Endnote, overview). A set of Color Plates for selected figures 81 G.A. Anderson, Perfection, p. 8. See Endnote 0-24, p. 26. 82 See the overview of Moses 5, pp. 341-350. 83 Moses 7:18. 84 Moses 7:69. 85 1 Peter 2:9. Mercy Fielding Thompson recalls the Prophet specifically applying these words to the blessings of the endowment (M. E. Thompson, “Recollections of the Prophet Joseph Smith,” Juvenile Instructor, 1 July 1892, p. 400, cited in J. Smith, Jr., Teachings 2007, p. 414). 86 See Endnote 0-25, p. 26. 87 Hebrews 12:1. 88 Due to an unfortunate glitch, citations with two authors appear with the first author’s name, followed by “ et al., instead of adhering to the usual convention reserving this format for sources with three or more authors. INTRODUCTION — ABOUT THIS BOOK follows. For convenience, a set of Indexes appear at the very end of the book, including a Thumbnail Index to Figures. Significant variants within the original jst manuscripts and the current edition of the Pearl of Great Price are described in the commentary. Although important Jst modifications to the Kjv text are signaled explicitly in the Commentary section, readers must consult their own Bibles for an exhaustive comparison of minor differences between the book of Moses and Genesis. British spellings have been made consistent with American conventions. Transliterations of Greek and Hebrew terms have not been standardized but, when referenced by authors, are usually rendered in the same form as they appear in their original publication. Unlike the book of Abraham, the book of Moses did not come to us with illuminating facsimiles. In selecting suitable illustrations to accompany the scriptural commentary, I have relied solely on personal taste and preference with respect to the choice of depictions and their place in the text—sometimes, in fact, I have associated meanings and settings that are quite foreign to the context of their first appearance. While considering the appropriateness of wresting these illustrations from their original surroundings and significations, I was interested to discover that such a practice may not be without ancient precedent: Kevin Barney argues that this approach could have been followed either by Abraham or an ancient Egyptian-Jewish redactor who may have adopted or adapted existing vignettes originally drawn to serve in an Egyptian religious context for use as illustrations to the text of the book of Abraham.” Whether or not this actually happened during the compilation of the book of Abraham, the idea served as welcome encouragement for the approach adopted here. The prophetic books of the brilliant and eccentric visionary William Blake” also provided a model for the marriage of illustration and text in this commentary. Mitchell observed that Blake “tended to minimize the literal, denotative correspondences between the two forms,*! noting that “when Blake ‘illustrates’ a text, he expands and transforms it, and often provides a vision which can operate in complete separation from it.” In fact, Blake “often expands upon some point of only minor importance in the text, or even conveys an opposed or ironic vision? Among the important functions of this technique is that “the disparity between poem and illustration entices the mind of the reader to supply the missing connections.”™ Also important for the illustration of a work of scripture featuring characters such as Adam and Eve, or Cain and Abel, in whose stories each one of us is intended to see ourselves, is the fact that Blake's “human figures have a kind of allegorical anonymity, and are clearly designed as types, not as subtly differentiated portraits.”” Sources and Citations To aid the reader’s own explorations, I have tried to provide complete documentation for the citations or ideas included in the commentary. Where references to third-party works are embedded within a given citation (e.g., ancient sources referred to by modern 89 See Endnote 0-26, p. 26. 90 See Endnote 0-27, p. 27. 91 W.J.T. Mitchell, Blake’ Art, p. 139. 92 Ibid., p. 138. 93 Ibid., p. 144. 94 — Ibid., p. 141. 95 Ibid., p. 145. 13 INTRODUCTION NOILONGOULNI 14 INTRODUCTION — ABOUT THIS BOOK authors), I have attempted where possible to check the original sources by autopsy in order to verify accuracy and appropriateness, and have silently made corrections or updates where I thought it might be necessary or useful. Sometimes, when modern authors have not supplied references to clear allusions to scripture or other important sources, or where I have otherwise felt that it might be helpful to point out additional texts or cross-references within the book that relate to their assertions, I have inserted relevant citations to supporting documents or primary sources. In many cases I have also silently modernized or corrected punctuation and capitalization in quotations. Where actual changes in wording were made or in order to compensate for gaps due to ellipsis, I have documented the location of changes, expansions, or the insertion of alternate terms by square brackets. Frequently, I associate multiple citations with the same passage of commentary. This practice is intended to signal consensus and differences of opinion among modern commentators, or to indicate concordance and divergence among ancient sources. More rarely, a citation may include references to multiple editions of a given source. It is hoped that these extensive links to pertinent references will encourage readers to check and improve upon my conclusions through their own study. For the convenience of the reader, I have tried to substitute citations to more recent editions for older or less accessible ones (e.g., James Charlesworth’s Old Testament Pseudepigrapha in place of R. H. Charles’ Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha) and English equivalents for non- English sources (e.g., Mimekor Yisrael for Die Sagen der Juden, Schaff for Migne). I have also substituted book of Moses chapter and verse numbers in the place of embedded references to the early chapters of Genesis occurring in works quoted in the text. Unless otherwise noted, the translations of excerpts from non-English works are my own. Only rarely have I reproduced diacritical marks or vowel pointing in foreign terms that appear in the text. Where multiple versions or editions of works containing a cited source may make it difficult for the reader to find a reference by page number alone, I have included dates (e.g., for statements of Joseph Smith) or chapter numbers (e.g., transcripts of courses taught by Hugh Nibley, pseudepigraphal or midrashic sources appearing in multiple editions) as part of the citation. In citing the words of Joseph Smith, I have generally used the readily available Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith or Documentary History of the Church in preference to more primary documents.” In some cases, however, I refer directly to manuscript sources when they seem to shed additional light on an interpretation. I have not explicitly distinguished LDS from non-LDS authors, except when it concerned materials written by current or former General Authorities of the Church. In the latter case, I have prefaced the name of the author by the ecclesiastical title they held when the contri- bution was first made or published (e.g., “Elder, “President”)—and frequently, in the case of Joseph Smith, the title of “Prophet.” On the Use of Ancient Texts Ancient texts from Jewish, Islamic, early Christian, and other sources are quoted widely throughout this book. These present a special problem because in so many cases the age and provenance of these writings are uncertain. Moreover, the motivations of the (frequently 96 See Endnote 0-28, p. 27. INTRODUCTION — ABOUT THIS BOOK anonymous) authors, and the historical and prophetic basis of their compositions usually remain in doubt. Robinson, for one, has noted the difficulties in distinguishing between inspired literature (ie., historical or revelatory writings akin to canonical scripture), inspired fiction (i.e., stories designed to teach doctrinal principles such as Elder Boyd K. Packer's parable The Mediator*’), and outright “lying for the Lord” (i.e., pseudonymous forgeries that deceitfully present themselves as authoritative in order to promulgate self- serving interpretations).** With regard to the last category, R. H. Charles “maintained that the device of [deliberate] pseudonymity was a pious fraud adopted in a time that no longer believed in continuing revelation by authors who nevertheless wished to effect religious changes.” Further complicating the evaluation of extracanonical texts is the multi-layered nature of the sources from which they were typically composed.'” Such writings rarely if ever constitute de novo accounts of sacred events. Rather, they tend to incorporate diverse traditions of varying value and antiquity in ways that make it difficult to tease apart the contribution that each makes to the whole.'! As a result, even relatively late documents rife with midrashic speculations unattested elsewhere,’” unique Islamic assertions,'”* or seemingly fantastic Christian interpolations'* may sometimes preserve fragments of authentically-inspired principles, history, or doctrine,'® or may otherwise bear witness of legitimate exegetically- derived’ or ritually-transmitted’” actualities. Nor are such truths confined to writings from Abrahamic lands and faiths.'°* As the Lord pointedly told Nephi: “I shall also speak unto all nations of the earth and they shall write it?! In light of this fact, it should not be at all surprising if genuinely revealed teachings, promulgated at one time but subsequently lost or distorted,'° sometimes appear to have survived in heterodox strands of religious traditions the world over. Many of these teachings have served, in the words of the First Presidency, to “enlighten whole nations and to bring a higher level of understanding to individuals.”'"! Nor, it seems, could the Lord’s purposes have been achieved in any other way. As Elder Orson F. Whitney once said: “God is using more than one people for the accomplishment of his great and marvelous work. The Latter- day Saints cannot do it all. It is too vast, too arduous, for any one people.’ Thus, in our search for truth, we must, as Charlesworth expressed, “be attuned critically to all possible sources of revelation,” including “the word from God that has been heard by the great thinkers, inspired poets, and musicians.”!!? 97 B.K. Packer, Mediator 1977; B. K. Packer, Mediator 1978; B. K. Packer, Errand, pp. 45-47. 98 S.E. Robinson, Lying, pp. 134-135. 99 Cited in ibid., p. 142. See Endnote 0-29, p. 27. 100 S. K. Brown, Nag Hammadi, p. 257. See Endnote 0-30, p. 28. 101 See Endnote 0-31, p. 28. 102 See Endnote 0-32, p. 28. 103 See Endnote 0-33, p. 28. 104 See Endnote 0-34, p. 28. 105 See Endnote 0-35, p. 29. 106 See, e.g., J. L. Kugel, Instances, p. 156. See Endnote 0-44, p. 31. 107 See, e.g., H. W. Nibley, Myths, p. 42, quoted below. 108 See Endnote 0-36, p. 29. 109 2 Nephi 29:12, emphasis mine; cf. Alma 29:8, G. E. Jones, Apocryphal, pp. 28-29; cf. B. H. Roberts, Defense, 1:512; J. Smith, Jr., Teachings, 16 February 1832, pp. 10-11; 22 January 1834, p. 61. 110 See Endnote 0-37, p. 29. 111 S.W. Kimball et al., God’ Love; S. J. Palmer, Expanding, p. v. 112 O.EF Whitney, Discourse (April 1928), p. 59; see also Respect for diversity of faiths, Diversity. 113 J. H. Charlesworth, Protestant View, p. 84. 15 INTRODUCTION NOILONGOULNI 16 INTRODUCTION — ABOUT THIS BOOK In evaluating evidence of antiquity for works of extracanonical literature, scholars must constantly maintain the careful balance articulated by Nickelsburg: One should not simply posit what is convenient with the claim that later texts reflected earlier tradition. At the same time, thoroughgoing skepticism is inconsonant with the facts as we know them and as new discoveries continue to reveal them: extant texts represent only a fragment of the written and oral tradition that once existed. Caution, honest scholarly tentativeness, and careful methodology remain the best approach to the data.'!* By way of contrast, the comparative approach of Frazer'’* and others of the myth and ritual school of a century ago is largely discounted today,'"® its results having been compromised due to: (1) the looseness of the equations; (2) the reliance on suggestive and circumstantial detail; (3) the tendency to persuade by suggesting a large number of alternatives, all tending in the same direction, as if exhausting the possibilities, and cumulatively overdetermining the desired connection; (4) the disparate quality of the sources of evidence; and (5) the tendency to list all positive examples, but either no or few negative ones."!” An additional consideration complicating the evaluation of ancient sources is the fact that the line between historical and ritual aspects of some accounts is often purposely blurred for didactic reasons, as we see in the case of LDS temple texts.''® In such situations, though the accuracy of an ancient account as a historical record or interpretation may be questionable, it may still be of interest because of the way it resonates with authentic doctrinal concepts and revealed ordinances. On this point, Nibley observes:'!” If we attempt to untangle the probably historical from the fanciful, we soon discover the common ground on which they meet and fuse: it is ritual. Myths arise at attempts to explain ritual doings, whose meaning has been forgotten—“What mean these stones?”!”° After much discussion back and forth, the consensus now emerges that it is the rites and ordinances that come first. This should have been clear from the outset, since myths and legends are innumerable while the rites and ordinances found throughout the world are surprisingly few and uniform, making it apparent that it is the stories that are invented—the rites are always there.’”! Such indeed has always been the Latter-day Saint position. Adam first performed an ordinance and when asked to give an explanation of it replied that he knew of none “save the Lord commanded me.”!” Then it was that the true explanation came forth from the mouth of a heavenly instructor. Summarizing the LDS attitude toward ancient and modern revelation of religious truths, Truman G. Madsen writes:'” To say that the gospel of Jesus Christ in its fulness is restored is to say that something has been lost and regained—but it is not to say that everything has. The Mormon believes that after every 114. G. WE. Nickelsburg, Judaism, pp. 25-26. 115 J. G. Frazer, Golden Bough. 116 See Endnote 0-38, p. 30. 117. E. Csapo, Mythology, pp. 36-37. See Endnote 0-39, p. 30. 118 J. E. Faulconer, Incarnation. 119 H.W Nibley, Myths, p. 42; cf. H. W. Nibley, Sacred, pp. 591-593; R. Guénon, Symboles, p. 210. See Endnote 0-41, p. 31. 120 See Joshua 4:6. 121 See Endnote 0-40, p. 30. 122 Moses 5:6. 123. T. G. Madsen, Essay, pp. xvi, xvii. INTRODUCTION — ABOUT THIS BOOK outpouring of divine light there is a record of degeneration and loss, the signs of which he thinks he can see in every generation. But Mormons have resisted from the outset the sectarian impulse: the isolation of a text or principle and the insistence that they alone possess and practice it. Exultant at a new revelatory downpour, the Mormon sees the implication: unless the same truths, authorities, and powers can be found in prior times and places; unless there have been genuine prophets, apostles and holy men who were, for all their individual traits, in touch with divine outpourings; unless there have been saints of former as well as of latter days— unless these things are so, Mormonism is without foundation. In other words, Mormonism has no claim to be a viable religion in the present unless it has been a viable religion in the past. And this is not just a halfhearted concession that there has been sort of, or part of, or a shadow of the fulness of the Gospel. It is to say that some, at least, among the ancients had it all. It is to match the thesis that from the early (and supposedly crude) beginnings things have become better; just as often they have, instead, become worse. Spiritual anabolism and catabolism have been at work in the religious life from the beginning... If the outcome of hard archaeological, historical, and comparative discoveries in the past century is an embarrassment to exclusivistic readings of religion, that, to the Mormon, is a kind of confirmation and vindication. His faith assures him not only that Jesus anticipated his great predecessors (who were really successors) but that hardly a teaching or a practice is utterly distinct or peculiar or original in his earthly ministry. Jesus was not a plagiarist, unless that is the proper name for one who repeats himself. He was the original author. The gospel of Jesus Christ came with Christ in the meridian of time only because the gospel of Jesus Christ came from Christ in prior dispensations. He did not teach merely a new twist on a syncretic- Mediterranean tradition. His earthly ministry enacted what had been planned and anticipated “from before the foundations of the world?!” and from Adam down. While recognizing the labors of generations of scholars that have begun to reveal the nature and sources of the voluminous canonical and extracanonical literature bearing on the themes of this book, there is much still to be learned. In particular, while many resemblances among ancient and modern sources have been exposed, it is a more difficult work to transform these parallels into “bridges” demonstrating how related ideas from widely-scattered cultures and diverse eras could have been shared and transmitted.'* Though the teachings and revelations of Joseph Smith demonstrate to my own satisfaction that archaic concepts and stories can be recovered in exceptional circumstances through divine revelation, the diffusion of ideas by more ordinary means is clearly the rule in history. Not only will future research continue to shed new light on the meaning of obscure scriptural concepts, it will also no doubt demonstrate that many of my readings have been the result of an inadequate grasp of ancient sources—while, on the other hand, countless illuminating sidelights have been missed entirely.'° In selecting arguments and sources to be cited in this book, I have usually tried to err on the side of inclusion, thus making these texts more readily available to readers for study, discussion, and comparison of perspectives.'”” This approach has inevitably resulted in a work that resembles more an unevenly sifted and sometimes contradictory scrapbook of ideas and sources than a coherent and inerrant “guide for the perplexed.” In this respect, perhaps, the sole subjective valuation of the worth of the book I am qualified to make is that it tries to be something like the kind of thing I should have liked to have had myself at the beginning of my own study—if only it had it been, in addition, written by someone with better credentials in the relevant fields 124 E.g., John 17:24; Ephesians 1:4; 1 Peter 1:20; Alma 22:13; D&C 130:20; Moses 5:57; Abraham 1:3. 125 Cf. E.R. Goodenough, Introduction to Philo, pp. ix-xi. 126 S.E. Robinson, Lying, pp. 147-148. 127 See Endnote 0-42, p. 31. 17 INTRODUCTION NOILONGOULNI 18 INTRODUCTION — ABOUT THIS BOOK of scholarship than I can claim. Thus, it is with humble cognizance of such limitations that I proffer my mite of commentary, reflections, source translations, cross-references, footnotes, endnotes, bibliographic annotations, references, and indexes—all of which have been lovingly assembled in the hope of assisting readers with their own explorations of the book of Moses. Happily, I can be confident that future reflection and dialogue among fellow scripture lovers—augmented and confirmed by continuing revelation—will sooner or later identify those instances where limited knowledge and faulty judgment have led me to misinterpret sources or unwisely position the line of inclusion. In the meantime, as in any such endeavor, the guiding principle in determining the value of the sources and opinions in this book necessarily must be caveat lector—let the reader beware!'** Elder Bruce R. McConkie has outlined the essential preconditions for any benefit to accrue from the use of extracanonical texts: “Obviously, to gain any real value from a study of apocryphal writings, the student must first have an extended background of gospel knowledge, a comprehensive understanding of the standard works of the Church, plus the guidance of the Spirit.”!”” However, even when these preconditions are met, LDS readers may encounter additional pitfalls in their approach to extracanonical literature. For example, Gillum warns about extreme attitudes that lead people either to completely eschew such writings or to develop an unhealthy obsession with them.'°° While recognizing the ease with which any of us can be led astray when our enthusiasm outstrips our understanding, he also argues that “even as we should be prepared and open to personal revelation, so should we be ready and eager to learn from additional truths which may confirm our fundamental beliefs. Perhaps these apocryphal discoveries are mere preparations for more divine writings to be given us later.” Revealing the principle governing his own stance, he writes that “whatever I read as apocrypha, in the very general sense, must not lead me farther afield, but back to the divine word of God.”"*! 128 D&C 91:4-5; S. K. Brown, Nag Hammadi, pp. 257-258, 267-268. 129 B.R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, s.v., Apocrypha, p. 42; cf. D&C 91:4-6; E. J. Brandt, Jasher, pp. 308-309. 130 G.P. Gillum, Bibliography. See Endnote 0-43, p. 31. 131 Ibid., p. 128. Endnotes 0-1 0-2 0-3 0-4 0-5 0-6 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 Based on the results of their pioneering studies, Matthews!” and Howard!" had concluded that there was a period of overlap between March 8 and April 7, 1831—concurrent with the earliest phase of New Testament translation—during which or1 Genesis 19:36-24:42a was completed and or2 1:1- 24:42a was recopied in slightly modified form. However, based on his later research, Jackson has concluded: “We understand the chronology better now. There was no overlap period.”!** For a review of other jst topics in recent research, see Jackson.!*° It is both striking and characteristic of the Prophet that he so quickly followed the instructions given in the revelation by abruptly changing his translation priorities. Bushman observes: “Judging by his actions, Joseph believed in the revelations more than anyone.’*° From the beginning, he was his own best follower. Having the word of God at his back gave him enormous confidence? !*’ Jackson explains: Even though some of the... corrections [made after 1833] provide important clarifications and insights, the overwhelming majority of significant contributions of the Joseph Smith Translation were made during the original dictation... [Several] facts cast doubt on the common belief that he continued to revise the wording of the translation the rest of his life. From 2 July 1833 on, there are no references in his diaries and letters to his making additional changes. There are several statements regarding the preparation of the manuscript for publication, which probably refer not to changes in the translation but to the many insertions of punctuation, capitalization, and verse numbering. We cannot identify the handwritings or dates for these small changes, but most were probably made by clerks working under the Prophet’s direction.'*8 In view of the many statements on record regarding the Prophet’s efforts to bring the entire jst into publication, and its appearance in part in a series of Church publications, it is inaccurate to conclude that “he made no serious effort to publish the new translation?! Additional translation work with direct relevance to Genesis had occupied the Prophet beginning in 1835, when Egyptian mummies and papyri first came into his hands.'“° By March 1842, Joseph Smith had begun publishing excerpts from his translation of the book of Abraham but, as with the Jst, circumstances hindered his intention to publish the work in entirety. Concerning the potential length of the completed translation of the book of Abraham, Oliver Cowdery stated that he could not say “how large volumes they will make; but judging from their size, and the comprehensiveness of the language, one might reasonably expect to see a sufficient [number] to develop much upon the mighty acts of the ancient men of God." Scholars estimate that the current text of the book of Abraham constitutes perhaps about one-fourth of what was translated by Joseph Smith.'** This somewhat conservative estimate of the size of the manuscript is based on Anson Call’s recollection that a reading of the then-extant translation took two hours, compared to what would be about a half hour reading of the portions of the book of Abraham now contained in the Pearl of Great Price. Call wrote: “Joseph... said to us, ‘Sit down and we will read to you from the translations of the book of Abraham: Oliver Cowdery then read until he was tired when Thomas Marsh read making altogether about two hours.”!*8 See Royal Skousen for a review of these recent studies of the original jst manuscripts. '“4 Of the fact that the need for these corrections was not seen to diminish the importance of the Bible for the early Saints, Givens perceptively writes: R. J. Matthews, Plainer, pp. 67, 59, 73, 79. R. P. Howard, Restoration 1995, pp. 66-68. K. P. Jackson, August 21 2006; July 6 2006. K. P. Jackson, New Discoveries. See also R. L. Bushman, Creation of the Sacred, p. 98. R. L. Bushman, Rough Stone, p. 173. K. P. Jackson, Genesis, pp. 28-29. R. L. Bushman, Mormonism, p. 68. J. Gee, Guide, pp. 1-5. O. Cowdery, Mummies, p. 236. M. R. Ash, ABCs. Anson Call, Manuscript Journal, Summer 1838, p. 9, cited in J. Gee, Tragedy, pp. 111-112. R. Skousen, Earliest. 19 INTRODUCTION NOILONGOULNI 20 0-7 0-8 0-9 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 INTRODUCTION — ENDNOTES Joseph Smith’s 1842 pronouncement that Latter-day Saints “believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God}'*? whereas they only accord the same credence to the Bible “as far as it is translated correctly? 4° accords the former some kind of preeminence. The error would be to see, as one schol- ar has, a definitive “demotion of the Christian Bible by virtue of his claim that it had been improp- erly translated? ’“” The matter isn't quite that simple. For one thing, as Philip Barlow has pointed out: Nothing... captures the evolving but enduring religious quintessence of Mormonism and its relationship to the balance of American religion better than a firm, comparative grasp of the Bible’s place among the Latter-day Saints. This assertion applies even to Mormon theology and revelation, which... is inextricably enmeshed with and dependent on prior and often unconscious biblical perspectives. !“* One historian even concludes, based on the relatively few changes Joseph made in his translation, that “what the effort demonstrated was not the distance, but the close parallels the early Saints and their first converts saw between the Bible and the Book of Mormon.”!“? Apparently, Joseph was not speaking entirely tongue in cheek when he wrote, in response to the question of “wherein you differ from other sects” that “we believe the Bible?!°° As mentioned previously, early converts used the Bible as the standard against which they measured the Book of Mormon’s teachings. Grant Underwood has shown that in early LDS publications the Bible was quoted anywhere from 19 to 40 times as often as the Book of Mormon.’*! Clearly this is hardly evidence of the Bible's demotion.” Howard observes: One interesting insight comes to us when we see how much more extensive a revision of the ... text was made, proportionately, in that part of the manuscripts written out in full.... [T]he natural tendency for the “translators” when writing out the text in full was to make many more revisions per verse and chapter of the King James text than was the case when they later adopted the brief notation system of transcribing their revisions.'~* Of course, having an understanding of priesthood ordinances is not the same as being authorized to perform them. As Ehat et al. have written about the “ordinances whereby men were ordained kings and priests”: “These ordinances were not introduced in Kirtland because Elijah had not come to confer the fulness of the priesthood upon the Prophet before he administered the Kirtland Temple ordinances.”!** Even as he was finishing his translation of Genesis, Joseph Smith seems to have believed that God did not intend for him to publish the jst in his lifetime. Writing to W. W. Phelps on 31 July 1832, he said: “IT would inform you that [the Bible translation] will not go from under my hand during my natural life for correction, revisal, or printing and the will of the Lord be done” (J. Smith, Jr., Writings 2002, p. 273). Although the Prophet later reversed his position and made serious efforts to prepare the 1833 manuscript of the jst for publication, the statement implies that at that time he did not feel authorized to share all that he had learned during the translation process with others. Another example of a revelation that was not published in Joseph Smith's lifetime is his revelation on war (D&C 87), received on December 25, 1832 and alluded to in D&C 130:12-13 (2 April 1843), and possibly never recorded in its completeness. Woodford'*° describes the extensive nature of the Proph- et’s visions on this subject as follows: Joseph later recorded in his history that he had seen in visions the end of this nation’*® and the breaking up of the government’””’ if it continued to disregard the rights of the citizens. Elder Grant also recorded the extent of the visions by Joseph Smith concerning these matters. He wrote: Article of Faith 8. Ibid. eG. PL. Gager, Early, p. 59. Barlow, Bible, p. xi. T. Smith, Biblical Culture, p. 21. J. Smith, Jr., Teachings, 8 May 1838, p. 119. G. Underwood, Usage, p. 53. TL. RP. AE RJ. Givens, Hand, pp. 190-191. Howard, Restoration 1969, pp. 92-93; cf. R. J. Matthews, Plainer, p. 80. Ehat et al., cited in J. Smith, Jr., Words, p. 302 n. 9. Woodford, Historical Development, 2:1094. J. Smith, Jr., Documentary History, 4 March 1840, 4:89. Ibid. , 16 December 1843, 6:116. INTRODUCTION — ENDNOTES The Prophet stood in his own house when he told several of us of the night the visions of heaven were opened to him, in which he saw the American continent drenched in blood, and he saw nations rising up against nation. He also saw the father shed the blood of the son, and the son the blood of the father; the mother put to death the daughter, and the daughter the mother; and natural affection forsook the hearts of the wicked; for he saw that the Spirit of God should be withdrawn from the inhabitants of the earth, in consequence of which there should be blood upon the face of the whole earth, except among the people of the Most High. The Prophet gazed upon the scene his vision presented, until his heart sickened, and he besought the Lord to close it up again.!°* President Brigham Young was among those that felt that it “was not wisdom to publish it to the world” until many years after it was received.!° 0-10 The accuracy of this statement, however, is questioned by Jackson: “This is a third-hand account that is hard to reconcile with known statements from Joseph Smith. It was published in 1888. I have serious doubts about it?’®’ Though Jackson rightly raises questions about the provenance of the remembrance, I see nothing implausible or particularly difficult to reconcile in the statement itself. 0-11 Jackson sees such a scenario as very unlikely: “I think that Joseph Smith knew what he was doing. We don't have evidence of him complaining that he didn’t have the time to work on it. When he felt it was finished, he announced that it was finished, and he quit working on it”!°! However, asa potential example of the difficulties posed by the rapid translation of the Old Testament, Royal Skousen notes that Isaiah 50 was “slavishly copied” from the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon, “including all the errors that had entered the Book of Mormon text during its earlier transmission.”!© Skousen also sees the practice of marking entire books as correct near the end of the work on the jst'® and the marking of other books as “virtually correct (with only a handful of changes)”’®* as evidence that “Joseph Smith definitely appeared] to be in a hurry to get this work done”!® 0-12 = “[J]ust like Mozart left his Requiem unfinished, so did Blake die before completing his illustrations of Dante’s Inferno-the voyage into death. The commission for Dante’s Inferno came to Blake in 1826, but his death in 1827 meant that only a handful of the watercolors were completed”! 0-13. Concerning the explicitly revelatory process by which Joseph Smith came to at least some of his new 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 understandings of biblical texts, Flake writes:!°7 Contemporaneous sources indicate that Smith made his more extensive changes to KJv Genesis by employing the same methods as when working from records purportedly written in ancient languages. Smith is quoted as saying: “After I got through translating the Book of Mormon, I took up the Bible to read with the Urim and Thummim. I read the first chapter of Genesis, and I saw the things as they were done, I turned over the next and the next, and the whole passed before me like a grand panorama; and so on chapter after chapter until I read the whole of it. I saw it all!”!© A more authoritative account is provided by Smith himself in February 1832. “Upon my return from Amherst [Ohio] conference, I resumed the translation of the Scriptures.... While translating St. John’s Gospel, myself and Elder Rigdon saw the following vision” of the resurrection of the dead.!® Finally, in an 1843 funeral sermon, probably alluding to the account in Matt. 27:52 of graves opening at the death of Jesus, Smith spoke of “the visions that roll like an overflowing surge, J. M. Grant, 2 April 1854, 2:147. R. J. Woodford, Historical Development, 2:1105-1106. See B. Young, 20 May 1860, p. 58. K. P. Jackson, August 21, 2006; July 6, 2006. K. P. Jackson, July 6, 2006; cf. K. P. Jackson, Genesis, p. 30. R. Skousen, Earliest, p. 461. Ruth, Ezra, Esther, Lamentations, Obadiah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Malachi. Leviticus, Joshua, Judges, 2 Samuel, 1 Chronicles, Job. R. Skousen, Earliest, p. 465. P. Coppens, Paintings of Visions. K. Flake, Translating Time, p. 506. Lorenzo Brown in “Sayings of Joseph, by Those Who Heard Him at Different Times,’ Joseph Smith Jr. Papers, Church Archives, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Salt Lake City, UT, cited in K. Flake, Translating Time, p. 506 n. 31. Flake notes: “Brown's statement is based on his recollection in 1880 of a conversation that occurred in 1832. For questions concerning the reliability of this account, see R. J. Matthews, Plainer Translation, pp. 25-26, n. 12” J. Smith, Jr., Documentary History, 16 February 1832, 1:245; cf. D&C 76 Section Heading. The scripture refer- ence that inspired the vision was John 5:29. 21 INTRODUCTION NOILONGOULNI 22 INTRODUCTION — ENDNOTES before my mind.” More specifically, he said, “I saw the graves open & the saints as they arose took each other by the hand . . . while setting up?’”° Thus, although many emendations are editorial, the more radical of Smith’s changes to the Bible were understood by him as a function of what he saw when reading it. Once the understandings of these passages had been revealed, however, it remained to the Prophet to exercise considerable personal effort in rendering these experiences into words:!7! At least with respect to the jst, it appears that when he read he saw events, not words. What he saw, he verbalized to a scribe. One of Smith’s Book of Mormon scribes provided, in his own failed attempt to translate, the occasion for the most direct description of Smith’s method. “You have not understood,’ God told Oliver Cowdery through Smith: “you have supposed that I would give it unto you, when you took no thought save it was to ask me. But... you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right and... you shall feel that it is right. But if it is not right you shall have no such feelings, but you shall have a stupor of thought that shall cause you to forget that thing which is wrong; therefore you cannot write that which is sacred save it be given you from me.”!”” Cowdery appears to have thought he could engage in the “inspired translation” of the Book of Mormon by parroting God’s reading. In contrast, as implied by the above statement, Smith believed it necessary to determine independently how to represent what he read or saw. The appropriate question to God by the prophet- translator was whether his interpretation was correct, not what God’s interpretation was. Arguably, then, “translate” expressed Smith’s experience of “study[ing] it out in [his] mind” or his sense of agency in front of the text. Smith did not think of himself as God’s stenographer. Rather, he was an interpreting reader, and God the confirming authority. He did not experience revelation “as dictated, as something whispered in someone’s ear” and, thus, provides a useful illustration of Ricoeur’s argument that revelation is not propositional but “pluralistic, polysemic, and at most analogical in form”!”3 Of equal significance, however, is the manner in which Smith’s description of revelation communicates a sense of being limited by a text. It was possible to not “be right” in one’s reading. Smith experienced revelation as an interpretive response to the text: not freely associated from, but bound by the “world of the text” in front of him, even if in an altered mental state or vision. In sum, Smith’s use of “translate,” for all its discursive weaknesses, conveyed his experience of creative agency before a text and, simultaneously, his sense of being bound by the text as an account of events or as history. With respect to the English translation of the Book of Mormon, Royal Skousen argues that the actual choice of words chosen was given under “tight control”!”4 However, in another place, Skousen discusses the question of whether one should assume that every change made in the ys constitutes revealed text.'”° Besides arguments that can be made from the actual text of the jst, there are questions regarding the reliability of and degree of supervision given to the scribes who were involved in transcribing, copying, and preparing the text for publication.'”° Differences are also apparent in the nature of the translation process that took place at different stages of the work. For example, while a significant proportion of the Genesis passages that have been canonized as the book of Moses “[look] like a word-for-word revealed text,’ evidence from a study of two sections in the New Testament that were translated twice indicates that the later “New Testament jst is not being revealed word-for-word, but largely depends upon Joseph Smith's varying responses to the same difficulties in the text.”!”” For an excellent discussion explaining why historicity neither requires inerrancy nor completeness, see Peterson’”® and Tanner.'”? 0-14 About such passages, Matthews concludes that: “Some... portions [of the jst] may be the result of the 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 J. Smith, Jr., Words, 16 April 1843, pp. 196, 198. K. Flake, Translating Time, pp. 507-508; cf. G. Underwood, Revelation, pp. 76-81, 83-84. D&C 9:7-9, P. Ricoeur, Revelation, pp. 76, 75. R. Skousen, Tight Control. R. Skousen, Earliest, pp. 456-470. Ibid., pp. 459-460. In “correcting” revelations for publication in the Book of Commandments, for example, though Joseph Smith had warned those involved not to “alter the sense” of the revelations (Joseph Smith, Jr. to W. W. Phelps, 31 July 1832, reproduced in J. Smith, Jr., Writings 2002, p. 273), Sidney Rigdon seems to have sometimes gone too far in his changes: “Whitmer often restored the original wording of many of the revelations that had been adjusted by Rigdon” (R. S. Jensen, From Manuscript, p. 36). Ibid., pp. 461-462. For the original study, see K. P. Jackson et al., Two Passages. D.C. Peterson, Inerrancy. J. S. Tanner, World and Word. 0-15 0-16 0-17 0-18 0-19 0-20 INTRODUCTION — ENDNOTES Prophet's analysis or minor corrections ofa sort, and not necessarily the result of immediate revelation on the subject. There may be several kinds of material in the New Translation”'®° In fact, in a few instances Joseph Smith specifically stated that terms that appeared later as part of the book of Abraham were better translations than the corresponding terms used in the earlier book of Moses.'8! A new numbering for the chapter was inserted above the line of the text as shown here. Similarly, Elder Bruce R. McConkie, who also served on the committee overseeing the new publication of the scriptures, counted this as one of three most significant developments in the Church in his lifetime—the other two being the revelation on the priesthood in 1978'** and the reestablishment of the First Quorum of the Seventy. 89, Underscoring the importance of this edition, the Church strongly recommends that English-speaking members use the LDS edition of the King James Bible, with excerpts from the Joseph Smith Translation and other extensive study helps.'**. For example, as formulated by Lossky, “God became man in order that man might become god.” He elaborates: “Fascinated by the felix culpa, we often forget that in breaking the tyranny of sin, our Savior opens to us anew the way of deification which is the final end of man.”!®° This teaching, he asserts was “echoed by the Fathers and theologians of every age,’ citing as examples Irenaeus, Athanasius, Gregory Nazianzen, and Gregory of Nyssa.'*° The Orthodox Study Bible interprets this view quite conservatively, however, saying:!®” We do not become like God in His nature. That would not only be heresy, it would be impossible. For we are human, always have been human, and always will be human. We cannot take on the nature of God....188 Historically, deification has often been illustrated by the example of a sword in the fire. A steel sword is thrust into a hot fire until the sword takes on a red glow. The energy of the fire interpenetrates the sword. The sword never becomes fire, but it picks up the properties of fire. For example: “The Son of God became a man to enable men to become sons of God”!®? Though it is impossible to “know what Lewis meant fully (and certainly what he understood and intended) by these statements”!° his descriptions of mankind’s potential is one resonates with the beliefs of Mormonism. For example, as he wrote in another place: The command “Be ye perfect”!”! is not idealistic gas. Nor is it a command to do the impossible. He is going to make us into creatures that can obey that command. He said (in the Bible) that we were “gods”! and He is going to make good His words. If we let Him—for we can prevent Him, if we choose—He will make the feeblest and filthiest of us into a god or goddess, a dazzling, radiant, immortal creature, pulsating all through with such energy and joy and wisdom and love as we can- not now imagine, a bright stainless mirror which reflects back to God perfectly (though, of course ona smaller scale) His own boundless power and delight and goodness. ‘The process will be long and in parts very painful; but that is what we are in for. Nothing less. He meant what He said.'”° «ec For example, Gregory of Nyssa wrote: “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness’!°* We 180 R. J. Matthews, Plainer, pp. 252-253. 181 J. Smith, Jr., Teachings, 5 January 1841, p. 181; 17 May 1843, p. 301. 182 Official Declaration 2. 183 B. R. McConkie, Sermons, p. 236. 184 First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Statement. 185 V. Lossky, Theology, p. 134; cf. V. Lossky, Image, p. 97. 186 Irenaeus, Heresies, 5:Preface, p. 526; Athanasius, Incarnation, 54, p. 65; Gregory Nazianzen, Apollinarius 5-9, p. 81; Gregory of Nyssa, Catechism 25, p. 495. For comprehensive overviews of this topic, see N. Russell, Deification; J. Gross, Divinization. See also B. T. Ostler, God, pp. 391-426. 187 J. N. Sparks et al., Orthodox Study Bible, p. 1692. 188 Cf. Gregory of Nyssa, cited in J. Gross, Divinization, p. 180. See also pp. 257, 272. 189 C.S. Lewis, Mere, 4:5, p. 155. See also the discussion of Emerson's views in R. H. Brodhead, Prophets, pp. 22-24. 190 R.L. Millet, Transformation, p. 152. 191 Matthew 5:48. 192 John 10:34-36. 193 C.S. Lewis, Mere, 4:9, p. 176. 194 Moses 2:26. 23 INTRODUCTION NOILONGOULNI 24 0-21 0-22 0-23 Commenting on the Savior’s use of the word “perfect” in this context, Welch writes:”” INTRODUCTION — ENDNOTES possess the one by creation; we acquire the other by free will?!” Although Bruce declines “to trace the metaphysical implications in the phrase?!?® Attridge has no such hesitation, explaining: “These epithets were applied primarily to God’s relationship to the angelic world, although references to God as father of human spirits are also foun d?!97 The significance of the idea of God as first and foremost a “Father” is explained by Elder B. H. Roberts: There exists, I think, a real difference between the idea of “father” and “creator; ...[though] each idea may include the other... The term “father” carries with it the notion of generation, begetting from one’s own person, springing from one’s own nature, and partaking of one’s own physical and mental qualities and perhaps likeness, but the term “creator” does not necessarily convey that notion, since a created thing may be external to the nature of the being who created it; as, for example, when God created the heaven and the earth. In this case the heaven and the earth did not bear the image of God; nor was it made in his likeness, as the result was when God said, “Let us make man in our image, and after our likeness”!°8 Betz makes a similar point, though one might arguably differ with his extension of the epithet “Father” to describe God’s role with respect to the whole of the Universe, rather than restricting it to his relationship with mankind as did Roberts: The address of God as “Father” names him as creator, sustainer, and protector of his entire creation, the universe. But the image of the father is more than a metaphor because it suggests that God has “fathered” his creation, his progeny. This terminology clearly differs from that of God as the divine “craftsman”..., “creator”..., or “master builder”... By comparison, the epithet “Father” suggests not only origin but also a permanent and personal kinship relationship between procreator and progeny. The Philonic epithet “the progenitor”... would come closest, but it does not occur in the New Testament?!” 10 Although it is possible that the word “perfect” has only a straightforward ethical or religious meaning here,””’ reflecting perfect or “undivided obedience to God” and “unlimited love”? there is a stronger possibility that the word carries a ceremonial connotation in this particular text. It seems to me that in this verse, Jesus is expressing his desire that the disciples now advance from one level to a next level, to go on to become “perfect; “finished? or “completed” in their instruction and endowment.”* In addition to the ritual context of the Sermon—the context usually determining the sense in which the intended “completeness” consists”’4—several reasons support this understanding. First, the Greek word translated into English as “perfect” in Matthew 5:48 is teleios. This important word is used in Greek religious literature to describe the person who has become fully initiated in the rituals of the religion.?° Teleios is “a technical term of the mystery religions, which refers to one initiated into the mystic rites, the initiate”*°° The word is used in Hebrews 5:14-6:1 to distinguish between the initial teachings and the full instruction, and in Hebrews 9:11 it refers to the heavenly temple. Generally in the Epistle to the Hebrews, its usage follows a “special use” from 195 Gregory of Nyssa, On the Origin of Man, cited in A. Louth et al., Genesis 1-11, p. 33. 196 EF Bruce, Hebrews, p. 344. 197 H.W. Attridge, Hebrews, pp. 362-363. 198 B. H. Roberts, Seventy’ Fifth, p. 47. See Moses 2:26. 199 H.D. Betz etal., Sermon, p. 387. 200 J. W. Welch, Sermon, pp. 57-62; cf. J. W. Welch, Light, pp. 116-120. 201 E.g., J. E. Talmage, Jesus the Christ, p. 232 n. 5; R. N. Holzapfel et al., From Bethlehem, pp. 337-338, 369-372; M. C. Thomas, Sermon, pp. 243-245. 202. G. Kittel et al., Dictionary, 8:73, 75, cited in J. W. Welch, Sermon, p. 58. 203 Commenting on the use of teleios in Matthew 5:48, Barclay notes that: “the Greek idea of perfection is func- tional. A thing is perfect if it fully realizes the purpose for which it was... made.... For what purpose was man created? ...Man was created to become like God” (W. Barclay, Matthew, 1:177-178; cf. Moses 1:39). Compare Matthew 19:21, Hebrews 12:23, D&C 76:69. See also Ephesians 4:12, 14, where Paul defines the purpose of the “perfecting of the saints” as being that we might come “unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ.” 204 E. Yarnold, Teleios, p. 271, cited in J. W. Welch, Sermon, p. 58. See Endnote E-258, p. 769. See also H. W. Attridge, Hebrews, pp. 83-87, 161-164. 205 See Excursus 53: Comparative Explorations: The Eleusinian Mysteries, p. 675. 206 W. Bauer et al., Lexicon, p. 817, cited in J. W. Welch, Sermon, p. 58. 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 INTRODUCTION — ENDNOTES Hellenistic Judaism, where the word teleioo means “to put someone in the position in which he can come, or stand, before God””"” Thus, in its ritual connotations, this word refers to preparing a or “to qualify for the cultus Early Christians continued to use this word in this way in connection with their sacraments and person to be presented to come before God “in priestly action”?°8 ordinances”!”. .. [The] so-called Secret Gospel of Mark, according to Clement, contained things “for the use of those who were being perfected (teleioumenon). Nevertheless, he [Mark] did not divulge the things not to be uttered, nor did he write down the hierophantic [priesthood] teaching [hierophantiken didaskalian] of the Lord, but... brought in certain sayings of which he knew the interpretation would, as a mystagogue, lead the hearers into the innermost sanctuary of that truth hidden by ... The suggestion that the words of the Sermon, explicitly inviting its followers to become “perfected” may have stood in a similar tradition is, therefore, not without precedent in seven [veils]”?!! early Christianity.”! Moreover, the cultic use of the Hebrew term shalom may provide a concrete link between the Nephites and this Greek and Christian use of teleios. John Durham has explored in detail the fundamental meanings of shalom, especially in Numbers 6:26 and in certain of the Psalms, and concludes that it was used as a cultic term referring to a gift or endowment to or of God that “can be »213 « received only in his Presence,” “a blessing specifically connected to theophany or the immanent specifically as appearing in the Temple of Solomon and represented “within the Israelite cult” and liturgy.”!> Baruch Levine similarly analyzes the function of the shelamim sacrifices as producing “complete,” or perfect, “harmony with the deity, ... characteristic of the Presence of God??"4 covenant relationship as well as the ritual experience of communion.””!° Durham, along with several others, sees this Israelite concept in the word teleios in Matthew 5:48.7!7 “Matthew does not use teleios in the Greek sense of the perfect ethical personality, but in the Old Testament sense of the wholeness of consecration to God.””/* It tends toward the meaning of “living up to an agreement without fault: as the Father keeps the covenants he makes with us.... Teleioi is a locus technicus from the Mysteries: the completely initiated who has both qualified for initiation and completed it is teleios, literally ‘gone all the way, fulfilling all requirements, every last provision of God’s command. The hardest rules are what will decide the teletios, the final test—the Law of Consecration”!? Thus, although we do not know what word Jesus used when he spoke to the Nephites that has been translated “perfect” in 3 Nephi 12:48, there is reason to believe that they would have known from their Israelite heritage a word like shalom, similar in cultic content to the Greek word teleios. Accordingly, in commanding the people to “be perfect even as I, or your Father who is in heaven is »220 perfect?" it seems that Jesus had several things in mind besides “perfection” as we usually think of it. Whatever he meant, it involved the idea of becoming like God (“even as I or your Father who is in heaven’), which occurs by seeing God**! and knowing God.”” These ultimate realities can be represented [ceremonially] in this world, for as Joseph Smith taught, it is through his ordinances that we are “instructed more perfectly??? G. Kittel et al., Dictionary, 8:82, citing Hebrews 7:19, 10:1. Cited in J. W. Welch, Sermon, p. 59. G. Kittel et al., Dictionary, 8:83, cited in J. W. Welch, Sermon, p. 59. G. Kittel et al., Dictionary, 8:85, cited in J. W. Welch, Sermon, p. 59. H. Stephanus, Thesaurus, 8:1961, cited in J. W. Welch, Sermon, p. 59. M. Smith, Secret Gospel, p. 14. » “Tertullian, speaking of mediators of the divine (Moses among Jews, Jesus among Christians),” draws a parallel one to Orpheus, Melampus, and Trophonius, who “initiationibus homines obligaverunt’ (‘placed men in their service through initiations’)” (P. Bonnechere, Trophonius, pp. 170-171. See Tertullian, Apology, 21, p. 36). J. L Durham, Shalom, p. 292, cited in J. W. Welch, Sermon, p. 60. Ibid., p. 281. Ibid., pp. 286-292. B. A. Levine, Presence, pp. 35-36, cited in J. W. Welch, Sermon, p. 60. J. L Durham, Shalom, p. 293 n. 135. G. Bornkamm et al., Matthew,p. 101, cited in J. W. Welch, Sermon, p. 61. H. W. Nibley, Matthew 5:48, cited in J. W. Welch, Sermon, p. 61. See the overview of Moses 5, p. 350. 3 Nephi 12:48. See 1 John 3:2. See John 17:3. J. Smith, Jr., Documentary History, 14 November 1835, 2:312. More to the point, the Prophet urged his 25 INTRODUCTION NOILONGOULNI 26 0-24 0-25 0-26 INTRODUCTION — ENDNOTES Finally, the style of the Sermon shifts into a different mode after this invitation to become perfect. The next section of the Sermon, contains no reference to the old law of Moses... [The] text has... moved on to a new stage of the experience,”* thus accounting for the different world to which it seems to belong. In this higher level there will be greater emphasis on secret and inward righteousness, as well as controlling the needs of the flesh and of this world. Thus the text next presents a second set of requirements by discussing almsgiving, prayer, forgiveness, fasting, and total dedication of all that one has to God. Thus, Anderson writes that the: . story of Adam and Eve was never narrated as a simple, objective account of human begin- nings, as a story that could take its place alongside modern theories of the “big bang” or evolution. Instead, the story of Adam and Eve has always been subject to liturgical enactment. It derives its meaning from the world of penitence and restoration. A more pertinent parallel than Darwinian evolution is the parable of the Prodigal Son, a favorite Gospel reading in the Lenten season;7?° This quote from President J. Reuben Clark, Jr. resonates with my own innate feelings: Years ago, I heard ofa statement from a non-member banker of the city which has always impressed me. He is reported to have said, and of course this in jest, that Mormons have six senses: the five that ordinary mortals have and a sixth that enables him to believe Mormonism. I am more grateful than I can express for that sixth sense which enables me not only merely to believe, but to have a spiritual knowledge that all that I have said today is true.””° I realize from personal experience, however, that some people, lacking what is for me an instinctive and undeniable sense of the Infinite, find spiritual matters unreal and of no particular import: They do not deny them, but they live apart from them; they do not disbelieve them, but they are silent when they are stated. They do not question the existence of Kamtchatka,””” but they have no call to busy themselves with Kamtchatka; they abstain from peculiar tenets. Nor in truth is this, though much aggravated by existing facts, a mere accident of this age—there are some people to whom such a course of conduct is always natural: there are certain persons who do not, as it would seem cannot, feel all that others feel; who have, so to say no ear for much of religion—are in some sort out of its reach.?”° C. S. Lewis sympathetically portrayed such a character in his brilliant reworking of the myth of Cupid and Psyche.””° From the perspective of her sister Psyche, the character Orual suffers from a sort of spiritual blindness: where Psyche sees a palace, Orual sees only rock and heather; when Psyche serves her wine, Orual tastes only spring water. By this means, Lewis compared the problem of Orual to that of “every nice, affectionate agnostic whose dearest one suddenly ‘gets religion, or even every luke- warm Christian whose dearest gets a Vocation.” For such a one, the question ultimately becomes (if, indeed, it ever arises at all): “Is Psyche mad or am I blind?”?°° Barney speculates as follows: . what if Abraham did not draw the facsimiles? What if they already existed and were either adopted or adapted by an Egyptian-Jewish redactor as illustrations of the attempt on Abraham's life and Abraham's teaching astronomy to the Egyptians? (For convenience, I shall refer to this hypothetical Jewish redactor as “J-red.”) In this case, the facsimiles would have both an Egyptian context (reflecting the religious purpose for which they were originally created by the Egyptians) and a Semitic context (reflecting the religious purpose for which they were adopted or adapted by J-red). Thus the ultimate question would not be “What do the facsimiles mean to modern 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 followers to “go on to perfection, and search deeper and deeper into the mysteries of Godliness” (J. Smith, Jr., Teachings, 16 June 1844, p. 364). In this context, see also his frequent citations (and emendations) of Hebrews 5:1 (J. Smith, Jr., Teachings, 1 September 1835, p. 82; 15 October 1843, p. 328; 10 March 1844, p. 338; 8 April 1844, p. 360; J. Smith, Jr., Documentary History, 18 June 1840, 4:136). Cf. H. W. Attridge, Hebrews, pp. 199-200, 204-205, 244-248, 269-272, 280-281. See also Excursus 53: Comparative Explorations: The Mysteries of Aaron, Moses, and Melchizedek, p. 663. G. A. Anderson, Perfection, p. 187. J. R. Clark, Jr., Blessings, pp. 878, 879. A remote volcanic peninsula located in Siberia. W. Bagehot, Bagehot, 1:42, cited in N. A. Maxwell, Prove, p. 88. C. S. Lewis, Faces. C. S. Lewis, Letters 3, letter to Katharine Farrer, 2 April 1955, p. 590. 0-27 0-28 0-29 INTRODUCTION — ENDNOTES Egyptologists?” nor “What would the facsimiles mean to an ancient Egyptian?” but rather “What would the facsimiles have meant to J-red?”?*! Commenting on the death of Blake, William Wordsworth wrote: “There was no doubt that this poor man was mad, but there is something in the madness of this man which interests me more than the sanity of Lord Byron and Walter Scott?” Despite heroic efforts to preserve an accurate record of the early history of the Church, a combination of factors—including regrettable lacunae in primary sources, scarcity of time and means, scribes varying in skill and commitment, and the less-stringent standards of nineteenth-century editorial practice—challenged the abilities of later editors to eliminate imperfections from the published accounts.”*? One result is that some statements included in the Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith (TPJS)?*4 and the Documentary History of the Church (DHC)?** have been erroneously attributed to the direct authorship of Joseph Smith or, in other instances, are the result of significant expansion of sketchy notes in the original sources (though often, it must be said, by intimates of the Prophet who were present to hear him). Although in some cases I have deliberately used primary accounts found in works such as The Words of Joseph Smith,?** The Personal Writings of Joseph Smith,’*’ and The Papers of Joseph Smith,”*® for the most part TPJS and DHC have proven to be reasonably reliable for my purposes.”* The task of mapping citations in widely-available published sources to corresponding statements in primary ones will be made easier as progress continues on the authoritative Joseph Smith Papers project.”“° For a comprehensive guide to sources on Joseph Smith, see Whittaker.*"! According to Robinson, the apocryphal literature “was employed in basically four ways: to fill in the gaps in the scriptural account, to attack opposing theologies, to defend against the attacks of others, and to bring about or to legitimize theological change.” With respect to scriptural gap-filling, he writes: It was noticed anciently that the scriptural narrative often omitted information it might have been nice to have. Moreover, these omissions were often the occasion for questions and doubts about the reliability of the scriptures. For example, where did Cain get his wife, and just which fruit was the forbidden one? Did Adam and Eve ever repent? (Genesis doesn’t actually say so.) But if we turn to the Testament of Adam we learn that Cain married his sister Labuda, who incidentally was the real cause of the fight between Cain and Abel, and that the forbidden fruit was the fig. And if we have any doubts about the repentance of Adam and Eve, we can read all about it in the Vita Adae et Evae, in the Conflict of Adam and Eve with Satan, or in the Penitence of Adam. The Book of Enoch explains what Genesis (6:1-4) meant by the “sons of God” going in unto the “daughters of men,’ and the Genesis Apocryphon from Qumran can give us the details about the birth of Noah, or about Abraham and Sarah in Egypt. In fact, for the pseudepigrapher every question can have an answer. ea Our frequently unhealthy compulsion to fill in gaps in scripture stories and doctrinal understanding continues in modern times. The tendency is illustrated in a story recounted by Krister Stendahl: “You may have heard about the preacher who preached about the gnashing of teeth in hell. And one of the parishioners said, ‘But what about us who have lost our teeth?’ And the preacher answered, “Teeth will be provided?*4 Complicating the task for the researcher, however, is increasing evidence that what have been seen in the past as “gap-filling” elaborations in ancient narratives sometimes may be, in point of fact, 231 K.L. Barney, Facsimiles, p. 114. 232 M Butlin, William Blake. See Endnote E-297, p. 783. 233 D.C. Jessee, JS History; H. C. Searle, History. 234 J. Smith, Jr., Teachings. 235 J. Smith, Jr., Documentary History. 236 J. Smith, Jr., Words. 237 J. Smith, Jr., Writings 2002. 238 J. Smith, Jr., Papers 1989-1992. 239 J. Smith, Jr., Teachings 2007, prepared as a Priesthood and Relief Society manual for the Church, used a similar approach, relying on DHC whenever feasible. 240 J. Smith, Jr., JS Papers Web Site; J. Smith, Jr., Papers 2008-. 241 D.J. Whittaker, Studying. 242 S. E. Robinson, Lying, p. 143. 243 Ibid., pp. 143-144. 244 K. Stendahl, Third Nephi, p. 152. a7 INTRODUCTION NOILONGOULNI 28 0-30 0-31 0-32 0-33 0-34 245 J.C. INTRODUCTION — ENDNOTES authentic ancient material. Explains Reeves: Under the old scheme of analyzing “gaps” in biblical narrative, one almost invariably viewed so- called “expansions” or “embellishments” gap-fillers, if you will—such as are found in rabbinic Midrash or the works belonging to the genre of “rewritten Bible” as post-textual responses to the interpretive problems posed by puzzling features of the biblical text. Under the new perspective I am advocating, we are no longer obligated to view these “gap-fillers” as interpretive responses to a base text. We can instead entertain the distinct possibility that Midrash, “rewritten Bible? and biblically-allied collections of traditions may preserve certain features or motifs or even in some cases provide more cohesive and thematically consistent presentations of stories than those eventually attested in what became the Bible.”° As an endorsement of this interpretive position, Reeves further cites Talmon, who argued that: “The new evidence proves convincingly that not all variants in Hebrew non-masoretic and transla- tional witnesses resulted from scribal mistakes or the deliberate interference of emendators, revis- ers and copyists. Rather, variants in an ancient version preserve at times pristine readings which were accidentally lost in the course of time or were designedly suppressed by later tridents.”“° Ac- cordingly, in tracing the transmission history of the biblical books and submitting them to critical analysis, the evidence of the ancient versions must be carefully weighed.” He states further: “... it is my thesis that the presumably ‘re-told; re-read} ‘re-written, etc. Bible-related works should mostly be viewed as crystallizations of ‘living’ literary traditions, which parallel presentations of these same traditions in the books of the Hebrew Bible, but do not necessarily spring from them?**” Wasserstrom aptly describes them as being “eclectically composed, internally differentiated, being comprised of heterogeneous narrative elements?*“* For a discussion of the difficulties in teasing out Jewish from Christian contributions to the pseude- pigrapha, see Kraft.2” For example, Schwartz asserts that “a great many rabbinic myths, as found in the Midrashim, are not new creations of the rabbis, as might appear to be the case. Rather they are simply the writing down of an oral tradition that was kept alive by the people, when there was no need to suppress it any longer?” ° Moreover, he points out that “the rabbinic texts themselves claim that these traditions are part of the Oral Torah, handed down by God to Moses at Mount Sinai, and are therefore considerably ancient”?>! For example, Reeves has concluded “that the Quran, along with the interpretive traditions available in Hadith, commentaries, antiquarian histories, and the collections of so-called ‘prophetic legends’ (qié aé al-anbiya’), can shed a startling light on the structure and content of certain stories found in Bible and its associated literatures (such as Pseudepigrapha and Midrash). [Thus, the] Quran and other early Muslim biblically-allied traditions must be taken much more seriously as witnesses to ‘versions of Bible’ than has heretofore been the case”? Wasserstrom refers to “arguments to the effect that active reading of ‘biblical’ or ‘extrabiblical’ narratives by Muslims was an exercise which reflexively illuminates those ‘original sources” and cites Halperin’s argument that transmitters of these stories in the Islamic tradition “tended to make manifest what had been typically left latent in the Jewish version which they had received.””*? For a discussion of the complex two-way relationship between Jewish pseudepigrapha and Muslim literature, see Wasserstrom.”™* For example, as Lipscomb observes, even some of the late medieval compositions that “do not derive directly from earliest Christianity” may be of “great importance... in the antiquity of some of the Reeves, Flowing Stream. 246 Le., bearers of the tradition to the next generation. >» « 247 See Talmon’s “Textual Criticism: The Ancient Versions,’ in Text in Context: Essays by Members of the Society for Old Testament Study [ed. A. D. H. Mayes; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000] 141-70, at pp. 149-50 and 157 respectively. Cited in J. C. Reeves, Flowing Stream. 248 S.M. Wasserstrom, Muslim literature, p. 95. 249 R.A. Kraft, Pseudepigrapha. 250 H. Schwartz, Tree, p. lxiv. 251 = Ibid. 252° JaC; , p. Ixxxiv. See also E. J. Brandt, Jasher, pp. 305-306. Reeves, Flowing Stream; see also T. Khalidi, Muslim Jesus, pp. 7-9, 16-17. 253 Cited in S. M. Wasserstrom, Muslim literature, p. 100. 254 Ibid. 0-35 0-36 0-37 INTRODUCTION — ENDNOTES traditions they contain, the uniqueness of some of their larger contribution to the development and understanding of Adam materials and of medieval Christianity??°° The issue of determining ground truth in determining the authenticity of ancient teachings is, of course, a thorny problem of its own. In making such judgments, LDS scholars are fortunate to be able to draw on the additional touchstone of modern revelation. Of the intense efforts of the Egyptians to gain a toehold on certainty with respect to eternal truths, Edwards writes: The impression made on the modern mind is that of a people searching in the dark for the key to truth, and having found not one but many keys resembling the pattern of the lock, retaining all lest perchance the appropriate one should be discarded.”*° Concerning the value of “pagan” religious traditions, Lewis wrote: Myths have been accepted as literally true, then as allegorically true (by the Stoics), as confused history (by Euhemerus), as priestly lies (by the philosophers of the Enlightenment), as imitative agricultural ritual mistaken for propositions (in the days of Frazer). If you start from a naturalistic philosophy, then something like the view of Euhemerus or the view of Frazer is likely to result. But I am not a naturalist. I believe that in the huge mass of mythology which has come down to us [in] a good many different sources are mixed—true history, allegory, ritual, the human delight in storytelling, etc. But among these sources I include the supernatural, both diabolical and divine. We need here concern ourselves only with the latter. If my religion is erroneous then occurrences of similar motifs in pagan stories are, of course, instances of the same, or a similar, error. But if my religion is true, then these stories may well be a preparatio evangelica [= preparatory gospel], divine hinting in poetic and ritual form at the same central truth which was later focused and (so to speak) historicized in the Incarnation... My conversion, very largely, depended on recognizing Christianity as the completion, the actualization, the entelechy [= guiding spirit], of something that had never been wholly absent from the mind of man. And I still think that the agnostic argument from similarities between Christianity and paganism works only if you know the answer. If you start by knowing on other grounds that Christianity is false, then the pagan stories may be another nail in its coffin: just as if you started by knowing that there were no such things as crocodiles then the various stories about dragons might help to confirm your disbelief... The traditions conflict, yet the longer and more sympathetically we study about them the more we become aware of a common element in many of them: the theme of sacrifice, of mystical commu- nion through the shed blood, of death and rebirth, of Redemption, is too clear to escape notice.?>” Of course, the difference between LDS and Lewis’ views is in our belief that the general trend of revelation from the beginning was not gradual and incremental, but rather that the fulness of the Gospel has been available to mankind at various times and places “from Adam down.?°* Liberally citing Joseph Smith’s teachings about the antiquity of temple rites, Nibley comments:”°? One can easily detect familiar echoes of the endowment in religious institutions and practices throughout the world. The phenomenon is readily explained by Joseph Smith, and students of comparative religion have now come around to the same conclusion—namely, that the real endowment has been on earth from time to time and has also been spread abroad in corrupted forms so that fragments from all parts of the world can be traced back to common beginnings. “Tt is reasonable to suppose; wrote Joseph Smith, “that man departed from the first teachings, or instructions which he received from heaven in the first age, and refused by his disobedience to be governed by them?®° But... “man was not able himself to erect a system or plan with power sufficient to free him from a destruction which awaited him’; hence it was necessary to put him on the track again, as “from time to time these glad tidings were sounded in the ears of men in different ages of the world””°! “Certainly God spoke to [Abel]: ... and if He did, would He not... deliver to him the whole plan of the Gospel? ... And if Abel was taught of the coming of the Son 255 W.L. Lipscomb, Armenian, pp. 1-6. 256 I.E. S. Edwards, Pyramids, pp. 27-28, cited in H. W. Nibley, Greatness, p. 310. 257 C.S. Lewis, Without Dogma, pp. 165-166, 175-176; cf. C. S. Lewis, Miracles, pp. 176-177 n. 1. 258 T.G. Madsen, Essay, p. xvii. See Endnote 0-37, p. 29. 259 H. W. Nibley, Sacred, pp. 575-576. 260 J. Smith, Jr., Teachings, 22 January 1834, p. 57. 261 Ibid., p. 58. 29 INTRODUCTION NOILONGOULNI 30 0-38 0-39 0-40 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. INTRODUCTION — ENDNOTES of God, was he not taught also of His ordinances?””® ... “For our own part we cannot believe that the ancients in all ages were so ignorant of the system of heaven as many suppose.””* He then went on to show how Abraham, too, had the endowment.24 Elder Neal A. Maxwell wrote:?© Ideas taught in the restored gospel are often reflected in other cultures—in the literature, philosophy, folklore, and religion of peoples and places around the globe. Elder Joseph F. Smith at once explained this situation and underscored the uniqueness of Latter-day Saint understanding and of our position in the world of religion: Undoubtedly the knowledge of this law [of sacrifice] and of other rites and ceremonies was carried by the posterity of Adam into all lands, and continued with them, more or less pure, to the flood, and through Noah, who was a “preacher of righteousness,” to those who succeeded him, spreading out into all nations and countries, Adam and Noah being the first of their dispensations to receive them from God. What wonder, then that we should find relics of Christianity, so to speak, among the heathens and nations who know not Christ, and whose histories date back beyond the days of Moses, and even beyond the flood, independent of and apart from the records of the Bible.”® It is clear that the dispersion, diffusion, and distortion of gospel truths has left fragments of the faith in various religions and cultures throughout the world. Many see in this an attempt by man to make his own god and religion in the absence of real ones. Rather than such similarities being evidence against the existence of God, however, these refracted truths bear witness of the initial wholeness which existed in the beginning with Adam. See Barker?” for a concise overview of the many factors that contributed to the loss of older traditions, especially those having to do with temple themes. Nibley criticizes these early schools, as well as the more recent approach of Joseph Campbell.” Ackerman wryly observes that while the shortcomings of Frazer’s approach were quickly discovered by his erstwhile followers, “to a remarkable degree, this news never reached the followers of the followers”**’—a phenomenon that has continued to this day. Thus Burkert’s cynical observation that “even when Frazer's position is destroyed it will rise again”?”’—as it has repeatedly done in several areas of scholarly study. Comparative studies of this era tended to emphasize “the simple-minded error underlying religion, the barbarous practice underlying the story of Christ, and the savage origins behind Catholic and Anglican rituals” However, as Csapo observes, “[i]n a less polarized atmosphere, where religion and science have both receded from the fray, it is easier to see that everything Frazer discovered of the savage origins of Christian myth and ritual might be true without leaving much of a dent upon Christianity. Origins, after all, do not leave an indelible stamp on complex social institutions??”! Origins are, of course, of great importance to LDS believers, who see the source of genuine ritual in divine revelation, beginning in primordial times. This belief allows for the alternative proposal that some parallels to LDS ordinances in ritual elements from other times are the cumulative results of corruptions of earlier-diffused pristine religious practices rather than formative catalysts that gradually led to the development of the forms in use today. Though such parallels do not by any means constitute proof, they may argue for possibility. In the context of Greek ritual, Robertson likewise concludes: It is a general feature of Greek myths... that they are closely tied to ritual. A myth was told to explain a rite, and at the end of the telling the rite was held up as proof that the myth had happened so. In Greek literature the myths have of course moved away from their original setting, and the ritual counterpart goes unmentioned but for special cases, as at the conclusion of a few tragedies, »p. 59. , pp. 60-61. N. A. Maxwell, Flood, p. 20. J. E Smith, 9 February 1873, p. 325. M. Barker, Hidden, pp. 7-10, 13-14. H. W. Nibley, What, pp. 372-376. R. Ackerman, Myth and Ritual, p. 188. W. Burkert, cIted in G. A. Anderson, Sacrifices, p. 7. E. Csapo, Mythology, p. 48. 0-41 0-42 0-43 0-44 INTRODUCTION — ENDNOTES or in later, learned prose and poetry. But the ritual always continued as before (that is the nature of ritual) and was familiar to everyone (similar festivals were celebrated in every city). It gave rise to new stories, or to variations of the old.?” Alter sees “the prose form of Hebrew narrative” as “chief evidence” of a “deliberate avoidance of epic” in the Bible: “Prose narration, affording writers a remarkable range and flexibility in the means of presentation, could be utilized to liberate fictional personages from the fixed choreography of timeless events and thus could transform storytelling from ritual rehearsal to the delineation of the wayward paths of human freedom.”””? In ironic contrast to the sentiment expressed by Alter, the recovery of the residual elements of authentic temple ritual in the early chapters of Genesis is often of great interest to Latter-day Saints. “William James once remarked that there are two kinds of scholarly temperaments: those that dread above all the risk of possibly mistaking falsehoods for truths, and those that fear even more the risk of missing potentially valuable truths?*”* In my view, each of these temperaments has its place. While the discussion of new ideas to be examined in the light of reason and inspiration is integral to the burden of religious scholarship, this approach is, on the other hand, generally inimical to the respon- sibilities assumed by those who teach in official Church capacities, where only the settled doctrines of the Church are to be advanced, and these “so plainly that no one can misunderstand”?”> Of course, the fact that the content of Church curriculum must be carefully considered is not neces- sarily inconsistent with the idea that class members should be expected to stretch their minds and hearts. Writes Nibley: Years ago when I wrote the 1957 priesthood manual, An Approach to the Book of Mormon,’’® the committee turned down every chapter. But President McKay overruled the committee on every chapter. He said that if it’s over the brethren’s heads, let them reach for it. He left every chapter just as I had it. The committee fumed at the mouth and protested, “We can't have it!” President McKay turned right around and said, “We jolly well can have it! Let them work at it a little” I was a good friend of Brother Richard L. Evans, who always used to tell me, “Always write as if you were writing to the tiredest farmer in Koosharem””” If you are writing to the tiredest farmer in Koosharem, what do you do to keep him awake? No attention span, no interest, or anything. He's just a tired, dead farmer. If he’s the one you have to write for, youre certainly going to lose your other audience in a hurry. I never obeyed that command.” Of the former group, categorized as “bibliolaters,’ Gillum writes: Some Latter-day Saints essentially take the position, “We have a Bible, a Book of Mormon, a Doctrine and Covenants, and a Pearl of Great Price; we need no more.” Hugh Nibley was speaking to these people when he wrote: “An awesome outpouring of newly-discovered documents of direct bearing on the history and teachings of the Church is even now in full spate, amazing and confounding Jewish and Christian scholars, but bursting with good news for the Latter-day Saints—who ignore them completely??”” Addressing the latter group, Gillum warns: In my own opinion, apocryphal works can be so many jots and titillations, ultimately watering down our estimation of what true scripture really is. Before long a study of the apocrypha could lead us into believing that works like the Aquarian Gospel, Swedenborg’s revelations, or Edgar Cayce’s readings are as divine as our own Book of Mormon and the Bible. Indeed, with all of our added canonical scriptures, do we need to go into the scurrilous instead of the authentic??°° Kugel observes: “To make sense of these [brief and sometimes] offhand references—indeed, even to identify them as containing exegetical motifs—it is necessary to read the text in question against the background of the whole body of ancient interpretations??*! 272 N. Robertson, Orphic Mysteries, p. 220; cf. H. W. Nibley, Greatness, pp. 294-295. 273 R. Alter, Narrative, pp. 25-26. 274 E.A. Beach, Mysteries. See W. James, Will, pp. 26, 94-95n. 275 H.B. Lee, Teachings 1996, 8 July 1966, p. 459. 276 H.W. Nibley, Approach. 277 A small town in southern Utah. 278 H.B. Nibley, Nibliography, p. 50. 279 G.P. Gillum, Bibliography, p. 128. See H. W. Nibley, Educating, p. 339. 280 Ibid., p. 128. 281 J. L. Kugel, Instances, p. 156. 31 INTRODUCTION FIGuRE 1-1. Get Thee Hence, Satan, 1875 Carl Heinrich Bloch, 1834-1890 And Moses received strength, and called upon God, saying: In the name of the Only Begotten, depart hence, Satan (Moses 1:21). Carl Bloch’s dramatic painting of Jesus’ temptation in the wilderness parallels Moses’ encounter with Satan. The placement of the prostrate adversary at the feet of Christ recalls the prophecy that the head of the serpent would be crushed beneath the heel of the seed of the woman (Moses 4:21. See Commentary 4:21-d, p. 266.). MOSES 1 The Vision of Moses! COVER V LOW sete cagacaaaute satticaut anaes tedccceausi ines suaasbceualinsuas tedeqaginalneauimicaeituaaaeceus 33 Historical Background: Alternations of Darkness and Light.................. a3 Tie Settitipy atid Gren Ol MOSES isis. tiers issn ace aaeenmaless 36 Moses 1: ‘Text and Comimientary caaaciinccisenticasainnnnaanncnas 40 GICARIIIGS si cisscssisdunecsdnnradnencssueadssanedensnasinbavedestinsseuteushicsapveoespacssanmseaspassaneters 71 BGT CGS aiais Geducd tae vaesez sav deegavnsinasidenmsuusaucs tea ubssiuteavacussustedaanbacvatecteasnauiouscets 75 Overview OMPETING creation accounts from the Near East witness a variety of ancient beliefs concerning titanic struggles for preeminence among the gods. Apart from the possibility of a distant allusion in Genesis 1:2,” none of these concepts appear in the comparatively spare account of Creation in Genesis. The Pearl of Great Price, however, restores an authentic core of primeval traditions in its stories of Satan’s rebellion in the premortal existence, and of his dramatic confrontation with Moses.’ Counterbalancing these dark episodes, the Pearl of Great Price also gives us brief glimpses of the bright vistas of eternity experienced by Moses,* Enoch,° and Abraham.° The most direct scriptural parallel to Moses’ encounter with Satan is Jesus’ temptation in the wilderness.’ Just prior to the beginning of their formal ministries, the Devil finds each of them in a solitary place and launches a personal attack intended to undermine their confidence in who they are and what they have been called to do.’ With astonishing presumption, he calls for their allegiance and worship. In each account, Satan is defeated in his clever questioning by an unshakable adversary and is forced to depart. Historical Background: Alternations of Darkness and Light The account of Moses’ vision was no doubt reassuring to Joseph Smith as he faced his own trials during the period this revelation was received. Richard L. Bushman observes that Moses’ test “echoed Joseph's struggle with darkness before his First Vision...” The book of Moses... conveys the sense of prophethood as an ordeal. Visions of light and truth alternate with evil and darkness.”!° 1 See Endnote 1-1, p. 75. 2 See Endnote 1-2, p. 75. 3 Moses 1:12-22, 4:1-4; Abraham 3:27-28. 4 Moses 1:8, 27ff. 5 Moses 7:23. 6 Abraham 3:21ff. 7 Matthew 4:1-11; Mark 1:12-13; Luke 4:1-13. See Endnote 1-3, p. 75. 8 See Endnote 1-4, p. 75. 9 Joseph Smith - History 1:15-16 10 R.L. Bushman, Rough Stone, pp. 135-136. MOSES 1 | SASOW 34 MosEs 1: THE VISION OF MOSES — OVERVIEW FIGURES 1-2 AND 1-3. Jacob’s Ladder, ca. 1800, William Blake, 1757-1827 Ascent, 1993, David Linn, 1959- SEE COLOR PLATES 1-2 AND 1-3. For behold, this is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.! At left is William Blake's illustration of Jacob’s vision of the ladder extending to heaven.” Blake eschews the traditional medieval portrayal of this event that required fifteen rungs to signify fifteen saving virtues. However, he does respect the convention that has ascending angels representing the active life, and descending ones the contemplative life.” Stars like the ones shown here are typically identified with angels or with the “angelic” status conferred upon mortals who had ascended to heaven.* The drawing shows “figures bearing scrolls, food and drink, and even the compasses that Blake normally associated with the unimagina- tive limit-setting of reason; here all the diverse attributes of the complete man are seen unified in the heavenly vision”? In the second painting, the essentially collaborative nature of exaltation is addressed. Artist David Linn writes: “My intent was to address what is, for me, at the core of living the Gospel... I believe that living the Gospel requires us to lift one another out of darkness into light. This darkness or opposition can assume many forms, but is an essential element in this mortal probation, as father Lehi taught.° As we lift one another we form a living chain on this mountain of mortality and in the process learn those lessons that fit us for the presence of God’ ei Moses 1:39. Genesis 28:12. R. Giorgi, Anges, pp. 140-143. E.g., M. Barker, Older, pp. 92, 159 n. 65; M. Barker, Timaeus, pp. 274-275. M. Butlin, Blake, pp. 86-87. 2 Nephi 2:11. All Things, p. 57. Moses 1 was given to Joseph Smith at such a time of alternation of darkness and light. Although he and Oliver Cowdery had purchased a large pulpit-style edition of the King James Bible in Palmyra in October 1829,"' it was not until June 1830—during a period of jubilant expectation and intense persecution—that he was able to free himself to begin a new work of translation’? that was intended to restore “many important points touching the salvation of men, [that] had been taken from the Bible, or lost before it was compiled”? Many wonderful events had recently transpired: the Book of Mormon had come from the press in March, the Church had been organized in April,'* and the first conference had been held in early June. On the other hand, tremendous opposition began to mount during a visit of the Prophet to the saints in Colesville, New York later that month: On Saturday afternoon, June 26, they dammed a small stream to make a pond for baptisms and appointed a meeting for the Sabbath. That night the dam was torn out. The Mormons replaced the dam early Monday morning and held their baptism later that day... On their way back, a collection of the Knight's neighbors scoffed at the new Mormons as they passed by. Later about fifty men surrounded Joseph Knight’s house, Joseph Smith said, “raging with anger, and appar- ently determined to commit violence upon us.” When Joseph left..., the mob followed along, threatening physical attack... When village toughs failed to stop the baptisms, the law stepped in. Before the newly bap- tized members could be confirmed, a constable from South Bainbridge delivered a warrant 11 K.P. Jackson, Cooperstown Bible, pp. 56-57. 12 See Endnote 1-5, p. 75. 13 ‘J. Smith, Jr., Teachings, 16 February 1832, pp. 10-11. See Endnote 1-6, p. 75. 14 See Endnote 1-7, p. 75. MOosEs 1: THE VISION OF MOSES — OVERVIEW 35 FIGURE 1-4. Dog Code, 1987 Brian Kershisnik, 1962- Here is wisdom and it remaineth in me.’ The son of a petroleum geologist, artist Brian Kershisnik grew up in Angola, Thailand, West Texas, and Pakistan before going to Denmark as a missionary—learning much in the process about the inadequacy of language for communicating life's essential—and ultimately ineffable—realities.” About this painting, he writes: “This is... about communication that we do not, will not, or cannot understand. The written characters are borrowed from the writing of Joe Adams, a man with Down's syndrome with whom I have collaborated now for nearly ten years. His beautiful letters appear to mimic the act of writing as he has observed it. He can tell you what a block of his text is generally about because he knows that stories emerge in a mysterious way from characters just like his. I am fascinated by his unfathomable and beautiful symbols, and I borrowed several for this picture”? Though we are of the same nature as God, and have the potential to eventually become like Him, the difference in our comprehension of the universe is far greater than the gap that divides animals from man.* Regrettably, we widen that gap when we refuse to speak to Him from the center of our souls.” Yet God continually endeavors to speak to us “in [our] weakness, after the manner of [our] language, that [we] might come to understanding”® a concept that Stark calls “divine accommodation” In November 1832, Joseph Smith prayed fervently for a longer glimpse at the reality behind the “dark curtain,’ and a release from the limitations of human language: “Oh, Lord, deliver us in due time from the little, narrow prison, almost as it were, total darkness of paper, pen and ink; and a crooked, broken, scattered and imperfect language”® Our problem, of course, is not only one of language, but more importantly in the fact that, as Nibley observes, “You comprehend others only to the degree you are like them”? Moses 1:31. P. J. Schakel, Reason, p. 86; W. Shakespeare, Hamlet, 2:2:192, p. 1155. L. Norris et al., Kershisnik, p. 87. See Endnote 1-10, p. 76. See Endnote 1-11, p. 76. C. S. Lewis, Faces, p. 294; P. J. Schakel, Reason, pp. 78-80, 85. D&C 1:24. See Endnote 1-12, p. 76. R. Stark, Discovering, pp. 5-8. See Endnote 1-13, p. 77. J. Smith, Jr., Documentary History, 27 November 1832, 1:299. See Excursus 1: Speech, Writing, and Revelation, p. 512. H. W. Nibley, Unrolling, p. 165; cf. Commentary 4:28-b, p. 276. See Endnote 1-14, p. 77. OMOND MP WN He for Joseph's arrest... On June 28, he was carried off to court in South Bainbridge by constable Ebenezer Hatch, trailed by a mob that Hatch thought planned to waylay them en route. When a wheel came off the constable’s wagon, the mob nearly caught up, but, working fast, the two men replaced it in time and drove on. Hatch lodged Joseph in a tavern in South Bainbridge and slept all night with his feet against the door and a musket by his side.... The hearing [the next day] dragged on until night, when Justice Chamberlain... acquitted Joseph. Joseph had no sooner heard the verdict than a constable from neighboring Broome County served a warrant for the same crimes. The constable hurried Joseph off on a fifteen- mile journey without a pause for a meal. When they stopped for the night, the constable offered no protection from the tavern-haunters’ ridicule. After a dinner of crusts and water, Joseph was put next to the wall, and the constable lay close against him to prevent escape. At ten the next morning, Joseph was in court again... [Joseph’s lawyer John Reed] said witnesses were examined until 2 a.m., and the case argued for another two hours. The three justices again acquitted Joseph... The next day Joseph and Emma were safely home in Harmony. Joseph and Cowdery tried to steal back to Colesville a few days later to complete the confirmations that the trials had interrupted, but their enemies were too alert. They had no sooner arrived at the Knights’ than the mob began to gather. The Knights had suffered along with Joseph. On the night of the South Bainbridge trial, their wagons had been turned over MOSES 1 | SASOW 36 MosEs 1: THE VISION OF MOSES — OVERVIEW FIGURE 1-5. Relativity, 1953 M. C. Escher, 1898-1972 ...all things are present with me, for I know them all.' Both scripture and prophetic statements imply that for the Lord “the past, the present, and the future were and are, with Him, one eternal ‘now? a condition that surpasses current scientific understanding. Escher’s representation invites viewers to contrast the limited point of view of each figure in the scene to such an all-encompassing perspective. “This is perhaps Escher’s best-known print on the theme of relativity. It also is a fine example of Escher’s focus on unusual, and often conflicting, points of view. Here we have three forces of gravity working perpendicularly to one another. Three earth-planes cut across each other at right angles, and human beings are living on each of them. It is impossible for the inhabitants of different worlds to walk or sit or stand on the same floor, because they have differing perceptions of what is horizontal and what is vertical. Yet they may well share the use of the same staircase. On the top staircase illustrated here, two people are moving side by side and in the same direction, and yet one of them is going downstairs and the other upstairs. Contact between them is out of the question because they live in different worlds and therefore can have no knowledge of each other's existence: 2 Moses 1:6. J. Smith, Jr., Teachings, 15 April 1842, p. 220. See Commentary 1:6-g, p. 48; Commentary 2:1-e, p. 94; and Excursus 7: Time and Eternity, p. 537. M. C. Escher, Graphic Work. See Endnote 1-8, p. 75. and sunk in the water. Mobbers piled rails against the doors and sank chains in the stream. On Joseph’s and Cowdery’s return to Colesville, there was no time for a meeting or even a meal before they had to flee. Joseph said they traveled all night, “except a short time, during which we were forced to rest ourselves[s] under a large tree by the way side, sleeping and watching alternately.” Later, the Prophet coolly summarized these circumstances and described how the revela- tion of Moses 1 had provided needed encouragement:’° ... amid all the trials and tribulations we had to wade through, the Lord, who well knew our infantile and delicate situation, vouchsafed for us a supply of strength, and granted us “line upon line” of knowledge—“here a little and there a little?!” of which the [vision of Moses] was a precious morsel. The Setting and Genre of Moses 1"* The events described in Moses 1 apparently took place sometime after Jehovah called Moses out of the burning bush" but before Moses had returned to Egypt to deliver the children of Israel.”° Extracanonical writings parallel the book of Moses account in affirming that the stories of the Creation and the Fall were revealed to this great prophet and leader of ancient Israel in vision. For example, the book of Jubilees prefaces a recital of the Creation and other events of Genesis with the Lord’s instructions to Moses to record what he would see in vision.”' Similarly, 4 Ezra preserves a tradition that the Lord led Moses “up on Mount Sinai, 15 R.L. Bushman, Rough Stone, pp. 116-118. 16 ‘J. Smith, Jr., Documentary History, Jane 1830, 1:98. See Endnote 1-9, p. 76. 17 Isaiah 28:10. 18 See Endnote 1-15, p. 78. 19 = Moses 1:17. 20 Moses 1:25-26. 21 OS. Wintermute, Jubilees 2:52, p. 54. See Endnote 1-16, p. 78. MosEs 1: THE VISION OF MOSES — OVERVIEW where I kept him with me many days; and I told him many wondrous things, and showed him the secrets of the times and declared to him the end of times. Then I commanded him saying, These words you shall publish openly, and these you shall keep secret?” The details of Moses’ experience in chapter 1 place it squarely in the tradition of ancient “heavenly ascent” literature and its relationship to temple theology, rites, and ordinances.” Although the stories of such ascents are similar in many respects to temple initiation rites, they make the claim of being something more. While ancient temple rituals dramatically depict a figurative journey into the presence of God, the ascent literature portrays prophets who experience actual encounters with Deity within the heavenly temple—the “completion or fulfillment” of the “types and images” in the ordinances.” In such encounters, the prophet may experience a vision of eternity or the conferral of certain blessings that are “made sure” by the voice of God Himself. Prologue (wv. 1-2) Epilogue (wv. 41-42) Moses stands in the presence Moses in the spirit world (vv. 3-8) of the Lord (w. 31-40) At the veil, Moses sees the earth and all its inhabitants (wv. 27-30) Moses calls upon God and is answered by a voice from behind the veil (w. 24-26) Moses falls to the earth (vv. 9-11) ———-» Moses defeats Satan (w. 12-23) Figure 1-6. Outline of the Heavenly Ascent Pattern in Moses 1 Though Moses 1 serves as a superb introduction to succeeding chapters describing the Creation and the Fall, its separate prologue” and epilogue” bracket the revelation, signaling its status as an independent narrative unit in its own right.”* Verses 1-2 provide what Turner calls an “announcement of plot””’—a brief synopsis of the chapter describing how Moses was “caught up” to receive the glory of God and converse with Him face-to-face. The outline of events shown in the figure above details how Moses first leaves His heavenly home and then undertakes a step-by-step return to the Father.*” Following the prologue, Moses is given a description of God’s majesty and a confirmation of the work to which he had previously been foreordained as a son of God in the similitude of the Only Begotten.*! He is then shown the “world upon which he was created”—referring 22 _B.M. Metzger, Fourth Ezra, 14:4-6, p. 553; cf. Moses 1:23, 1:42. 23 Excursus 54: Table of Parallels with the Apocalypse of Abraham, p. 694. See also e.g., E. Isaac, 1 Enoch, 14:8-25, pp. 20-21; F. I. Andersen, 2 Enoch, 1:8, pp. 114-117; H. C. Kee, Testaments, Levi 5, pp. 789-790; 2 Corinthians 12:1-3; Revelation 4:1; 1 Nephi 8-13; H. W. Nibley, Teachings of the PGP, 17, p. 205. See Endnote 1-20, p. 79. 24 H.W.Nibley, Apocryphal, p. 312; cf. pp. 310-311. See W. W. Isenberg, Philip, 85:14-16, p. 159. 25 2 Peter 1:10. See Excursus 3: Temple Blessings in the Oath and Covenant of the Priesthood, p. 519. 26 Moses 1:1-2. 27 Moses 1:42. 28 See Endnote 1-17, p. 78. 29 See Endnote 1-18, p. 78. 30 Moses 1:31. See Endnote 1-19, p. 78. 31 Moses 1:3-7. See Endnote 1-21, p. 79. a7 The general outline of events given in abbreviated form within Moses 1 recalls elements of both the heavenly ascent literature and earthly temple ritual. MOSES 1 | SASOW 38 MosEs 1: THE VISION OF MOSES - OVERVIEW Figure 1-7. Abraham and the Angel Yahoel Approach the Throne of God, ca. 1300. Photo: Stephen T. Whitlock, 1951- SEE COLOR PLATE 1-7. I saw... a throne [made] of fire and the many-eyed Wheels... And under the throne [I saw] four singing fiery Living Creatures... And a voice came to me... saying, ...“Look at the levels which are under the expanse on which you are brought”... And while he was still speaking, ... behold, the levels opened.' Striking parallels to Moses’ experience are found in the Apocalypse of Abraham? This illustration from a fourteenth-century Slavonic manuscript® shows Abraham and the Yahoel approaching the throne of God, or rather of Christ as the illustrator depicts the scene. Behind God sits a Metatron figure, whose identity may relate to the statement that “Michael is with me [God] in order to bless you forever”* Beneath the throne are two fiery seraphim and a many- iKAAHA I = eyed “wheel” praising God. ThtLAABBAMAD £ r Z a CB ANTAMB NPE AD The throne is surrounded by a series of heavenly veils, representing Rp TAMAR EN AE z different levels of the firmament separating the material world— sasaki signified by the outermost dark blue veil—from God. In both the Apocalypse and the book of Moses, the key phrase “as the voice was still speaking” marks the prophet’s approach to the veil.” Like Moses, Abraham looks down upon the progressively opened veils to see the affairs of what is called in modern revelation the “kingdoms of a lower order; aS specifically, in this case, the events of the Creation and the Garden of Eden. A. Kulik, Retroverting, Apocalypse of Abraham 18:3, 19:1-4, pp. 24-25. Excursus 54: Table of Parallels with the Apocalypse of Abraham, p. 694; cf. Figure E53-12 and Figure E53-13, p. 684. P. P. Novickij, Otkrovenie Avraama. A. Kulik, Retroverting, Apocalypse of Abraham 10:17, p. 18. See Commentary 1:27-a, p. 62. D&C 130:9. A. Kulik, Retroverting, Apocalypse of Abraham 21:1-23:13, pp. 26-28. See Commentary 1:27-b, p. 62. to the preexistent spirit realm—and “all the children of men which are, and which were created”— paralleling the view of organized intelligences given to Abraham.” Then, having gone out the presence of the Father and no longer being clothed with His glory, Moses falls to the earth—meaning, first, that he collapsed in weakness, and, second, that he descended again to the relative darkness of the telestial world. He is then left to himself to be tested in a dramatic encounter with Satan.*? Having banished Satan through the power of the Only Begotten (a motif linked to baptism™), Moses is “filled with the Holy Ghost:’** Continuing to press forward, he “calls upon the name of God” in sacred prayer, and is answered by a voice from behind the veil enumerating specific blessings.*° While “the voice is still speaking? Moses looks at the veil and beholds every particle of the earth and all of its inhabitants and then sees “many lands; and each land was called earth.” The culminating sequence begins in verse 31 when Moses, having continued to inquire of the Lord,** comes to stand in His presence. God then speaks with Moses face to face, 32 Moses 1:8; cf. Abraham 3:22-23. 33. Moses 1:9-23. 34 See Commentary 1:20-a, p. 57. 35 Moses 1:24. 36 Moses 1:25-26. See Endnote 1-22, p. 79. 37 Moses 1: 27-28, 29. See Endnote 1-23, p. 79. 38 Moses 1:30. MosEs 1: THE VISION OF MOSES — OVERVIEW 39 FiGurRE 1-8. Guardians Part the Veils, Taking Muhammad by the Hand to See the Throne of God SEE COLOR PLATE 1-8. When Gabriel took him up to each of the heavens and asked permission to enter, he had to say whom he had brought and whether he had received a mission [or: had been sent for] and they would say “God grant him life, brother and friend!” until they reached the seventh heaven and his Lord. Doubting Meccans had asked that Muhammad “confirm the authenticity of his prophethood by ascending to heaven and there receiving a holy book... In this, he was to conform to a model illustrated by many still- extant legends... regarding Enoch, Moses, Daniel, Mani, and many other messengers who had risen to heaven, met God, and received from his right hand a | book of scripture containing the revelation they were to proclaim?” During his “night journey” (isra), the angel Gabriel mounted him on Buragq, a winged steed, that “took him to the horizon” and then, in an instant, to the temple mount in Jerusalem.? At the Gate of the Guard, Ishmael “asks Muhammad's name and inquires whether he is indeed a true messenger”* After having given a satisfactory answer, Muhammad was permitted to gradually ascend from the depths of hell to the highest of the seven heavens on a golden ladder (mi’raj).° At the gates of the Celestial Temple, a guardian angel again “ask[ed] who he [was]. Gabriel introduce[d] Muhammad, who [was] then allowed to enter the gardens of Paradise.”® Commenting on the implications of this experience for later Muslims, Schimmel writes: “Islamic modernists..., when discussing the heavenly journey, have pointed out that Muhammad was able to speak to God ina true I-and-Thou relationship. This seemed to Iqbal a very important corrective of the widespread doctrine of the Unity of Being: the legend of the heavenly journey confirms that God is not a mute, remote prima causa but indeed a personal power who can be addressed, and thus proves that there is the possibility of a fruitful elute oe anita dialogue between Creator and creature, a dialogue in prayer, » out of which true religious activity can grow. M. Ibn Ishaq ibn Yasar, Sirat Rasul Allah 270-271, p. 186. D.C. Peterson, Muhammad (2001), p. 527. Ibid., pp. 528-529. A. Schimmel, Messenger, p. 160. No relationship to the English word “mirage.” See W. J. Hamblin et al., Temple, p. 136; M. Ibn Ishaq ibn Yasar, Sirat Rasul, 263-271, pp. 181-187. W. J. Hamblin et al., Temple, p. 136 n. 134. A. Schimmel, Messenger, p. 164. describing His purposes for this earth and its inhabitants,” and outlining the Creation, the Fall, and how the Plan of Redemption was given to Adam and Eve.”° Moses’ transforming experience prepared him for the next stage of his mission.*! Explaining the purpose of a vision of good and evil that was opened to the mind of Joseph Smith at Hill Cumorah in 1823, the angel Moroni said: “All this is shown, the good and the evil, the holy and the impure, the glory of God and the power of darkness, that ye may know hereafter the two powers and never be influenced or overcome by that wicked one. Behold, whatever entices and leads to good and to do good, is of God, and whatever does not is of that wicked one: it is he that fills the hearts of men with evil, to walk in darkness and blaspheme God; and you may learn from henceforth, that his ways are to destruction, but the way of holiness is peace and rest.”** 39 = Moses 1:35-40. 40 Moses chapters 2-5. See Endnote 1-24, p. 79. 41 See Endnote 1-25, p. 80. 42 Messenger and Advocate, 2:1, October 1835, p. 198, in E W. Kirkham, New Witness 1, pp. 98-99 and J. Smith, Jr., Papers 1989-1992, 1:87; cf. D&C 88:6, 122:7-8. MOSES 1 | SASOW 40 Moses 1: Text and Commentary CHAPTER 1 (June 1830) PROLOGUE (PP. 42-44) HE 4words of God, which he spake unto Moses at a time when Moses was ’caught up into an ‘exceedingly high mountain, 2 And “he saw God face to face, and he talked with him, and the “glory of God was upon Moses; therefore Mo- ses could endure his presence. MOSES IN SPIRIT WORLD (PP. 44-50) 3 And “God spake unto Moses, say- ing: ’Behold, I am the Lord God ¢Al- mighty, and “Endless is my name; for I am without beginning of days or end of years; and is not this endless? 4 And, behold, thou art “my son; wherefore look, and I will show thee the workmanship of mine hands; but not all, for bmy works are with- out end, and also my words, for they never cease. 5 Wherefore, no man can behold all my “works, except he behold all m glory; and ’no man can behold all my glory, and afterwards remain ‘in the flesh on the earth. 6 And 4I have a work for thee, Mo- ses, my son; and thou art in the simil- itude of “mine Only Begotten; and mine Only Begotten “is and shall be 4the Savior, for he is @full of grace and truth; but /there is no God beside me, and Sall things are present with me, for I know them all. 7 And now, behold, “this one thing I show unto thee, Moses, my son, for “thou art in the world, and now I show it unto thee. 8 And it came to pass that “Moses looked, and “beheld the world upon which he was created; and Moses be- held the world and the ends thereof, and “all the children of men which are, and which were created; of the same he greatly marveled and won- dered. MOSES FALLS TO EARTH (PP. 51-52) 9 And the presence of God withdrew from Moses, that his glory was not upon Moses; and Moses was left unto himself. And “as he was left unto himself, he fell unto the earth. 10 And it came to pass that “it was for the space of many hours before Moses did again receive his natural strength like unto man; and he said unto himself: Now, for this cause I know that ‘man is nothing, which thing I never had supposed. 11 But now “mine own eyes have beheld God; but not my natural, but my spiritual eyes, for my natural eyes could not have beheld; for I should have withered and died in his pres- ence; but his glory was upon me; and I beheld his face, for I was transfig- ured before him. MOSES DEFEATS SATAN (PP. 52-59) 12 And it came to pass that when Moses had said these words, behold, “Satan came tempting him, saying: “Moses, son of man, 4worship me. 13 “And it came to pass that "Moses looked upon Satan and said: Who art thou? For behold, ‘I am a son of God, in the similitude of his Only Begot- ten; and ¢where is thy glory, that I should worship thee? 14 For behold, I could not look upon God, except his glory should come upon me, and I were “transfigured before him. But °I can look upon thee in the natural man. Is it not so, surely? 15 Blessed be the name of my God, for his Spirit hath not altogether withdrawn from me, or else “where is thy glory, for it is darkness unto me? And I can judge between thee and God; for God said unto me: Worship God, for him only shalt thou serve. 16 Get thee hence, Satan; deceive me not; for God said unto me: “Thou art after the similitude of mine Only Begotten. 17 And he also gave me “command- ments when he called unto me out of the burning bush, saying: Call upon God ‘in the name of mine Only Be- gotten, and worship me. 18 And again Moses said: I will not cease to call upon God, I have other things to inquire of him: for “his glory has been upon me, wherefore I can judge between him and thee. Depart hence, Satan. 19 And now, when Moses had said these words, “Satan cried with a loud voice, and ranted upon the earth, and ‘commanded, saying: 4] am the Only Begotten, “worship me. 20 And it came to pass that “Moses began to fear exceedingly; and as he began to fear, he saw the bitterness of hell. Nevertheless, calling upon God, he received strength, and he commanded, saying: Depart from me, Satan, for this one God only will I worship, which is the God of glory. 21 And now “Satan began to trem- ble, and the earth shook; and "Moses received strength, and called upon God, ‘saying: In the name of the Only Begotten, depart hence, Satan. 22 And it came to pass that “Satan cried with a loud voice, with weeping, and wailing, and gnashing of teeth; and “he departed hence, even from the presence of Moses, that he beheld him not. 23 And now “of this thing Moses bore record; but “because of wicked- ness it is not had among the children of men. MOSES CALLS UPON GOD (PP. 59-61) 24 And it came to pass that 4when Satan had departed from the pres- ence of Moses, that "Moses lifted up his eyes unto heaven, ‘being filled with the Holy Ghost, 4which beareth record of the Father and the Son; 25 And calling upon the name of God, “he beheld his glory again, for it was upon him; and ‘he heard a voice, saying: 4Blessed art thou, Moses, for I, the Almighty, have chosen thee, and ‘thou shalt be made stronger than many waters; for they shall obey thy command Jas if thou wert God. 26 And lo, I am with thee, even unto the end of thy days; for “thou shalt deliver my people from bondage, even Israel my chosen. VISION AT THE VEIL (PP. 62-64) 27 And it came to pass, “as the voice was still speaking, bMoses cast his eyes and beheld the earth, yea, “even all of it; and there was not a particle of it which he did not behold, discern- ing it “by the spirit of God. 28 And he beheld also the inhabit- ants thereof, and there was not a soul which he beheld not; and he discerned them by the Spirit of God; and their numbers were great, “even numberless as the sand upon the sea shore. 29 And he beheld many lands; and 4each land was called earth, and there were inhabitants on the face thereof. 30 And it came to pass that Moses called upon God, saying: “Tell me, I pray thee, why these things are so, and by what thou madest them? IN GOD’S PRESENCE (PP. 64-69) 31 And behold, the “glory of the Lord was upon Moses, so that bMo- ses stood in the presence of God, and talked with him face to face. And ‘the Lord God said unto Moses: For mine own purpose have I made these things. “Here is wisdom and it re- maineth in me. 32 And “by the word of my power, have I created them, which is mine Only Begotten Son, who is &full of grace and truth. 33 And 4worlds without number have I created; and I also created them for mine own purpose; and ’by the Son I created them, which is mine Only Begotten. MosEs 1: THE VISION OF MOSES — TEXT AND COMMENTARY Al 34 And the first man of all men have I called “Adam, which is many. 35 But “only an account of this earth, and the inhabitants thereof, give I unto you. For behold, there are many worlds that have passed away by the word of my power. And there are many that now stand, and “innumerable are they unto man; but ‘all things are numbered unto me, for they are mine and I know them. 36 And it came to pass that Moses spake unto the Lord, saying: Be merci- ful unto thy servant, O God, and tell me concerning this earth, and the inhabit- ants thereof, and also the heavens, and then thy servant will be content. 37 And the Lord God spake unto Mo- ses, “saying: The heavens, they are many, and they cannot be numbered unto man; but they are numbered unto me, for they are mine. 38 And as “one earth shall pass away, and the heavens thereof even so shall another come; and “there is no end to my works, neither to my words. 39 For behold, “this is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man. 40 And now, Moses, my son, I will speak unto thee concerning “this earth upon which thou standest; and thou shalt write the things which I shall speak. EPILOGUE (PP. 69-71) 41 And in a day when the children of men shall esteem my words as naught and “take many of them from the book which thou shalt write, behold, 4 will raise up another like unto thee; and they shall be had again among the children of men—among as many as shall believe. 42 (These words were spoken unto Moses in the mount, the name of which shall not be known among the children of men. And now they are spoken unto you. “Show them not unto any except them that believe. Even so. Amen.) MOSES 1 | SASOW 42 MosEs 1: THE VISION OF MOSES — TEXT AND COMMENTARY 1 The words of God, which he spake unto Moses at a time when Moses was caught up into an exceedingly high mountain, 1 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 oF 58 59 60 a_ words of God, which he spake unto Moses. Verses 1 and 2 form a preface that should be read as an “announcement of plot” for what will occur in the rest of the chapter.* Nibley compares such remarks to “stage directions” written in red ink in Egyptian texts, intended for recital by the lectern priest.“* Allusions to a revelation on Sinai in which Moses saw the panorama of creation occur in several ancient sources**—this chapter gives an account of the dramatic context preceding that event. caught up. The statement that Moses was “caught up” reveals that his ascent was accom- plished by God’s power and not his own. Such a grammatical construction is called the “divine passive,’ the unstated agent being God.*° Parallel descriptions occur elsewhere in scripture. 2 Corinthians 12:2 says that Paul was “caught up”’—i.e., “snatched away”*’—to the third heaven.** 1 Thessalonians 4:17 uses the same term to describe those who would be taken up from the earth to descend with Jesus Christ at his second coming.” Similarly, Enoch saw many who were “caught up by the pow- ers of heaven into Zion” after his city had been taken up into heaven.*° Such experiences may imply a context in which priesthood ordinances are received. For example, we are told else- where that Adam was “caught away by the Spirit of the Lord” into the water and baptized.” Another close parallel to Moses’ experience is found in 1 Nephi 11:1 where Nephi was “caught away in the Spirit of the Lord, yea, into an exceedingly high mountain, which [he] never had before seen.” Nephi later said that “upon the wings of his Spirit hath my body been carried away upon exceedingly high mountains,”*’ just as the Apocalypse of Abraham records that Abraham was raised up to heaven on the wings of a bird. Ephrem the Syrian portrays Eve in the Garden of Eden as a dove, and Satan appearing as a dove to deceive her.’ However, the Prophet explained that: “The sign of the dove was insti- tuted before the creation of the world, a witness for the Holy Ghost, and the Devil cannot come in the sign of a dove.”*° Nibley comments: “[T]he dove that takes one to heaven is the Holy Ghost, who also instructs and teaches ‘through the heavens, ‘revealing... the grand Key-words... as, also, the sign” by which alone supernal knowledge can be conveyed.” Whether representing the ascent to heaven of the souls of the living’ or dead,” or else the L. Turner, Announcements; cf. H. W. Nibley, Teachings of the PGP, 16, pp. 193-194. H. W. Nibley, Teachings of the PGP, 16, pp. 193-194, 18, p. 220; cf. Moses 1:23, 42. M. Barker, Revelation, pp. 24-25; E. D. Clark, Prologue. K. L. Barney, June 21 2006. Greek harpazo. Cf. 3 Nephi 28:13. Cf. D&C 88:96; 101:31; 109:75. Moses 7:27. Moses 6:64. Cf. Exodus 19:3, Ezekiel 40:2; jst Matthew 4:8; Revelations 21:10; Moses 7:2. For other parallels between Nephi and Moses, see N. B. Reynolds, Kingship, pp. 172-177. 2 Nephi 4:25. R. Rubinkiewicz, Apocalypse of Abraham, 12:10, p. 695; cf. H. W. Nibley, Abraham 2000, p. 18, Genesis 15:9ff. See Figure E53-13, p. 684 for an illustration from a Slavonic Apocalypse of Abraham that shows the patriarch and the angel Yahoel ascending on the wings of birds. See Endnote 1-26, p. 80. Ephrem the Syrian, Fall, 4, p. 101. See Commentary 3:9-g, p. 163; 4:5-b, p. 246. J. Smith, Jr., Teachings, 29 January 1843, p. 276; cf. B. R. McConkie, Mortal Messiah, 1:404; J. Smith, Jr., Words, 21 March 1841, p. 66. Book of Abraham, Facsimile 2, explanation of Figure 7. H. W. Nibley, Abraham 2000, pp. 56-57. E.g., Nephi, Moses. E.g., E. S. Drower, Adam, pp. 8, 32; H. W. Nibley, New Look, July 1969, p. 109; H. W. Nibley, Approach to Abraham, pp. 261-264; M. D. Rhodes, Hor, p. 20. MosEs 1: THE VISION OF MOSES — TEXT AND COMMENTARY 1 The words of God, which he spake unto Moses at a time when Moses was caught up into an exceedingly high mountain, 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 descent of heavenly messengers to earth,°' the common idea behind the symbol of a bird— and specifically in this context a dove—is that of sacred communication and communion between the spheres, “the certain tie between heaven and earth.” c exceedingly high mountain. The location of this mountain is assumed to be somewhere near the northwest edge of the Arabian Peninsula. Potter adduces evidence that identifies the site with a mountain in the vicinity of Midian named Jabel al-Lawz.® He argues that at this location, rather than at the traditional spot on St. Catherine’s mountain in the Sinai Peninsula, Moses would have received his commission to free Israel from Egypt.“ Later, it also would be the place where God would reveal the Law and the instructions for building the Tabernacle, and where the incident with the golden calf would take place.® Potter fur- ther conjectures that this may be the same “exceedingly high mountain” to which Nephi was “caught away” in vision,” since it is less than eighteen miles away from what some believe is the most plausible candidate for the valley of Lemuel, where he was camped at the time.°” Note the similar wording that is associated with the mountain where God showed himself to the Brother of Jared: it was called Shelem “because of its exceeding height.”** As Thomas observes, the essential thing is to suggest “a place that is suitably high for temple activity.” Thomas describes the spectrum of meanings associated with the three Hebrew consonants slm: “peace, tranquility, contentment, safety, completeness, being sound, finished, full, or perfect. Shelem (and Hebrew shalom) signify peace with God, especially in the covenant relationship. It also connotes submission to God, which we see in the Arabic words muslim and islam. In particular, shelem has reference to the peace offering of the law of sacrifice, which corresponds to the seeking of fellowship with God, and thereby has a relationship to the meanings of the at-one-ment; that is, shelem, fellowship, sealing, and at-one-ment have an obvious relationship”? Nibley further explains: “The original word of Shelem, Shalom, means ‘peace; but it originally meant ‘safe’ (safety, security) because it was a high place. The Shelem was a high place. It’s still the word for ladder: silma, selma, a sullam in Arabic.””' This connotation is significant because the ladder is a symbol often used to represent the process of exaltation.” H. W. Nibley, New Look, July 1969, pp. 108-110, August 1969, pp. 75-77; H. W. Nibley, Approach to Abraham, pp. 258-265, 268-269; J. Smith, Jr., Words, before 8 August 1839, p. 10; J. Smith, Jr., Teachings, December 1835, p. 98. H. W. Nibley, New Look, July 1969, p. 109; H. W. Nibley, Approach to Abraham, p. 263. See W. J. Hamblin et al., Temple, p. 156 for a Sufi allegory involving birds who fly to the Celestial Temple. See also E. A. S. Butterworth, Tree, pp. 82-83; B. Mikael, Mysteries, pp. 18-20; Figure 3-8, p. 145; Figure 6-14, p. 473; Commentary 2:2-c, p. 97; 3:9-g, p. 163; 4:5-b, p. 246. See Endnote E-204, p. 754. G. Potter, Sinai. Frank Moore Cross agrees with a general location in Midian (E. M. Cross, Epic, pp. 46, 66-67). Exodus 3. Exodus 19-32. 1 Nephi 11:1. S. K. Brown, Hunt; G. Potter et al., Lehi, pp. 31-51; R. Wellington et al., Lehi’ Trail, p. 29. For a differing view, see J. R. Chadwick, Wrong Place. Ether 3:1. A change to “exceedingly” was made in the LDS 1921 edition (K. P. Jackson, Book of Moses, p. 57). Note that, like the Book of Mormon, oT1 and o72 read “exceeding” rather than “exceedingly” (S. H. Faulring et al., Original Manuscripts, pp. 83, 591). M. C. Thomas, Brother of Jared, p. 391. Regarding a plausible candidate for the mountain Shelem, Potter notes: “At nearly 6,000 feet, [Jabal Samham] is the highest mountain in southern Oman and is mentioned by name in Genesis 10:30, where it is known as ‘Sephar, a mount of the east” (G. Potter et al., Lehi, p. 130). M. C. Thomas, Brother of Jared, p. 391. H. W. Nibley, Teachings of the PGP, 16, p. 196. R. Guénon, Symboles, pp. 336-339; cf. J. Smith, Jr., Teachings, 7 April 1844, p. 348—see pp. 346-348, 354. See also M. C. Thomas, Hebrews; M. C. Thomas, Brother of Jared; Genesis 28:12; overview of Moses 1, p. 34; Figure 5-13, p. 351. 43 MOSES 1 | SASOW 44 MosEs 1: THE VISION OF MOSES — TEXT AND COMMENTARY 1 The words of God, which he spake unto Moses at a time when Moses was caught up into an exceedingly high mountain, 2 And he saw God face to face, and he talked with him, and the glory of God was upon Moses; therefore Moses could endure his presence. 3 And God spake unto Moses, saying: Behold, I am the Lord God Almighty, and Endless is my name; for I am without beginning of days or end of years; and is not this endless? In scripture, the term “mountain” is often used figuratively to describe temples.”> When temples have not been available, mountains have often provided the same function.”* 2 a _ he saw God face to face. Moses’ encounter with God was no mere dream or vague sense of presence, but rather an intimate and direct dialogue with a glorious visible and audible personage. The eyewitness quality of Moses’ experience is emphasized by repeated references to its visual aspects.”° Thomas observes that “seeing” and “knowing” are often closely associated in scripture, the ultimate in knowledge being manifested when, like Moses or the Brother of Jared, one is permitted to see the Lord face to face.’® b_ glory of God was upon Moses. The Hebrew word for the glory (kabod—heavy, weighty, burdensome) of God connotes the magnificence of His immediate presence. The sense in which this may also signal a real bodily presence is captured in the English phrase: “he was there in all his glory?” The term “glory” is repeated twelve times within the chapter, serving to make the contrast between God's splendor and Satan's pale imitation blatantly apparent.’* Moses 1 frequently reminds the reader that man can neither endure God’s presence nor fully discern His works unless transfigured by His power.”’ The exposition of the theme of God’s glory will culminate in v. 39. 3 a God spake unto Moses. Although v. 6 seems to imply that God the Father is speaking directly to Moses, the voice is typically understood to be that of Jehovah, the premortal Jesus Christ.*° Moses 5:9, in similar fashion, seems to be an example of the Holy Ghost speaking as the Father. Whereas such ambiguity in scripture sometimes may be due to historical complexities in textual transmission, in this context, it could be an example of divine investiture. This concept describes the situation where Christ is authorized to speak and act as if He were the Father.*! 73 Isaiah 2:2; Psalm 48:2; R. J. Clifford, Temple; J. M. Lundquist, Meeting Place, pp. 6-10; J. M. Lundquist, Typology, pp. 84-86. 74 E.g., the Mount of Transfiguration (M. B. Brown, Gate, pp. 174-175, 195 n. 23), the mount where the Lord showed himself to the Brother of Jared (M. C. Thomas, Brother of Jared), and Ensign Peak in the Salt Lake Valley (M. B. Brown et al., Symbols, pp. 119, 159; B. H. Roberts, Comprehensive History, 3:386). 75 Le., “see” (Moses 1:2, 20), “look” (vv. 4, 8, 13, 14), “behold” (vv. 5, 7, 8, 11, 22, 25, 27, 28, 29, 35, 39), “show” (v. 7), “eyes” (v. 11, 24), and “discern” (v. 28). 76 E.g., 1 Nephi 5:4; 3 Nephi 11:15; Alma 36:26; D&C 45:46; 50:45; 93:1. See also L. E. Dahl et al., Lectures, 7:16- 18, pp. 101-103; J. Smith, Jr., Words, 27 June 1839, p. 5; 1 May 1842, p. 120; 14 May 1843, pp. 200-202; J. Smith, Jr., Teachings, 27 June 1839, pp. 149-150; M. C. Thomas, Brother of Jared, p. 395. 77 T.G. Madsen, House, p. 280. 78 Moses 1:13, 14, 15, 20. 79 Moses 1:1, 5, 9, 11, 14, 25, 31. See also vv. 27, 28; D&C 67:11-12; 84:22; D. C. Mouritsen, Transfiguration. Contrast Commentary 1:14-b, p. 54. 80 Cf. D&C 29:1, 42, 46; M. Barker, Hidden, p. 74; Irenaeus, Proof, 44-45, pp. 76-77; Novatian, Trinity, 18, pp. 627- 629. 81 H.D. Peterson, Commentary, pp. 74-75. For the First Presidency’s full statement on this and related topics, see J. R. Clark, Messages, 5:31-32. See also G. L. Burgon, Name; B. R. McConkie, NT Commentary, 1:73, 77, 85, 468; 2:183; 3:137, 138; B. R. McConkie, Promised Messiah, pp. 64, 349, 369, 370, 558, 601-602; B. R. McConkie, Mortal Messiah, 1:349; 2:81; H. D. Peterson, Commentary, pp. 74-75; D. R. Seely, Jehovah; J. E. Talmage, Articles (1984), pp. 424-425; J. A. Tvedtnes, Metcalfe, p. 18. MoOsEs 1: THE VISION OF MOSES — TEXT AND COMMENTARY 3 And God spake unto Moses, saying: Behold, I am the Lord God Almighty, and Endless is my name; for I am without beginning of days or end of years; and is not this endless? 4 And, behold, thou art my son; wherefore look, and I will show thee the workmanship of mine hands; but not all, for my works are without end, and also my words, for they never cease. 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 Noting that “latter-day revelation gives us the fuller account and meaning of what actually took place on the Mount,” Elder Alvin R. Dyer taught that both the Father and the Son were present on this occasion. He saw the event as “similar to that which was experienced by Joseph Smith in the Sacred Grove, wherein God the Father appeared and announced his Son who stood by him, by stating, “This is my Beloved Son:”* If such were indeed the case, it would allow for speech from both the Father and the Son on this occasion, and thus would obviate the need to interpret the words of God to Moses as an instance of divine investiture. b_ Behold I. The “I” is repeated in o11: “Behold I I?” The current text follows o7T2.°° I am. This phrase begins a typical aretology,** whereby God proclaims His particular virtues and offices.*° By reinvoking at the start the divine title that was disclosed to Moses previously,®° God both establishes His identity and sets the context for the later affirmations of His relationship with Moses.*’ Later, in Moses’ dialogue with Satan, a similar interplay of divine titles and assertions of relationship recurs with different effect.** c Almighty. The title recalls the demonstration of God’s power over the waters as the first act of creation.® Moses will in like manner “be made stronger than many waters.” d_ Endless. The term corresponds to the Hebrew Ein Sof, the name used for God in the Jewish Kabbalah.”! “This name ties to God’s characteristic of being ‘without beginning of days or end of years’ and His creation of ‘innumerable’ worlds.” It combines to form a single name with the term ‘Eternal:”*’ The endlessness of God, His works, and His words is stressed » Ds throughout the chapter: “without end,” “numberless” “without number,’ “innumerable, “cannot be numbered? “no end?””4 e without beginning of days or end of years. In other places in scripture, this phrase is used to describe the Holy Priesthood.” a my... mine. The possessives “my” and “mine” are repeated by the Lord throughout His dialogue with Moses.”° The recurrence of the pronouns “I” and “me” not only personalizes the account, but also throws into stark relief the almighty, endless, and eternal nature of God in contrast to the subordinate status of Moses and the absurd pretensions of Satan. The A. R. Dyer, Meaning, p. 12. S. H. Faulring et al., Original Manuscripts, pp. 83, 591. Greek arete = virtue or quality. H. W. Nibley, Teachings of the PGP, 17, pp. 213-214. Exodus 3:13-14. Le., “thou art my son” (Moses 1:4), “my son, thou art in the similitude of mine Only Begotten” (Moses 1:6). Moses 1:13, 19. Moses 2:1-2. Moses 1:25, R. D. Draper et al., Commentary, p. 21. H. W. Nibley, Teachings of the PGP, 17, p. 213. Moses 1:3, 35. R. D. Draper et al., Commentary, p. 21. See Moses 7:35; D&C 19:11; D&C 132:20. Moses 1:4, 28, 33, 35, 37, 38. jst Hebrews 7:3. Le., “my name” (Moses 1:3), “my son” (vv. 4, 6, 7, 40), “the workmanship of mine hands” (v. 4), “my works”/ “my work” (vv. 4, 5, 38, 39), “my words” (vv. 4, 38, 41), “my glory” (vv. 5, 39), “mine Only Begotten” (vv. 6, 32, 33), “my chosen” (v. 26), “mine own purpose” (v. 31), “the word of my power” (vv. 32, 35), “they [i.e., all things, the heavens] are mine” (vv. 35, 37). 45 MOSES 1 | SASOW 46 MosEs 1: THE VISION OF MOSES — TEXT AND COMMENTARY 4 And, behold, thou art my son; wherefore look, and I will show thee the workmanship of mine hands; but not all, for my works are without end, and also my words, for they never cease. 5 Wherefore, no man can behold all my works, except he behold all my glory; and no man can behold all my glory, and afterwards remain in the flesh on the earth. 6 And I have a work for thee, Moses, my son; and thou art in the similitude of mine Only Begotten; and mine Only Begotten is and shall be the Savior, for he is full of grace and truth; but there is no God beside me, and all things are present with me, for I know them all. frequent use of “I” continues in Moses 2, where the Jst effects a transformation that collapses the distance of Genesis’ third-person creation account into first-person narrative. b_ my works are without end, and also my words. See v. 32 and Commentary 1:38-b, p. 67. 5 a works. This is given as “work” in oT2. oT1 and all publications read “works.” b no man can behold all my glory. Clark cites a parallel talmudic source that says that: “God would not grant Moses’ wish to behold all his glory:”* cin the flesh on the earth. No one can behold all God’s glory before he has received God's fulness—thus Moses’ vision must be limited at this time to “this one thing.””” Note that the three Nephite disciples were “caught up into heaven” and “were changed from this body of flesh into an immortal state, that they could behold the things of God.”!° Nibley remarks that “dire consequences” may result from transgression of divinely-set bounds: “Pistis Sophia went beyond her ‘degree’ and, becoming ambitious, ‘looked behind the veil’ [and] fell from glory.”!*! Sounding a similar theme, a petitioner in the Islamic mysti- cal text The Mother of Books is warned by God that if one were to move “the curtain and the veil the slightest bit [to] make the high king visible... their spirit would leave their body.”!” The words “on the earth” were inserted in the hand of Sidney Rigdon above the relevant line of the passage in oT2, without punctuation.'°? RLDS D&C 22:3d adds a comma, resulting in the phrase “in the flesh, on the earth” If it correctly represents the intended sense, this alter- nate punctuation might imply that the two clauses are parallel and, perhaps, synonymous. 6 a Ihaveawork for thee, Moses, my son. Having sketched out the overwhelming extensiveness of His own works and glory,'°* God outlines the work that Moses is foreordained to perform, the nature of which will be further elaborated after his defeat of Satan.'°° The Prophet Joseph Smith spoke of Moses specifically as one of the “sons of God who exalt[ed] themselves to be Gods, even from before the foundation of the world.”!”° In this verse, the Lord invokes Moses’ status as a son of God in the similitude of [the] Only Begotten.!”’ This suggests that Moses’ vision must extend beyond any specific assignments to the realization that, in a general sense in this life, and more fully in the next, his work is to be patterned after God's 97 S.H. Faulring et al., Original Manuscripts, pp. 591 and 59. 98 E.D. Clark, Prologue, p. 140. 99 Moses 1:7. See also Commentary 4:28-b, p. 276. 100 3 Nephi 28:13, 15. See also 3 Nephi 28:36-40. 101 H.W. Nibley, Message 2005, p. 443. See C. Schmidt, Pistis, 1:29-30, pp. 83-91; G. R. S. Mead, Pistis, 1:29-30, pp. 33-36. 102 W.Barnstone et al., Gnostic, p. 672. 103 S.H. Faulring et al., Original Manuscripts, p. 591; K. P. Jackson, Book of Moses, p. 59. Contrast 2 Nephi 10:7. 104 Moses 1:4-5. 105 Moses 1:25-26. 106 J. Smith, Jr., Teachings, 16 June 1844, p. 375; cf. Excursus 3: Temple Blessings in the Oath and Covenant of the Priesthood, p. 519. See Endnote E-4, p. 703. 107. Cf. Moses 1:13, Deuteronomy 18:15. MosEs 1: THE VISION OF MOSES — TEXT AND COMMENTARY 6 And I have a work for thee, Moses, my son; and thou art in the similitude of mine Only Begotten; and mine Only Begotten is and shall be the Savior, for he is full of grace and truth; but there is no God beside me, and all things are present with me, for I know them all. 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 own as he assumes the role of lawgiver, savior, and mediator to his people.'°’ Every person who has come to this earth similarly covenanted in premortal life to enter a partnership with the Lord to become saviors for the whole human family.’” mine Only Begotten. Although these words imply that this is the voice of God the Father, it could be instead Jesus Christ who is speaking as the Father by divine investiture of authori- 110 ty. Only Begotten. The expression “Only Begotten” appears five times in the Kjv New Testament.''’ The term also appears nine times in the Book of Mormon, 13 times in the Doctrine and Covenants, and 25 times in the relatively brief book of Moses.'!* Insofar as NT usage is concerned, Barney notes that “Only Begotten” derives from a mistranslation of a Greek term (monogenes) that means either “sole descent, only child” or “only, peerless, matchless, unique, of singular importance.” “Although it is a mistranslation, it is not that far removed from the correct meaning, as the suggestion of being begotten is to some extent inherent in the designation ‘son’ (huios) itself”'!’ However, it is clear that the Apostle “John did not refer to Jesus as God's ‘only begotter’ son, because he designated all who received Jesus as being spiritually begotten of God”!'* Moreover “in LDS thought we are all spiritually begotten sons and daughters of heavenly parents.” In the case of the book of Moses and other modern scripture, Barney argues that the use of the term Only Begotten “is simply a reflection of the English translational tradition,... [though the phrase] works for us theologically with the qualifier ‘in the flesh””!!° is and shall be. This phrase serves to emphasize that Christ's work as the Savior was not limited to His earthly ministry, but had its beginning “from before the foundation of the world.”!!® Moreover, being infinite and eternal, the Atonement can appropriately be referred to as if it had already taken place.'!” the Savior. This title is not present in or1,''® but was added above the line in or2 by an un- determined scribe.'!” e full of grace and truth. D&C 93 makes it clear that receiving the “fulness” is accomplished gradually by continuing from “grace to grace.” The same revelation invites us to follow Jesus Christ in the same way to the identical end.'?! Comments Nibley, “How do you define grace? That’s charis; that’s everything good. Charis is your attitude toward others, toward everything else. It is an attitude of complete love. It is related to our word cheer and the Latin, gratia which means ‘thanks, grace; etc.... Exodus 32:30ff. Elder John A. Widtsoe, cited in A. F. Bennett, Saviors, pp. 11-12; B. K. Packer, Holy Temple, p. 216. See also Commentary 1:39-a, p. 68 and 1:41-b, p. 69. See Commentary 1:3-a, p. 44. Plus one jst addition in 1 Timothy 2:4. Moses 1:6, 16, 17, 21, 32, 33; 2:1, 26, 27; 4:1, 3; 5:7, 9, 57; 6:52, 57, 59, 62; 7:50, 59, 62. K. L. Barney, Only. E.g., John 1:12-13; 1 John 3:9. K. L. Barney, Only. See Commentary 5:57-b, p. 399. Cf. Jarom 1:11; Mosiah 3:13, 16:6. See S. H. Faulring et al., Original Manuscripts, p. 83. Ibid., p. 591; K. P. Jackson, Book of Moses, p. 59. Moses 1:12-16. D&C 93:19-20. Cf. Moses 1:32, 5:7. 47 MOSES 1 | SASOW 48 MosEs 1: THE VISION OF MOSES — TEXT AND COMMENTARY 6 And I have a work for thee, Moses, my son; and thou art in the similitude of mine Only Begotten; and mine Only Begotten is and shall be the Savior, for he is full of grace and truth; but there is no God beside me, and all things are present with me, for I know them all. 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 Mephistopheles [is] all negative, all willing to destroy. This is the absolute opposite of that... nothing false, nothing deceiving, nothing phony.”!” there is no God beside me. Shortly, Moses will be required to refuse Satan's defiant command: “Moses, son of man, worship me.”’”* Later, he will also face the overwhelming challenge of convincing the children of Israel that there is only one God that they should worship, in contrast to the numerous idolatrous deities to whom the Egyptians paid tribute.!** Joseph Smith taught that there is “but one God—that is, pertaining to us.”’”° While clarifying the unique role of the Father with respect to mankind, neither this verse nor the statement of Joseph Smith denies existence to other perfected beings who, although not the subject of worship, may be rightfully called gods.!7° Note that or1 and o72 read “none other God beside me.”!”” The change to “no God” was first made by the RLDS LV. publication committee.'** The 1851 Times and Seasons publication had “besides” instead of “beside.”!” all things are present with me. Alma wrote: “all is as one day with God, and time only is measured unto men”!*° and D&C 130:7 states that “all things for [the angels’] glory are manifest, past, present, and future, and are continually before the Lord.”!*! Moses seems to have temporarily had a similar experience as a mortal.’*” Elder Neal A. Maxwell concluded: “God does not live in the dimension of time as do we. We are not only hampered by our finiteness (experiential and intellectual), but also by being in the dimension of time. Moreover, God, since ‘all things are present’ with him, is not simply predicting based solely on the past. In ways that are not clear to us, he sees rather than foresees the future, because all things are at once present before him.”!*? A similar conception of God’s experience of time was proposed in the sixth century by Boethius.'** Current scientific theory also sees the concept of time as being less like a flowing river and more like “a giant block of ice with every moment forever frozen into place.”!*° Though Einstein, for example, worried about the fact that science could not yet adequately account for the fact that the “experience of the ‘now’ means something special for man,” he firmly resisted the temptation to concede to universal intuition.'°° A few weeks before his own death, he wrote to the grieving family of a lifelong friend who had just passed away: “Now he has departed from this strange world a little ahead of me. That means nothing. For us believing physicists, the distinction between past, present, and future is only a stubborn illusion” °” H. W. Nibley, Teachings of the PGP, 17, pp. 214-215. Moses 1:12. Exodus 20:2-5; 1 Corinthians 8:5-6. See statement of the First Presidency in J. R. Clark, Messages, 4:269-271. J. Smith, Jr., Teachings, 16 June 1844, p. 370. D&C 132:20. See also Commentary 2:26-a, p. 111; 4:11-b, p. 253; 4:28-a, p. 276. S. H. Faulring et al., Original Manuscripts, pp. 83, 591. K. P. Jackson, Book of Moses, p. 59. Ibid., p. 59. Alma 40:8. Cf. D&C 88:41, Isaiah 46:9-10, Acts 15:18, D&C 29:31-33. See Commentary 1:27-b, p. 62. N. A. Maxwell, Things, p. 29; cf. M. Barker, Boundary, pp. 215-217; C. S. Lewis, Image, pp. 88-89; C. S. Lewis, Mere, 4:3, p. 147; C. S. Lewis, Providences; J. E. Talmage, Jesus the Christ, p. 27 n. 1; Hymns (1985), #133: “So may the world its future spread before Thee.” A. M. S. Boethius, Consolation, 5:3-6, pp. 100-114. For more on Boethius, see Moses 1 Gleanings, p. 73. B. Greene, Fabric, p. 141. Ibid., p. 141. Cited in W. Isaacson, Einstein, p. 540. See also D. Wilkinson, Hawking, pp. 119-121. MosEs 1: THE VISION OF MOSES — TEXT AND COMMENTARY 6 And I have a work for thee, Moses, my son; and thou art in the similitude of mine Only Begotten; and mine Only Begotten is and shall be the Savior, for he is full of grace and truth; but there is no God beside me, and all things are present with me, for I know them all. 7 And now, behold, this one thing I show unto thee, Moses, my son, for thou art in the world, and now I show it unto thee. 8 And it came to pass that Moses looked, and beheld the world upon which he was created; and Moses beheld the world and the ends thereof, and all the children of men which are, and which were created; of the same he greatly marveled and wondered. 8 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 The view that God “transcends” time in the above sense not only raises theological questions, but also entails dilemmas from philosophical and scientific perspectives, motivating Ostler’s closely-reasoned arguments that an LDS theological position of this sort is untenable.’** For example, if this picture of God’s timelessness is accurate, it would seem that, in some manner, God must be able to stand outside of the universe while also being able to participate in it.'*” This idea stands in contrast to current scientific understanding embodied in the theory of relativity, which does not admit an observer from within to be “present to all actualities throughout the universe in a single frame of reference.”“° Moreover, though having appeared to prophets in glorified corporeal form, it seems reasonable to imply that God must somehow be capable of transcending fundamental limitations of human understanding deriving from the finite nature of physical senses and measures, the unimaginable scale of what would need to be known, and—if that were not enough—the fact that a perfect knowledge of the state of things seems precluded by the laws of quantum physics themselves.'! a_ this one thing. That is, the world upon which Moses was created.'” The limited nature of Moses’ vision is emphasized by reiteration: “this one thing,” “the world” and “it”’? So comprehensive is this limited view, however, that even it will prove overwhelming to Moses.'*# Nibley comments: “Tm going to limit you to this one thing because I have one assignment; the Lord says. We focus on the thing we are supposed to do. “... for thou art in the world and now I show it unto thee’ I will show you the world you are in. [This is] the anthropic principle.'*° Where you are determines the way everything will appear to you and be to you because you have to act from that point. You don’t see everything, you don't move in all directions, and you don't know what’s behind you at this very moment.” b_ thou art in the world. See Commentary 1:8-b, p. 50. a Moses looked. When the Lord spoke with Abraham face to face, He first put His hand upon the latter’s eyes to prepare him for his vision of the universe.'*” Joseph Smith was reportedly so touched at the beginning of the First Vision, and perhaps prior to receiving D&C 76.'* B. T. Ostler, Attributes; B. T. Ostler, Theism. See Sherlock for a useful summary and critique of Ostler’s view- point (R. Sherlock, Ostler, pp. 292-299, 302-303). B. K. Harrison, Truth, p. 166. B. T. Ostler, Attributes, p. 354. See Excursus 7: Time and Eternity, p. 537 for more discussion of these issues. Many sources contain extended discussions of God’s foreknowledge and timelessness (e.g., B. M. Hauglid, Time; R. J. Ingebretsen, Astronomy, pp. 38-48; C. S. Lewis, Miracles, pp. 226-234; N. A. Maxwell, Experience, pp. 6-27; B. T. Ostler, Theism, pp. 25- 75; D. L. Paulsen, Response to Pinnock, pp. 530-532; J. Smith, Jr., Documentary History, 6 February 1840, 4:78; J. Smith, Jr., Teachings, 15 April 1842, p. 220; W. V. Smith, JS Commentary, p. 81; J. E. Talmage, Articles (1984), pp. 173-174). For an overview of Egyptian concepts, see H. W. Nibley, Message 2005, pp. 228-232. Moses 1:8. Cf. “but not all” (v. 4), “it remaineth in me” (v. 31), and “only an account of this earth” (v. 35). Moses 1:8-10. See Commentary 1:39-a, p. 68. H. W. Nibley, Teachings of the PGP, 17, p. 215. See also H. W. Nibley, Funeral, pp. 298-299. Abraham 3:11-12. See Endnote 1-27, p. 80. 49 MOSES 1 | SASOW 50 MosEs 1: THE VISION OF MOSES — TEXT AND COMMENTARY 8 And it came to pass that Moses looked, and beheld the world upon which he was created; and Moses beheld the world and the ends thereof, and all the children of men which are, and which were created; of the same he greatly marveled and wondered. 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 b__ beheld the world upon which he was created. “World” is used three times in this chapter— once in v. 7 and twice in v. 8. The related term “earth” is used in v. 5, and then afterwards is used exclusively until the end of the chapter.’ “Earth” also appears throughout the account of creation in chapters 2-4.'°° Both terms appear in Moses chapters 5-7, with the term “earth” continuing to predominate. This phrase arguably refers to the world of spirits rather than to the earth, paralleling Abraham’s view of organized intelligences (spirits) that preceded his creation vision.’*! Clark cites a rabbinic source as saying that “‘God did shew unto Adam every Generation; meaning ‘all the Souls, which were to come into the World,... so that Adam could perfectly distinguish them; later ‘thus it happened on Mount Sinai’ with Moses, so that ‘the Souls, which were not then born into the world, were present on Mount Sinai, in the same form in which they were to appear in the World?!” The statement about “the world upon which he was created” seems to be made in deliberate contradistinction to the later reference to “the earth upon which thou standest”!*’—the qualifications used in each case would be unnecessary if the “world” and the “earth” were one and the same place. Moreover, if the world Moses is shown in v. 8 were the same as the earth he beholds in wv. 27-28, why the need for two separate visions? Such puzzles are resolved if we take “world” in the book of Moses as most often referring to the realm of the human family in premortal life.!** This also sets a context where the phrase “thou art in the world”! can be understood, not as an obvious truism, but as a comprehensible justification for why it was expedient to show Moses the world of spirits at that particular time. Finally, if we accept this interpretation, Moses 6:51 can function as a deliberate parallelism (“I made the world, and men before they were in the flesh”) rather than as a pair of loosely related assertions. oT2 reads “as Moses beheld the world”!*° The current text is from the Times and Seasons.'*” all the children of men which are, and which were created. See Commentary 1:8-b, p. 50; and compare Moses 1:28, where Moses sees all the inhabitants of the earth. See also the similar experiences of Enoch,!°* the brother of Jared,'*? and Abraham.'° The o71 phrase “which was and which was created”!*! Rigdon in oT2 to read “which are, and which were created was emended in the hand of Sidney »162 Moses 1:9, 19, 21, 27, 29, 35, 36, 38, and 40. With the exceptions of Moses 1:33, 35; and 4:6. Abraham 3:22-23; cf. Enoch’s vision in Moses 6:36. E. D. Clark, Prologue, p. 138; cf. Quran 7:172; 30:30; 33:7; 53:56; G. Weil, Legends, pp. 39-40; Excursus 48: The Nature and Scope of Premortal Covenants, p. 649. Moses 1:40. 15 consistent occurrences; two possible exceptions in Moses 1:33, 35; two exceptions in 6:59; and one in 7:4. Moses 1:7. S. H. Faulring et al., Original Manuscripts, p. 591. History of JS 4:5, p. 72. See K. P. Jackson, Book of Moses, p. 41. Moses 7:23. Ether 3:25. Abraham 3:21-22. S. H. Faulring et al., Original Manuscripts, p. 83. K. P. Jackson, Book of Moses, pp. 59, 591. MosEs 1: THE VISION OF MOSES — TEXT AND COMMENTARY 9 And the presence of God withdrew from Moses, that his glory was not upon Moses; and Moses was left unto himself. And as he was left unto himself, he fell unto the earth. 10 And it came to pass that it was for the space of many hours before Moses did again receive his natural strength like unto man; and he said unto himself: Now, for this cause I know that man is nothing, which thing I never had supposed. 9 10 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 a_ as he was left unto himself, he fell unto the earth. Nibley describes this scene as “Moses, landing on earth as a natural man.”!® If we assume that this verse has a second meaning re- ferring to Moses leaving his view of the spirit world’™ and returning to his vantage point on earth, this “fall” could be seen as a figurative recapitulation of Adam’s Fall from the presence of God to the telestial state where Satan will be allowed to try him. it was for the space of many hours before Moses did again receive his natural strength like unto man. Moses was both spiritually and physically exhausted, recalling the aftermath of similar experiences by other prophets. Following one of his visions, Daniel reported that he “fainted, and was sick certain days,”!® and of a second occasion he wrote: “I was left alone... and there remained no strength in me... and when I heard the voice of his words, then was I in a deep sleep on my face, and my face toward the ground”! Lehi “cast himself on his bed, being overcome with the Spirit.”’®’ Saul “fell to the earth” during his vision’®* and re- mained blind until healed by Ananias.'® Similarly, Alma “fell to the earth; and it was for the space of three days and three nights that [he] could not open [his] mouth, neither had [he] the use of [his] limbs.”!”? Of his weakness following the First Vision, Joseph Smith wrote: “When I came to myself again, I found myself lying on my back, looking up into heaven. When the light had departed, I had no strength...”!”! Concerning his experience of watching Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon as they received the vision of the three degrees of glory,'”” Philo Dibble wrote: “Joseph sat firmly and calmly all the time in the midst of a magnificent glory, but Sidney sat limp and pale, apparently as limber as a rag, observing which Joseph remarked, smilingly, ‘Sidney is not used to it as I am””!”? Note also that when Jesus Christ was “led by the Spirit into the wilderness,”!”* it was at a point of physical weakness following a forty-day fast when Satan appeared to tempt Him. b for this cause Iknow. oT 1 and 072 give this phrase as “for this once I know”!”> However, the current text follows the 1843 Times and Seasons publication.'”° Similar statements are com- mon in ascension accounts, where they signify that one’s eyes have been opened.'”” man is nothing. King Benjamin said: “Ye cannot say that we are even as much as the dust of the earth.”’’® Elder Neal A. Maxwell wrote that Moses’ statement “surely was not a reflection on man, ‘God’s greatest miracle; but a placing of man in the vast perspective of God’s creations and a realizing, even so, that we are God’s exclusive work and his greatest glory.”!” H. W. Nibley, Assembly, p. 128. See Commentary 1:8-b, p. 50. Daniel 8:26. Daniel 10:8-9. 1 Nephi 1:7. Acts 9:4. Acts 9:17-18. Alma 36:10; cf. Mosiah 27:12, 18-19. JS-H 1:20. D&C 76. Cited in L. R. Flake, Three Degrees, p. 6. jst Luke 4:1. S. H. Faulring et al., Original Manuscripts, pp. 83, 592. History of JS 4:5, p. 72. See K. P. Jackson, Book of Moses, p. 14. Cf. Commentary 4:11-a, p. 253; 4:13-a, p. 258; 5:10-e, p. 363. Mosiah 2:25; cf. Mosiah 4:5-7, 11; Alma 26:12; Helaman 12:7. N. A. Maxwell, Notwithstanding, p. 75; cf. T. S. Monson, Priesthood Trust, p. 56. See also Moses 1:39. 51 MOSES 1 | SASOW a2 MosEs 1: THE VISION OF MOSES — TEXT AND COMMENTARY 10 And it came to pass that it was for the space of many hours before Moses did again receive his natural strength like unto man; and he said unto himself: Now, for this cause I know that man is nothing, which thing I never had supposed. 11 But now mine own eyes have beheld God; but not my natural, but my spiritual eyes, for my natural eyes could not have beheld; for I should have withered and died in his presence; but his glory was upon me; and I beheld his face, for I was transfigured before him. 12 And it came to pass that when Moses had said these words, behold, Satan came tempting him, saying: Moses, son of man, worship me. 11 12 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 Moses has learned more than just the fact that man is nothing. The subsequent text pointedly demonstrates that, more generally, he has increased his capacity to discern good from evil.'*° Faulconer notes that it was only after that Moses saw that he was nothing that, “with extraordinary confidence, he is able to say to Satan, ‘I am a son of God... where is thy glory, that I should worship thee?’!*'... Obviously, recognizing his own nothingness has nothing to do with having a bad self-image or groveling in his nothingness. It is instead coming to a full realization of his dependence upon God, of his inability to save himself and of God’s merciful willingness to save him. That realization of his nothingness is also a realization of his relation to God as a child”!® mine own eyes have beheld God; but not my natural, but my spiritual eyes, for my natural eyes could not have beheld. Joseph Smith explained that “All things... God... has seen fit... to reveal to us... are revealed to us in the abstract, and independent of affinity of this mortal tabernacle, but are revealed to our spirits precisely as though we had no bodies at all.”’*’ In vy. 13-15, Moses will recognize the difference between God’s glory and Satan’s darkness by the fact that he “must be protected to see Jehovah but could face this imposter with his natural eyes and without discomfort.”!** oT1 reads “but now mine eyes, mine own eyes but not mine eyes for mine eyes could not have beheld.”’* The wording in all subsequent publications closely resembles changes made in the hand of Sidney Rigdon in or2.'*° Satan came. Nibley comments: “Now the play begins because you have to have an antagonist and a protagonist in a play. Now Satan enters the scene. Notice, when the hero is at his lowest, when he is the most helpless, that is the time that Satan strikes... Faust is in the dark ready to commit suicide, and Satan appears to him there. It’s the same thing with Job. The tempters, his companions, come to him then.”’*” “The result is a stichomythia. Now we are going to get a combat... Before a duel between the heroes of the kings, there is a long preliminary exchange of insults that goes on.'** This is a regular part of heroic literature.”!*° tempting. The word “tempt” corresponds to Hebrew (nsh) and Greek (peirazo)—meaning to try, test, or prove. Such tests may be instigated by God,!”° by Satan,’”! or by others.'” See Commentary 1:11-18, pp. 52-56. Moses 1:13. J. E. Faulconer, Self-Image, p. 26. J. Smith, Jr., Teachings, 7 April 1844, p. 355; cf. Job 19:25-26: “yet in my flesh shall I see God” S. W. Kimball, They Shall See God; cf. H. D. Peterson, Commentary, p. 90; Commentary 1:12-d, p. 53; Moses 1:14; W. W. Isenberg, Philip 57-58, pp. 144-145. See also Commentary 1:2-b, p. 44 and Enoch’s experience in Moses 6:36. S. H. Faulring et al., Original Manuscripts, p. 84. Ibid., p. 592; K. P. Jackson, Book of Moses, p. 60. H. W. Nibley, Teachings of the PGP, 17, p. 216. See, e.g., 1 Samuel 17:8-10, 43-47. H. W. Nibley, Teachings of the PGP, 18, p. 217; cf. S. D. Ricks et al., King, pp. 249-253. E.g., Genesis 22:1. E.g., Luke 4:2. E.g., John 8:6. MosEs 1: THE VISION OF MOSES — TEXT AND COMMENTARY 12 And it came to pass that when Moses had said these words, behold, Satan came tempting him, saying: Moses, son of man, worship me. 13 And it came to pass that Moses looked upon Satan and said: Who art thou? For behold, I am a son of God, in the similitude of his Only Begotten; and where is thy glory, that I should worship thee? 13 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 c Moses, son of man. The scriptural epithet “son of man” can be interpreted in more than one way. The correct alternative can only be inferred by clues in the context of a given scriptural passage. In this verse and in translations of the Hebrew ben ‘adam, the words refer to a descendant of Adam—in other words, “any mortal man.”!*? However, when prefaced with the definite article (“the Son of Man”), they describe “an expected apocalyptic heavenly figure, identified with the Messiah”! In a related sense, Jesus is “the son of the archetypical Man, the perfect heavenly Man, the Eternal Father”!*> In the context of this verse, it should be remembered that Moses had just been told by the Lord that he was a “son of Man,’ in the similitude of the Only Begotten. Satan's words, referring to Moses as merely a “son of man,’ recall the tactic he later used to taunt Jesus Christ: “If thou be the Son of God...”!"° worship me. Prefiguring his encounter with Christ in the wilderness, Satan tempts Moses— in his physically weakened state—to worship him.'*” Moses, with a veil of forgetfulness obscuring the memory of his preexistent glory, and not yet having had his vision of the events of the Grand Councils, the Creation, and the Fall, was thought by Satan to have been easy prey. In this respect, Satan, “an unembodied spirit—he the disinherited, the rebellious 198 and rejected son... [with] a remembrance of those primeval scenes”’”’ was at a distinct advantage. The Devil’s recurrent demands for worship recall a story attested in several ancient sources that the premortal rebellion began when Satan refused God’s request to bow down in homage to the newly-created Adam.’” And it came to pass that. This oT1 phrase was changed to read “but it came to pass that” in oT2 by the hand of Sidney Rigdon.” Moses looked. or2, in the handwriting of Sidney Rigdon, expands this phrase from oT1 to read “Moses lifted up his eyes and looked?””! I am a son of God, in the similitude of his Only Begotten. His eyes having been opened, Moses confronts Satan with the same words that God spoke to him earlier.*”* These words constitute a “humiliating exposure of Satan’—an announcement that Moses “actually is what his adversary falsely claims to be??” E.g., Daniel 8:17. E.g., Daniel 7:13. S. E. Robinson, Names, p. 740; cf. M. Barker, Lost, pp. 91-104. See Moses 6:57, 7:35. Matthew 4:3, 6, emphasis mine. See the overview of Moses 5, p. 329, Commentary 2:26-c, p. 113, and Excursus 30: Adam-God Theory and the Heavenly and Earthly Adam, p. 603. Cf. Matthew 4:8-9. J. E. Talmage, Jesus the Christ, p. 124. See the overview of Moses 4, p. 225, and Excursus 23: The Roles of Christ, Adam, and Michael, p. 582. S. H. Faulring et al., Original Manuscripts, p. 592; K. P. Jackson, Book of Moses, p. 60. S. H. Faulring et al., Original Manuscripts, p. 592; K. P. Jackson, Book of Moses, p. 60. Moses 1:6; cf. Commentary 1:12-c, p. 53. H. W. Nibley, To Open, p. 5, emphasis mine. See Commentary 1:10-c, p. 51 and Moses 1:16, 19. D2 MOSES 1 | SASOW 54 MosEs 1: THE VISION OF MOSES — TEXT AND COMMENTARY 13 And it came to pass that Moses looked upon Satan and said: Who art thou? For behold, I am a son of God, in the similitude of his Only Begotten; and where is thy glory, that I should worship thee? 14 For behold, I could not look upon God, except his glory should come upon me, and I were transfigured before him. But I can look upon thee in the natural man. Is it not so, surely? 15 Blessed be the name of my God, for his Spirit hath not altogether withdrawn from me, or else where is thy glory, for it is darkness unto me? And I can judge between thee and God; for God said unto me: Worship God, for him only shalt thou serve. 14 15 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 d_ where is thy glory. “The glory of God is intelligence, or, in other words, light and truth. Light and truth forsake that evil one.”?"! The events of this vision show Satan to possess neither light”? nor truth.” transfigured before him. The 1843 Times and Seasons publishers altered the text to read “strengthened before him??” I can look upon thee in the natural man. See Commentary 1:2-b, p. 44 and 1:11-a, p. 52. Is it not so, surely? Blessed be. o11 reads “if not so surely blessed be.” or2 crosses out part of the (erroneously copied?) phrase “is if not is” and reads simply “Surely blessed be?” The current wording first appeared in the 1843 Times and Seasons publication.’"° where is thy glory, for it is darkness unto me? Similarly, in the Conflict of Adam and Eve with Satan, God warns Adam and Eve about Satan, saying: “This is he who promised you majesty and divinity. Where, then, is the beauty that was on him? Where is his divinity? Where is his light? Where is the glory that rested on him?”?! Here, Satan no doubt appeared to Moses deceptively as an angel of light.*!* Elder Parley P. Pratt wrote that “although [spirits not worthy to be glorified] often attempt to pass as angels of light there is more or less of darkness about them. So it is with Satan and his hosts who have not been embodied.””"’ Stone sees a passage in the Latin Life of Adam and Eve as implying “that all Satan lacked to look like a heavenly angel was the glory. He lost the glory when he fell, and he could take it on temporarily in order to deceive Adam and Eve.”?"4 Thus, Satan is sometimes depicted in early Christian art as angelic in form but differing in color—e.g., appearing with “false glory” in a blue tint rather than in a whiteness of glory.*’° One might alternatively interpret Satan’s blue color as his appearing, deceptively, in a form corresponding to the blue robe of the high priest, a robe which represented being clothed in the likeness of the body—the blue-black “shadow”—of the incarnate Logos.”!° Comments Nibley: “Remember, glory cannot be faked... We try to do that with special effects, etc., but they always fall flat... Imitation glory is darkness; it’s sad. The glory of a merry-go-round, or the glory of Las Vegas, all that light, all that neon glitter. Is that your idea of glory?”””” D&C 93:36-37. E.g., Moses tells Satan that his purported glory “is darkness unto me” (Moses 1:15). E.g., Satan's false claim: “I am the Only Begotten” (Moses 1:19). See Commentary 1:10-b, p. 51 and 1:12-d, p. 53. History of JS 4:5, p. 72; see K. P. Jackson, Book of Moses, p. 14. S. H. Faulring et al., Original Manuscripts, p. 84. Ibid., p. 592. History of JS 4:5, p. 72. See K. P. Jackson, Book of Moses, p. 27. S.C. Malan, Adam and Eve, 1:51, p. 56. 2 Corinthians 11:12-15; 2 Nephi 9:9; D&C 128:20, 129:4-7; J. Smith, Jr., Teachings, 1 April 1842, pp. 204-205. P. P. Pratt, Key, p. 72. M.E. Stone, Adam’ Contract, pp. 18-19; cf. S. C. Malan, Adam and Eve, 1:27, pp. 27-29, 1:60, pp. 67-70, and 2:5, pp. 110-111. M.E. Stone, Adam’ Contract, pp. 18-19. M. Barker, Gate, pp. 119-120; W. Williams, Shadow. See Commentary 4:5-a, p. 246. H. W. Nibley, Teachings of the PGP, 18, p. 218; cf. H. W. Nibley, House of Glory, p. 334. For a listing of some of the Devil's purported disguises as given in ancient literature, see D. C. Allison, Testament, pp. 327-328. See MosEs 1: THE VISION OF MOSES — TEXT AND COMMENTARY 15 Blessed be the name of my God, for his Spirit hath not altogether withdrawn from me, or else where is thy glory, for it is darkness unto me? And I can judge between thee and God; for God said unto me: Worship God, for him only shalt thou serve. 16 Get thee hence, Satan; deceive me not; for God said unto me: Thou art after the similitude of mine Only Begotten. 17 And he also gave me commandments when he called unto me out of the burning bush, saying: Call upon God in the name of mine Only Begotten, and worship me. 16 17 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 Accounts of Satan’s loss of glory are given in stories of his premortal rebellion”!® and of the penalties he received following his deception of Eve in the Garden of Eden.”! The current text of Moses follows oT1. The later oT2 reads instead “I say “Where is thy glory?” darkness. or1 and or2 read “blackness” in place of “darkness.”””! The change to “darkness” was first made in the 1843 Times and Seasons publication?” and perpetuated in subsequent editions. The term “blackness” appears once in st Genesis””’ and, likewise, the term “black” appears uniquely in Moses 7:22.?** God said unto me: Worship God, for him only shalt thou serve. In replying to Satan, the words of Moses fittingly parallel a saying of Jehovah, just as Christ, the embodied Jehovah, later cites the words of Moses during his temptation.””° Get thee hence, Satan. Moses will fail three times in his attempts to banish Satan,”° succeeding at last only when he invokes the name of the Only Begotten.””” Note that when Jesus banished Satan following his temptation in the wilderness, a single command from the Only Begotten Himself sufficed.””* Thou art after the similitude of mine Only Begotten. Cf. Commentary 1:13-c, p. 53. commandments. 011, OT2, and RLDS D&C 22:10 read “commandment.””’ The change to commandments, which had previously appeared in the 1851 Times and Seasons publication, stems from the 1902 LDS edition.”*” Call upon God. This phrase recurs in verses 18, 20, and 25. Note that when Adam and Eve “called upon the name of the Lord,””*! they were answered with commandments and angelic visitations revealing priesthood ordinances.” Discoursing on 2 Peter 1:10, the Prophet urged the Saints: “I would exhort you to go on and continue to call upon God until you make your calling and election sure.”’*? Moses’ perseverance in calling upon God illustrates this pattern, and eventually will be rewarded when he enters the Lord’s presence. Commentary 1:11-a, p. 52 and 1:13-d, p. 54. Commentary 4:1-4, pp. 243-246 and the overview of Moses 4, pp. 223-227. Commentary 4:20-21, pp. 264-267. See also Commentary 1:10-b, p. 51, 1:12-d, p. 53, 1:13-d, p. 54, and 3:25a, p. 185. S. H. Faulring et al., Original Manuscripts, p. 592. Ibid., pp. 84, 592. History of JS 4:5, p. 72. Moses 7:8. See Commentary 5:40-c, p. 386. Deuteronomy 6:13; Matthew 4:10. Moses 1:16, 18, 20. Moses 1:21. Matthew 4:11. See also Commentary 4:21-d, p. 266. S. H. Faulring et al., Original Manuscripts, pp. 84, 592. K. P. Jackson, Book of Moses, p. 61. Moses 5:4. See also Commentary 6:4-a, p. 477. J. Smith, Jr., Teachings, 14 May 1843, p. 299. 3D MOSES 1 | SASOW 56 MosEs 1: THE VISION OF MOSES — TEXT AND COMMENTARY 17 And he also gave me commandments when he called unto me out of the burning bush, saying: Call upon God in the name of mine Only Begotten, and worship me. 18 And again Moses said: I will not cease to call upon God, I have other things to inquire of him: for his glory has been upon me, wherefore I can judge between him and thee. Depart hence, Satan. 19 And now, when Moses had said these words, Satan cried with a loud voice, and ranted upon the earth, and commanded, saying: I am the Only Begotten, worship me. 18 19 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 in the name of mine Only Begotten. Although the commandment to pray “in the name of mine Only Begotten” does not appear explicitly in the Old Testament, the Bible does record that Moses learned the name of Jehovah at the time he saw the burning bush.”** The book of Moses records that Adam received an identical commandment.” his glory has been upon me. oT1 and oT2 add: “and it is glory unto me.” However, the current text of the book of Moses follows the 1843 Times and Seasons publication.”*° I can judge between him and thee. This phrase confirms that Moses has, like Adam and Eve after the Fall, “learned to distinguish between good and evil.””*” Satan cried with a loud voice. Moses continued resistance calls for a dramatic change in tactics: “Satan... casts aside his celebrated but now useless subtlety and launches a frontal attack of satanic fury, a tremendous tantrum.””** Blaming Adam for all his troubles, the Armenian version of the Life of Adam and Eve records that Satan “wept loudly” as he railed forth in self-pity, and the Latin version has him “groan- ing” The Georgian version highlights the manipulative intent of the Devil’s theatrics, stating that he “began to cry with forced tears.””” ranted upon the earth. The term “ranted” is a conjectural emendation of the term “wrent” in oT1 and oT2.”° To rant is to speak in a violent, loud, extravagant, and vehement manner for maximal rhetorical effect. The jst manuscript has been emended differently in RLDS D&C 22:12 to read “went upon the earth.” Although this reading is more natural from a grammatical perspective, it seems a poor fit to the context of the rest of the verse. Based on parallel spellings in the Printer’ Manuscript of the Book of Mormon and the jst, Jackson rightfully concludes that the original manuscript term “wrent” “is likely a regional spelling of ‘rent; the past tense of ‘rend; ‘to tear””**! In other words, Satan “tore upon the earth.” This reading perfectly fits the character of the adversary: Satan’s objective is to rend and destroy, while Christ’s mission is to unite and atone.” commanded. Satan counters Moses’ stubborn obedience to God’s commandment” with a direct command of his own. In the end, it will be Satan who yields to Moses’ command—a Exodus 4:13-15. Moses 5:8. History of JS 4:5, p. 72. See K. P. Jackson, Book of Moses, p. 41. H. W. Nibley, To Open, p. 18; cf. Commentary 1:10-b, p. 51; 4:11-a, p. 253; 4:13-a, p. 258; 5:10-e, p. 363. H. W. Nibley, To Open, p. 5. G. A. Anderson et al., Synopsis, 12:1, p. 15E. S. H. Faulring et al., Original Manuscripts, pp. 84, 593. K. P. Jackson, Book of Moses, p. 50. Cf. Commentary 1:21-a, p. 57. See the overview of Moses 6, pp. 467-469, and Excursus 46: The Origin and Meaning of the Term “Atonement”, p. 642. Moses 1:17. MosEs 1: THE VISION OF MOSES — TEXT AND COMMENTARY 19 And now, when Moses had said these words, Satan cried with a loud voice, and ranted upon the earth, and commanded, saying: I am the Only Begotten, worship me. 20 And it came to pass that Moses began to fear exceedingly; and as he began to fear, he saw the bitterness of hell. Nevertheless, calling upon God, he received strength, and he com- manded, saying: Depart from me, Satan, for this one God only will I worship, which is the God of glory. 21 And now Satan began to tremble, and the earth shook; and Moses received strength, and called upon God, saying: In the name of the Only Begotten, depart hence, Satan. command executed in the authority and power of the priesthood after the order of the true Son of God.**” 246 d Iam the Only Begotten. Note that the truth of Moses’ assertions“*® stands in direct contra- diction to the false claims repeatedly advanced by Satan.”*” e worship me. Islamic tradition includes a similar theme. Citing a commentary on Quran 21:29 (“I ama god besides Him”), the Islamic scholar al-Tabari takes the phrase to mean that Satan “calls to worship of himself?”“8 20 a Moses began to fear exceedingly... Nevertheless, calling upon God, he received strength. Nibley summarizes: “...true to the ancient pattern, the hero is momentarily bested, over- come by the powers of darkness... But with his last ounce of strength he calls upon God from the depths and is delivered: he has won the fight, he has prevailed against the power of him who ‘sought to destroy the world, for he knew not the mind of God.” “This is the de profundis. That’s the 130th Psalm... ‘Out of the depths have I cried unto thee, O Lord””?*” Just as in the myth of Osiris, the “final test is the baptism... Moses is delivered from the waters and comes out.””°! In the typology of such tests, the righteous are raised in glory while the wicked drown and perish.** b Depart from me, Satan. or1 and oT2 read “Depart hence, Satan”°? The current text of Moses follows the 1843 Times and Seasons publication.” 21 a Satan began to tremble, and the earth shook. The thunderous shaking of the ground echoes the emotional intensity of Satan’s rage in terrifying reverberations. Writes Nibley: “[Satan is] the gaieokhon, the earthshaker. It means... both the earthshaker and the earthholder. If he holds it, he shakes it. So it goes back to the common thing, that he is of this earth, under the earth. And, of course, he is Pluto and he is wealth, too?’ Other scriptural references linking Satan and trembling include James 2:19 (“the devils also believe, and tremble”**®) and Isaiah 14:4, 7, 16 (“How hath the oppressor ceased!... The 245 Moses 1:21-22; see also D&C 107:3. 246 See Commentary 1:13-c, p. 53 and Moses 1:16. 247 See Commentary 4:1-d, p. 243; 4:5-b, p. 246; 5:13-b, p. 365. 248 al-Tabari, Creation, 1:80, p. 251. 249 H.W. Nibley, To Open, p. 5. See Moses 4:6; cf. JS-H 1:15-17. 250 H.W. Nibley, Teachings of the PGP, 18, p. 219. See also H. W. Nibley, Return, p. 75. 251 H.W. Nibley, Teachings of the PGP, 10, p. 118; cf. Figure 4-14, p. 231. See Endnote 4-50, p. 312. 252 Exodus 14:27-30, 1 Peter 3:18-21; cf. Commentary 1:24-a, p. 59; 1:25-e, p. 60; 4:21-d, p. 266; 4:31-d, p. 280; 5:6- a, p. 360; Figure 5-3, p. 330; Excursus 1: Speech, Writing, and Revelation, p. 512. See Endnote 5-23, p. 435. 253 S. H. Faulring et al., Original Manuscripts, pp. 84, 593. 254 History of JS 4:5, p. 72. See K. P. Jackson, Book of Moses, p. 41. 255 H.W. Nibley, Teachings of the PGP, 17, pp. 212-213. 256 Greek phrisso = shudder or shiver. Cf. Matthew 8:29 where the trembling can be viewed as “indicating a cogni- zance of their appointed doom” (W. E. Vine et al., Dictionary (1996), s.v. shudder, p. 573). 57 MOSES 1 | SASOW 58 MosEs 1: THE VISION OF MOSES — TEXT AND COMMENTARY 21 And now Satan began to tremble, and the earth shook; and Moses received strength, and called upon God, saying: In the name of the Only Begotten, depart hence, Satan. 22 And it came to pass that Satan cried with a loud voice, with weeping, and wailing, and gnashing of teeth; and he departed hence, even from the presence of Moses, that he beheld him not. 22 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 whole earth is at rest, and is quiet... Is this the man that made the earth to tremble,” that did shake*** kingdoms”).”” This verse is an interesting parallel to rabbinic commentary that also pictures Cain as someone who made the earth tremble.?” Moses received strength, and called upon God. In the previous verse, Moses received strength after calling upon God—here, the order of these events is reversed. saying: In the name of the Only Begotten, depart hence, Satan. The dramatic turning point of this episode hinges on Satan's desperate false claim to be the Only Begotten, and Moses’ final, successful dismissal of Satan, accomplished by invoking the name of the true Only Begotten. A medieval Ethiopian text similarly witnesses a belief in the efficacity of the name of God in conquering Satan. In an account of the battle between Satan’s rebellious armies and the hosts of heaven the angels twice charged Satan’s ranks unsuccessfully. However, prior to their third attempt, they were given a cross of light inscribed “In the Name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit,” and “when Setna’el [Satan] saw that inscription he was vanquished.””* This verse has a complex history of revisions. oT1 reads: “And Moses receiving strength called upon God saying In the name of Jesus Christ depart hence Satan.”*” or2 reads: “And Moses received strength and called upon God in the name of his Son, saying to Satan depart hence.’ The 1866-67 RLDS Publication inexplicably substituted the title “Only Begotten” for “his Son” The book of Moses currently follows a combination of oT1 and oT2, while car- rying over the term “Only Begotten” from the RLDS publication.” Satan cried with a loud voice. In an elegant parallel to verse 19, Satan cries out a second time with a loud voice. In this instance, however, the cry is not a flourish of rhetorical melodrama, but rather a despairing wail reflecting the misery and hopelessness of the damned. he departed hence, even from the presence of Moses. Silenced and vanquished, Satan disappears from the scene. oT1 and o72 read: “and departed hence; yea, from the presence of Moses.”?® The current text follows the 1843 Times and Seasons publication. Hebrew ragaz = to be agitated, angry, to quiver or quake (F. Brown et al., Lexicon, p. 919b). Hebrew rash = quake, shake (ibid., p. 950b). Cf. Moses 7:13, S. C. Malan, Adam and Eve, 1:48, p. 53; G. W. E. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch, 88:2, p. 364). See also Commentary 1:19-b, p. 56. See Commentary 5:41-b, p. 388. See also Genesis 27:33 (Isaac) and Alma 11:46 (Zeezrom). B. Mikael, Mysteries, p. 17. S. H. Faulring et al., Original Manuscripts, p. 84. Ibid., p. 593. K. P. Jackson, Book of Moses, p. 62; R. J. Matthews, What Is, pp. 35-36, 154. S. H. Faulring et al., Original Manuscripts, pp. 84, 593. History of JS 4:5, p. 72. See K. P. Jackson, Book of Moses, pp. 17, 63. MosEs 1: THE VISION OF MOSES — TEXT AND COMMENTARY 23 And now of this thing Moses bore record; but because of wickedness it is not had among the children of men. 24 And it came to pass that when Satan had departed from the presence of Moses, that Moses lifted up his eyes unto heaven, being filled with the Holy Ghost, which beareth record of the Father and the Son; 25 And calling upon the name of God, he beheld his glory again, for it was upon him; and he heard a voice, saying: Blessed art thou, Moses, for I, the Almighty, have chosen thee, and thou shalt be made stronger than many waters; for they shall obey thy command as if thou wert God. 23 a 24 a 25 a of this thing Moses bore record. Johnson views this verse in company with v. 41 as a marker for a parallel panel structure comprising vv. 1-23 and 24-41.7° because of wickedness it is not had among the children of men. Turner wryly comments: “No doubt Satan was not anxious to have this demeaning episode publicized?” when Satan had departed from the presence of Moses. In some Christian traditions, the motif of the banishment of Satan is closely linked to the ordinance of baptism.” Note in this verse and the next the first explicit mention of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost in close proximity, recalling the words of the baptismal prayer,’”° in conjunction with the subsequent statements that Moses “lifted his eyes unto heaven;”””! was “filled with the Holy Ghost; and was “made stronger than many waters.”””” Such a reading would also be consis- tent with the book of Moses motif of calling upon God and being answered with additional commandments and ordinances, as noted previously.’”? Moses lifted up his eyes unto heaven. Freed from transfixion on the vision of hell below, Moses looks up again to heaven. Similarly, “at the very moment when [he] was ready to sink into despair’ Joseph Smith looked up to see “a pillar of light exactly over [his] head?”?”* Nibley conjectured that this phrase signified that Moses was being “carried up to heaven... by the Holy Ghost.”’”> However, it seems more likely that the event to which Nibley refers occurs a little later in the account.?”° being filled with the Holy Ghost. The Holy Ghost has ministered to mankind since the time of Adam.””” which beareth record of the Father and the Son. Similar wording recurs three more times in the book of Moses.””® calling upon the name of God. In his discussion of early Christian and Jewish rituals related to temple practices, Tvedtnes discusses the prayer circle, noting that “prayer opens the veil 267 M.J. Johnson, Prologue, pp. 12-13. 268 R. Turner, Visions of Moses, p. 55. See also Commentary 1:42-a, p. 69. 269 See Commentary 1:20-a, p. 57; 1:25-e, p. 60; 4:21-d, p. 266; 4:31-d, p. 280; 5:6-a, p. 360; Figure 5-3, p. 330; Excursus 1: Speech, Writing, and Revelation, p. 512. See Endnote 5-23, p. 435. 270 D&C 20:73. 271 Cf. Matthew 3:16; Mark 1:10; Luke 3:22; Commentary 1:1-b, p. 42. 272 Cf. Commentary 5:9-b, p. 362. 273 Commentary 1:17-b, p. 55. 274 JS-H 1:16. See Commentary 1:27-b, p. 62. 275 H.W. Nibley, Teachings of the PGP, 18, p. 220. See Commentary 1:1-b, p. 42. 276 See Commentary 1:27-a, p. 62. 277. See Moses 5:9; 6:52; 2 Peter 1:21; J. F Smith, Jr., Doctrines, 1935, 1:46-47. 278 Moses 5:9; 6:66; 7:11. oo MOSES 1 | SASOW 60 MosEs 1: THE VISION OF MOSES — TEXT AND COMMENTARY 25 And calling upon the name of God, he beheld his glory again, for it was upon him; and he heard a voice, saying: Blessed art thou, Moses, for I, the Almighty, have chosen thee, and thou shalt be made stronger than many waters; for they shall obey thy command as if thou wert God. 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 d to allow one to enjoy the presence of God.””” From this and subsequent verses, it can be concluded that Moses had learned so to pray.”®” he beheld his glory again, for it was upon him. The current text follow the 1843 Times and Seasons publication.”*' or1 reads “was upon him.” or2, however, reads with a significant difference (in the handwriting of Sidney Rigdon): “he beheld again his glory, for it rested upon him?”*? If the altered wording was added under inspiration, perhaps it was intended to imply that the glory now conferred upon Moses was of a permanent rather than transient nature (“rested upon him” vs. “was upon him””**)—his now having “put on the garment of glory”? 285 even “the robe of righteousness: he heard a voice. Since the moment he “fell to the earth??*° Moses could no longer speak face to face with the Lord, having been “shut out from his presence.””*” However, when Satan was banished, the Lord began to minister to Moses through the intermediary of the Holy Ghost.”** Now we are told that a voice speaks to Moses from beyond the heavenly veil, por- tending his return back into the Lord’s presence.*® Ancient ascent and temple texts affirm that in preparation for entry into the holy presence, the initiate exchanged words with a divine voice at the veil, sometimes depicted visually as the welcoming hand of God that is grasped by the initiate.””? Once he has been thoroughly tested, the “last phrase” of welcome is extended to the successful candidate, “Let him come up!”?”! The completion of this series of upward steps has required Moses’ utmost tenacity. Com- ments Nibley: “Is this a return to heaven or is it halfway? Remember, [it’s like climbing a] mountain. It’s as high as you can go, I suppose[, then the Lord must take over]. But he sees the glory of God which was upon him. Then he heard a voice announcing he is the victor. He is recognized [as] the king??? Blessed art thou, Moses. The promise given to Moses concerning the work he was foreor- dained?*’ to do is now reaffirmed. Here, at the heavenly veil, Moses receives blessings that foreshadow his role as deliverer to the children of Israel, in similitude of the Savior. thou shalt be made stronger than many waters. The most obvious reference here is to the power Moses will be given to divide the Red Sea.”** However, we should also note the parallel J. A. Tvedtnes, Rituals; B. K. Packer, Personal Revelation, p. 59; W. Clayton, Chronicle, 15 June 1844, p. 134. Joseph Smith to Bathsheba W. Smith, Juvenile Instructor, 27, 1 June 1892, p. 345, cited in D. M. Quinn, Prayer Circles, p. 1. History of JS 4:5, p. 72. See K. P. Jackson, Book of Moses, p. 41. S. H. Faulring et al., Original Manuscripts, pp. 85, 593. See Moses 1:2, 9, 11, 14, 18. G. W.E. Nickelsburg et al., 1 Enoch, 62:15-16, p. 81. 2 Nephi 9:14. See the overview of Moses 4, pp. 234-240. Moses 1:9. Cf. Moses 5:4. Moses 1:24; cf. Moses 5:9. Moses 1:31. H. W. Nibley, Message 2005, pp. 449-457; P. Alexander, 3 Enoch, p. 296 n. 45a; H. W. Nibley, Atonement, p. 562; Figure 6-14, p. 473; Excursus 53: Comparative Explorations, Dexiosis, p. 681; the Mandaean Texts and Man- ichaean Texts sections of Annotated Bibliography, pp. 870, 884; and Figure B-1, p. 872. See Endnote 1-22, p. 79. M. E. Stone, Fall of Satan, p. 47; cf. Revelation 4:1: “Come up hither”; Matthew 25:21: “Enter thou into the joy of thy Lord” H. W. Nibley, Teachings of the PGP, 18, p. 220. Moses 1:6. Exodus 14:21-22; Joshua 3:14-17. MosEs 1: THE VISION OF MOSES — TEXT AND COMMENTARY 25 And calling upon the name of God, he beheld his glory again, for it was upon him; and he heard a voice, saying: Blessed art thou, Moses, for I, the Almighty, have chosen thee, and thou shalt be made stronger than many waters; for they shall obey thy command as if thou wert God. 26 And lo, I am with thee, even unto the end of thy days; for thou shalt deliver my people from bondage, even Israel my chosen. 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 to God’s subduing of the waters at creation,” particularly in light of the phrase that follows: “as if thou wert God” Recall also that God’s voice is compared in scripture to the “rushing of great waters.””*° All this can be taken to mean that Moses is being promised the blessings of exaltation. Explains Nibley: “In most versions of the year-drama [enacted in diverse cultures throughout the world and paralleling the experience of Moses],’”” the king wages combat with his dark adversary of the underworld, emerging victorious after a temporary defeat from his duel with death... Moses is proclaimed king after he has overcome the waters of Meribah—death; therefore, God says, ‘I shall make you king in my place, and you shall rule over my people as if you were God? Moses is put in God’s place.”””* Also affirming the deification of Moses, Philo wrote: “For when [Moses] had left all mortal categories behind he was changed into the divine, so that such men become kin to God and truly divine.” With respect to Moses’ command of the elements, Philo wrote that “... each of the elements was made subject to Moses as master and altered its inherent properties to become subject to his commands.”*™ Philo realized that Moses’ experience was not unique; rather, his exaltation exemplified a pattern that previously had been followed by Abraham and would continue to be emulated by all who belonged to true Israel.*°' According to Philo, Moses enters into God’s presence and “abides there while he learns the secrets of the most holy mysteries. There he becomes not only one of the ... initiated, but also the hierophant*” and teacher of divine rites, which he will impart to those whose ears are purified. He then has ever the divine spirit at his side, taking the lead in every journey of righteousness”*™ or, in other words, “to lead one along the ‘whole road, the entire way to perfection”*™ as if thou wert God. In the authority and power of the priesthood he has received, Moses soon will be fully enabled to speak and act on God’s behalf. The current text is consistent with or1.*” or2 replaces these words with a new reading in the handwriting of Sidney Rigdon: “even as my commandments.”*°° thou shalt deliver my people from bondage. God reiterates the commission He gave Moses at the time of his first call.°°” See Commentary 2:2-b, p. 96; J. L. Kugel, Instances, pp. 156-157.-- D&C 110:3; cf. Ezekiel 1:24, 43:2; Revelation 1:15; D&C 133:22; cf. J. L. Kugel, Instances, pp. 156-157. See Commentary 5:47-a, p. 395; Excursus 35: Lamech’s “Sword Song”, p. 612; overviews of Moses 4 and 6, pp. 221, 458. See Endnote 4-21, p. 304. See Endnote 4-4, p. 298. H. W. Nibley, Circle, p. 157. See H. W. Nibley, Teachings of the PGP, 10, p. 118; Commentary 1:20-a, p. 57. See also related discussion in N. Russell, Deification, p. 68. Philo, Exodus, 2:29, p. 70; cf. R. S. Eccles, Pilgrimage, pp. 60-61. See Endnote E-221, p. 757. See Philo, Moses 1, 1:155-156, p. 473. M. Barker, Hidden, p. 7. Le., priestly revealer or guide. Philo, Giants, 54-55, p. 473. See also E. R. Goodenough, Introduction to Philo, pp. 147-148; W. A. Meeks, Moses. E. R. Goodenough, Light, p. 214 n. 105. See Excursus 53: Comparative Explorations: The Mysteries, p. 663ff. S. H. Faulring et al., Original Manuscripts, p. 85. Ibid., p. 593; K. P. Jackson, Book of Moses, p. 63. Exodus 3:7-10. 61 MOSES 1 | SASOW 62 MosEs 1: THE VISION OF MOSES — TEXT AND COMMENTARY 27 And it came to pass, as the voice was still speaking, Moses cast his eyes and beheld the earth, yea, even all of it; and there was not a particle of it which he did not behold, discerning it by the spirit of God. 27 a_ as the voice was still speaking. Remarkably, a nearly identical phrase (“And while he [the 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 angel] was still speaking”) appears in the Apocalypse of Abraham immediately preceding Abrahams recitation of certain words taught to him by the angel in preparation for his ascent to receive a vision of the work of God.**’ In that account, Abraham’s recitation ends with: “Accept my prayer and... sacrifice... Receive me favorably, teach me, show me, and make known to your servant what you have promised me.”*” The text relates that while Abraham “was still reciting the song” (i.e., a recitation of a fixed set of words he had been taught by the angel), he heard a voice “like the roaring of the sea”*!° and was brought into the presence of the fiery seraphim surrounding the heavenly throne.*”” Significantly, when Abraham passes back through the heavenly veil in the opposite direction on his return to the earth, the words “And while he was still speaking” recur.*!” b Moses cast his eyes and beheld the earth. Previously, as he stood on the earth, Moses had “lifted up his eyes unto heaven.”*!? Now, after ascending to heaven, he cast his eyes down to see the earth and all of its inhabitants.*’* He witnessed its entire history from beginning to end like Adam, Enoch, the Brother of Jared, John the Beloved, and others.*!° Moroni taught that those with perfect faith cannot be “kept from within the veil” (i-e., cannot be kept from passing through the veil*!°)—meaning the heavenly veil behind which God dwells, whose earthly counterpart is the temple veil that divides the Holy Place from the Holy of Holies.*!” The heavenly veil corresponding to the firmament of the Creation is sometimes represented as a shining pavement on which the Lord stands*’* or as the “sea of glass” where God re- sides.*!” Islamic and Jewish sources imply that the unenlightened might mistakenly confuse such a crystal pavement with water.*”° Such descriptions also relate to the white stone that will be given to the Saints “whereby things pertaining to a higher order of kingdoms will be made known”??! Extracanonical accounts speak of a “blueprint” of eternity that is worked out in advance and shown on the inside of the heavenly veil.*”” Writes Barker: “Those who passed beyond the veil found themselves outside time. When Rabbi Ishmael ascended and looked back he saw the curtain on which was depicted past, present and future. ‘All generations to the end of time were printed on the curtain of the Omnipresent One. I saw them all with my own R. Rubinkiewicz, Apocalypse of Abraham, 17:1, p. 696. Ibid., 17:20-21, p. 697. Cf. “voice of many waters” (ibid., 17:1, p. 696); Commentary 1:25-c, p. 60. R. Rubinkiewicz, Apocalypse of Abraham, 18:1-14, p. 698. Ibid., 30:1, p. 704. For a discussion of parallels between the book of Abraham and the Apocalypse of Abraham, see J. W. Ludlow, Visions, pp. 62-65. Moses 1:24. Moses 1:28; cf. Commentary 1:8-b, c, p. 50. D&C 107:56, Moses 7:4-67, Ether 3:25, M. C. Thomas, Brother of Jared, 1 Nephi 14:25, 1 Nephi 14:26; cf. Luke 4:5. Ether 3:20; cf. Moses 3:26. P. Alexander, 3 Enoch, 45:1, p. 296 n. a. E.g., Exodus 24:9-10; Daniel 10:6; D&C 110:2. Revelation 4:6, 21:18, 21; D&C 130:8-9, 137:4; Ezekiel 1:22, 26. A. al-Tha labi, Lives, pp. 534-535; J. Dan, Mysticism, 1:276-279; W. J. Hamblin et al., Temple, pp. 131, 270; G. W. E. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch, 14:10, p. 257; B. M. Wheeler, Prophets, p. 270; Quran 27:38-44. See also 1 Kings 10:1- 13; Ezekiel 1:22; Exodus 24:10; Revelation 21:18, 21. D&C 130:4-11; cf. Revelation 2:17; Commentary 3:19-b, p. 177; Figure 4-4, p. 219. See Endnote 4-9, p. 299. See Endnote 4-22, p. 304. See Excursus 53: Comparative Explorations: Jewish and Christian Analogues, p. 679. See Commentary 1:6-g, p. 48 and 2:1-e, p. 94 regarding God's timelessness and the scope of divine knowledge. H. W. Nibley, Teachings of the PGP, 10, p. 117. MosEs 1: THE VISION OF MOSES — TEXT AND COMMENTARY 27 And it came to pass, as the voice was still speaking, Moses cast his eyes and beheld the earth, yea, even all of it; and there was not a particle of it which he did not behold, discerning it by the spirit of God. 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 eyes...°?° [Similarly,] Enoch was taken up by three angels and set up ona high place whence he saw all history, past, present and future.”*** The Apocalypse of Abraham describes how the patriarch ascended, and then looked down to see the affairs of what is called in modern revelation the “kingdoms of a lower order.”*”° The Lord’s voice commanded him to look, and veils were opened beneath his feet: “And while he was still speaking the expanses under me, the heavens, opened and I saw on the seventh firmament upon which I stood fire spread out... And I looked... downward to the sixth firmament... [and] the sixth firmament... removed itself... [and] I saw... the fifth (firmament):”**° Then, as did Moses, Abraham seems to have seen the heavenly plan for creation—“the creation that was depicted of old*”’ on this expanse” (21:1°”), its realization on the earth (21:3-5), the Garden of Eden (21:6), and the spirits of all men with certain ones “prepared to be born of you [i-e., Abraham] and to be called my people (21:7-22:5)”*? When Abraham is told again to “Look... at the picture,” he sees Satan inciting the Fall of Adam and Eve (23:1-14).?° Jesus Himself, when He was tempted in the desert saw “all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time,’**! an experience that Barker recognizes as “a characteristic of the temple mystics’ overall view of history.’*** Islamic tradition preserves the same motif in the story of how “Adam took out the cloth and spread it out. Upon it were the forms of the prophets [= the pious] and the pharaohs [= the wicked], rank after rank”? In November 1832, Joseph Smith used imagery related to the veil in a manner similar to all these accounts, as he and William W. Phelps prayed fervently for a longer glimpse at the reality behind the “dark curtain, and for a release from the limitations of human language: “Oh, Lord, when will the time come when Brother William, Thy servant, and myself, shall behold the day that we may stand together and gaze upon eternal wisdom engraven upon the heavens, while the majesty of our God holdeth up the dark curtain until we may read the round of eternity,*** to the fulness and satisfaction of our immortal souls? Oh, Lord, deliver us in due time from the little, narrow prison, almost as it were, total darkness of paper, pen and ink; and a crooked, broken, scattered and imperfect language.”**° even all of it. oT1 and o72 read “even all the face of it”**° The change in the current text dates to the 1902 edition of the Pearl of Great Price.**” P. Alexander, 3 Enoch, 45:6, p. 299. M. Barker, Temple Theology, p. 28. See also M. Barker, Boundary, pp. 215-217. D&C 130:9. R. Rubinkiewicz, Apocalypse of Abraham, 19:1, 4-5, 9, pp. 698-699; cf. Abraham 3:1-18. Le., formerly shadowed, sketched, outlined, prefigured (R. Rubinkiewicz, Apocalypse of Abraham, p. 699 n. 21a). Cf. Abraham 5:3-5. Cf. Abraham 3:22-23. R. Rubinkiewicz, Apocalypse of Abraham, pp. 699-701. Luke 4:5. M. Barker, Hidden, p. 95. M. al-Kisai, Tales, p. 82. Nibley discusses parallels between the picture shown to Moses, the “great round” of the hypocephalus, and imagery from Homer (H. W. Nibley, Abraham 2000, pp. 42ff.). J. Smith, Jr., Documentary History, 27 November 1832, 1:299. S. H. Faulring et al., Original Manuscripts, pp. 85, 593. K. P. Jackson, Book of Moses, p. 45. 63 MOSES 1 | SASOW MosEs 1: THE VISION OF MOSES — TEXT AND COMMENTARY 27 And it came to pass, as the voice was still speaking, Moses cast his eyes and beheld the earth, yea, even all of it; and there was not a particle of it which he did not behold, discerning it by the spirit of God. 28 And he beheld also the inhabitants thereof, and there was not a soul which he beheld not; and he discerned them by the Spirit of God; and their numbers were great, even numberless as the sand upon the sea shore. 29 And he beheld many lands; and each land was called earth, and there were inhabitants on the face thereof. 30 And it came to pass that Moses called upon God, saying: Tell me, I pray thee, why these things are so, and by what thou madest them? 31 And behold, the glory of the Lord was upon Moses, so that Moses stood in the presence of God, and talked with him face to face. And the Lord God said unto Moses: For mine own purpose have I made these things. Here is wisdom and it remaineth in me. d_ by the spirit of God. “This is not just God’s ability to produce a comprehensive vision, but an ability to change Moses so that he could comprehend it.”*** The “spirit” by which Moses discerns is written in lower case in this verse; however, it inexplicably appears in upper case in a similar context in v. 28. 28 a even numberless as the sand upon the sea shore. Here, the term numberless does not mean “infinite” but rather “too many to be counted.”**? OT2 reads: “even as numberless.”*”” 29 a_ each land was called earth. Taken in the context of vv. 30-38, these words seem to imply that Moses saw many peopled planets, each one of which was called earth by its inhabitants. Alternatively, his view of “many lands” could be simply a part of “an account of this earth”*“! to which his vision was originally to be limited. 30 a_ Tellme... why... and by what. The answers to these sacred questions will be given to Moses subsequently when he enters the presence of the Lord.*” In the hand of Sidney Rigdon, or2 was changed to read “shew me,”** further emphasizing the visual nature of Moses’ experience.*“* Consistent with the current text, oT1 reads “by what,” while or2 reads “by whom:”** 31 a glory of the Lord. ori and o72 read “the glory of God”**”—implying more clearly that Mo- ses stood in the presence of the Father rather than the Son. The current text dates to the 1902 edition of the Pearl of Great Price.*“ b Moses stood in the presence of God, and talked with him face to face. This glorious event, anticipated by the chapter summary in v. 2, opens the culminating sequence of Moses’ vi- sion. In the final verses of this chapter, God will reveal something of His purposes and will introduce the vision of Creation, the Fall, and the Plan of Salvation recounted in chapters 2-5. 338 EB. Salisbury, Creation, p. 65. 339 ‘The same description is used in Genesis 22:17, Hebrews 11:12, D&C 132:30, and Abraham 3:14. 340 S. H. Faulring et al., Original Manuscripts, pp. 593-594. 341 Moses 1:35. 342 R.D. Draper et al., Commentary, p. 32. See Moses 1:31. 343 S. H. Faulring et al., Original Manuscripts, p. 594. 344 See Commentary 1:27-b, p. 62. 345 S. H. Faulring et al., Original Manuscripts, p. 85. 346 Ibid., p. 594. 347 Ibid., pp. 85, 594. 348 K.P. Jackson, Book of Moses, p. 45. MoOsEs 1: THE VISION OF MOSES — TEXT AND COMMENTARY 31 And behold, the glory of the Lord was upon Moses, so that Moses stood in the presence of God, and talked with him face to face. And the Lord God said unto Moses: For mine own purpose have I made these things. Here is wisdom and it remaineth in me. 32 And by the word of my power, have I created them, which is mine Only Begotten Son, who is full of grace and truth. 33 And worlds without number have I created; and I also created them for mine own pur- pose; and by the Son I created them, which is mine Only Begotten. 32 33 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 c the Lord God said unto Moses. Speaking face to face, God now replies to the questions Moses raised in v. 30. Though God says here that He will not reveal the answer to Moses’ first question (“why these things are so”), later He does give a limited explanation.*? His answer to Moses’ second question (“by what”) is summarized in verse 32, and eventually elaborated in the account of the Creation in Moses 2-3.*°° Here is wisdom and it remaineth in me. The phrase “it remaineth in me” subtly echoes scriptural passages that depict God and wisdom as inseparably associated since before the creation of the earth.**! This exclusive relationship makes the mysteries of true wisdom in- accessible to man except as made known through God himself.*” The Book of Mormon employs similar phraseology to describe how God’s hidden intentions—in this case the pres- ervation of Nephite records—are “wise purposes in him’—things that can only be known by direct revelation.**? The term “wisdom” recurs once in the book of Moses, in an exposition on the gifts of the Comforter.** In the mystical Islamic work The Mother of Books, a petitioner also prays with a “typical list of questions”: “My Lord, how did the high king create all these spheres and palaces? From where did he make the spirits? What was the origin of his creation?” and receives an answer similar to the one given to Moses: “The creation of these realms is hard to fathom. Not everyone knows the way to knowledge, and its secret [is] well-concealed.”** The Gospel of Philip specifies the mechanism of concealment in asserting that it is the “veil [that] at first concealed how God controlled the creation.”**® by the word of my power, have I created them, which is my Only Begotten Son. See Moses 1:33; Commentary 2:1-d, p. 93; 2:5-c, p. 102. b_ full of grace and truth. See Commentary 1:6-e, p. 47 and Moses 5:7. a__ worlds without number. Clark*”’ cites a passage in the Zohar which tells of “a hidden region, so transcendent that it passes all understanding, the very source whence the worlds were designed and came into being’***... So also, according to the Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch, Moses was shown ‘the worlds which have not yet come.”**” b by the Son I created them.*® That the worlds were not only created by the Son but also re- deemed by him is made clear by the Prophet's poetic paraphrase of D&C 76:23-24: Moses 1:39. R. J. Matthews, Moses, p. 64. E.g., Proverbs 8:22-30. Job 28; 1 Corinthians 2:7-10; Alma 12:9-11; D&C 76:7, 10; 84:19; 107:18-19; see Excursus 53: Comparative Explorations of the Mysteries, p. 663. 1 Nephi 9:5. See also e.g., 1 Nephi 3:19; 5:22; 19:3; Words of Mormon 1:7; Alma 37:12, 14, 18. Moses 6:61. See Commentary 4:11-a, b, c, p. 253, 4:12-c, p. 255, and Excursus 2: Ancient Concepts of Wisdom, p. 516. W. Barnstone et al., Mother, p. 685. W. W. Isenberg, Philip, 84:23-25, p. 159. E. D. Clark, Prologue, p. 139. H. Sperling et al., Zohar, Waera (Exodus 6:2-9:35), 22a, 3:75. A.E J. Klijn, 2 Baruch, 59:9, p. 642. Cf. Commentary 1:35-b, p. 67. See Commentary 1:32-a, p. 65. 65 MOSES 1 | SASOW 66 MosEs 1: THE VISION OF MOSES — TEXT AND COMMENTARY 33 And worlds without number have I created; and I also created them for mine own pur- pose; and by the Son I created them, which is mine Only Begotten. 34 And the first man of all men have I called Adam, which is many. 19. And I heard a great voice, bearing record from heav’n, “He's the Savior, and only begotten of God— By him, of him, and through him, the worlds were all made, Even all that career in the heavens so broad, 20. Whose inhabitants, too, from the first to the last, Are savd by the very same Savior of ours; And, of course, are begotten God’s daughters and sons, By the very same truths, and the very same pow’rs.”**! by the Son. oT2 reads “by the same.”*” The change to “by the Son” was first made in the 1843 Times and Seasons publication.*” 34 a Adam, which is many. Draper et al.*** conclude that the phrase “which is many” could mean 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 one of three things: 1. that Adam is the first man of all men among all the worlds God has created; 2. that Adam is the name given to the first man on each of the many worlds God has created;*® or, 3. that there are many descendants of Adam on this earth.*® The name “Adam” occurs in several Semitic languages. Westermann accepts a derivation from the Arab term adim meaning “skin” or “surface, thus simultaneously conveying the idea of the skin of the human being (adam) and the surface of the earth (adamah).**’ The motif associating Adam with the earth is found in several places in the book of Moses—for example, Adam is made from the dust of the ground,*® it is later cursed because of him,*® and he will return to it when he dies.*”° Whitlock also points out the association between the red earth and red blood (Hebrew dam)—blood being a condition of mortality.*”! He observes that there may be “something symbolic in the joining of the mortal/of-the-blood (Adam) with the living Eve (Hebrew havvah = “life”) to produce living offspring, that tran- scends earthly life and is echoed in reverse in the Nativity.’*” Taking a cue from Moses 1:34, Nibley sees “many” as one connotation of the Egyptian name Atum, citing studies that define it to mean “both the creator [‘the ancient one] and ‘the [collective] sum of all future beings’... ‘all embracing; ‘the sum of everything’... or the uniting of many in one, combining all preexistent beings in a single archetype who thereby represents all beings thereafter’*”* In Abraham 1:3, the word Adam is associated with the idea of his being a “first father”*”* The 1981 edition of the Pearl of Great Price corrected a portion of the text in this verse. It was given previously as “the first man, who is Adam, our first father,” but in 1981 was amended to read “the first man, who is Adam, or first father.” Note that Eve is similarly referred to in Moses 4:26 as the “first of all women,” and that Nephi refers to Adam and Eve as our “first J. Smith, Jr. (or W. W. Phelps), A Vision, 1 February 1843, stanzas 19-20, cited in L. E. Dahl, Vision, p. 298. S. H. Faulring et al., Original Manuscripts, p. 594. History of JS 4:5, p. 72. See K. P. Jackson, Book of Moses, p. 27. R. D. Draper et al., Commentary, p. 33. Brigham Young, 6 October 1854, cited in J. L. Robinson et al., Robinson, p. 172; E. W. Tullidge, Women, p. 180. EB. Salisbury, Creation, p. 66; J. Smith, Jr., Teachings, footnote by Elder Joseph Fielding Smith, Jr., p. 167. C. Westermann, Genesis 1-11, p. 201; Suyuti in al-Tabari, Creation, 1:88, p. 260; B. M. Wheeler, Prophets, p. 17. Moses 3:7. Moses 4:23. Moses 4:25. See D. N. Freedman et al., Eerdmans, p. 19. Cf. J. Smith, Jr., 13 April 1843, “red earth” in E. England, Laub, p. 25; M-A Ouakknin et al., Rabbi Eliézer, 12, p. 84. S. T. Whitlock, 23 August 2006. H. W. Nibley, Message 2005, p. 217; cf. H. W. Nibley, Abraham 2000, p. 77; H. W. Nibley, Teachings of the PGP, 18, p. 222; 7, pp. 87-88. B. R. McConkie, Sermons, p. 254; cf. W. Clayton, Chronicle, 28 December 1845, p. 238. MosEs 1: THE VISION OF MOSES — TEXT AND COMMENTARY 34 And the first man of all men have I called Adam, which is many. 35 But only an account of this earth, and the inhabitants thereof, give I unto you. For be- hold, there are many worlds that have passed away by the word of my power. And there are many that now stand, and innumerable are they unto man; but all things are numbered unto me, for they are mine and I know them. 36 And it came to pass that Moses spake unto the Lord, saying: Be merciful unto thy servant, O God, and tell me concerning this earth, and the inhabitants thereof, and also the heavens, and then thy servant will be content. 37 And the Lord God spake unto Moses, saying: The heavens, they are many, and they can- not be numbered unto man; but they are numbered unto me, for they are mine. 38 And as one earth shall pass away, and the heavens thereof even so shall another come; and there is no end to my works, neither to my words. 35 a 37 a parents.”*”> President Brigham Young taught that Adam “signifies first man, and Eve signi- fies first woman,’ “Every world has an Adam, and an Eve: named so, simply because the first man is always called Adam, and the first woman Eve.”*”* By implication, Munoa connects “the motif of... being the first” with that of being “the oldest” —hence, the use of “Ancient of Days’ as a title for Adam.”*”” only an account of this earth. See Commentary 1:5-b, p. 46, 1:5-c, p. 46, and 1:7-a, p. 49. innumerable they are unto man. President Brigham Young said: “How many earths are there? I observed this morning that you may take the particles of matter composing this earth, and if they could be enumerated they would only be a beginning to the number of the creations of God; and they are continually coming into existence, and undergoing changes and passing through the same experience that we are passing through.”*”8 oT1 and oT2 read “numberless”;*” the current text follows the 1843 Times and Seasons.*®° all things are numbered unto me, for they are mine and I know them. Cf. Moses 1:37; Mat- thew 10:30: “But the very hairs of your head are all numbered.” saying: The heavens. The text follows o11.**! or2 reads “of the heavens, saying, These.”**” one earth shall pass away, and the heavens thereof. Though this could be taken as referring to the natural winding down of our particular part of the universe, it seems more likely that this passing away signifies the undoing of the first act of Creation—not a destruction, but rather a reunification of the formerly divided heaven and earth. At that time, said the Lord, “the veil of the covering of my temple, in my tabernacle, which hideth the earth, shall be taken off, and all flesh shall see me together”** there is no end to my works, neither to my words.*** The endlessness of God’s works and His words are inseparably linked. Jesus Christ, as the “word of my power,”*® is the one by 375 1 Nephi 5:11; cf. Wisdom of Solomon, where Adam is also called the “first father” (S. Sandmel et al., Solomon, 10:1-2, p. 104; see also Isaiah 43:27). 376 B. Young, 8 October 1854, pp. 100, 93. 377 P.B. Munoa, Four Powers, pp. 108-109. See also Joseph Smith, Jr. in D. M. Quinn, Prayer Circles, p. 83; over- view of Moses 5, p. 325. 378 B. Young, 10 July 1870, p. 71; cf. Commentary 1:33-a, p. 65. See Moses 1:35-38. 379 S.H. Faulring et al., Original Manuscripts, pp. 85, 594. 380 History of JS 4:5, p. 72. See K. P. Jackson, Book of Moses, p. 17. 381 S.H. Faulring et al., Original Manuscripts, p. 85. 382 Ibid., p. 594. 383. D&C 101:23; cf. Isaiah 25:6-9; 3 Nephi 26:3-5; H. W. Nibley, Treasures, pp. 185-186; Commentary 2:3-a, p. 99. 384 Cf. Moses 1:4. 385 See Commentary 1:32-a, p. 65; cf. D&C 29:30; John 1:1-3. 67 MOSES 1 | SASOW 68 MosEs 1: THE VISION OF MOSES — TEXT AND COMMENTARY 38 And as one earth shall pass away, and the heavens thereof even so shall another come; and there is no end to my works, neither to my words. 39 For behold, this is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eter- nal life of man. 39 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 whom these works were created. Likewise, Egyptian creation texts link the divine word with creative power,*** a theme also taken up in Jacob 4:9. Explains Nibley: “It is the Egyptian sia, ‘intelligence; awareness, that comes first. But it is lost without hu, ‘authoritative utterance; BBY ‘communication... The one is incomplete without the other, and this is made very clear in the oldest Egyptian creation drama,*** where God ‘conceives in his mind’ and then ‘utters with his mouth; communicating his intention to the council of the gods at each step of the creation. This is the very modern doctrine of anthropism.** Without sia—intelligence, awareness—what would exist? And if it were confined to one mind only, what would be accomplished?”*”” this is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man. Flake writes: “With this reply, [Joseph] Smith rejected 1,500 years of Christian theological anthropology by making God ontologically related to creation. God is both defined as Father and glorified as God by the capacity and purpose to engender the divine life in humans. To Smith, ‘Father God is not only a metaphor for expressing divine love, but is definitive of God and indicative of human possibility, even human capacity to receive the divine nature.”*”! “Immortality is to live forever in the resurrected state with body and spirit inseparably connected.”*” This is a blessing that will be given to each one of God’s children.*”’ On the other hand, eternal life “is to gain exaltation in the highest heaven.”*** which means having “the kind of life that God has. All those who become sons and daughters of God will have the additional gift of eternal life, which is the greatest gift of God”*°° Comments Nibley: “[God’s] whole concern... is to pass on to others what he has. “The glory of God is intelligence;**° which he wishes to share with all others. Glory is shared intelligence. Hence his works always go along with his words.”?”” God’s work and glory must by inference become man’s work and glory.*** Elder John A. Widtsoe has written: “Under the gospel what is man’s highest ideal? Under the gospel it must be to become like the Father. If the Lord’s concern is chiefly to bring happiness and joy, salvation, to the whole human family, we cannot become like the Father unless we too engage in that work.”*”” The earlier version of this verse in oT1 reads: “this is my work to my glory to the immortality and the eternal life of man”? E.g., J. B. Pritchard, ANET, pp. 5-6. A. H. Gardiner, Grammar, pp. 588, 580. See Excursus 1: Speech, Writing, and Revelation, p. 512. See Commentary 1:39-a, p. 68. H. W. Nibley, Drama, p. 26. K. Flake, Translating Time, p. 519. B. R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, p. 376. 1 Corinthians 15:22. S. W. Kimball, Eternal Hope, p. 72. See also J. Smith, Jr., Teachings, 7 April 1844, pp. 346-347. J. E Smith, Jr., Doctrines, 22 April 1939, 2:8. See D&C 14:7. D&C 93:36. H. W. Nibley, Return, p. 60. See Commentary 1;38-b, p. 67. See Commentary 1:6-a, p. 46. Cited in A. F. Bennett, Saviors, pp. 11-12; B. K. Packer, Holy Temple, p. 216. See G. B. Hinckley, Sunday AM, 2 April 1995, pp. 17-18, 20; M. G. Romney, Living, p. 93. See also Excursus 4: Chance and Purpose in Creation, p. 524. S. H. Faulring et al., Original Manuscripts, p. 86; R. J. Matthews, What Is, p. 31. MosEs 1: THE VISION OF MOSES — TEXT AND COMMENTARY 40 And now, Moses, my son, I will speak unto thee concerning this earth upon which thou standest; and thou shalt write the things which I shall speak. 41 And in a day when the children of men shall esteem my words as naught and take many of them from the book which thou shalt write, behold, I will raise up another like unto thee; and they shall be had again among the children of men—among as many as shall believe. 42 (These words were spoken unto Moses in the mount, the name of which shall not be known among the children of men. And now they are spoken unto you. Show them not unto any except them that believe. Even so. Amen.) 40 a_ this earth upon which thou standest; and thou shalt write. As this verse makes clear, Moses 41 42 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 b authored an original version of the creation account by specific assignment.*”! Johnson sees a small chiasm stretching from Moses 1:40 through 2:1 pivoting around the prophecy of another one like Moses being raised up, with v. 42 being treated as parentheti- eal oT2 refers to Moses in the second person plural form—or perhaps it should be regarded simply as a modernization of the archaic “thou”: “this earth upon which you stand; and you shall write?*°? take many of them from the book which thou shalt write.“ In this connection, note that the overwhelming bulk of jst Genesis revisions consist of additions rather than omissions of material. Barker has written extensively about conscious omissions and alterations of scriptures relating to key doctrines in the Old Testament.*” A specific example of material presumably removed from a later chapter of Genesis is the prophecy of Joseph recorded in jst Genesis 50:24-37 and 2 Nephi 3:5-22. I will raise up another like unto thee; and they shall be had again among the children of men. Compare 2 Enoch: “And... another generation will arise, the last of many... And I shall raise up for that generation someone who will reveal to them the books in your handwriting and those of your fathers. And he will have to point out to... truthful men, and those who carry out my will?”4°° Moses uses similar words in his prophecy of the coming of the Savior.*°” However, the cur- rent passage clearly refers to Joseph Smith, who is specifically compared to Moses in other scriptures.“ Show them not unto any except them that believe. 4 Ezra records that the Lord commanded Moses to openly reveal only part of his visions on Mt. Sinai; the rest was to be kept se- cret. Similarly, Ezra is reported to have been told that certain books were to be read by the “worthy and unworthy” whereas others were to be only given “to the wise.”*” The Mishnah contained a “rule that certain texts could not be read in public, or could be read but not explained.*!° Ezekiel’s vision of the throne was one such passage; it could not be discussed Cf. O. S. Wintermute, Jubilees, 2:1, p. 55. M. J. Johnson, Prologue, pp. 15-16. S. H. Faulring et al., Original Manuscripts, p. 594. Cf. Moses 1:23; 1 Nephi 13:4, 24-28. E.g., M. Barker, Older; M. Barker, Joseph Smith, pp. 77-78. EI. Andersen, 2 Enoch, 35:1-2, p. 158. Cf. Luke 2:14. Deuteronomy 18:15; Acts 3:19-26; 1 Nephi 22:20-21; 3 Nephi 20:23; JS-Hist 1:40. 2 Nephi 3:9; D&C 28:2, 103:16; cf. D&C 107:9. See K. Muhlestein, Flow, pp. 48-49. B. M. Metzger, Fourth Ezra, 14:6, 45-47, pp. 553, 555. Rabbinical arguments to this effect are summarized in A. J. Heschel, Heavenly Torah, pp. 656-657. See also H. W. Nibley, Teachings of the PGP, 18, pp. 223-224. For examples of other scriptural passages that speak of restrictions on making revelations known, see 2 Corinthi- ans 12:4; 3 Nephi 17:16-17; 28:13-16; Ether 3:21-4:7; Moses 4:32. See also Commentary 1:23-b, p. 59. J. Neusner, Mishnah, Hagigah 2:1, p. 330. 69 MOSES 1 | SASOW 70 MosEs 1: THE VISION OF MOSES — TEXT AND COMMENTARY 42 (These words were spoken unto Moses in the mount, the name of which shall not be known among the children of men. And now they are spoken unto you. Show them not unto any except them that believe. Even so. Amen.) 411 412 413 414 unless the other person already understood it ‘of his own knowledge’ Nor could the blessing of the priests—‘May the Lord make his face shine upon you’*”’ be explained.”*” The current text follows oT1, except that the archaic “shew” has been changed to “show:”4!? In 072, a slightly different phrase (“And now they are also spoken unto you. Shew them not unto any except them that believe until I command you. Amen’) is crossed out and the phrase “Even so” is omitted, so that the chapter ends with the phrase “children of men.”*"*. Numbers 6:24-26. M. Barker, Christmas, pp. 91-92. S. H. Faulring et al., Original Manuscripts, p. 86. Ibid., p. 595. Gleanings Table of Contents H. W. Nibley: A Chapter of “Most Boundless Wonder and Esteem” ......c.cssssssseseseees 71 J. Smith, Ins To Foreknow Is Not the Sarie as To FOreord aint wsccccctcssssenticissevsssstsessassess 73 CLS. Lewisi The Natute-of Gods FOreknOw led Ge csusisssussswssssasanisvinisvsianainesnassadasiinrssasvinte 73 D, L. Paulsen: Gods Foreknowledge and Mans Freedottt ccssssssusssssssrsusiavsusesanssvessassoanes 74 R. L. Bushman: A God Who Is Approachable and Friendly tscsi.scscsscssscosscssssserssssessessie 74 Hugh W. Nibley: A Chapter of “Most Boundless Wonder and Esteem" [Joseph Smith] brought out three formidable volumes of scripture. One need look no farther than the opening chapter of each of these to realize that a new dispensation is indeed upon us, with all the visions and blessings of old. The first section of the Doctrine and Covenants... takes up all the main themes of the gospel that had been the burden of every former dispensation, and had been lost in all the dark intervals between them, and weaves them together into one strong texture in which warning and deliverance are equally balanced... At the same time, the opening chapter of the Book of Mormon emerges as the perfect model and type of those more specialized apocalypses or testaments attributed to individuals that are now taking up their position in the growing procession of early Jewish and Christian Apocrypha... But it is the first chapter of the book of Moses that commands the most boundless wonder and esteem... What other prelude could there be to the history of the race, what other prologue could ever give it such depth of meaning and such gratifying consistency? First, we find Moses in the presence of God and the bosom of eternity, being apprised of a special calling to which he has been appointed as co-worker with the Savior.*'* A preliminary test is indicated—suddenly the lights go out and Moses is found lying unconscious and helpless upon the earth; as he slowly comes to himself, he recognizes the misery and the glory of fallen man: “Now... I know that man is nothing, which thing I never had supposed.” And then, in the same breath: “But now mine own eyes have beheld God... his glory was upon me... I was transfigured before him.”*"” Weakness is his present condition, glory his everlasting birthright. It is in this moment of man’s greatest helplessness and vulnerability that Satan chooses to strike, attempting first by persuasion and then by intimidation to get Moses to worship him as the god of this world. But Moses has not wholly forgotten who he is, “a son of God, in the similitude of the Only Begotten;”*!* and denounces Satan as a sham, while professing himself awaiting further light and knowledge: “I will not cease to call upon God, I have other things to inquire of him.”*”” The humiliating exposure of Satan becomes unendurable when Moses announces that he actually is what his adversary falsely claims to be, “a son of God, in the similitude of his Only Begotten; and where is thy glory that I should worship thee?”*”° This is too much for Satan, who casts aside his celebrated but now useless subtlety and launches a frontal attack of satanic fury, a tremendous tantrum, as he “cried with a 415 H.W. Nibley, To Open, pp. 4-6. emphasis throughout is mine. 416 Moses 1:3-9. 417 Moses 1:10-11. 418 Moses 1:13 419 Moses 1:18. 420 Moses 1:13. 71 MOSES 1 | SASOW re MosEs 1: THE VISION OF MOSES — GLEANINGS loud voice, and [ranted] upon the earth, and commanded, saying: I am the Only Begotten, worship me.’ The whole scene is presented in dramatic form as a ritual combat, a sticho- mythia, and true to the ancient pattern, the hero is momentarily bested, overcome by the powers of darkness, as he “began to fear; and “saw the bitterness of hell?*”” But with his last ounce of strength he calls upon God from the depths and is delivered: he has won the fight, he has prevailed against the power of him who “sought to destroy the world,” “for he knew not the mind of God?*” And now the scene changes (verses 23 and 24 read like stage directions); the lights go up, the music soars and Moses, though remaining on earth, is again invested with glory and hears the voice of God proclaiming him victor, worthy and chosen to lead God’s people “as if thou wert God”**—the type and model of the ancient Year King proclaimed after his vic- tory over death as God’s ruler on earth. He is specifically told that he shall “be made stron- ger than many waters”*”°—for he has just passed through the waters of death and rebirth, de profundis; and shown himself capable and worthy of the mission which is now entrusted to him. After this royal acclamation, reminiscent of combat and coronation episodes dramatized in the earliest year rites throughout the ancient world, after the coronation, the scene again changes, as Moses and the reader view the field of labor in which the prophet is to work; he receives a thorough briefing, an intimate knowledge of the earth in its cosmic setting, its physical makeup (“every particle” of it), and everything that lives upon it.*”° Naturally, he wants to know what is behind the behind and beyond the beyond, but God assures him that such knowledge is not for now: “But only an account of this earth, and the inhabitants thereof, give I unto you,” with which knowledge Moses is finally “content.’** Neverthe- less, quite fundamental to a correct understanding of this world is its relationship to the wider structure of things, to heavens without end and worlds without number, constantly coming into existence and passing away in an endless processing; “... and there is no end to my works, neither to my words.”*” And this cosmic discourse is summed up and concluded in the most comforting proclamation of all: “For behold, this is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.’**® All this becoming and passing away, the endless processing of the same elements, would offer only the overpowering and depressing prospect of science fiction, were it not for that ultimate assurance: man is going somewhere after all; in the course of nature he is doomed’ but the course of nature does not have the last word—God is on top of the problem and he is working for us. The three concluding verses of the chapter place upon it an undeniable seal of authenticity. Of careful concern in each of the records handed down through the Prophet Joseph is the establishing of the exact manner in which the work has been preserved. This is another mark of the newly-discovered pseudepigrapha: these verses of Moses might have been taken 421 Moses 1:19. 422 Moses 1:20. 423 Moses 4:6. 424 Moses 1:25. 425 Moses 1:25. 426 Moses 1:27-28. 427 Moses 1:35. 428 Moses 1:36. 429 Moses 1:38. 430 Moses 1:39. 431 2 Nephi 9:7. MosEs 1: THE VISION OF MOSES — GLEANINGS out of any number of Jewish or Christian Apocrypha; especially those writings from the “Forty-day Literature” in which the Coptic records are so rich: “And now Moses, my son... thou shalt write the things which I shall speak. And in a day when the children of men shall esteem my words as naught and take many of them from the book which thou shalt write, behold, I will raise up another like unto thee; and they shall be had again among the children of men—among as many as shall believe.’ And so the present dispensation gets them: “And now they are spoken unto you. Show them not unto any except them that believe.”**” Such is the standard formula for the preservation and transmission of apocalyptic writings. Joseph Smith, Jr.: To Foreknow Is Not the Same as to Foreordain™ I believe that God foreknew everything, but did not foreordain everything; I deny that foreordain and foreknow is the same thing.*” C. S. Lewis: The Nature of God’s Foreknowledge* Lewis, summarizing 5:3-6 of Boethius’ De Consolatione Philosophiae*” writes: ... the question never was whether foreknowledge necessitates the act but whether it is not evidence that the act must have been necessary. Can there, then, be foreknowledge of the indeterminate? In a sense, yes. The character of knowledge depends not on the nature of the object known but on that of the knowing faculty. Thus in ourselves sensation, imagination, and ratio all in their several ways “know” man. Sensation knows him as a corporeal shape; imagination, as a shape without matter; ratio, as a concept, a species. None of these faculties by itself gives us the least hint of the mode of knowledge enjoyed by its superior. But above ratio or reason there is a higher faculty intelligentia or understanding... And Reason cannot conceive the future being known except as it would have to be known, if at all, by her; that is, as determinate. But it is just possible even for us to climb up to the intelligential level and get a glimpse of the knowledge which does not involve determinism. Eternity is quite distinct from perpetuity, from mere endless continuance in time. Perpetuity is only the attainment of an endless series of moments, each lost as soon as it is attained. Eternity is the actual and timeless fruition of illimitable life. Time, even endless time, is only an image, almost a parody, of that plenitude; a hopeless attempt to compensate for the transitoriness of its “presents” by infinitely multiplying them... And God is eternal, not perpetual. Strictly speaking, He never foresees; He simply sees. Your “future” is only an area, and only for us a special area of His infinite Now. He sees (not remembers) your yesterdays acts because yesterday is still ‘there’ for Him; he sees (not foresees) your tomorrow’s acts because He is already in tomorrow. As a human spectator, by watching my present act, does not at all infringe its freedom, so Iam nonetheless free to act as I choose in the future because God, in that future (His present) watches me acting. 432 Moses 1:40-41. 433 Moses 1:42. 434 J. Smith, Jr, Documentary History, 6 February 1840, 4:78. 435 Cf. “Everything is foreseen, and free choice is given” (J. Neusner, Mishnah, Abot 3:15, p. 680). See the related discussion in A. J. Heschel, Heavenly Torah, pp. 216-219. 436 C.S. Lewis, Image, pp. 88-89; cf. C. S. Lewis, Mere, 4:3, p. 147; C. S. Lewis, Miracles, On Special Providences, pp. 226-234. 437 A.M.S. Boethius, Consolation, pp. 100-114. See L. T. Zagzebski, Dilemma, for a formal treatment of Boethius’ proposal (pp. 36-65), and various alternatives to it. G. E. Ganssle, God and Time provides additional useful philosophical perspectives on these and related questions. C. H. Pinnock et al., Openness includes chapters from a variety of theological and philosophical perspectives that, among other things, question the idea of ex- tent of God's foreknowledge. For a brief sampling of scientific perspectives, see Excursus 7: Time and Eternity, p. 537. 73 MOSES 1 | SASOW 74 MosEs 1: THE VISION OF MOSES — GLEANINGS David L. Paulsen: God’s Foreknowledge and Man’s Freedom** Latter-day Saints differ among themselves in their understandings of the extent of God’s foreknowledge. Some, including Presidents Brigham Young and Wilford Woodruff, have thought that God increases endlessly in knowledge and, hence, presumably, at every time lacks exhaustive foreknowledge.... Other Latter-day Saints hold to a more traditional view that God’s knowledge, including the foreknowledge of future free contingencies, is exhaus- tively complete.... Despite these differing views within the LDS tradition, there is accord on three fundamental points: (1) man is an agent with power to choose other than what he, in fact, chooses; (2) Whatever the extent and nature of God’s foreknowledge, it is not incon- sistent with man’s freedom—God's knowledge does not causally determine human choices; and (3) God’s knowledge, like God’s power, is maximally efficacious. No event occurs that he has not anticipated at least qua possibility or has not taken into account in his planning. Richard L. Bushman: A God Who Is Approachable and Friendly*” The vision of Moses... depicts a Creator whose power and might exceeded all human comprehension. Moses is given a glimpse of God’s glory while on a high mountain” and then Moses abruptly drops back to earth.’ Decimated by the experience, Moses exclaims in wonder: “Now for this cause I know that man is nothing, which thing I never had supposed.”“” He recognizes that he cannot even look upon God without the protection of His Spirit when he says, “Now mine own eyes have beheld God; but not my natural, but my spiritual eyes, for my natural eyes could not have beheld; for I should have withered and died in his presence; but his glory was upon me; and I beheld his face:’*** Even so, Moses is not entirely intimidated by the God of his visions. Moses asks God why he created the worlds and persists when God rebuffs him.““* Finally the great God yields to Moses’ entreaties and explains that the divine purpose is “to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man?“*° This God was willing to converse about His purposes...[E]mergent Mormonism portrayed a God who was approachable and friendly. 438 D.L. Paulsen, Response to Pinnock, pp. 530-532. 439 R.L. Bushman, Creation of the Sacred, p. 95. 440 Moses 1:1-2. 441 Moses 1:9. 442 Moses 1:10. 443, Moses 1:11. 444 Moses 1:30-36. 445 Moses 1:39. Endnotes 1-1 1-2 1-3 1-4 1-5 1-6 1-7 1-8 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 This account of Moses’ visions, constituting section 22 of the Community of Christ editions of the Doctrine and Covenants, was reprinted in the prefatory material of their Inspired Version of the Bible until the 1991 edition, when it was omitted “because of space considerations only?“ Some scholars find traces of such beliefs in the subduing of the powers of watery chaos prior to cre- +. 447 ation. See Barker for a summary of parallels between Jesus’ experience in the wilderness, His baptism, and the ascension literature.*“® Noting parallels in the experiences of Adam, Enoch, Moses, Jesus Christ, and Joseph Smith in con- fronting the power of the Devil, Elder Alvin R. Dyer observed that Satan “has exerted his greatest influence of evil when a dispensation of the Gospel has been given in an effort to prevent it?“”? In answer to Heber C. Kimball’s concern that “there might be something wrong in him” because of the vision of evil spirits he had had while opening missionary work in England, the Prophet is reported by Kimball’s daughter Helen Mar Whitney to have said: “When I heard of it, it gave me great joy, for I then knew the work of God had taken root in that land. It was this that caused the Devil to make a struggle to kill you’ Joseph then said the nearer a person approached to the Lord, the greater power would be manifest by the Devil to prevent the accomplishment of the purposes of God?**” Matthews comments: “Oliver Cowdery and Joseph Smith... did not state their purpose in purchas- ing the Bible at that time, but in view of the instructions and experiences they had received, it is possible that they were thinking of a new translation of the Bible even at that early date”*°! Moses 1 was recorded on the first three pages of a fifty-two page folio that continued without a break into the translation of the first chapters of Genesis, and was similarly positioned in later jst manuscripts. It seems reasonable to conclude that Moses 1 was not merely “an independent revelation that evolved into a retranslation of the Bible?*>* but rather was preconceived as an integral part of the translation project from its inception. As was later explained, “[f]rom what we can draw from the Scriptures relative to the teaching of heaven, we are induced to think that much instruction has been given to man since the beginning which we do not possess now.”*? Joseph Smith also wrote: “I