Visions of the Kingdom: A Study in Scriptural Symbolism – LDS-themed blog by David Tayman. Although I’ve known of it for some time now (it’s in my list of blog links to the right), I just noticed that David has been posting a series of studies that generally coincide with the Sunday School curriculum. I really like David’s research style (perhaps because he seems to share many of my same interests). His site is attractive and the content is of high quality.  He focuses on some very important aspects of the Old Testament traditions. He also certainly seems to have some training in or native talent for web design and graphics, as can be seen in this cool video he designed to illustrate the Creation.

Joel’s Monastery – Although I’ve been familiar with him (or his internet presence) for some time, I was just recently alerted to Gerald Smith’s great blog, where he has been posting on the Old Testament lessons. Gerald does some great research on the OT texts and provides a very insightful commentary.  I think you’ll find him very thorough and helpful!

For a good article on Joseph Smith’s opinion of the Watchers (the “sons of God” of Gen. 6), see this post on Mormon Matters.

Also, as you may have seen already, BYU’s Maxwell Institute has just released the first issue of their new journal: Studies in the Bible and Antiquity. You can take a look at this exciting new journal and its articles online here. Pay special attention to PhD candidate David Bokovoy’s article entitled “From the Hand of Jacob: A Ritual Analysis of Genesis 27“. This is an illuminating study that would be very helpful for your study of the upcoming Old Testament Lesson 10 (and just a fascinating read any ol’ time). I have met David a couple of times and can tell you that he is an excellent scholar.

Hope these few resources are of help!

Genesis 6: The Marriage of the Sons of God with Daughters of Men and the “Giants”

I think there is a tendency among us to want to just skip over the initial verses of Genesis 6, because they really are difficult to understand and have a very “mythological” feel to them. Have a look:

Genesis 6:1-5 (KJV)

And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, 2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. 3 And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. 4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

What in the world is this passage on about? Who are the sons of God who married the daughters of men? Who are these giants and these famous mighty men of old? Like I said, we usually tend to skip these verses instead of trying to sort out what’s going on here. But anciently, these verses were quite important, and we see them forming a more central part of larger narratives in some of the Jewish and Christian pseudepigraphal literature.

First of all, the expression “daughters of men/Adam” is straightforward. What kind of men these were will be addressed shortly.

The identity of the “sons of God” is a much more complicated issue. The Hebrew text has b’nei ha-Elohim, which is a title commonly used to refer to the class of beings known today as “angels”, but literally means just what it says “sons of (the) God” (or, alternatively, “sons of the gods”). The “angels” were originally conceived as divine beings or gods who were subordinate to the Father Deity, and members of the Divine Council. Later Jewish theology would not allow for multiple gods, so by the time the Septuagint was compiled, the sons of God became simply “messengers” (angel = malak = messenger).

Many ancient sources, most notably 1 Enoch 6-19, but also other texts among the Dead Sea Scrolls, Midrashim, and other Jewish literature associate the “sons of God” mentioned in Gen. 6 with the fallen angels (sometimes called “the Watchers”) that rebelled against God and brought, unauthorized, heavenly secrets to Earth. Following this tradition, it was these divine beings who married the dau(ghters of men (human women) and whose offspring were the giants.  This story, with its rebellious divine beings who are imprisoned and giant offspring, is reminiscent of the story of the Titans of Greek mythology (Richard Bauckham argues that 1 Enoch likely didn’t borrow from Greek mythology, but that both must have had a common source).¹

An alternative to this tradition is one that many Christians later adopted, that the “sons of God” in the story refer to human beings of the line of Seth. In the Christian retelling of Genesis known as The Cave of Treasures (probably 6th cent.), while Cain and his family went further down the primordial cosmic mountain to dwell, Seth and his family remained further up, near the gates of the Garden of Eden. While the descendants of Cain were known as the “children of men”, the Sethites were referred to as the “children of God.”  From the text of The Cave of Treasures:

And lasciviousness and fornication increased among the children of Cain, and they had nothing to occupy them except fornication–now they had no obligation [to pay] tribute, and they had neither prince nor governor–and eating, and drinking, and lasciviousness, and drunkenness, and dancing and singing to instruments of music, and the wanton sportings of the devils, and the laughter which affordeth pleasure to the devils, and the sounds of the furious lust of men neighing after women. And Satan, finding [his] opportunity in this work of error, rejoiced greatly, because thereby he could compel the sons of Seth to come down from that holy mountain. There they had been made to occupy the place of that army [of angels] that fell [with Satan], there they were beloved by God, there they were held in honour by the angels, and were called “sons of God,” even as the blessed David saith in the psalm, “I have said [Fol. 12b, col. 1], Ye are gods, and all of you sons of the Most High.” (Ps. lxxxii. 6.)

Meanwhile fornication reigned among the daughters of Cain, and without shame [several] women would run after one man. And one man would attack another, and they committed fornication in the presence of each other shamelessly… And Satan had been made ruler (or prince) of that camp [Fol. 12b, col. 2]. And when the men and women were stirred up to lascivious frenzy by the devilish playing of the reeds which emitted musical sounds, and by the harps which the men played through the operation of the power of the devils, and by the sounds of the tambourines and of the sistra which were beaten and rattled through the agency of evil spirits, the sounds of their laughter were heard in the air above them, and ascended to that holy mountain.

And when the children of Seth heard the noise, and uproar, and shouts of laughter in the camp of the children of Cain, about one hundred of them who were mighty men of war gathered together, and set their faces to go down to the camp of the children of Cain. When Yârêd heard their words and knew their intention, he became sorely afflicted, and he sent and called them to him, and said unto them, “By the holy blood of Abel, I will have you swear that not one of you shall go down from this holy mountain. Remember ye [Fol. 13a, col. 1] the oaths which our fathers Seth, and Ânôsh, and Kainân, and Mahlâlâîl made you to swear.” And Enoch also said unto them, “Hearken, O ye children of Seth, no man who shall transgress the commandment of Yârêd, and [break] the oaths of our fathers, and go down from this mountain, shall never again ascend it.” But the children of Seth would neither hearken to the commandment of Yârêd, nor to the words of Enoch, and they dared to transgress the commandment, and those hundred men, who were mighty men of war, went down [to the camp of Cain]. And when they saw that the daughters of Cain were beautiful in form and that they were naked and unashamed, the children of Seth became inflamed with the fire of lust. And when the daughters of Cain saw the goodliness of the children of Seth, they gripped them like ravening beasts and defiled their bodies. And the children of Seth slew their souls by fornication with the daughters of Cain. And when the children of Seth wished to go up [again] to that holy mountain [Fol. 13a, col. 2], after they had come down and fallen, the stones of that holy mountain became fire in their sight, and having defiled their souls with the fire of fomication, God did not permit them to ascend to that holy place. And, moreover, very many others made bold and went down after them, and they, too, fell.

I apologize for the rather graphic nature of that story, but it is a very interesting alternative to the fallen angels tradition. The “sons of God” in this narrative are not angels, but humans who, through their adherence to their oaths of righteousness have been exalted to the status of angels (sons of God). Those who decide to descend from that exalted place and break their covenants (by being unchaste, engaging in loud laughter, etc.), become fallen and are not permitted to ascend again to their previous blessed state.

While some argue that this second retelling of the story is very late and could not have been the original tradition, there are a number of aspects of it that are quite ancient, especially the use of the term “son of God” to refer to mortals. Just as an “angel” (malak) could refer to both divine and human messengers, the term “son of God” could refer to either a divine or human being. While the more modern theological perspective creates an unbridgeable gap between the divine and human, this division was not nearly so pronounced anciently.  It is likely that both heavenly and earthly beings could be seen as sons of God.

We know that the Davidic kings, as in other ancient cultures, were considered to be sons of God (Ps. 2:7; 109:3 LXX; 2 Sam. 7:14). Israel (the Israelites) as a whole are sometimes referred to as children of God (Deut. 14:1; Deut. 32:5-6, 19-20; Isa. 43:6-7; Isa. 64:8; Jer. 2:27; Mal. 2:10).  The idea that righteous humans are referred to as “sons of God” is not uncommon and is very ancient.  Similar ideas are perpetuated through the intertestamental period, and the usage, of course, is well known in the New Testament, where the righteous may become children of God through Christ (e.g. John 1:12; Philip. 2:15; Rom. 8:14;  1 Jn. 3:1-2). Compare this with similar ideas in LDS Scripture: Moro. 7:26, 48; Moses 8:13, 21; 3 Ne. 9:17; D&C 11:30; D&C 34:3; D&C 76:58.

So which story is the “true” one? I really don’t know. Theologically, I side with the Sethite story because I don’t believe that divine noncorporal beings could mate with humans. However, I am quite partial to the Enochic literature and am reluctant to discount its narrative so quickly.  The story of the Watchers in the book of 1 Enoch, as we now have it, on the other hand, is quite surely not the most ancient version of the story, and may have taken an older tradition regarding the fallen angels and reworked it to fit the context we read of in Genesis 6.  However, I think the story of the Watchers, the fallen angels, should belong to a different part of the history.

But what about the giant offspring? That certainly sounds like it would fit the mythological tone of the Enochic literature!  However, if we look at the ancient texts, we see that we should likely not understand the “giants” to have been beings of extraordinary size that could have resulted from the pairing of divine and human beings. While it was common anciently to view the gods as beings of extraordinary size (and their offspring could have had similar dimensions), that may not be what we are looking at here.  We get the term “giants” in this passage from the Latin rendering of the Greek Gigantes, which means “earthborn.” However, the Hebrew term used, Nephilim, has to do with their status as “fallen.” They could have been fallen because their fathers were the fallen angels, because of their great wickedness, or simply because they were already dead (being from a previous and ancient generation from the perspective of the author), which seems the most likely interpretation.

The passage goes on to say that these “fallen ones” were the mighty men (gibborim) of old. Gibborim is a term usually used to describe mighty warriors or famous hunters, like Nimrod (Gen. 10:8). So, while this all the subject of much dispute and is very obscure, the “giants” of Genesis 6 may have been much less “mythological” than the text and some traditions make them out to be.  In my current humble opinion, I would say that they were likely not enormous creatures that resulted from the marriages of angels to humans, but were the offspring of those human saints who married outside of the covenant. They were known for their great skills as warriors and hunters. Again, I could be wrong on this, but that is what makes most sense to me at this point.

Note how the version of the story in Moses 8 generally follows this view, reworking the Genesis account in important ways:

13 And Noah and his sons hearkened unto the Lord, and gave heed, and they were called the sons of God.

14 And when these men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, the sons of men saw that those daughters were fair, and they took them wives, even as they chose.

15 And the Lord said unto Noah: The daughters of thy sons have sold themselves; for behold mine anger is kindled against the sons of men, for they will not hearken to my voice.

(Note how the troublesome “sons of God” is not used here, but it is made clear that both the men and women are mortals. Furthermore, the “daughters” are the daughters of Noah’s sons, who marry men of the world. The perspective here is quite different.)

18 And in those days there were giants on the earth, and they sought Noah to take away his life; but the Lord was with Noah, and the power of the Lord was upon him.

(Giants are mentioned here, but the emphasis is not on their size, but on their violent nature.)

19 And the Lord ordained Noah after his own order, and commanded him that he should go forth and declare his Gospel unto the children of men, even as it was given unto Enoch.

20 And it came to pass that Noah called upon the children of men that they should repent; but they hearkened not unto his words;

21 And also, after that they had heard him, they came up before him, saying: Behold, we are the sons of God; have we not taken unto ourselves the daughters of men? And are we not eating and drinking, and marrying and giving in marriage? And our wives bear unto us children, and the same are mighty men, which are like unto men of old, men of great renown. And they hearkened not unto the words of Noah.

(The men who have married the “daughters” consider themselves to be sons of God, but it is nowhere indicated that they are anything but mortal. They claim that their children are mighty men (not giants), like them of old — perhaps this declaration is in response to warnings that they would be less so.)

The House of Noah

We saw above that Noah and his sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth, were called “sons of God” because of their righteousness. We read that Noah walked with God, as had Enoch. The biblical narrative seems to relate Enoch’s walking with God to his ascension/translation (Gen. 5:24).

As I said above, I don’t want to focus on the Flood story, but on the “house” of Noah. Noah became, essentially, a new Adam, the father of the human race after the Flood had destroyed all the rest of the human race.  As an aside, it is interesting to note that this is taking place, according to the biblical record, over 1500 years since the Fall of Adam. In 1500 years (especially if most people lived for hundreds of years before dying), there would likely have been many millions of people on the earth.  If some people worry about over-population now, just think how the world would be if the Flood hadn’t taken out 99.99% of that early population!  But if Noah and his sons “walked with God”, how did the world get so wicked again, so fast?



The first act of post-diluvian unrighteousness recorded in the Bible is the story of Ham uncovering the nakedness of his father Noah, which was followed, oddly, by Noah cursing Ham’s youngest son, Canaan. While the nature of the act (seeing his father “uncovered”) is rather obscure, there is no reason given for why Ham’s son is cursed and not Ham himself. This has been a source of debate for scholars.  The summary given in the Anchor Bible Dictionary (under “Canaan” is helpful:

The fourth son of Ham and the father of Sidon and ten other families of the Canaanites (Gen 10:6). When Noah learned what Ham, his youngest son, had done (seeing his father uncovered and telling his brothers of it); Noah cursed Canaan, the son of Ham (Gen 9:18-27). According to the curse, Canaan would be a slave to Ham's brothers, Shem and Japheth. For a discussion of the meaning of the name Canaan, and the peoples and lands encompassed by that term, see CANAAN (PLACE). Two problems emerge from the mention of Canaan in Genesis 9: why is Canaan cursed rather than the apparent perpetrator Ham; and what is the implication of the curse for Canaan and his descendants?

A composite text, in which the narrative and the curse were originally distinct (the "youngest son" of 9:24 would then refer to Canaan, rather than Ham, and would be connected with the curse which follows) and preserved in two separate traditions, might explain origins (Neiman 1966: 133; Westermann Genesis 1-11 BKAT, 650-51), but does not explain the present text. Some have attempted to solve the problem of why Canaan was cursed by eliminating two Hebrew words in vv 18 and 22 ("Ham, the father of"), so that Canaan, rather than Ham, becomes the principal actor in the narrative (Gunkel Genesis HKAT 3: 69-70; Skinner Genesis ICC, 182; Schottroff WMANT 30: 148 n. 3; von Rad Genesis OTL, 135). But this lacks textual support. The same is true of attempts to portray Ham as involved in incestuous relationships with his mother (Bassett 1971: 235) or with his father (Phillips 1980: 41). Commentators have noted how these (and other similar explanations of sexual misconduct) were intended to symbolize the sinful practices of the Canaanites (Cassuto 1964: 154-55; Wenham Genesis 1-15 WBC, 201). The emphasis upon the identification of Ham as the father of Canaan has led to the suggestion that Ham learned how to do the evil deed from Canaan (Jacob 1934: 262-65).

Older explanations which observe Noah's blessing upon his sons (Gen 9:1) as irreversible have been used to explain Noah's inability to curse Ham. It has further been suggested that since Ham was the youngest of Noah's sons, the curse would be transferred to the youngest of Ham's sons, Canaan (cf. Cassuto 1964: 153).²

While this doesn’t sound especially ethical or appropriate, it seems that perhaps Canaan was cursed with regards to the priesthood because Ham already had the priesthood, so it was denied to his offspring.  From other sources we see Ham as not merely (and apparently innocently) seeing his father’s “nakedness”, but as trying to take from him his priesthood authority, as represented by his special priestly garment, said to be the garment that God made for Adam after the Fall.  You have probably read or heard of this story from Hugh Nibley or other LDS authors. I realize that I just posted something on this from Jeff Bradshaw’s book, but just recently I also came across this tradition again while reading a book by a non-LDS author. In his section on “The Garments of Adam and Eve”, Howard Schwartz in Tree of Souls: The Mythology of Judaism, retells the Jewish traditions about the passing on of Adam’s priestly garment:

When Adam and Eve were first created, they were clothed, body and soul, with garments of light. Some say those garments of light were made entirely of clouds of glory. Others say they were made of holy luminous letters that God had given them, which shed radiance like a torch, broad at the bottom and narrow at the top. After Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit, the garments of light were replaced by garments of skins, as it is said,”And the Lord God made garments of skins for Adam and his wife and clothed them” (Gen. 3:21). It is said that these garments were created during twilight on the sixth day of Creation, just before the first Sabbath. Some say that they consisted of a hornlike substance, smooth as a fingernail and as beautiful as a jewel, while others say that they were made of goats’ skin or the wool of camels. Still others insist that they were made of the hide of the serpent who led them astray in the Garden of Eden.

Adam handed down the garments to Seth, and Seth to Methuselah, and Methuselah to Noah, who took them with him on the ark. And when they left the ark, Ham, the son of Noah, bequeathed them to Nimrod, although others say that Nimrod stole them. When Nimrod wore Adam's garments, his outward appearance was that of Adam, and the creatures were humbled before him and would bow down, thinking he was their king.

The garments came into the possession of Esau when he defeated Nimrod, and it was this garment that Jacob wore when he went to his father, Isaac. For that day Esau had not put them on, so that they remained in the house. Rebecca then took the best clothes of her older son Esau, which were there in the house, and had her younger son Jacob put them on (Gen. 27:15). Isaac smelled the smell of Esau's garments, and therefore he blessed Jacob.

Some say that the repentance of Adam and Eve earned a different set of garments for them, garments of light. At the End of Days, God will dress the Messiah in such a garment, which will shine from one end of the world to the other. And the Jews will draw upon its light and say to the Messiah, “blessed is the hour in which the Messiah was created."

This is an example of what might be called a “chain midrash”, because it links together the chain of the generations, from Adam until the Messiah. Other similar midrashic traditions are found about the staff of Moses, the book that the angel Raziel is said to have given Adam, and the glowing stone known as the Tzohar. Sometimes there are contradictory lines of descent, as in the case of Adam’s garment. According to one account in Midrash Tanhuma, the garment was diverted into the hands of the evil king Nimrod, while in an opposing account, it was transferred from Noah to Shem to Abraham, who passed it down to Isaac. Isaac is said to have given it to Esau, his firstborn, but Esau entrusted it to his mother, Rebecca, when he saw his own wives practiced idolatry. And, as is reported in the biblical account, Rebecca took the beloved garments of her son Esau and gave them to Jacob, at the time he received the stolen blessing.

According to Sefer ha-Zikhronot, the garments of Adam and Eve were among eight things created on the first day of creation. Other sources describe them as being created at twilight on the sixth day of Creation. As is apparent, there were alternate explanations about the nature of the garments of Adam and Eve. Genesis 3:21 seems to clearly state that they were made of the skins of animals, while in the midrash they are also described as consisting of a hornlike substance. The notion that their original garments were made of light derives from the word or, which when spelled with an aleph means "light," while when spelled with an ayin means "skin" as well as “leather." It is spelled with an ayin in Genesis 3:21, but Genesis Rabbah 20:12 states that in the Torah scroll of Rabbi Meir, the or in the biblical verse was written with an aleph. Zohar 2:229b explains that they were originally garments of light, not of skin, for when Adam was about to enter the Garden of Eden for the first time, God dressed him in garments of light, of the sort used by the angels in paradise. Indeed, the light of Adam’s garments was more elevated than their own. Had he not been wearing those garments, Adam could not have entered the garden. And when he was driven out of Eden, he required different garments, so the Lord made garments of skins for Adam and his wife, and clothed them (Gen. 3:21).

A variant of this myth has Noah’s son, Shem [Melchizedek], giving the garments to Abraham, who wears them when he takes Isaac to Mount Moriah to be sacrificed. Later they were inherited by Isaac, who gave them to his Firstborn son, Esau. These were the garments Jacob put on when he pretended to be Esau in order to receive his father's blessing. Thus when Jacob entered the room, Isaac smelled the fragrance that he had smelled when he was tied upon the altar.

Rabbi Tzadok ha-Kohen of Lublin (1823-1900) proposes that the sin of Adam and Eve, followed by their repentance, brought them to a more exalted state than before the sin, symbolized by their receiving new garments, replacing the garments of skin with garments of light. This is a surprising view of the role of sin and repentance in stimulating spiritual growth. Rabbi Yosef Hayim of Baghdad, known as Ben Ish Hai, asserts in Ben Yehoyada that Torah study has the power to reverse the process, changing the garments of skins back into garments of light.³

Sorry for that huge and rather repetitive diversion. My point, I guess, in sharing that (besides the fact that it is really cool) is to show that there was a tradition that the sin of Ham was that of stealing the garment of the priesthood. This unauthorized usurping of priesthood authority apparently led to Ham’s descendants assuming that they had the priesthood when they, in reality, did not.

Click for Larger Image

It is interesting that in some traditions Nimrod becomes the possessor of the garment, and that because of its influence he is recognized as king. Nimrod considers himself to be a god and becomes the king of Babylon, where he sponsors probably the greatest post-Flood sin up to that point, the building of the tower of Babel, a great ziggurat temple, with which he hoped to steal further authority from God (that’s my understanding of it, anyways).

To put in a finishing thought, we see that God blesses those who who are faithful to their covenants with him. They are the children of God — exalted, held in a blessed state, and permitted to bear the priesthood authority of God to enhance their lives. However, when they insist on breaking those covenants, exercising unrighteous dominion and usurping the authority of God, they will lose their blessings and be left to falter in their fallen state.

1. Although elements of Greek Titan mythology have been identified here and in Gen 6:1-4 (Kraeling 1947, who separates the gibbōrı̂m from the Nephilim), the presence of a common source for the traditions of 1 Enoch and those of the Greek world is more likely (Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter WBC, 50-53, 248-49). Speiser (Genesis AB, 46) identifies this source as Hurrian. Kilmer (1987) has sought to identify the Nephilim with the apkallu of Mesopotamian tradition. Freedman, D. N. (1996). The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary. New York: Doubleday.
2. Freedman, D. N. (1996). The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary. New York: Doubleday.
3. Howard Schwartz, Tree of Souls: The Mythology of Judaism, 437-438

Luxor Temple
http://www.360cities.net/image/luxortemplenight

Karnak Temple Hypostyle hall
http://www.360cities.net/image/karnakhypostyle

Reconstruction of Israelite Tabernacle (at Timna)
http://www.360cities.net/image/tabernacleholyplace

Melchizedek the Priest-King blessing Abram

The title of this post is actually somewhat deceptive as it implies that the post is going to be about Melchizedek, who can be considered a king, a priest, and also a god, and about the “Forbidden Degrees” (sounds tantalizing, eh?), which the title seems to suggest have some connection to Melchizedek. Well, as far as I know, there is no direct connection, so sorry if that was misleading.

But this post is about two exciting, if apparently unrelated, subjects that I’ve read about recently.

Melchizedek: King, Priest, and God

First, I would like to post a few very interesting remarks on the person of Melchizedek that I was recently re-reading in an article by my PhD supervisor, James Davila, entitled “Melchizedek: King, Priest, and God” (in The Seductiveness of Jewish Myth: Challenge or Response, ed. S. Daniel Breslauer (Albany: State University of New York) 217-34). This article contains some of the most current, thorough, and exciting research on Melchizedek I’ve seen. It covers the Melchizedek traditions from the Old Testament (Gen. 14; Ps. 110), the New Testament (Hebrews), the Dead Sea Scrolls (11QMelchizedek; Songs of Sabbath Sacrifice), Gnostic texts (2nd Book of Jeu, Pistis Sophia, a Coptic Gnostic tractate), and comparisons with the Ugaritic (Canaanite) traditions.

I highlight here some of the most significant ideas.

Davila addresses the first mention of Melchizedek, in Gen. 14:18-21.  Here, Melchizedek is presented as the king of Salem (which Davila later identifies as Jerusalem) and priest of God Most High (El Elyon). He notes that scholars have difficulty dating this passage and identifying its source.  John Van Seters wants to date it to the post-exilic period, imagining that Melchizedek describes the priestly leadership of the Second Temple period. Davila, on the other hand, rejects this view, explaining:

I see no reason for the post-exilic priesthood to hold up a non-Israelite priest-king as an example unless he had already been firmly established in the traditions of the First Temple period. I read Genesis 14 as an epic tale of the heroic exploits of the Abram that, in its present form, serves to show the ancient roots of the priesthood held by the line of Davidic kings. ((Davila, 218))

Psalm 110, Davila suggests, “unambiguously associates the priesthood of Melchizedek with the king in Zion.”¹ This psalm, one of the “royal psalms”, is the only other mention of Melchizedek in the Hebrew Bible.  Most scholars agree that it had its life setting “in the pre-exilic Judean royal cult located in Solomon’s temple during the period of the Judean monarchy.” It is often associated with an annual New Year enthronement festival. The key verse (v. 4) in this psalm reads: The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek. This promise of Melchizedek priesthood is given to the Davidic king.  Davila notes:

[T]here are other indications that the Davidic line of kings also carried out priestly functions. In 2 Samuel 6 we are told that  David himself wore a priestly ephod and danced before the ark of the covenant when it was brought into Jerusalem. The list of David’s court officials in 2 Sam. 8:15-18 also informs us that “David’s sons were priests” (v. 18). Thus, Psalm 110 associates a priesthood of Melchizedek with the Davidic royal cult in the Jerusalem temple.²

So, in summary, the Hebrew Bible presents Melchizedek as (apparently) a mortal man who is both the king of Jerusalem and a priest of God Most High. He was seen as the model for the Israelite kingship ideology, and the Davidic kings were likewise seen as both king of Jerusalem and priest of God Most High. Besides the passages in Genesis and Psalm 110, Melchizedek is not mentioned again in the Hebrew Bible — which we may think odd considering his apparent stature and influence in pre-exilic times.  Of course the great histories of the Bible were written just before and after the exile, and these scribes had varying (mostly negative) opinions concerning the monarchy, as well as significantly different religious ideas from that of the royal cult of pre-exilic times. It is only in the New Testament book of Hebrews that we hear tell of Melchizedek again. We read in Hebrews 7:1-3:

For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him;  2 To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace;  3 Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.

Davila comments:

It is then argued that Melchizedek was greater than both Abraham and the Levitical Priesthood, and that Jesus is a high priest according to the order of Melchizedek as described in Psalm 110. For the writer of Hebrews, Melchizedek is a preexistent and immortal priestly divine being “like the Son of God.”³

He next turns his analysis to the Qumran text 11QMelchizedek, which although fragmentary, gives some incredible insights regarding the community’s view of this figure, which differs greatly from the simple treatment in the OT and gives possible insights into the thinking of the writer of Hebrews. Davila explains that this text speaks eschatologically and “seems to give a chronology leading up to the eschaton and then describes the final judgment as administered by a divine being named Melchizedek.” Melchizedek is supposed to come at the end of the “tenth jubilee”, on the Day of Atonement, to judge the nations, save the good and destroy the wicked. Furthermore, Davila notes:

…[I]n line 10 of this text Melchizedek is called a “god” (elohim)…So in this document from Qumran Melchizedek is pictured as an angelic or divine being (an elohim) who may have priestly associations and who is an eschatological judge.⁴

Davila goes on to highlight some of the other beliefs expressed in further texts from Qumran and from Gnostic sources.  In most of them, Melchizedek is described as an angelic high priest or god and even identified as Jesus Christ or the Holy Spirit. What are we to make of all this? Davila is right on with his analysis of it all. He says, summarizing the trajectory of these traditions:

He begins as a king and priest of pre-Davidic Jerusalem and then, some centuries later, is described also a a divine heavenly being, a god (elohim or theos) who defeats and destroys the forces of evil at the last judgment and delivers souls from the underworld. I submit that the problem of the development of this tradition has never been squarely face by scholars. How do we get from Melchizedek the priest-king to Melchizedek the god? My proposal is this: his divinity was not invented in the Second Temple period; rather it was suppressed in the Hebrew bible. In other words, the apparent change from man to god is a matter of suppression of older traditions that were excluded from the biblical canon, not of innovation in the Second Temple literature.⁵

This conclusion is remarkably significant. According to Davila, we are to assume that in the royal religion of the First Temple, Melchizedek would have been seen as a priest-king who was deified.  I think it stands to reason that we could say, then, that the subsequent kings of Jerusalem of the Davidic line could have been viewed in like manner. This helps us understand why in Psalm 45:6 the king is specifically addressed as a god.

Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre.

While the idea that the king is somehow divine is common in Egyptian and other Ancient Near Eastern religions, the idea has not been readily accepted for the Israelite/Judean kings, and that has to do greatly with the fact that there is not much evidence for the idea in the Old Testament as we now have it. However, as Davila states it, it is very likely that these ideas did exist, once upon a time, but were suppressed by later writers and editors that no longer followed that belief system.

The Seal of Melchizedek

The Forbidden Degrees

The following is taken from Dr. Andrei Orlov’s blog (see the specific post here; don’t worry that some of it is in Russian, most is English). For those who haven’t followed this blog long, Andre Orlov was my adviser for my MA program in Theology at Marquette University.  Orlov (who has also written much on Melchizedek), is an expert in the mystical traditions of early Judaism.

I have reproduced some passages that he posted on his blog from the Hagigah (or Chagigah), a Jewish treatise found in the Babylonian Talmud.  I am no expert on these writings, so I really couldn’t share much background info on them with you. It seems that the word hagigah signifies “festivity” and refers to a “festal-offering” that was given at one or more of the three principal pilgrimage festivals of ancient Judaism. The writings apparently give rules for ritual cleanliness and guidelines for the offerings, but offer rules for many other subjects as well. Again, I’m no expert on this, but from what I’ve seen and what I quote below, there is some very interesting material, if you can get past all the technical language and debating over ritual requirements.

A word of warning: the following is not easy to get through and even less easy to understand.  If you can get anything out of it, consider yourself a true sage and enlightened soul!

One more introductory thought: the rabbis (R. Johanan, etc.) cited here were under the belief that certain mystical doctrines were too sacred to speak of (only under certain circumstances with worthy and prepared individuals). These include, as you can read below, the “forbidden degrees”, the “Story of Creation”, and the writings of Ezekiel concerning “the Chariot” (God’s throne). There were certain consquences (good and harmful) when these topics were spoken of, so the greatest of care was needed in addressing them, and they were never expounded on in public. I am not quite sure what the “forbidden degrees” refers to (I can speculate, but may be wrong). I have seen other lists of these forbidden topics, and from what I can remember, I believe the topic of sacred marriage (perhaps as discussed in Song of Solomon?) is sometimes cited. If anyone has any further insights on this, please let me know!

UPDATE: In an email, Dr. Orlov directed me to Rachel Elior’s opinion on what the “forbidden degrees” were as explained in her book, The Three Temples. She indicates that they may have had reference to “the sexual union of the Cherubim” in the Holy of Holies of the temple (I wasn’t far off!).  Now, if the rabbis wouldn’t talk about it, I probably shouldn’t either. I will say that there are some Jewish traditions that say that the cherubim that were in the Holy of Holies were (at least at times) understood to be entwined in a conjugal embrace which likely has something to do with the reason that holiest place was sometimes called “the bridal chamber.” To read more about this, have a look at Raphael Patai’s The Hebrew Goddess, and also Eugene Seaich’s A Great Mystery: The Secret of the Jerusalem Temple, The Embracing Cherubim and At-One-Ment with the Divine.

Here is the text, thanks to Dr. Orlov’s blog:

m. Hagigah 2:1 The forbidden degrees may not be expounded before three persons, nor like Story of Creation before two, nor [the chapter of] the Chariot before one alone, unless he is a Sage that understands of his own knowledge.

Whoever gives his mind to four things it were better for him if he had not come into the world -- what is above ? what is beneath ? what was beforetime? and what will be hereafter? And whosoever takes no thought for the honour of his Maker, it were better for him if he had not come into the world.

b. Hagigah 13 R. Johanan said to R. Eleazar: Come, I will instruct you in the 'Work of the Chariot'. He replied: I am not old enough. When he was old enough, R. Johanan died. R. Assi [then] said to him: Come, I will instruct you in the “Work of the Chariot'. He replied: Had I been worthy, I should have been instructed by R. Johanan, your master.

The Rabbis taught: There was once a child who was reading at his teacher’s house the Book of Ezekiel, and he apprehended what Hashmal was, whereupon a fire went forth from Hashmal and consumed him. So they sought to suppress the Book of Ezekiel, but Hananiah b. Hezekiah said to them: If he was a Sage, all are Sages! What does [the word] Hashmal mean?-Rab Judah said: Living creatures speaking fire. In a Baraitha it is taught: [Hashmal means], At times they are silent, at times they speak. When the utterance goes forth from the mouth of the Holy One, blessed be He, they are silent, and when the utterance goes not forth from the mouth of the Holy One, blessed be He, they speak. b. Hag 14b Our Rabbis taught: Once R. Johanan b. Zakkai was riding on an ass when going on a journey, and R. Eleazar b. 'Arak was driving the ass from behind. [R. Eleazar] said to him: Master, teach me a chapter of the 'Work of the Chariot'.2 He answered: Have I not taught you3 thus: 'Nor [the work of] the chariot in the presence of one, unless he is a Sage and understands of his own knowledge'? [R. Eleazar] them said to him: Master, permit me to say before thee something which thou hast taught me.4 He answered, Say on! Forthwith R. Johanan b. Zakkai dismounted from the ass, and wrapped himself up,5 and sat upon a stone beneath an olive tree. Said [R. Eleazar] to him: Master, wherefore didst thou dismount from the ass? He answered: Is it proper that whilst thou art expounding the 'Work of the Chariot', and the Divine Presence is with us, and the ministering angels accompany us, I should ride on the ass! Forthwith, R. Eleazar b. 'Arak began his exposition of the 'work of the Chariot', and fire6 came down from heaven and encompassed all the trees in the field; [thereupon] they all began to utter [divine] song. What was the song they uttered? -- Praise the Lord from the earth, ye sea-monsters, and all deeps . . . fruitful trees and all cedars . . . Hallelujah.8 An angel9 [then] answered10 from the fire and said: This is the very 'Work of the Chariot'. [Thereupon] R. Johanan b. Zakkai rose and kissed him on his head and said: Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, Who hath given a son to Abraham our father, who knoweth to speculate upon, and to investigate, and to expound the 'Work of the Chariot' -- There are some who preach well but do not act well, others act well but do not preach well, but thou dost preach well and act well. Happy art thou, O Abraham our father, that R. Eleazar b. 'Arak hath come forth from thy loins.

Now when these things were told R. Joshua, he and R. Jose the priest were going on a journey. They said: Let us also expound the 'Work of the Chariot'; so R. Joshua began an exposition. Now that day was the summer solstice; [nevertheless] the heavens became overcast with clouds and a kind of rainbow appeared in the cloud, and the ministering angels assembled and came to listen like people who assemble and come to watch the entertainments of a bridegroom and bride. [Thereupon] R. Jose the priest went and related what happened before R. Johanan b. Zakkai; and [the latter] said: Happy are ye, and happy is she that bore you; happy are my eyes that have seen thus. Moreover, in my dream, I and ye were reclining on Mount Sinai, when a Bath Kol was sent to us, [saying]: Ascend hither, ascend hither! [Here are] great banqueting chambers, and fine dining couches prepared for you; you and your disciples and your disciples' disciples are designated for the third class. But is this so? For behold it is taught: R. Jose b. R. Judah said: There were three discourses: R. Joshua discoursed before R. Johanan b. Zakkai, R. Akiba discoursed before R. Joshua, Hanania b. Hakinai discoursed before R. Akiba; -- whereas R. Eleazar b. 'Arak he does not count! -- One who discoursed [himself], and others discoursed before him, he counts; one who discoursed [himself], but others did not discourse before him, he does not count. But behold there is Hanania b. Hakinai before whom others did not discourse, yet he counts him! -- He at least discoursed before one who discoursed [before others].

1. Davila, 219
2. Davila, 219
3. Davila, 221
4. Davila, 222
5. Davila, 224

Michelangelo's Depiction of Moses on a Throne

The following are some notes that I made this week in association with my study of this Sunday’s Gospel Doctrine (Old Testament) Lesson 5.

The lesson covers Moses 5-7 and is titled: "If Thou Doest Well, Thou Shalt Be Accepted"

This title has to do with the Book of Moses narrative regarding Cain and Abel in which they both offer sacrifices to the Lord, but Cain’s offering is rejected. It seems that the reason Cain’s offering is rejected is because 1) it was Satan who commanded Cain to give this offering (Cain had no desire to obey or please God), and 2) the offering was of the wrong type (it should have been like Abel’s animal sacrifice, which is in the similitude of the sacrifice of the Son of God, as God had commanded (Moses 5:5, 20-23).

The Prophet Joseph Smith commented on this:

Abel offered to God a sacrifice that was accepted, which was the firstlings of the flock. Cain offered of the fruit of the ground, and was not accepted, because he could not do it in faith. ... Shedding the blood of the Only Begotten to atone for man ... was the plan of redemption; ... and as the sacrifice was instituted for a type, by which man was to discern the great Sacrifice which God had prepared; to offer a sacrifice contrary to that, no faith could be exercised ... ; consequently Cain could have no faith; and whatsoever is not of faith, is sin (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, sel. Joseph Fielding Smith [1976], 58).

And that’s all I have to say about that….

Moses 6:5 — Adam’s Book of Remembrance

Moses 6:5 informs us:  And a book of remembrance was kept, in the which was recorded, in the language of Adam, for it was given unto as many as called upon God to write by the spirit of inspiration;

It is amazing to contemplate the possibility that Adam and Eve made a book recording their experiences, in their own language and writing (that itself is a awesome claim), that was preserved by their children (v. 8). What wouldn’t you give to have a copy of that book?!?  Ancient Jews and Early Christians (and also Muslims) seemed to have been enamored with this idea, as can be seen from the works that I posted links to last week, which claim to be books written by Adam and Eve, including the last words of Adam, etc.  Here are those links again:

The Testament of Adam

The Book of Adam and Eve (or The Conflict of Adam and Eve with Satan)

The Apocalypse of Adam — Adam's last words to his son Seth, including prophecies regarding future generation.

The Life of Adam and Eve (Vita Adam et Evae)

The Cave of Treasures

Moses 6:7 — Now this same priesthood which was in the beginning…

In Moses 6:7, we read: Now this same Priesthood, which was in the beginning, shall be in the end of the world also.

This line appears to be somewhat out of place, as if it were stuck in there as an afterthought, or to make a specific point, but it relationship to the surrounding verses is not readily apparent.  However, it is a significant verse and emphasizes the notion that Adam had the Priesthood, that it was passed on to his descendants, and that the same authority would be had in the last days of the world’s history.

The idea that the early patriarchs were priests (i.e. that they held the priesthood) is suggested, although not explicitly, in the biblical text. Abel, Noah, Abraham, etc., are depicted as offering sacrifices, the quintessential priestly function. Therefore, the idea that Adam and other patriarchs were priests before Aaron is not foreign to the Bible, although some claim that before Sinai any Israelite could offer sacrifices. Even after the establishment of the Levitical Priesthood, many non-levites still offered sacrifice: Gideon, of the tribe of Manasseh, was commanded by Yahweh to build an altar and sacrifice a bull upon it (Judg 6:25-26);  Manoah, of the tribe of Dan, father of Samson, offered a burnt and a cereal offering at the request of the angel of Yahweh (Judg 13:2, 16-19); Elkanah the Ephraimite, father of Samuel, offers sacrifice at Shiloh (1 Sam 1:1-3). Specific examples of non-Levitical priests are King David's sons (2 Sam 8:18), Ira the Jairite (2 Sam 20:26), and the priests that Jeroboam appointed (1 Kgs 12:31).

The priestly community that made Qumran their home did not imagine that their priesthood originated with Aaron. They traced their priesthood much further back, believing that their priesthood came down from the patriarchs and that it had originated with the angels. In The Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice (found among the Dead Sea Scrolls), the participants in the cultic ritual depicted see themselves as part of the angelic priesthood.

Some traditions further indicate that all the biblical patriarchs, beginning with Adam, had this priesthood. Adam was the first prophet, high priest, and king, whose temple was the Garden of Eden. He was the image and original son of God (see Moses 6:22, 68).

As is alluded to in Gen 4, Adam passed his priesthood on to his sons, and the tradition held that there was an uninterrupted line of priesthood succession from Adam to Seth to Enoch to Noah down to Melchizedek (who was considered to be either the son of Noah, or of Noah's brother Nir).¹   It was Melchizedek who accepted tithes from and blessed Abraham. Melchizedek is said to have passed the priesthood on to Abraham, making him the connection between the patriarchal priesthood and the Israelite priesthood.²  As Adam, Seth, Enoch, and Noah had been before him, Melchizedek was both king and high priest.³  As stated, the book of Genesis presents him as both king and priest of the city of Salem, which several ancient sources identify with Jerusalem.

Moses 6:8-10, King as Son of God and Image of God

The previous discussion, especially the idea of Adam as the image of God, the son of God, and also prophet/priest/king, leads us to another interesting passage in Moses 6:8-10. We read:

There is so much that could be said about these lines, but I will stick to the emphasis I mentioned above.  Adam was the son of God, begotten in his image (the image of his own body). Adam, as we discussed above, was given dominion over Eden (and the world) — which makes him the king. When Adam’s son, Seth (who would be the next king), was born, he was in the likeness and image of his father, the king.

This same pattern can be seen in the Egyptian ritual cycle “Birth of the Divine King,” which illustrates the procreation, birth and breeding of the crown prince as "son of God." Unfortunately, I do not have the images that accompany it, but the sequence is as follows:

• The Goddess Hathor presents the crown prince, whom Amun acknowledges, declaring, "My son of my flesh, my shining image, coming out of me."
• The next scene has Amun putting the crown prince on his knees, saying, "Welcome in peace my beloved son. You are the king."
• Subsequently, the prince is presented to the public, is invested with royal regalia, and Amun declares, "My beloved son of my flesh, whom I have begotten as my image."⁴

I note that in last week’s post there was the discussion of Adam as a “shining image” (wearing “garments of light” in Eden) in Jeffrey Bradshaw’s book, In God's Image and Likeness (pp. 234-237). See here.

The most clear parallel to the “Birth of the Divine King” cycle that we have in our Bible is Psalm 2. We read in Psalm 2:6-8:

“I have set my king on Zion, my holy hill.” 7 I will tell of the decree of the LORD: He said to me, “You are my son, today I have begotten you. 8 Ask of me, and I will make the nations your heritage, and the ends of the earth your possession.

Then, in lines from Psalm 89 which likely come from a similar royal setting:

He shall cry to me, `Thou art my Father, my God, and the Rock of my salvation.’ 27 And I will make him the first-born, the highest of the kings of the earth (Ps. 89:26-27).

(see also Ps. 22)

This language addressed to the Davidic king is very reminiscent of the Egyptian kingship ideology. All of this goes back to the idea that the Primordial Man was the son of God and king over all the earth and its creatures. As many scholars have noted, the Israelite kings imitated Adam — in their clothing, in the temple setting, and religious rituals. The king, at his enthronement, was made a new Adam, as he was also a pre-figuring of the Second Adam.

For more parallels between Adam, Israelite kingship, and Moses 6:59, please see the comments at the bottom of this post. Please see also Moses 1:4, Moses 1:6, and Moses 1:13.  Moses is called here “son of God” and we note that Moses also “regained” the shining image of Adam when he talked with God on Sinai and was considered to be a king (also prophet and priest) in later Jewish literature. This is a topic that I’d like to spend a lot more time on, but can’t at the moment.

Also note (out of curiosity), the similarity between the name Amun (Egyptian High God) and one of the names Joseph Smith gives God the Father: Ahman (see Journal of Discourse, vol. 2, p. 342; D&C 95;17; Rev. 3:14; Moses 6:57).

Some Comments on Enoch

The sections on Enoch in Moses 6 and Moses 7 are some of the most intriguing and valuable passages in all of Scripture. I could write several posts on these chapters. The fact that since the mid-1800s a number of ancient texts which feature Enoch as their hero have come to light makes the study of these exclusively LDS scriptures even more exciting.  Unfortunately, I have insufficient time to do this topic justice.

You can take a look at some of the ancient Jewish and Christian Enochic literature that we now have available to us here:

1 Enoch

2 Enoch — also try here

3 Enoch

See here, here, and here for a few of the many posts I have previously written on Enoch.

A Few Odd Observations

Following the discussion above of the son of god kingship motif, we should note that Enoch was also considered, like the other patriarchs, to be prophet, priest, and king in ancient Jewish literature. Enoch was a very important figure to the Qumran community, as can be seen by the preservation of multiple copies of the Enochic writings. It is significant, then, that Enoch is called “son” by God in Moses 6:27.  We can also perhaps understand from these chapters that Enoch was the king over the people of Zion.

Moses 6:35 — Note the fact that Enoch anointed his eyes with clay and could see the spiritual realm. It is interesting how this is similar to Jesus’ practice of instructing the blind to anoint their eyes with clay/mud in order to be able to see.

A feature of ancient apocalyptic is that when the visionary ascends to Heaven and speaks with God face to face, he is taught things by God, usually the “secrets of Creation.” He is given a vision of all of God’s creations and taught the secret words of the creative power. The result is that the visionary is then endowed with power over creation. Compare Moses 6:34 and following verses. Note that this is similar to Moses’ experience.

For a brief commentary on the significance of the inclusion of the name Mahijah in Moses 6:40, see here.

I also note the significance of Enoch calling himself a “lad” in Moses 6:31.  I have often mentioned Andrei Orlov, my adviser for my MA program at Marquette University. Dr. Orlov is a renowned expert on the Enochic Literature (specifically 2 Enoch). The first time I met him, we began talking about Joseph Smith and the Enoch passages in the Pearl of Great Price, with which he was quite familiar. This conversation was quite unsolicited on my part. He told me that he that it was “very curious” that Joseph Smith had called Enoch a “lad” — a significant title for Enoch in the book of 2 (Slavonic) Enoch is “the Youth” — more than 60 years before 2 Enoch ever appeared in English. Very curious, indeed!

Finally, I refer you to a post that I wrote not too long ago regarding the sequence in Moses 7 where Enoch witnesses God weeping. This is a very moving passage (I used to share it often on my mission to show God’s compassion and love for his children). In the post I share a passage from an ancient Jewish text that is very similar to these lines in Moses 7. See here.

Again, there is sooo much more that could be said on these few chapters in the Book of Moses, but hopefully these few notes are helpful.

1. See discussion of Sethian line of priesthood in Andrei Orlov, "Melchizedek Legend of 2 (Slavonic)Enoch," in Journal for the Study of Judaism, vol. xxxi, no. 1 (Boston: Brill, 2000). Genesis mentions nothing of his background (he is not listed in any genealogies), but other "non-biblical" sources include him in the line of the Biblical patriarchs, either as a descendent of Noah or of Noah's brother, Nir (2 Enoch 71:32-33). In the Nag Hammadi texts, he is placed in the line "of Adam [Abel], Enoch, [Noah] you, Melchizedek, [the Priest] of God [Most High]," Birger A. Pearson (ed.), Nag Hammadi Codices IX and X, p. 63. In the Targumic and Rabbinic materials, Melchizedek is often specifically named as Shem, the Great High Priest, the eldest son of Noah. See Tg. Neof. on Gen. 14:18 in M. McNamara (tr.), Targum Neofiti 1:Genesis (The Aramaic Bible, 1A; Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1992), 92; Tg. Ps.-J. in M. Maher (tr.), Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Genesis (The Aramaic Bible, 1B; Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1992), 58.
2. See arguments in Andrei Orlov, "The Heir of Righteousness and the King of Righteousness: The Priestly Noachic Polemics in 2 Enoch and the Epistle to the Hebrews," in Journal of Theological Studies, NS, vol. 58, Pt 1, April 2007, 55-57.
3. Orlov, "On the Polemical Nature of 2 (Slavonic) Enoch," 282-283.
4. Eckart Otto, “The Judean Legitimation of Royal Rulers in Its Ancient near Eastern Contexts,” in Psalms and Liturgy, ed. Dirk J. Human and Cas J.A. Vos, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series (London: T&T Clark International, 2004), 131-34.

Although I am still struggling to decide exactly what format my notes on the Sunday School lessons should take and what would be the most helpful type of information to provide, I wanted to make sure I got started with this series of posts and provided something. I guess what I’m trying to say is that the style, format, and content of these posts is subject to change as I get a feel for how I want to do this. Please bear with me. For those readers who are not members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, this series of posts is based on lessons from the LDS Church’s Sunday School program, which is focused on (this year) the Old Testament.

This week’s lesson covers Moses 4; 5:1-15; 6:48-62 (from Selections from the Book of Moses in The Pearl of Great Price)

From the Lesson Manual:

Helpful Links:

Lesson 4 – Meridian Magazine article by Bruce Satterfield

The Temple Symbolism of the Tree of Life and the Tree of Knowledge – another excellent article by Jeff Bradshaw

Adam in Ancient Texts and the Restoration – a remarkable article by Matthew Roper which gives a significant analysis of ancient materials related to Adam and how they contain many ideas which support Joseph Smith’s additional insights on the patriarch of the human race.  Many of the aspects of the Book of Moses which today’s Christians may find odd or unfamiliar were known to ancient Christians.

Extra-canonical texts that retell the story of Adam and Eve (with many similarities to the Book of Moses):

The Testament of Adam – Thought to be a 4th Century Jewish pseudepigraphal text that retells the story of Genesis. This text is thought to have been reused by Christians and contributed to some of the later texts below. 

The Book of Adam and Eve (or The Conflict of Adam and Eve with Satan) — A Christian pseudepigraphical text thought to date from the 6th century AD. Although it is quite drawn out, it is at times strikingly similar in structure to our Book of Moses.

The Apocalypse of Adam – A Gnostic work retelling Adam’s last words to his son Seth, including prophecies regarding future generations. A Coptic work found among the Nag Hammadi texts.

The Life of Adam and Eve (Vita Adam et Evae) – A very interesting early Christian text (poss. 6th century) that has many parallels to the Book of Moses. A more detailed account of the story of the Fall in Genesis which preserves some insightful ancient traditions. On the linked site they have provided English translations from the known versions, originally in Armenian, Georgian, Latin, Greek, and Slavonic.

The Cave of Treasures – A colorful retelling of the Adam and Eve story with many similarities to The Book of Adam and Eve (mentioned above). Also dated to the 6th century AD.

Some Comments:

Some of the distinct LDS doctrines that are learned from these sections of the Book of Moses are here summarized by Robert Millet (Man Adam, 1990):

1. Adam and Eve were vital parts of God’s purpose and plan-the plan of salvation-which plan has been in existence since the days that they first walked the earth. The Saints today, and all who will listen, become privy to a foundational truth concerning Christ’s eternal gospel-the knowledge that Christian prophets have taught Christian doctrine and administered Christian ordinances since the days of Eden.

2. Adam and Eve’s doings in Eden are not to be understood in a spiritual vacuum. And Lucifer’s actions in the garden must be seen as a part of his malevolent mischief begun in the premortal councils. The War in Heaven simply continues on earth. (See Moses 4.)

3. The fall of Adam and Eve was an essential part of God’s plan. Thus the Fall is viewed by Latter-day Saints with an optimism that is uncharacteristic of traditional Christianity. Simply stated, Adam and Eve came into the Garden of Eden to fall. In fact, their partaking of the fruit was as much a part of the foreordained plan as the atonement of Christ. “Because that Adam fell,” Enoch explained, “we are” (Moses 6:48; compare 2 Ne. 2:25).

4. God forgave Adam and Eve their transgression in the Garden of Eden. Though children are “conceived in sin”-though conception becomes the vehicle through which the effects of the Fall are transmitted to man- they are free from any original sin or guilt. Little children are whole from the foundation of the world. These blessings come as unconditional benefits of the atonement of Jesus Christ. (Moses 6:53-55.)

5. Through the redemptive labors of Christ and their own repentance, Adam and Eve were forgiven of their sins, born again, changed from a carnal and fallen state to a state of righteousness; they were justified, sanctified, and made ready for an entrance into the eternal presence (Moses 6:57-60). We can receive these blessings as well. Through the ordinances of salvation, Adam, Eve, and their posterity are “quickened in the inner man,” are born of the Spirit, and thus become the sons and daughters of Christ (Moses 6:64-68). Then, through receiving the blessings of the new and everlasting covenant of marriage, these Saints may ultimately qualify to become sons and daughters of God the Father and receive, as joint-heirs with Christ, all that the Father has. 3

In summary, much of what we know of the Creation, the Fall, and the Atonement-the three pillars of eternity-we know in large measure because of what God has revealed, principally in the latter days, regarding our first parents.

We read in Moses 5: 10-12, after Adam and Eve have been expelled from the Garden and have had time to contemplate the significance of  their new fallen state:

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

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

12 And Adam and Eve blessed the name of God, and they made all things known unto their sons and their daughters.

These few lines contain some major theological statements that contribute greatly to the LDS understanding of the nature of the Fall of Adam and Eve. From my experience studying theology at non-LDS institutions, I can attest to the fact that these ideas represent a significant difference from the understanding of the Fall held by most Christians. As far as I understand it, while most Christians would say that God certainly, in his omniscient foreknowledge, knew what Adam and Eve would end up doing, they don’t seem to view Adam’s transgression as part of God’s initial designs for mankind and his Fall and departure from the Garden certainly wasn’t a positive consequence for the first couple. Although traditions vary, many would say that Adam and Eve were meant to stay in Paradise forever and that they were meant to “multiply and replenish” right there in the Garden, where their descendents (all of us) would have enjoyed a glorious and peaceful existence in the presence of God.

However, from the Book of Moses and other LDS Scriptures we learn that the Fall was an essential part of God’s plan for mankind. The reason that the earth was created was so that God’s spirit children (all of us)  could be sent here to be tested (Abr. 3: 24-25). By partaking of the forbidden fruit, Adam and Eve gained the knowledge they need to choose between good and evil, which was essential to the exercising of their agency — their ability to distinguish between right and wrong and choose the right. If they would have remained in the Garden in their state of innocence, they would never have had experienced the opposition necessary to create an opportunity to choose the right.

I will continue on this topic after I introduce a second question from the text that many other Christians have difficulty with; that is the question of procreation in the Garden. In the above quoted passage, Eve makes it explicitly clear that if it were not for their transgression, she and Adam would have never multiplied and produced children (see also 2 Ne. 2:22-23). But didn’t God specifically command them, in the Garden of Eden, to “multiply and replenish the earth” (Gen. 1:28)? A reader of this blog from France who is familiar with the Book of Moses and LDS teachings recently asked me about this apparent contradiction between the biblical text and LDS scripture. The following was my response to him:

You are correct that LDS teaching is that Adam and Eve could not multiply in the Garden of Eden, before the Fall. You are also correct that God, in Genesis, does command Adam and Eve to multiply before the Fall. We believe that this is one of the great paradoxes of Adam and Eve’s situation before the Fall, and why God fully expected and planned for the Fall to take place. I will tell you why I believe there is no “distortion” between LDS teachings and the book of Genesis.

God’s first commandment to Adam and Eve was to multiply and replenish the Earth. Did they obey this commandment while in the Garden of Eden? No, according to Genesis, they did not. Genesis, unfortunately, is silent on the matter of why they did not. Nevertheless, according to Genesis, they only obeyed this commandment after the Fall. LDS believe that the reason that they did not multiply before the Fall is because they could not (or perhaps they did not know how). One possible clue from Genesis is the fact that the text states that before they ate of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, they did not even know that they were naked. This is a rather odd circumstance and it is possible that there is some other meaning behind what the text says. Whatever the case may be, we believe that Adam and Eve, in the state that they were in before the Fall, did not have the knowledge or capacity to reproduce.

Why would God command them to multiply if they were incapable of doing so? Because he fully expected them to eat of the forbidden fruit and experience the Fall. LDS believe that this was part of his eternal plan of salvation from the very beginning. Men and women were supposed to come into the world to be tested, to see if they would be obedient to God’s commandments and thus prove worthy to return to his presence. They could not do this in Eden — in Eden, Adam and Eve were immortal and innocent — they did not know sin. Unless they were forced to leave Eden and the presence of God, they would not experience adversity — the opposition necessary to provide for them choices between good and evil. Outside of Eden, they would have to make these choices between right and wrong, to follow God or Satan. Likewise, their children would be born into a world where these choices were available, which would not be the case if they were born in Eden. By making right choices, we would progress and become more like God — we can experience the triumph over sin that merits enthronement beside the Son and the Father (Rev. 3:21).

However, God knew that we would not always make the right choices, so that is why he provided a Savior, Jesus Christ. Jesus was appointed before the Creation of the World to be our Savior, to reverse the effects of the Fall that Adam and Eve would bring upon the world. This was not an afterthought — a quick response by God to redeem the damage that Adam had caused. All went according to the plan that God had established from the beginning.

Sorry for the long answer — to summarize, we acknowledge the fact that God gave the commandment to multiply before the Fall, but believe He knew that they would not be able to comply with that commandment until after the Fall. According to God’s great plan, the children of Adam and Eve needed to be born into a mortal world, not the immortal paradise of Eden.

 The reasons for our belief that Adam and Eve could not have children in the Garden, then, are inextricably tied to our beliefs regarding God’s Plan of Salvation.  All of this is quite well illustrated in 2 Ne. 2:5-30. 

After reading the email that I sent, my friend then wondered why the animals apparently multiplied after receiving that same commandment from God. My simple answer was that we don’t know that they did multiply — the text doesn’t specifically say that they obeyed that command. If they did multiply, that doesn’t necessarily reflect on Adam and Eve’s situation. For more on the topic of procreation before the Fall, see here.

Here are some more insights on these topics from Matthew Roper’s article:

Foreknowledge of God and the necessity for a Savior

Another theme found in the ancient literature on Adam is the teaching that God knew before hand that Adam would fall and in Christian literature, the idea that knowing before-hand of man’s future transgression, God would provide a Savior by which man could be saved. In a Coptic Christian work, the Discourse on the Abbaton, at the creation God sends an angel to retrieve clay from the earth to form man’s body. The earth objects, complaining of the wickedness that will be committed by man if he is created and placed upon the earth.

If thou takest me to Him, He will mould me into a form, and I shall become a man, and a living soul. And very many sins shall come forth from my heart (or, body), and many fornications, ans slanderous abuse, and jealousy, and hatred and contention shall come forth from his hand, and many murders and sheddings of blood shall come forth from his hand…. Let me stay here and go back to the ground and be quiet.23

In spite of the earth’s objections, the angel carries some clay to God for the formation of Adam’s body. After God creates Adam’s body, however, there is a discussion in heaven between the Father and the Son about what to do about man. According to this text

He left him lying for forty days and forty nights without putting breath into him. And he heaved sighs over him daily saying, “If I put breath into this [man], he must suffer many pains.” And I said unto my Father, “Put breath into him; I will be an advocate for him.” And my Father said unto Me, “If I put breath into him, My Beloved Son, Thou wilt be obliged to go down into the world, and to suffer many pains for him before Thou shalt have redeemed him, and made him come back to his primal state.” And I said unto my Father, “Put breath into him; I will be his advocate, and I will go down into the world, and will fulfil thy command.”24

It is clear from this text that God knows before-hand that man will transgress and that it is necessary to appoint an advocate for man, and that Jesus willingly offered to suffer the pains of man’s redemption, even before man was given life.

Adam in the Garden

Recent studies by Michael Stone, W. Lipscomb, Gary Anderson and others have focused on a set of Armenian Christian Adam and Eve texts. These texts were first published in Armenian in 1898 and only in English in the last several decades.25 These texts discuss the events which took place in the Garden of Eden before the Fall. In one of these entitled, Adam and Eve and the Incarnation, the serpent tells Eve, “God was a man like you. When he ate of the fruit of this tree he became God of all”26 In The History of the Creation and Transgression of Adam, the serpent states, “God was like you, because he had not eaten of that fruit, When he ate it, he attained the glory of divinity.” Speaking of devil’s words to Eve, Michael Stone, the editor and translator of the recently published Armenian and Georgian Adam and Eve texts observes, “The formulation in our text says not just that humans will become like God (gods)” but also that “God was himself originally human and became divine through eating the fruit.”27 This variation on the serpent’s words is also found in several later medieval Jewish texts about Adam and Eve.28 In the Transgression of Adam, after Eve partakes of the fruit, Adam asks her, “Why have you eaten the fruit?” Eve responds by saying, “The fruit is very sweet. Take and you taste, and notice the sweetness of this fruit” but Adam refuses, saying, ‘I cannot taste it.” According to this particular account Eve the begins to cry and beg Adam to eat and “do not separate me from you.” After some deliberation (three hours according to one account) Adam reasons, “It is better for me to die than to become separated and detached from this woman.” Then he partakes of the fruit as well.

These and other extra-canonical texts indicate that after the redemption of Christ that Adam would be taken to paradise and that after the resurrection he would be restored to his former inheritance which he had lost at the Fall. The significance here is that Adam’s restoration to his pre-mortal inheritance, where according to these texts he once reigned under God as a king and at God’s specific command was even worshiped by the angels, suggests a return to a state where he could again receive such adoration, a state clearly suggestive of deification. The theme of deification in fact is explicit in the Syriac Testament of Adam. There Adam explains to his son Seth that God would eventually fulfil Adam’s desire for deification. Just before being cast out of the Garden, the Lord tells him, “Adam, Adam, do not fear. You wanted to be a god; I will make you a god, not right now, but after the space of many years.”

For your sake I will taste death and enter into the house of the dead…. And after three days, while I am in the tomb, I will raise up the body I received from you. And I will set you at the right hand of my divinity, and I will make you a god just like you wanted.”*

More details on the exchange between Satan and Eve regarding God’s deification:

Michael Stone, in Armenian Apocrypha relating to Adam and Eve (p. 25), provides us with three manuscript versions (from the Armenian text Adam, Eve, and the Incarnation) of this exhange:

4 The serpent spoke with Eve: '(That is) not so! God was a man like you. when he ate of the fruit of this tree he became God of all. Because of that God said to you not to eat, lest you become an equal god, like himself.

4 The serpent said, 'Because God was a man like you, when he ate of this fruit he became God of all. Because of this matter he said, "Do not eat!" Lest you become god.'

4 But the serpent said. '(That is) not so! Bec cause God himself was a man like you when he ate of it, and he became God of all. Because of that he said not to eat of that, because you knew that when you eat of it, you will become a god, his equal. Because of that he said for you not to eat.'

From the similar text in The Cycle of Four Weeks: Transgression, 16-17:

The serpent said, ‘God wants to deceive you. For God was like you, because he had not eaten the fruit. When he ate it he achieved the glory of Divinity. For this reason he said to you not to eat of that fruit, so that you should (not) become equal, sharers both of God’s glory and his throne.'

Some thoughts on the “nakedness” of Adam and Eve after their transgression, from Jeff Bradshaw’s In God’s Image and Likeness (2010, pp. 234-237):

The Nakedness and the Clothing of Adam and Eve

Moses’ account depicts Adam and Eve as naked and without shame in the Garden,”’– and clothed by God in coats of skin only later, after the Fall.”` However, many of the earliest artistic depictions of the story show a surprising reversal of the situation, portraying Adam and Eve clothed in regal glory within Eden, and naked after their expulsion.124 How can this be?

Recalling the parallels between the Garden of Eden and Israelite Houses of God, Anderson points out that “the vestments of the priest matched exactly those particular areas of the Temple to which he had access… Each time the high priest moved from one gradient of holiness to another, he had to remove one set of clothes and put on another to mark the change”:125′

(a) Outside the Tabernacle priests wear ordinary clothes. (b) When on duty in the Tabernacle, they wear four pieces of clothing whose material and quality of workmanship match that of the fabrics found on the outer walls of the courtyard.’126 (c) The High Priest wears those four pieces plus four additional ones-these added garments match the fabric of the Holy Chamber where he must go daily to tend the incense altar.

In Eden a similar set of vestments is found, again each set suited to its particular space. (a) Adam and Eve were, at creation, vested like priests and granted access to most of Eden. (b) Had they been found worthy, an even more glorious set of garments would have been theirs (and according to St. Ephrem, they would have entered even holier ground). (c) But having [transgressed], they were stripped of their angelic garments and put on mortal flesh. Thus, when their feet met ordinary earth-the realm of the animals-their constitution had become “fleshly;’ or mortal.’127

Consistent with this schema, each stage in the sequence of changes in Adam and Eve’s status in the book of Moses is marked by a change in their appearance.128 The imagery of clothing is “a means of linking together in a dynamic fashion the whole of salvation history; it is a means of indicating the interrelatedness between every stage in this continuing working out of divine Providence;” including “the place of each individual Christian^‘s [ordinances1²⁹] within the divine economy as a whole.”¹³⁰ Note the chiastic structure of the sequence, which begins and ends in glory:¹³¹

1. From glory to nakedness.¹³² Though “naked” because their knowledge of their premortal state had been taken away by a veil of forgetfulness,¹³³ Adam and Eve had come to Eden nonetheless ^“trailing clouds of glory.”‘” While the couple, as yet, were free from transgression, they could stand ^“naked^“ in God^‘s presence without shame,¹³⁵ being ^“clothed with purity’ in what early commentators called ^“garments of light^“137‘ or ^“garments of contentment.^“138 In one source, Eve describes her appearance by saying: “I was decked out like a bride, And I reclined in a wedding-chamber of light”¹³⁹

In the context of rituals and ordinances based on the experiences of Adam and Eve, Nibley ex­plained: ^“The garment [of light] represents the preexistent glory of the candidate… When he leaves on his earthly mission, it is laid up for him in heaven to await his return. It thus serves as security and lends urgency and weight to the need for following righteous ways on earth. For if one fails here, one loses not only one^‘s glorious future in the eternities to come, but also the whole accumulation of past deeds and accomplishments in the long ages of preexistence.’

1. From innocence to transgression.’”‘ Rabbinical tradition taught that, following his transgression, “Adam… lost his [heavenly] clothing-God stripped it off him.. “¹⁴² and similarly that Eve ^“was stripped of the righteousness in which [she] had been clothed..”143 Likewise, the Discourse on Abbaton records that both Adam and Eve ^“became naked” upon eating the forbidden fruit.¹⁴⁴ According to the Life of Adam and Eve, God then ^“sent seventy plagues upon us, to our eyes, and to our ears and as far as our feet, plagues and portents laid up in his treasuries.^“145 Anderson takes this to mean that “Adam has exchanged an angelic constitution for a mortal one,” in other words that he has been “clothed with flesh”¹⁴⁶ Shamed by their loss of glory, Adam and Eve covered their earthly bodies with fig leaf aprons.¹⁴⁷

Rabbinical writings describe how, in likeness of Adam and Eve, each soul descending to earth ^“divests itself of its heavenly garment, and is clothed in a garment of flesh and blood; ¹⁴⁸ the prior glory being, as it were, “veiled… in flesh”149 The various “afflictions” of mortality initially giv¬en to Adam and now bestowed upon “all… generations”150 frequently number seven rather than the seventy mentioned above: “They are against the ’seven natures: the flesh for hearing, the eyes for seeing, the breath to smell, the veins to touch, the blood for taste, and bones for endurance, and the intelligence for joy’;151 or against life, sight, hearing, smell, speech, taste, procreation”‘” Though Adam and Eve were protected from fatal harm at the time of extremity, ancient texts recount that Satan had been allowed to hurt them, and the “wounds;” foreshad-owing the later wounds received by Christ at His crucifixion,153 “remained on their bodies””4 Nibley sees the wounds of nature and of Satan to various parts_ of the body as figuratively corresponding to the “blows of death” taught by Satan to Cain.’” He describes their enact¬ment in Jewish ritual as follows: “The wages of sin is death, and the dead body is chided at an old-fashioned Jewish funeral because its members no longer function, and each one is struck an impatient and accusing blow. This is the chibut ha-keber. `On the third day the departed is treated with increased rigor. Blows are struck on his eyes because he would not see, on his ears because he would not hear, on his lips because they uttered profanities, on his tongue because it bore false testimony against his neighbor, on his feet because they ran toward evil doing”‘156

Again, I am sorry for the poor formatting and organization of this post — I was trying to get in as much information as I could in the very little time I had to prepare this. Of course there is so much more that could be said of these rich passages from the Book of Moses, but hopefully some of this will be helpful.  I will try to make my next post more organized and aesthetically pleasing.

I think it would be fun and exciting to study and share some thoughts on these Old Testament lessons.  I assume this will be somewhat time-consuming and I won’t promise to post something in-depth every week, nor can I promise to keep up with the curriculum for the whole year, but I think I will give it a try (does it sound like I’m afraid to commit myself?).

Unfortunately, for this week’s lesson (I believe it’s lesson 3: The Creation, covering Moses 1:27-42; 2; 3), I haven’t had much time to prepare anything, so I will just share a few good internet links that I hope will be helpful to you in your study of this lesson.

The following are from the LDS-themed online magazine Meridian:

The Creation and the Garden of Eden as Models for Temple Architecture — by Dr. Jeffrey M. Bradshaw (who I’m sure readers of this blog are well familiar with, by now)

Lesson 3 — pretty self-explanatory, by Scot Proctor

The Vision of Moses as a Heavenly Ascent — by Dr. Jeffrey M. Bradshaw

The Book of Moses: The Most Surprising and Neglected Scripture — also by Dr. Jeffrey M. Bradshaw (this guy is good!)

In the future, I will make efforts to post some of my own thoughts on these lessons, and continue to provide links that I hope will be useful for your personal study and enrichment.

As those who are LDS are studying the Old Testament this year in our Sunday School curriculum, this book is an amazing resource for studying the Book of Moses — this sometimes neglected, but so important book of Latter-day scripture. To learn more about the book, visit the official website at: www.imageandlikeness.net

And now for part 5 (the exciting conclusion) of this series. We delve into Dr. Bradshaw’s background as a scientist, and his ideas on the topics of Mormonism and Science, the Origin of Man, the literalness of the Bible, Scripture reading techniques, and other poignant topics. Dr. Bradshaw’s answers are simply fascinating.

[David] You have some interesting excurses on Mormonism and Science and also on the Origin of Man. Can you tell us about some of your background and experience that led you to want to comment on these topics?

[Dr. Jeff Bradshaw] During my daily work at the Institute for Human and Machine Cognition, I'm caught up in thinking about and implementing new science and technology ideas that can complement and augment human physical, cognitive, and social capabilities. It's a dream job, and I wouldn't want to trade places with anyone I know. However, it's a challenge in the sense that I can't stand still. Although it's true that every innovation builds to a degree on the past, the pace of change is so rapid that I find myself constantly throwing away the results of recent ideas and developments that can now be replaced with better approaches.

In addition to the obvious spiritual enrichment that I find in studying the scriptures and other ancient documents, it is wonderful and satisfying to work on something where knowledge is much more cumulative than in my daily work. Though, of course, there are exciting new findings that appear every day in the world of scripture exegesis and ancient studies, I can have the sense over time of continually building up a deeper understanding of the diverse puzzle pieces that constitute major keys to understanding the world of religious history and teachings over the centuries. Complementing the keys that come from study are those that come from faith, as I try to discern the hand of God in such things, and as I relate the spiritual experiences of the past to divine guidance and teachings in the immediate context of my own life.

I like what Donald Knuth, a well-known computer scientist when I was younger, 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" (D. E. Knuth, 3:16, p. 2). The apostle Paul advocated a very empirical approach to spiritual things: "Prove [i.e., examine, put to the test] all things; hold fast that which is good" (1 Thessalonians 5:21). I feel greatly blessed to have been raised in a community of faith that values truth and goodness, and in a church that, because of its unique status in being led by modern revelation, does not have any reason to fear the bright light of close examination. I feel fortunate to be able to say with conviction that the moorings of my own faith are as deeply grounded in my daily experience as is my knowledge of everyday things.

[David] How would you evaluate the compatibility or relationship between Mormonism and Science? Are they mutually exclusive?

[Dr. Jeff Bradshaw] Science and Mormonism have nearly always been on very friendly terms, with Church members sharing the deep conviction that, as expressed by former scientist and apostle Elder James E. Talmage, "within the gospel of Jesus Christ there is room and place for every truth thus far learned by man, or yet to be made known" (J. E. Talmage, Earth and Man, p. 252). With respect to the idea that the Church is required to welcome religious and moral truth from all sources, President Brigham Young stated:

"Mormonism"... embraces every principle pertaining to life and salvation... no matter who has it. If the [unbeliever] has got truth, it belongs to "Mormonism." The truth and sound doctrine possessed by [other churches], and they have a great deal, all belong to this Church... All that is good, lovely, and praiseworthy belongs to this Church... "Mormonism" includes all truth. There is no truth but what belongs to the Gospel (B. Young, 8 April 1867, p. 375; B. Young, Discourses, p. 3).

With specific regard to scientific truth, President Young's approach was no less open and all-embracing. As Barlow summarizes:

Brigham Young's position was in one sense more "liberal" even than that of [many contemporaries]. Not a scholar himself and easily put off by what he saw as scholars'... pretentious ways, Young still wished to distance the Mormon response to science from what he took to be the common Christian reaction. Widespread infidelity in the world did not surprise him, he said, because religious teachers often advanced notions "in opposition to... facts demonstrated by science," making it difficult for honest, informed people to embrace the claims of religion. Geology, to take a specific instance, "is a true science; not that I would say for a moment that all the conclusions and deductions of its professors are true, but its leading principles are; they are facts...." "[Our] geologists... tell us that this earth has been in existence for thousands and millions of years... [and Mormonism] differ[s] from the Christian world, for our religion will not clash with the facts of science" (P. L. Barlow, Bible, pp. 90-91. See B. Young, 14 May 1871, pp. 115-117).

Moreover, President Young said:

The idea that the religion of Christ is one thing, and science is another, is a mistaken idea, for there is no true religion without true science, and consequently there is no true science without true religion (B. Young, 3 May 1874, p. 52).

Subsequent Presidents and General Authorities of the Church have advanced similar views about the ultimate compatibility of religious and scientific truths and, with notably few exceptions, have maintained markedly positive attitudes toward both the methods and conclusions of mainstream science and the advance of modern technology. A barometer for the positive attitude toward science among the membership of the Church has been a series of studies over the last several decades documenting numbers of scientists with backgrounds in different faith groups (see, e.g., the summary in J. M. Bradshaw, Image and Likeness, pp. 526-527, 707-708). In nearly every scientific meeting that I attend, Mormons are overrepresented when compared with our percentage of the general population.

With respect to the creation accounts in scripture, the Latter-day Saints have avoided some of the serious clashes with science that have troubled other religious traditions. For example, we have no serious quarrel with the concept of a very old earth whose "days" of creation seem to have been of very long, overlapping, and varying duration (Alma 40:8; B. R. McConkie, Christ and the Creation, p. 11; B. Young, 17 September 1876, p. 23). Joseph Smith is remembered as having taught that the heavenly bodies were created long prior to the earth: "... the starry hosts were worlds and suns and universes, some of which had being millions of ages before the earth had physical form" (E. W. Tullidge, Women, p. 178). Consistent with this stance, LDS scientist David Bailey has very competently summarized scientific inadequacies and theological incompatibilities of the creationist movement in both its "young earth" and "intelligent design" forms (e.g., D. H. Bailey, Mormonism; D. H. Bailey, Deceiver; D. H. Bailey, Latter-day; D. H. Bailey, Church and Evolution; D. H. Bailey, What's Wrong). Despite what some advocates of a creationist agenda would have people believe, to question specific features of the theories they have advanced is not tantamount to rejecting the concept of a Divine Creator. Many devout scientists have found different ways to reconcile their scientific views on the origin of the universe with their belief in God.

With respect to beliefs about the origin of man, the relevant article in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism emphasizes the point that acceptance of essential doctrinal claims rather than belief in a particular modus operandi for the creation of man is ultimately the determinant of Mormon orthodoxy (J. L. Sorenson, Origin, p. 1053). As evidence of current LDS openness to the study of the latest scientific advances in relevant fields, note that the first formal class in evolution was instituted at BYU in the fall of 1971 with the First Presidency's approval, and is currently a required part of the core curriculum of all BYU students in the biological sciences. Evolutionary biology has since become "one of the largest and most successful graduate programs at BYU" (M. R. Ash, Myth, pp. 32-33), with professors publishing in major evolutionary conferences and journals. Givens provides a brief summary of efforts of Mormon scientists that "not only incorporate evolutionary science, but break new ground in the field" (T. L. Givens, Paradox, pp. 209-210, 378-379 nn. 59-64). While differences of opinions exist among members of the Church on such matters, the key point is that such differences are not used as an ecclesiastical measure of orthodoxy.

[David] What are the principal lessons from the Book of Moses that you have tried to share with readers through this book?

[Dr. Jeff Bradshaw] While most of the world looks on the story of Adam and Eve as a simple collection of childish myths, it is my hope that Latter-day Saints will increasingly appreciate the spiritual sophistication and doctrinal depth of this unique book of scripture. In light of the importance in of these stories in our temple worship, we might say that no book of scripture is more important for us to study and understand. Elder David A. Bednar has emphasized that mere reading is not enough--to be most effective, our scriptural regimen should include prayer, work, consistency, pondering, looking for patterns and connections, and writing down our impressions (http://www.byui.edu/Presentations/Transcripts/Devotionals/1998_01_06_Bednar.htm ).

I was fortunate to have taken a course on reading the scriptures from BYU Professor Arthur Henry King that changed my life in important ways (for a collection of his essays, see Arthur Henry King, Arm the Children: Faith’s Response to a Violent World, ed. Daryl Hague. Provo, UT: BYU Studies, 1998). Brother King's approach emphasized slow and careful reading, with frequent pauses to raise questions in a spirit of humility and to ponder one's personal response to the text (see Dennis and Sandra Packard, Feasting Upon the Word. Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 1981).

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. (J. L. Kugel, How to Read, p. 666).

Latter-day Saints recognize, of course, that the Bible is not inerrant. Indeed, our people have always tried to avoid both the extremes of literalism and liberalism with respect to the historicity of the Bible (See Reverence for the Bible at http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/reverence-for-the-bible ). Although the belief that the characters mentioned in Genesis are actual historical figures who underwent something that was somehow like the events described in the biblical account has always been held firmly by the Saints, Nibley observes that we also bring ridicule and disillusionment upon ourselves when we fail to pursue scriptural understanding beyond the initial level of vivid picture images inculcated upon the minds of young children:

The stories of the Garden of Eden and the Flood have always furnished unbelievers with their best ammunition against believers, because they are the easiest to visualize, popularize, and satirize of any Bible accounts. Everyone has seen a garden and been caught in a pouring rain. It requires no effort of imagination for a six-year-old to convert concise and straightforward Sunday-school recitals into the vivid images that will stay with him for the rest of his life. These stories retain the form of the nursery tales they assume in the imaginations of small children, to be defended by grown-ups who refuse to distinguish between childlike faith and thinking as a child when it is time to "put away childish things" (1 Corinthians 13:11). It is equally easy and deceptive to fall into adolescent disillusionment and with one's emancipated teachers to smile tolerantly at the simple gullibility of bygone days, while passing stern moral judgment on the savage old God who damns Adam for eating the fruit He put in his way and, overreacting with impetuous violence, wipes out Noah's neighbors simply for making fun of his boat-building on a fine summer's day. (H. W. Nibley, Before Adam, p. 63)

As an antidote to these Sunday morning cartoon perspectives on scripture, the Prophet Joseph Smith cautioned against the products of a "fanciful and flowery and heated imagination" and explained that:

... the things of God are of deep import; and time, and experience, and careful and ponderous and solemn thoughts can only find them out. Thy mind, O man! if thou wilt lead a soul unto salvation, must stretch as high as the utmost heavens, and search into and contemplate the darkest abyss, and the broad expanse of eternity--thou must commune with God. (J. Smith, Jr., Teachings, 25 March 1839, p. 137)

It has been my prayer that what I have written, despite its insufficiencies, may be in its own way a worthy addition to the "great cloud of witnesses" (Hebrews 12:1) of the truthfulness of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ, and an encouragement to deeper study and appreciation of the book of Moses--and of the divine reality behind it that awaits our discovery.

Jeff Bradshaw and I at the Atlanta Airport

This photo was taken at the Atlanta Airport in November 2009, after Jeff and I met up “by chance” when we sat across from each other at a table there.  This was totally unplanned! I didn’t even know that he was going to be at that airport on that day. When I saw someone who looked like Jeff (I had never met him in person, but had seen photos), I quickly sent him an email, asking where he was, because there was someone sitting right in front of me that kind of looked like him!  We had a wonderful conversation until it was time for my flight to leave, and I am grateful to have met this wonderful scholar and gentleman in person.

I hope you have enjoyed this series of posts. I, personally, have learned so much from Jeff Bradshaw through our many email conversations and collaborations on projects. For an example of some of the material I’ve had the privilege of working on with him, please see his recent article about “The Vision of Moses as a Heavenly Ascent” at the Meridian Magazine website:http://www.ldsmag.com/articles/100106heavenly.html. From what I’ve come to know of him, he is a meticulous scholar, loyal family man, faithful Latter-day Saint, helpful mentor and great friend.

If you like what you’ve read here about Dr. Bradshaw and his new book on the Book of Moses (and so many more topics), the book is available now at all Eborn Bookstores (Utah: Valley Fair Mall, South Towne Centre, Provo Town Centre, and Ogden) and the BYU Bookstore. It can also be ordered directly from the publisher, Eborn Books, at Amazon.com (link), at the BYU Bookstore (link), or for a discount at the FAIR bookstore (link). The retail price is $49.99.

A recent Gallup poll concluded that Mormons (Latter-day Saints) are the most conservative major religious group in the U.S.

The study showed that 6 out of every 10 Mormons describe themselves as politically conservative.  That’s 59% of Mormons compared to 46% of Protestants/Other Christian, 39% of Catholics, 20% of Jewish, and 23% of Muslims that would describe themselves as politically conservative.

Another interesting find is that Mormons’ tendencies towards conservative thinking is not changed by geography (they tend to be almost equally conservative whether in Utah or in other states), but it is changed by religious activity (65% of “active” Mormons being conservative while only 36% of “lapsed” Mormons identifying themselves as such).

Mormons are not only the most conservative major religious group, but also the most Republican.

You can see the whole study here:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/125021/Mormons-Conservative-Major-Religious-Group.aspx

In other related news, a well-known LDS blog (www.timesandseasons.com) has named Harry Reid (Active Mormon, but not conservative nor Republican) as Mormon of the Year for 2009! Now that’s just more than a wee bit ironic! Go figure…

For more on this, see: http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2010/01/times-and-seasons-2009-mormon-of-the-year-harry-reid/

Also, see the Salt Lake Tribune’s take on it: http://www.sltrib.com/faith/ci_14166894

Most ancient Hebrew biblical inscription deciphered

‘It indicates that the kingdom of Israel already existed in the 10th century BCE, and that at least some of the biblical texts were written hundreds of years before the dates presented in current research.’

Credit: Courtesy of the University of Haifa

Prof. Gershon Galil of the University of Haifa who deciphered the inscription: “It indicates that the Kingdom of Israel already existed in the 10th century BCE and that at least some of the biblical texts were written hundreds of years before the dates presented in current research.”

A breakthrough in the research of the Hebrew scriptures has shed new light on the period in which the Bible was written. Prof. Gershon Galil of the Department of Biblical Studies at the University of Haifa has deciphered an inscription dating from the 10th century BCE (the period of King David’s reign), and has shown that this is a Hebrew inscription. The discovery makes this the earliest known Hebrew writing. The significance of this breakthrough relates to the fact that at least some of the biblical scriptures were composed hundreds of years before the dates presented today in research and that the Kingdom of Israel already existed at that time.

The inscription itself, which was written in ink on a 15 cm X 16.5 cm trapezoid pottery shard, was discovered a year and a half ago at excavations that were carried out by Prof. Yosef Garfinkel at Khirbet Qeiyafa near the Elah valley. The inscription was dated back to the 10th century BCE, which was the period of King David’s reign, but the question of the language used in this inscription remained unanswered, making it impossible to prove whether it was in fact Hebrew or another local language.

Prof. Galil’s deciphering of the ancient writing testifies to its being Hebrew, based on the use of verbs particular to the Hebrew language, and content specific to Hebrew culture and not adopted by any other cultures in the region. “This text is a social statement, relating to slaves, widows and orphans. It uses verbs that were characteristic of Hebrew, such as asah (“did”) and avad (“worked”), which were rarely used in other regional languages. Particular words that appear in the text, such as almanah (“widow”) are specific to Hebrew and are written differently in other local languages. The content itself was also unfamiliar to all the cultures in the region besides the Hebrew society: The present inscription provides social elements similar to those found in the biblical prophecies and very different from prophecies written by other cultures postulating glorification of the gods and taking care of their physical needs,” Prof. Galil explains.

He adds that once this deciphering is received, the inscription will become the earliest Hebrew inscription to be found, testifying to Hebrew writing abilities as early as the 10th century BCE. This stands opposed to the dating of the composition of the Bible in current research, which would not have recognized the possibility that the Bible or parts of it could have been written during this ancient period.

Prof. Galil also notes that the inscription was discovered in a provincial town in Judea. He explains that if there were scribes in the periphery, it can be assumed that those inhabiting the central region and Jerusalem were even more proficient writers. “It can now be maintained that it was highly reasonable that during the 10th century BCE, during the reign of King David, there were scribes in Israel who were able to write literary texts and complex historiographies such as the books of Judges and Samuel.” He adds that the complexity of the text discovered in Khirbet Qeiyafa, along with the impressive fortifications revealed at the site, refute the claims denying the existence of the Kingdom of Israel at that time.

The contents of the text express social sensitivity to the fragile position of weaker members of society. The inscription testifies to the presence of strangers within the Israeli society as far back as this ancient period, and calls to provide support for these strangers. It appeals to care for the widows and orphans and that the king — who at that time had the responsibility of curbing social inequality — be involved. This inscription is similar in its content to biblical scriptures (Isaiah 1:17, Psalms 72:3, Exodus 23:3, and others), but it is clear that it is not copied from any biblical text.

###

English translaton of the deciphered text:

1′ you shall not do [it], but worship the [Lord].

2′ Judge the sla[ve] and the wid[ow] / Judge the orph[an]

3′ [and] the stranger. [Pl]ead for the infant / plead for the po[or and]

4′ the widow. Rehabilitate [the poor] at the hands of the king.

5′ Protect the po[or and] the slave / [supp]ort the stranger.

For more in-depth analysis of this announcement, see Jim Davila’s coverage and links at his PaleoJudaica.blogspot.com

Just for fun, compare this early Hebrew writing to some other ancient characters familiar to LDS readers; see here.