Two Limericks

There once was a doctor had two clocks.

He married a doctor who had red locks.

While clocks and red hair

Don't make a pair,

Two doctors who marry make one paradox.

 

You forgot your guests name and he's not offended.

He politely says Bill and you are amended.

Forgetting a name,

Is not a great shame,

But recalling the same and you are commended.

 

Why I Would Leave the Church

by Peter K Bellville

 

              Fast Sunday and people straggle up to the front of the church to share their testimonies which reflects of why they continue to be active in the church. They are all thankful. 

            Many members are disaffected. They no longer have a testimony. The reasons for their loss of faith are varied and I am not privy to most of them. A few I am aware of are offended for the church policy on LGBQ+ people. Consequently, church leaders have given speeches to appease or soften the rhetoric without changing doctrine. Nevertheless, people still leave the church. Speculations for why this happens abound. Generic reasons are given to make sense of apostasy by those who remain faithful. Finding explanations is a human need to make sense of life. We need to know why. It's a mystery to solve. In part, those seeking for answers want to buttress themselves from a similar fate. 

                Some tell themselves they would never leave the church. Jacob said he had seen angels and heard Christ and could not be moved or dissuaded. (Jacob7:5) But, most of us have not seen angels or heard Christ. For us, I would say that a bold declaration or affirmation that we would never leave the church is brash and naïve. We don't know what circumstances could inflict our lives and push us to leave the church. But, we need not tempt God or entice Satan to test our boundaries as was Job. Could we really endure a test designed to probe our most weakest points or flaws? Our safest position would be to be humble in all circumstances and pray we are not subjected to a severe stress test of our faith. We might find ourselves wavering. For this reason we should not harshly judge those who have succumbed for some reason or other that seems to us irrational or inadequate. I knew one sister who maintained her husband was physically abusing her. But, the husband denied any wrongdoing. The bishop didn't know who to believe and dismissed the wife’s complaint. Not finding support, she left the church. Her exit was not from doctrinal issues or policies but because the church failed her. How are we to judge her? This was before the "me-too" movement. Today, she might receive a more sympathetic response. Her example suggests that reasons for leaving the church might not be obvious or simple. The reasons we imagine that might move us are probably not the ones that would. Our hardest tests of faith are such that we may have never even considered. We may not know our own vulnerabilities. Our tests may come obliquely and unexpected. We should be grateful if such tests come not at all.

              However, most of us do experience challenges to our faith from time to time. For myself, I have concluded that faith is a matter of choice. When life goes sour, usually from my own failings and not from the failings of others, I try to learn from the experience and consciously choose faith. I believe that is why God designed our experiences this way. We are forced to make a conscious choice. Our superpower from God is our agency. Without choices to be made our agency is meaningless. To choose God is to increase our faith and our power in life. What will be our choices in war, sickness, disloyalty, infidelity, treachery? Worse yet, what would be our choices when it is ourselves who have been the guilty party? Forgiving the other is more abstract and easier than forgiving oneself.

              Even in these thoughts, am I overlooking something? Is there a crack in my armor, a flaw in my logic? I assume there is. The reality of life may bear down on me with more force than I can possibly imagine or endure with a simplistic philosophy. Could I endure a Holocaust? I hope I may never be so tested because I can imagine scenarios that would tear my soul apart, unspeakable scenarios that others have already endured. History is full of such harrowing stories that wither bones. Many such stories can be found in Scripture. Could I maintain my integrity and faith in circumstances described in the Book of Mormon? I shiver at the thought.

              Barring such extremes, are there circumstances under which I would leave the church? I can list a few which might be considered unlikely or preposterous. For instance, I would leave the church if it denied Christ. This would be absurd. The church would no longer be The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter- Day Saints. That would be contradictory.

              I would leave the church if it disavowed the Book of Mormon. The church could still be Christian, but it would be denying its foundational document.

              I would leave the church if it sanctioned gay marriages and performed sealings of homosexuals in the temple. This would be abandoning the basic family unit.

              I would leave the church if it started ordaining women to the priesthood. For me, this is also foundational. Much has been said and written to appease or soften this doctrine for those who are challenged by this principle. In the millennium, circumstances may change, but for now in this mortal state, ordaining women would be contrary to church doctrine.

              The above reasons given are doctrinal and there are other changes that could be made for which I probably would not leave the church. For instance, if the Quorum of the 12 became the Quorum of the 20 or some other number. This would be an administrative change and not really doctrinal. I don't think this likely considering its origins and tradition. There have been in the past occasions when the first presidency included more than three persons and when the Quorum of the 12 included Assistants to the 12.

              Changes have occurred in the temple to which I personally object, but these changes are not reason enough for me to leave the church. Here, I admit, my imagination fails me. What changes might be made that would alienate me from the church? I know I already harbor personal beliefs, speculative beliefs, that if I made them public might be reason for the church to disassociate itself from me. The church has been, for as much as I am aware, very tolerant of members who espouse beliefs outside the mainstream Orthodox position. For instance, I'm not aware of anyone losing their membership for believing in the Adam-God theory, so called. This is not official doctrine. Someone may lose membership over this theory not for believing it, but for teaching it as though it was official doctrine or for advocating the theory contrary to the church position.

              Polygamy is another issue with similar restrictions. Belief in this principle is tolerated, but practicing the principal or publicly espousing it, is not tolerated. (I find the worldly position of sanctioning two men getting married, but rejecting one man marrying two women paradoxical.)

              So, why would I leave the church? Other than for the doctrinal reasons given above, I don't know what would occur that would push me overboard. I hope I never find out. My imagination is too limited. But, I'm not fool enough to assume that I am invincible to any and all circumstances that might arise. "Suffer me not to be led into temptation, but deliver me from evil" is my prayer. (JST Matthew 6:13)

 

 I don't know what happened to the Bellville Family Blog. It is gone. 

I wrote a paper recently called Book of Mormon Geography Hard Facts. In it I mentioned the connection with a days journey and the incident when Jesus was left at the temple. I feel confident that as time goes by other connections with a days journey of 34 miles will be discovered. I found one again today. In the Dead Sea Scrolls, a reference is made that one had to be beyond three days journey from the temple in Jerusalem before being permitted to offer sacrifice outside the temple. The Israelite nation split after King Solomon into the Northern Kingdom of Israel, the 10 tribes, and the Southern Kingdom of Judah. The temple was located in Jerusalem. Worshippers in the Northern Kingdom had to go to Jerusalem in the Southern Kingdom to offer sacrifice. The northern border of the Northern Kingdom was Dan which was three days journey away from Jerusalem. So, the three days journey requirement extended to include all of both kingdoms.

About church welfare:

1) The funds come from fast offerings, not from tithing.

2) Policies hvae changed. Fast offerings used to be kept locally and used locally, but now all goes to Salt Lake and distributed as needed.

3) Bishops have a great deal of discretion over use of welfare funds. But there is a natural reticence to assisting those outside of church membership. The bishop usually has first hand knowledge of his ward membership. He knows and understands his ward family, but he may not know those outside of the ward membership. The funds come from the membership so he is reluctant to assist those who are not members of the church.

4) Cash is seldolm if ever given directly to a recipient. If rent is to be paid a check is made directly to the landlord. Utilities are paid directly to the utility compnay.

5) Food and shelter are primary needs. Food is issued from a bishops warehouse where available.

6) Dry goods in the US are primarily issued via a bishops order to Deseret Industries if available. This would include appliances, furnishings, clothing and whatever else is appropriate.

7) Recipients are expected to use personal resources that would have been spent on food, for example, to cover other expenses.

8) Local laws have to be followed. Assistance given may jeopardize a recipients government welfare assistance. This has to be taken into account.

9) A bishop could request others in the ward individually or collectively to help finance a need if he felt church funds would be questionable.

10) Distributions are discrete and confidential. The terms and conditions should not be public. Therefore, one cannot know and should not second guess why a bishop gives assistance to one over another.

11) Some members can get a false sense of entitlement and have unreasonable expectations for church assistance. When the bishop doesn’t meet those expectations then hostility and apostasy can follow.

12) Individuals are at liberty to be as charitable to others as they would wish. The church places no restrictions on our own personal charity to others.

13) Bishops make errors. Most hope to err on the side of generosity. Give them a break.

Notes on the Title Page of the Book of Mormon

by Peter K Bellville

Our current 2013 edition of the Book of Mormon has a modern title page that wasn’t in the 1830 edition. It includes a subtitle added in 1982 that reads ‘Another Testament of Jesus Christ’. Many editions have been generated over the years and thousands of changes have been made. A good source for reviewing those changes is found in Royal Skousen’s book, The Earliest Text. Errors still exist and further editions will undoubtedly be forthcoming to correct errors, add enhancements, change formatting etc. Also, these new editions allow the church to refresh copy write and maintain control. Previous editions have fallen into public domain, but not the 1981 edition.

The second title page is the 1830 title page. This includes two paragraphs of explanatory text. The words at the bottom of the page originally said ‘By Joseph Smith, Junior, Author and Proprietor. Palmyra: printed by E.B. Grandin, for the author, 1830.’ Laws in 1830 required that a book have an author even though Joseph Smith never said he he was the author, but the translator.

Other than those final words at the bottom, the rest of the page is a translation from the plates and not a modern composition. Many changes were made to the title page and those are referred in Skousen’s book. The most significant change is where the break occurs between the two paragraphs. In the 1830 edition the break came after the words “...Book of Ether.” In our current edition the break comes after the words “...gift of God.” The sentences were formatted differently to accommodate the change.

When the Book of Mormon was first set to paper by hand the punctuation and formatting was nearly non-existent. The typesetter at printing punctuated the whole text. The Book of Mormon was written nearly as one long sentence. This suggests that that was how the material was dictated to the scribes, not as sentences or even as phrases but as single words. Lots has been written about how the translation process ensued mechanically. The translation process has been the subject of many books and papers which I will not explore. I will, however, contribute a few of my own thoughts on that topic later.

The writing on the plates and the handwritten pages were not presented in a title page format as we see it. The words were simply set out as continuous text to be read as such. The way it is now forces our minds to read it in chunks.

Immediately, we encounter Hebraisms when we read the title. A Hebraism is characteristic of Hebrew. The title doesn’t say Mormon’s Book, but Book of Mormon. Many types of Hebraism can be found in the Book of Mormon and this is just one example. Three of these occur in quick succession: Book of Mormon, hand of Mormon, and plates of Nephi. More follow: Book of Ether, people of Jared. The Book of Mormon is full of these and other Hebraisms. Some are complex and very lengthy such as extensive chiasms. This suggests a tight translation from one language to another. If the translation was loose then the passages would sound like modern English and the Hebraisms would be lost. A loose translation might read like this:

“This is Mormon’s book, written by his own hand. It is an abridgement of the record of the Nephites and Lamanites, written to the Lamanites, a remnant of Israel, and also to to the Jews and Gentiles. Written by commandment, by prophecy and revelation, sealed and hid to the Lord that this record might not be destroyed, but be interpreted by God’s power. It was sealed by Moroni’s hand, and hid to be revealed in due time by the Gentiles... The interpretation is by God’s gift...” etc. To me this loose interpretation sounds flat. It lacks interest and power.

The title page was written by Moroni as evidenced by the following points:

1) ‘sealed by the hand of Moroni’. Moroni’s father, Mormon, had died and Moroni sealed the book when he finished it.

2) ‘hid up unto the Lord’. Moroni was the one who hid the book then directed Joseph Smith to it. (Mormon 8:14)

3) ‘an abridgement taken from the Book of Ether’. Moroni wrote the abridgement after his father’s death.

4) ‘if there are faults they are the mistakes of men’. This sentiment was also expressed in Mormon 8:17, written by Moroni. Some previous editions of the Book of Mormon concluded the title page with the name ‘Moroni’.

The text of the title page is straight forward. Moroni stated the purpose of the book clearly. He said the book was to testify of Christ. His audience was divided up into mainly two groups; the house of Israel including Jews and Lamanites, and the Gentiles. Those two groups can be divided again into those that believe Christ and those that don’t. Moroni and Mormon’s intent is to convince non-believers of both groups to believe in Christ.

Joseph Smith said the title page was the very last leaf of the plates. This seems a curious place to find a title page. Perhaps Moroni did not intend for it to be a title page but a summary page. Or perhaps that is just where Moroni found space for it and Joseph Smith moved it to the front when he translated it.

In our culture, we open books from right to left and we read books from left to right. Not all cultures do this. If Moroni intended the book to be opened from left to right then the title page would have been the first page not the last. If that was the case then Joseph Smith was holding the plates upside down. He would be holding the plates as he would normally hold any book , opening it from right to left. But, if the title page was meant to be on top, then the book is upside down. Take any book you have and hold it as you normally would with the title page just inside the front cover. Now close the book and flip it top to bottom. The book is now upside down and the title page is the last page in the book. Note also, that the text is upside down. Now if the book is rotated such that it opens from left to right the text is right side up and the title page is still the last page. Was Joseph Smith translating the Book of Mormon upside down and backwards? This is silly speculation. But, Joseph Smith copied down some of the characters from the plates. Noble and valiant efforts have been made to translate the characters as written down by Joseph Smith. Did he copy the characters in their correct orientation? I hope those attempting to make sense of the characters take this into consideration.

Much has been said about the translation process by others. So very little information is available that conclusions are tentative. I am not sure Joseph Smith himself could adequately explain the process. We want to think of it as mechanical, but we know it was not. Joseph Smith himself was an intervening factor. Sources suggest he used the Urim and Thummim, transparent stones, mounted on a breastplate. Some sources say he also used an opaque stone in a hat. Maybe the translation process happened that way and maybe it didn’t. Joseph’s mother said Joseph removed the Urim and Thummim stones from the breastplate to facilitate use. She also said Joseph’s eyes would tire and he would look into a hat to rest them. Perhaps this is where the stone in the hat story came from.

I want to add two considerations to the discussion. First, the Urim and Thummim were either transparent or translucent and translating required looking through them at the plates. Joseph couldn’t look through the stone in the hat at the plates. Of course, since the process was revelatory perhaps the plates were not even required. But, I suspect the two items, plates and stones, were kept together to be used together. At one point after the loss of the 116 pages of manuscript, both the plates and the Urim and Thummim were removed from Joseph Smith by Moroni. After some contrition, both the plates and stones were returned to Joseph. My feeling from this is that the two were paired together and were used together.

Second, the Urim and Thummim were mounted on a breastplate so they could be used as one would use eyeglasses. The stones would have been too heavy to be supported on the bridge of the nose. But I believe the real purpose of the breastplate was to free the hands for handling the plates and turning pages. This suggests that Joseph Smith had to look at the plates during the translation process. This leaves the question of how to prevent the scribe from seeing the plates. Oliver Cowdery said he never saw the plates until he was selected as a witness. We know a sheet was hung as a divider between the plates and the scribe. References also refer to a cloth covering the plates.

Because of all the above, it is hard to draw any conclusions. But perhaps I need not create a false dichotomy. Both methods may have been used, not just one or the other. Because the nature of the stones were different then the process must have been different. But it was Joseph Smith that was the medium God used for translating. Not the stones.

How the Liahona Worked: Part Two: The Writing on the Ball by Peter K Bellville

How the Liahona Worked:

Part Two: The Writing on the Ball

by Peter K Bellville

In part one of “How the Liahona Worked”, we saw how the Liahona could have been a magnetic compass and how that compass could have directed Lehi even when he didn't know where he was going or how to use it. This part will address how the text messages on the ball changed to accommodate Lehi's circumstances. (1 Nephi 16:21-30) This is only hypothetical, of course, and only a suggestion meant to stimulate thinking about how God can use small means to direct us.

How might messages appear, disappear, and alter on the Liahona? The construction of the Liahona provides a clue for a simple explanation for the mysterious appearance of text. Two spindles are mentioned which suggests two pointers. (1 Nephi 16:10) The pointers are on a face or compass rose as discussed in part one. Possibly, two faces were part of the construction, one sandwiched over the other. The upper face could have a cutout, a window open to the lower face which would have text on it. As the upper desk, with accompanying pointer, shifted with changes in direction, the text on the lower disk would seem to change as the window moved over a new portion of text.

We don't know the nature of the text. Was it reformed Egyptian, Hebrew,

or some other readable language? Other than the type of writing, we can also consider what was said. The messages may have been very specific but we don't have an actual quote from the Liahona in the Book of Mormon. The text might have said, as an example,

"Nephi, hunt in the mountains to the west for the game you need to feed the company. You'll find Ibex in a ravine halfway up."

We can accept that miracles are part of God's plan so such specificity is possible. More likely, the text was suggestive and generic, probably scripture quotes that could be interpreted according to the spirit. Isaiah would be a likely source. For instance, when Nephi and Lehi consulted the Liahona to find food, Nephi says in 1 Nephi 16:30 that the Liahona instructed him to look for food in the top of the mountain. Perhaps he read something like this from Isaiah 25: 6:

And in this mountain shall the Lord of hosts make unto all people a feast of fat things, a feast of wines on the lees, of fat things full of marrow, of wines on the lees well refined.

Or Isaiah 40:9 which reads:

O Zion, that bringest good tidings, get thee up into the high mountain; O Jerusalem, that bringest good tidings, lift up thy voice with strength; lift it up, be not afraid; say unto the cities of Judah, Behold your God!

Many who read scriptures find personal messages seemly directed to them and their needs that in other moments would not have had meaning. Joseph Smith found on reading James 1:5 a directive that led to the restoration of the gospel. He most certainly had read the same passage on a previous occasion without much impact. Joseph Smith himself stated that never before had a scripture influenced him such as this one. (JS-History 1:11-12) This is most likely how the original Liahona functioned for Lehi and his family. Text would be revealed, possibly a quote from Isaiah or other scripture, and the spirit would inspire the reader.

The scriptures served as a Liahona for Joseph Smith. Likewise, the scriptures can serve as a Liahona for us in our own personal lives. Just as the Liahona guided Lehi, the scriptures can guide us according to the faith, heed, and diligence we give them .

Was Sam Mute?

    We are introduced to Sam in the preface to first Nephi where he is simply listed as the third son behind Laman and Lemuel and older then Nephi, the fourth son. While we hear much about Laman and Lemuel collectively, at least, as the two seem inseparable in the narrative, we hear very little about Sam. He is mentioned again in first Nephi chapter 2 verse five as one of the family members who travels in the wilderness. Lehi admonishes Laman and Lemuel and names a valley and river after them, but Sam isn't mentioned. In verse 17 Nephi explains the gospel to Sam who believes him. Thus, the stage is set for the family dramas that unfold. Laman  and Lemuel are linked together as are Sam and Nephi. Therefore, in future conflicts when Nephi reflects on his older bretheren we can assume he is referring to Laman and Lemuel and not Sam, even though Sam is also older than Nephi.
    We see this exclusion of Sam in first Nephi chapter 3 verse five. Lehi says he had a vision that Nephi and his bretheren and should return to Jerusalem for the brass plates held by Laban. Lehi specifically says to Nephi that his brothers murmur, complaining that the task is too difficult. Lehi then asks Nephi to take the lead or initiative to return to Jerusalem. Nephi accepts. Where is Sam? Laman  and Lemuel were likely the murmurers, not Sam. But, Lehi passed Sam, who is older than Nephi, and goes directly to Nephi. Why is Sam bypassed?
    Not only does Lehi seemingly bypass Sam, so does an angel. The bretheren, all four, return to Jerusalem to acquire the plates of brass from Laban. Sam isn't mentioned by name. After the second failed attempt to get the plates, Laman  and Lemuel are beating on their younger brothers and Nephi refers to 'us' being beaten, which must include Sam. But, an angel intervenes and only refers to Nephi in the singular. Sam is never mentioned. The angel speaks of the younger brother being chosen to be a ruler over Laman and Lemuel. The younger brother is Nephi, not Sam. So, Nephi records that Laman and Lemuel were beating on us, their younger bretheren, in the plural, but the angel only speaks in the singular of Nephi. Sam's presence is not acknowledged. The omission is curious and difficult to explain except as an anomaly created by Nephi who is telling the story. Or, perhaps something about Sam himself separates him from the other brothers.
    The next mention of Sam is in first Nephi chapter 7 verse six where he is listed as siding with Nephi in a revolt by Laman and Lemuel and the sons of Ishmael. No other detail about Sam is given. The thrust of the conflict is between Laman and Lemuel, and Nephi. Nephi is forcibly bound, but Sam is not mentioned as a victim of Laman and Lemuel's aggression. It is though something sets Sam apart.
    In Lehi's dream in chapter 8, Sam is mentioned as one who partakes of the tree of life. Sam isn't mentioned again until Lehi wants to give final words before he dies. Sam's absence from the broken bow incident, the shipbuilding story, and the ship mutiny at sea is glaring. Why isn't Sam mentioned in these accounts? In Lehi's last admonitions to his sons, he counsels Laman,  Lemuel, Sam, and sons of Ishmael to listen to Nephi. This is the first and last time Sam is linked with that group. In second Nephi chapter 4 verse 11 Lehi blesses Sam, but the blessing doesn't seem very personal. Sam is linked to Nephi. The blessing mentions Sam's posterity here and a family is referred to in second Nephi chapter 5 verse six as among those who escaped to the land of Nephi. Finally, in second Nephi chapter 5 verse 26, Nephi records consecrating Jacob and Joseph to be priests and teachers over the people. Again, where is Sam? He has disappeared.
    Sam is a ghostly presence in Nephi's account. Sam is never quoted, he never speaks, he leaves no record of his own. Sam is passed over by Lehi, the angel, and as a teacher and priest. Laman and Lemuel's engagements are always with Nephi, not Sam, even though Sam sides with Nephi and is Nephi's older brother. Sam is absent from the stories as a participant. He is only incidentally mentioned at all. Yet, Sam is older than Nephi and should have more prominence. It is as though Sam lacks something. Perhaps Sam is handicapped in some manner that excuses him from taking an active role and from prominence. Perhaps he is of limited mental capacity or has some other restriction which could be anything from having a clubfoot, cleft palate, blindness, or deformity. But, his silence is deafening. The record is mute and perhaps that is because Sam himself was mute.