Mosiah 18

I find that as I read the account of Alma preaching, his words on baptism and the account of the Church he established, there’s a few things I’m curious about; I’ve noticed (and wondered about) them before, and so am still wondering:

  1. Where and when (and how) precisely did Alma obtain his authority? He mentions having it when baptising Helam (v. 13, as is proper; we still do the same!), and again reference is made to him having it when he ordains priests in verse 18. Did this require something like angelic intervention, or was his prior ordination as a priest considered legitimate, even if the priests and Noah himself had been corrupt? There doesn’t seem to have been any opportunity for Abinadi himself to be the conduit (at least in terms of conveying it by ordination).
  2. Why did Alma immerse himself in the water at the same time he baptized Helam? That doesn’t seem like it would count as a full baptism (contrast, after all, the fact that John the Baptist had Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery alternate in baptizing each other, JS-H 1:70). Was it a symbolic act, or did it have deeper significance?

As said, these are curiosities rather than concerns. They shouldn’t trouble us as such: I think one thing this chapter illustrates is that there can and have been significant differences in Church organization and ordinances in different dispensations, but at the same time deep continuity. Sometimes I see people confused over the idea that God and truth don’t change on one hand, but seeing or experiencing changes within the Church on the other.

This is sometimes seen as contradictory: a conflict between “doctrine” doesn’t change and yet “doctrine” apparently changing. Of course, that really depends on how one defines “doctrine”; the word just means “teaching”, after all, and we tend to use it in a much more expansive and woolly sense than the Book of Mormon itself does. But not everything we do within the Church, even when commanded by God, is an eternal truth. The Word of Wisdom, for instance, may be based on good principles but is also a specific instruction for the last days (D&C 89:2). Likewise, the Mosaic prohibition against eating pork does not apply now (since I like bacon, I think we got the better half of the deal). Even the prohibition against murder can only apply while mortal life (and so the possibility of murder) exists (and there’s also been specific exceptions to that in this life…) God is eternal, but a wide variety of instruction, teachings, counsel and even commandments do change. This is because they are manifestations of God’s will to enable us to hold onto unchanging truths in a world where the challenges we face shift and change, not unchanging instruments in and of themselves.

And I think this chapter really demonstrates and shows that. Thus the Church is organized quite differently from the way we have it today, in the sense that only one in fifty members was ordained as a priest (v. 18). This may seem very different to members used to the current idea of every worthy male member being ordained; indeed so different that some readers attempt to project back modern practices and in doing so end up misreading the book. But – while it may not be entirely clear quite where Alma got it from – it is still the case that performing ordinances, teaching, and conferring authority required authority from God. The details may have changed, but there is a core of continuity. Likewise, the words that Alma baptizes Helam with are quite different from those given by Christ (which we largely follow today) in 3 Nephi 11. But conceptually the connection is so clear that this chapter including those very words are still used a primary resource to teach about the covenant we make at baptism. Indeed, the notion that we covenant to “serve [God] and keep his commandments, that he may pour out his Spirit more abundantly upon you” (Mosiah 18:10) is clearly expressed in current ordinances in the sacrament prayers. The form may have changed, but the truths expressed have not.

Even experts are ignorant – UnHerd

There’s an interesting article on UnHerd today, about a book called The Hidden Half: How The World Conceals Its Secrets by Michael Blastland, which apparently examines how strange reality really is, and how little we sometimes know about it (or even how little know we know about what little we know).

Some highlights:

So what caused these differences if not genetics or environment? Answer: we don’t know. And most laypeople – myself included, before I’d read Blastland’s book – didn’t even know we didn’t know. You, like me, probably thought that the argument in science was between genes and environment; not between genes and environment and… this other thing. Yet this other thing – this hidden half, called “enigmatic variation” – doesn’t just apply to crayfish. As much as half of human variation can’t be accounted for, writes Blastland, by either genetic or environmental factors.

 

You all know by now, for instance, that economic forecasting isn’t hugely reliable; perhaps it seems obvious that that’s in the nature of the thing. Animal spirits, irrational exuberance and all that, right?

But economic reporting, it turns out, is just as dodgy. Not only do we not know what’s going to happen, we don’t know what did happen. ONS figures for the economy two or three years ago continue to be revised in light of what has followed – and are often subject to confidence margins that can make the difference between a boom and a recession (Blastland cites one where a fall in unemployment of 3,000 was sombrely reported with a confidence margin of +/-77,000 – i.e. the figure could be a rise of 74,000 rather than a fall of 3,000).

 

And then there’s the “replication crisis” in the social sciences, where results on which whole subsequent fields of research have been built turn out to be, literally, junk science. Again, as many as half of the accepted results in the whole of social science or medicine are feared to be unreliable or plain wrong. The experiments simply don’t replicate. Even medicines that we know work may only work for a tiny percentage of patients – and we can’t predict which ones and we don’t know why.

Read more at Even experts are ignorant – UnHerd

Mosiah 1

As always, these posts are not, and do not claim to be, exhaustive overviews of the chapters in question, but simply a reflection of what I happen to pick up or think upon as I am personally reading them. Sometimes that ends up being quite a bit, like last time, and sometimes its quite brief, like today. That’s not a reflection on the chapter itself, simply of what impinged on me during my reading.

As it happens, it was actually the very first verse that made the most impact on me today:

And now there was no more contention in all the land of Zarahemla, among all the people who belonged to king Benjamin, so that king Benjamin had continual peace all the remainder of his days.

This life often isn’t easy, and it isn’t meant to be easy. While the gospel ultimately offers happiness, we’re not promised continual happiness in this world. We need at times to experience misery (2 Nephi 2:23), to truly follow Christ and be glorified with him we also need to suffer with him (Romans 8:17), and then there’s simply the trials attendant to living in a fallen world surrounded by other people who have agency too. This life is often unfair, as Christ himself – who received a death sentence due to false witnesses and a corrupt court – could tell us.

Yet while it is important to bear these things in mind, and not have false expectations that living the gospel should bring ease, I believe it’s also important not to go the other way. This life often isn’t one of unremitting trial. Lehi and family experienced trials crossing the wilderness and the great deep, but found sanctuary at Bountiful in between. King Benjamin here has had to deal with foreign invasion and internal sedition, and the peace that followed came at the cost of great effort on his part and the part of the prophets (Words of Mormon 16-18), but he did get to experience peace. Those moments do come, the oases of life do exist, even if sometimes they can feel so remote and hard to come by.

2020 edit:

I was struck by verses 11-12:

And moreover, I shall give this people a name, that thereby they may be distinguished above all the people which the Lord God hath brought out of the land of Jerusalem; and this I do because they have been a diligent people in keeping the commandments of the Lord.

And I give unto them a name that never shall be blotted out, except it be through transgression.

Names are funny things. On one side, it might be argued that names are relatively unimportant: they do not change the actual nature of a thing (“What’s in a name? That which we call a rose By any other name would smell as sweet;” and all that). On the other hand, others have held the act of naming to be very significant indeed. Thus in teachings attributed to Confucius, the act of naming is regarded as supremely important in maintaining order, with proper naming needing to correspond to reality:

A superior man, in regard to what he does not know, shows a cautious reserve. If names be not correct, language is not in accordance with the truth of things. If language be not in accordance with the truth of things, affairs cannot be carried on to success. When affairs cannot be carried on to success, proprieties and music do not flourish. When proprieties and music do not flourish, punishments will not be properly awarded. When punishments are not properly awarded, the people do not know how to move hand or foot. Therefore a superior man considers it necessary that the names he uses may be spoken appropriately, and also that what he speaks may be carried out appropriately. What the superior man requires is just that in his words there may be nothing incorrect

(Analects, Book XIII, Chapter 3, verses 4–7, trns. James Legge)

I think it’s fair to say that both perspectives have a degree of truth to them: the name of something, in and of itself, doesn’t change the nature of a thing. On the other hand, the act of naming can have a very significant effect: giving something its proper name can be a vital act of truth telling, and conversely accepting a false name or label for something can be a form of lying (as can be seen in several modern examples).

We may think our culture does not place much importance on names, but even here there are powerful exceptions. We may be reluctant to accept treatment from someone who gained the name “doctor” in illegitimate ways, for instance. When we call someone a “Judas” or a “Quisling”, we are laying a powerful charge by imputing the attributes of well-known traitors. Some current political movements, as linked to above, insist on certain names for things in their attempt to shape reality.

Likewise, naming is a significant act within the scriptures. There are multiple examples, but one might merely begin with God himself naming things in creation, culminating with Adam, Adam naming the animals, or examples like the renaming of the patriarchs Abram to Abraham and Jacob to Israel. Scriptural names are often not just names but also titles, describing the very thing or person at stake. As seen in the examples of Abraham and Israel, new names can reflect new or intended attributes, a change that has already happened or a change or promise that will come to pass.

King Benjamin here obviously intends to give a rather specific name to his people; those who’ve read the Book of Mormon before will know what that name is, and I’ll cover that when we get to it. But this is rather significant for us, especially as we end up taking the same name upon us. I think once again there can be two elements to this, as can be seen in King Benjamin’s act: firstly there’s the element of proper naming. The name must reflect in some way the underlying reality, or it will not work. Thus the people have had to be diligent in keeping the commandments of God to be given this name (v. 11), and if they transgress, the name can be “blotted out” (v. 12).

However, there’s also a degree to which the naming is aspirational: to give a new name when it belongs to someone else (as the name King Benjamin plans on, and the name we take upon ourselves, does) is to seek to clothe the named with the attributes of the name. It is to seek to place the one named in a course in which all the attributes and characteristics that go with that name may be acquired and thus belong in truth to the one named. Thus – one day, far from now – we hope that we will have become like the One to whom that name becomes, and share in his virtue and his nature.

Link: Transgenderism and the Social Construction of Diagnosis – Quillette

An interesting article on Quillette about a topic I’ve touched briefly on before (well, one link here and some theological considerations here), namely transgenderism, in this case about the significant increase of adolescents being diagnosed with gender dysphoria. As the article makes clear, Western society’s increasing willingness to perform severe and irreversible medical interventions on said adolescents may have the consequence of sterilizing thousands of people who may feel very differently in adulthood. Critiquing this state of affairs, however, is becoming increasingly difficult as academic journals hew to a new orthodoxy on such issues. The article also had a number of interesting points on mental illness generally (including the interplay of biology and social factors):

Last week saw another attempt to silence debate and research whose findings diverge from an accepted orthodoxy. In the Advocate, transgender activist Brynn Tannehill decried a 2017 abstract that appeared in the Journal of Adolescent Health, stating that the research into rapid onset gender dysphoria or ROGD was “biased junk science.” The research that Tannehill so strongly objected to was undertaken by Lisa Littman, MD, MPH. Littman surveyed parents about their teen and young adult children who became gender dysphoric and transgender-identified in the context of belonging to a peer group where one, multiple, or even all the friends in a pre-existing peer group became transgender-identified in a similar time frame, an increase in social media use, or both. The findings of the research support the plausibility of social influences contributing to the development of gender dysphoria. The full research paper has not yet been published. Tannehill subsequently posted the article to the Facebook page of the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH). A discussion ensued in which some commentators asked WPATH leadership to request that the journal …

Source: Transgenderism and the Social Construction of Diagnosis – Quillette

Slippery Words

A phenomenon that I have been increasingly struck by is the role that different and shifting definitions can play in debates and arguments. I’m not talking here about mere loose or imprecise language (such as the use of cowardly described by Theodore Dalrymple here; I came across his similarly titled article after the title for this post leapt into my mind). Nor am I talking simply about how the same word can carry different meanings (that’s simply linguistic fact). Rather what I am describing is the situations in which both parties may be arguing over something, but be using different definitions for the same term, even without realising it. More recently, I have become increasingly aware of how participants involved in certain debates appear to be seeking to win an argument by default by redefining the very term from a more common definition.

I’ve written before about several theological examples amongst arguments in LDS circles, namely the terms inspiration and spiritual. But similar examples appear to about in many of the political and cultural arguments at large in society today. Terms such as fairness, justice, equality, consent, racism, privilege and a host of others have been increasingly subject to different and shifting definitions. This is not entirely new (the definition of justice, for example, has been argued over for millennia), but it seems increasingly the case that some of the loudest voices in particular controversies are insisting upon their own private definitions of key terms.

While some cases may simply be the result of different definitions, others appears to be cases where people are seeking to change or even manipulate definitions to win arguments by default. The connection between the thoughts we can have and the language we possess is a strong one, and Orwell and others have warned how changes in language may be used to control political thought. Furthermore, as I observed about the public endorsement of untruths, such manipulation of language can serve to erode the sense of right and promote acts of wrong. Witness, for example, the increasing trend to define the expression of particular ideas as violence. Word are powerful (or this subject would be hardly worth worrying about), but they are not physical force. The claim that they are, however, encourages the idea that actual violence may be used to suppress or retaliate against objectionable statements, and rationalises increasing political violence on the left and on the right.

At the very least, there is often the need to clarify definitions in any such discussion. If we are conversing on the basis of different definitions, then in practice we really have a different language. Like the inhabitants of Babel, our language will be confounded and so will we, and any discussion will profit little.

Furthermore, on some occasions, we must also notice and if necessary refuse to concede to attempts to manipulate or win an argument in advance by adopting a new or alternate definition. Such definitions are often, consciously or unconsciously, loaded dice, designed to win the argument in advance. Accepting them often concedes the argument, not because we are convinced it is right on its merits, but because we’d already accepted their presuppositions and frame of reference without realising it. Such alternate definitions can also limit thought and obscure actual concepts at stake by eliminating the very vocabulary used to describe competing ideas (for example, if the “spiritual” is defined down as simply an emotional event, what term is left to describe the literally spiritual). Accepting such redefinition can thus suppress communication, rather than promote it. Confusion over such terms can also be deceptive, seeking to claim approval for new concepts by cloaking them under more generally accepted ideas. And as described above, it can be used to justify violence and other such acts.

If we are to avoid being manipulated, or to be the manipulator, or simply to avoid confusion with others, then we need to be clear in our own language. This includes, where necessary, explaining how we understand any particular terms at stake and why we understand them that way. We need to allow others to explain their thoughts too. Perhaps we are also best served by avoiding jargon where possible. Language should clarify, not be used as a battering ram against our opponents.

I am reminded of Nephi’s words in 2 Nephi 31:3:

For my soul delighteth in plainness; for after this manner doth the Lord God work among the children of men. For the Lord God giveth light unto the understanding; for he speaketh unto men according to their language, unto their understanding.

While there are occasions where less plainness may be required, clarity of communication is not just useful to man but is a divine ideal. If we are seeking to become more like him, then seeking to be likewise clear in our own communications seems to be something to strive for. Furthermore, I can’t help but feel that if we are to avoid being misled, or confounded, or caught up in some spiral of political violence or oppression, then we have a responsibility to keep language as something that illuminates rather than let it be used to blind and bind.

Link: “Wilfrid Laurier and the Creep of Critical Theory”

Here’s an excellent article on some increasing – and disturbing – trends in academia, especially in the humanities. In a recent case at Wilfrid Laurier University (in Canada), a Graduate teaching assistant was reprimanded for presenting a televised debate about transgendered nouns, principally because she did not condemn one side of the debate first, and thus help the students reach the correct conclusion (more on that case here). In that particular case, the University has only apologised because the Graduate student involved happened to covertly record the meeting and released it publicly, leading to the unfortunate lesson (in the words of the Graduate student herself): “make sure to secretly record all meetings or they won’t take you seriously.”

As the first article discusses, however, this is not an isolated incident. Under the banner of ‘critical theory’, academics are increasingly acting  as ideologues in service to an ideology that explicitly rejects freedom of speech and thought. Some senior academics increasingly see it as their role to ensure students reach the right, “critical” conclusions, and are prepared to punish those who risk otherwise. And similar trends can be seen in the Entertainment and News industries. In each case, the demands of pursuing a new orthodoxy are overriding what were previously regarded as the most vital functions of these institutions.

The article may be read (and is well worth reading) at Wilfrid Laurier and the Creep of Critical Theory

Jacob 4

Jacob 4 is a chapter I’ve gone over a lot recently, as it plays a significant role in my thesis and revising chapter four (which covers Jacob 4-5) took some time. So I wasn’t quite sure what would catch my eye this time around, and there’s so much in this chapter I could talk about: Jacob’s foreknowledge of Christ, and how he explains this, the reason the Old Testament isn’t so clear on the topic (and it is not because of human tampering), the Book of Mormon’s approach to causality (namely that God is not bound by it), and the definition of truth. But there’s a couple of other things that caught my eye this time.

Firstly (and I’m quoting these as they appear in the 1830 edition, because in some cases the different punctuation and paragraphing helps bring things out):

Now behold, it came to pass, that I, Jacob, having ministered much unto my people, in word, (and I cannot write but a little of my words, because of the difficulty of engraving our words upon plates,) and we know that the things which we write upon plates, must remain; but whatsoever things we write upon any thing save it be upon plates, must perish and vanish away; but we can write a few words upon plates, which will give our children, and also our beloved brethen, a small degree of knowledge concerning us, or concerning their fathers.

I was struck when reading this by the emphasis placed on the impermanence and perishability of records that were not recorded upon the plates. I think it’s a human tendency to imagine a lot of the things around us as permanent institutions. But most human acts, governments and cultures are so impermanent that they will not only one day fail, but will for the most part be so forgotten no one will know that they’ve been forgotten. Anything that is not rooted in something eternal will fade away and perish, and yet we put so much emphasis on those things. Likewise, it took considerable effort (part of which Jacob refers to above) as well as divine aid to preserve the words of the Book of Mormon for later millennia, yet at the time it must have seemed to some that such efforts were unnecessary. Jacob, however, was blessed with a far longer perspective.

The second bit which caught my eye is definitely partly the result of how it is formatted. I think in previously reading Jacob 4, the potential implications of the passages around it have caused me to read over verse 11 more lightly. In the 1830 edition, however, verse 11 comes at the end of a paragraph, and moreover is a continuation of a sentence from verse 10, so it is clearer to see how it is a continuation of the thought expressed there:

Wherefore, brethren, seek not to counsel the Lord, but to take counsel from his hand. For behold, ye yourselves know, that he counseleth in wisdom, and in justice, and in great mercy, over all his works; wherefore, beloved brethren, be reconciled unto him, through the atonement of Christ, his only begotten Son, that ye may obtain a resurrection, according to the power of the resurrection which is in Christ, and be presented as the first fruits of Christ, unto God, having faith, and obtained a good hope of glory in him, before he manifesteth himself in the flesh.

Personally, I found it a little easier to see this time how knowing that God counsels in wisdom, justice and mercy can encourage us to seek to be reconciled to him through the power of Christ (and how it did for them, even before he appeared in the flesh). Likewise, it’s interesting (and perhaps emphasises elements of his redeeming power that we are prone to miss) to see this described as “the power of the resurrection which is in Christ”. By having faith in Him and seeking reconciliation through Him, we may obtain a hope that we too may be resurrected by this power of His and presented to God in the first resurrection.

2020 edit:

It’s funny for me when I go over these chapters that I’ve made posts on before to note what I spot relative to what I’d already written. Sometimes there’s things that are apparently wholly new to me, and at other times I’ll have a couple of verses in mind that really stood out as I was reading them, and they’ll turn out – like today – to be the two verses that had really stood out to me 4 years beforehand.

This is also a chapter I’ve expended a lot of ink on elsewhere (i.e. chapter four of The Book of Mormon & its relationship with the Bible). There I particularly look at the “stone” texts in verses 15-17 and their connection with what follows (the question of the gathering of Israel, which the allegory in Jacob 5 addresses). I also look at the question of the Nephites knowledge about Christ, in which verses 12-14 are of particular interest.

While I do quote it above, I was quite struck again by verse 10’s “seek not to counsel the Lord, but to take counsel from his hand”. How often do we want something, ask for something, when God knows that’s not actually good for us or has something better in store? While he has commanded us to ask for the things we need we must always be alert, I guess, to what his will actually is, and to not insist on our own way but humbly seek to do whatever he’d have us do.

Verse 6 is always somewhat striking:

Wherefore, we search the prophets, and we have many revelations and the spirit of prophecy; and having all these witnesses we obtain a hope, and our faith becometh unshaken, insomuch that we truly can command in the name of Jesus and the very trees obey us, or the mountains, or the waves of the sea.

… that’s quite a bit of faith. Jacob – true to form – is quick to then speak of their “weakness” and speak of such miracles as an example of God’s grace and “great condescensions” (v. 7).

As mentioned, I’ve spent some time writing about verse 12 elsewhere, but I think it and verse 13 are profound:

And now, beloved, marvel not that I tell you these things; for why not speak of the atonement of Christ, and attain to a perfect knowledge of him, as to attain to the knowledge of a resurrection and the world to come?

Behold, my brethren, he that prophesieth, let him prophesy to the understanding of men; for the Spirit speaketh the truth and lieth not. Wherefore, it speaketh of things as they really are, and of things as they really will be; wherefore, these things are manifested unto us plainly, for the salvation of our souls. But behold, we are not witnesses alone in these things; for God also spake them unto prophets of old.

Verse 12 really underlines what God can reveal to us: for these people, it was hundreds of years before the coming of Christ, but God – whose knowledge and power is not circumscribed by the limitations of time – is perfectly capable of knowing and revealing about things many years hence, as he is about things beyond even the end of the world itself. We should not limit in our minds what God is capable of communicating to us, nor what his warnings or his promises can address.

Verse 13 follows on addressing the truthfulness of prophecy – “for the Spirit speaketh the truth and lieth not” – and then gives a beautifully simple definition of what that truth can encompass: “wherefore, it speaketh of things as they really are, and of things as they really will be”. Compared to a lot of the academic wrangling over the subject (and of course increasingly it’s fashionable to deny the existence of objective truth), this statement comes as something clear and refreshing. Truth is things as they really are (no matter what we might think them to be) and as they really will be.

“College Kids Say the Darndest Things: On Identity”

via College Kids Say the Darndest Things: On Identity – YouTube

It’s quite some trick that our centres of learning are now full of people who either feel obliged to say things they know are not true or don’t believe any truth exists at all…

It has consequences.

Paul McHugh, MD: “Transgenderism: A Pathogenic Meme | Public Discourse”

I’ve written before about contradictions in modern Western viewpoints such as the view that sexual orientation is innate and cannot be changed, but that sex isn’t innate, and can be changed. As I discussed, such views tend to lead to the public denial of self-evident truths, something I find pretty worrying. But there’s also the human cost to consider, an aspect taken up by this article on transgenderism by Paul McHugh, former psychiatrist in chief at John Hopkins Hospital. Some particularly relevant snippets below:

At Johns Hopkins, after pioneering sex-change surgery, we demonstrated that the practice brought no important benefits. As a result, we stopped offering that form of treatment in the 1970s. Our efforts, though, had little influence on the emergence of this new idea about sex, or upon the expansion of the number of “transgendered” among young and old.

First, though, let us address the basic assumption of the contemporary parade: the idea that exchange of one’s sex is possible. It, like the storied Emperor, is starkly, nakedly false. Transgendered men do not become women, nor do transgendered women become men. All (including Bruce Jenner) become feminized men or masculinized women, counterfeits or impersonators of the sex with which they “identify.” In that lies their problematic future.

When “the tumult and shouting dies,” it proves not easy nor wise to live in a counterfeit sexual garb. The most thorough follow-up of sex-reassigned people—extending over thirty years and conducted in Sweden, where the culture is strongly supportive of the transgendered—documents their lifelong mental unrest. Ten to fifteen years after surgical reassignment, the suicide rate of those who had undergone sex-reassignment surgery rose to twenty times that of comparable peers.

There are several reasons for this absence of coherence in our mental health system. Important among them is the fact that both the state and federal governments are actively seeking to block any treatments that can be construed as challenging the assumptions and choices of transgendered youngsters. “As part of our dedication to protecting America’s youth, this administration supports efforts to ban the use of conversion therapy for minors,” said Valerie Jarrett, a senior advisor to President Obama.

In two states, a doctor who would look into the psychological history of a transgendered boy or girl in search of a resolvable conflict could lose his or her license to practice medicine. By contrast, such a physician would not be penalized if he or she started such a patient on hormones that would block puberty and might stunt growth.

What is needed now is public clamor for coherent science—biological and therapeutic science—examining the real effects of these efforts to “support” transgendering. Although much is made of a rare “intersex” individual, no evidence supports the claim that people such as Bruce Jenner have a biological source for their transgender assumptions. Plenty of evidence demonstrates that with him and most others, transgendering is a psychological rather than a biological matter.

In fact, gender dysphoria—the official psychiatric term for feeling oneself to be of the opposite sex—belongs in the family of similarly disordered assumptions about the body, such as anorexia nervosa and body dysmorphic disorder. Its treatment should not be directed at the body as with surgery and hormones any more than one treats obesity-fearing anorexic patients with liposuction. The treatment should strive to correct the false, problematic nature of the assumption and to resolve the psychosocial conflicts provoking it. With youngsters, this is best done in family therapy.

via Transgenderism: A Pathogenic Meme | Public Discourse. (my emphasises)

Regrettably I imagine McHugh’s comments will simply be dismissed or shouted down as “bigotry”, and that the state and health systems will continue to push “treatments” that end up mutilating the body and increasing the likelihood of suicide.

1 Nephi 20

Behold, I have declared the former things from the beginning; and they went forth out of my mouth, and I showed them. I did show them suddenly.

And I did it because I knew that thou art obstinate, and thy neck is an iron sinew, and thy brow brass;

And I have even from the beginning declared to thee; before it came to pass I showed them thee; and I showed them for fear lest thou shouldst say—Mine idol hath done them, and my graven image, and my molten image hath commanded them.

Thou hast seen and heard all this; and will ye not declare them? And that I have showed thee new things from this time, even hidden things, and thou didst not know them.

They are created now, and not from the beginning, even before the day when thou heardest them not they were declared unto thee, lest thou shouldst say—Behold I knew them.

Yea, and thou heardest not; yea, thou knewest not; yea, from that time thine ear was not opened; for I knew that thou wouldst deal very treacherously, and wast called a transgressor from the womb

1 Nephi 20:3-8

Inspiration and revelation can be an astounding and life-changing experience. Yet it is not without its frustrations: while sometimes it is both clear and clearly inspired, at others it can be hard to know what the spirit is saying and hard to discern between true inspiration and ones own thoughts and feelings. On one hand, one wants to respond to true inspiration with faith; believing it and obeying it. On the other hand, there is the desire and duty to avoid being deceived. Sometimes this can feel like a real dilemma.

Yet this passage so strongly speaks about God and His revelations: that he has revealed things, but we’re often too stubborn to hear or understand them. And most intriguingly, he declares that he reveals things in part because of our stubbornness and rebelliousness.

I really hope I don’t fall into that category. But then I’m sure we all do, at least some of the time.

2020:

When I wrote the above, I was still a year away from completing my book with its case study on these chapters, the first of the lengthy Isaiah quotations in the Book of Mormon. Now that’s several years ago, and it’s always a funny experience to go back over chapters that I spent so much time on (and again, that exhaustive look at 1 Nephi 20 can be found elsewhere). To repeat a few general but important points, however, when looking at the Isaiah chapters (and the other lengthy, chapter-length, quotations, such as the 10 Commandments in Mosiah 12-13, Matthew 5-7//3 Nephi 12-15 and Malachi 3-4//3 Nephi 24-25), it’s worth asking why they are there. The authors of the Book of Mormon knew its readers would have the Bible (indeed one purpose of the Book of Mormon is so that people would believe in the truth of the Bible, Mormon 7:9). Critics have suggested padding, but even if you were to remove all such lengthy quotations from the Book of Mormon, it would still be longer than the New Testament. So why spend so much time quoting material its readers already have?

One thing that should be recognised when material is quoted at length is that the imputation of authority is reversed. If I happen to quote a line of Winston Churchill to make a point, I’m hoping to draw upon his wit and wisdom to make a point. Likewise when someone quotes a verse or two of the Bible, they’re hoping to use the authority of that scripture to support a point (and this happens in the Book of Mormon too). But when one quotes a passage at great length, as is done here (and – as Grant Hardy noted – especially when it’s given in the mouth of the Saviour as in 3 Nephi), that effect is reversed: instead that biblical passage is given additional emphasis. It is as if the Book of Mormon is singling out particular passages of the Bible that we should pay attention to.

In some cases the biblical passages are quoted with sizeable differences, of course (though there’s lengthy passages that aren’t). Some have sought to see this as some sort of restoration of original text, but this has to be set against the fact that the Book of Mormon sometimes quotes the same biblical passage very differently (compare, for example, the quotation of Isaiah 49:24-26 by Nephi in 1 Nephi 21:24-26 and by Jacob in 2 Nephi 6:16-18). Why could they do this? Because they were prophets, and thus by inspiration could supply new wording to communicate God’s word (keep this point in mind for a moment). While some have suggested the variations tally with things like the Dead Sea Scrolls this is in fact not the case: the Great Isaiah Scroll (from the Dead Sea Scrolls) is in fact pretty consistent with the standard Hebrew Masoretic text. The most significant textual differences – the whole additional clauses and so on – do not reflect known ancient variants. What many of them do tally with, however, are two of the major themes of the Book of Mormon announced on the title page, namely prophecy & revelation and the restoration of the house of Israel (again, for more of this see chapter 3 of the Book of Mormon and its relationship with the Bible – I really need some acronym – as well as the included appendix which has a textual comparison of all the explicit biblical quotations with the KJV text).

In addition to reinforcing this overall message, however, these chapters often also play into the context of what’s going on in the given part of the Book of Mormon too. This chapter is a good example of that: it is in part a warning to Israel that despite God’s revelations to them they have been stubborn and rebellious (and indeed, some of his revelation has been because they have been stubborn and rebellious). Nevertheless he will be merciful to them: he will defer his anger (v. 9), and refine them in the furnace of affliction (v. 10), and so Israel is to flee from Babylon as part of its redemption (v.20), but with the warning that no one will be delivered if they persist in wickedness (v. 22). This of course also connects with what Nephi has been teaching in 1 Nephi 19, about how Israel will reject the Messiah and be scattered, but will be redeemed.

However, significant parts also connect with Laman and Lemuel specifically: “they call themselves of the holy city, but they not stay themselves upon the God of Israel”. We’ve seen how the brothers cannot believe that Jerusalem would be destroyed (1 Nephi 2:13), and have claimed that the people of Jerusalem were righteous (1 Nephi 17:22). We’ve likewise seen them be stubborn and rebellious in the face of revelation, have rejected the Lord’s prophetic servants, have indeed been led through deserts (v. 21), but risk persisting in their wickedness.

Scripture is often like this, multilayered with simultaneous levels of meaning. And indeed there is one more important layer, made ever more evident by a change that Joseph Smith made. To quote verse 1:

Hearken and hear this, O house of Jacob, who are called by the name of Israel, and are come forth out of the waters of Judah, or out of the waters of baptism, who swear by the name of the Lord, and make mention of the God of Israel, yet they swear not in truth nor in righteousness.

The text in bold – “or our of the waters of baptism” – was not in the 1830 edition, nor on the manuscripts, it was added by Joseph Smith in the 1840 edition. How? On the same basis that Nephi and Jacob could likewise alter the wording as needed. Why? To emphasise another layer: that this warning is not just to Israel as a whole, nor to Laman and Lemuel specifically, but also to us, baptized members of the Church in the latter days. We too can be stubborn and rebellious. We too may not heed the instruction to flee Babylon, a warning that has been very much re-issued in latter day revelation (see D&C 1:16, 35:11, 64:24, and 133:5 & 7). We too may be outwardly conforming to the requirements of the Gospel, including baptism, but “swear not in truth nor in righteousness”. In which case neither our membership of the Church nor any outward obedience will save us, for “there is no peace … unto the wicked” (v. 22). And so we can read ourselves in here too, and liken them unto us, because Isaiah wrote for us too.