The Gospel According to Jeffrey

“…and having seen many afflictions in the course of my days, nevertheless, having been highly favored of the Lord in all my days; yea, having had a great knowledge of the goodness and the mysteries of God…” As I pointed out in my last post (seven months ago! Wow! How did that happen?!), education was obviously very important to Nephi. Given the fact that we are reading scripture, though, it should come as no surprise that his education includes more than just secular learning. What may surprise us, though, is how fully this integrates into the dichotomy expressed in 1 Nephi 1:1. For those that have read the Book of Mormon before, the subtle hint that Nephi has “seen many afflictions” is a subtle use of understatement. While he indubitably lived much of his life in happiness, the scriptures rarely teach us of mundanities, preferring instead to focus on the major events of the prophets’ lives. Thus, we read of many trials through which he passed, the “ refiner’s fire ”of his mortali...

“I, Nephi, having been born of goodly parents, therefore I was taught somewhat in all the learning of my father….” Much has been said on the Internet regarding the definition of the word “goodly,” with the general consensus leaning toward “wealthy.” (Just Google “ goodly wealthy ,” and you’ll see what I mean.) If I might add my own humble opinion to the fray, I would indeed agree that this is the correct definition (despite its pop-culture alternative). So if this be the case, it helps us understand more about the culture in which Nephi is writing—not because his parents were wealthy, but because of the phrase which immediately follows. In our day and nation, education—at least basic education—is considered nothing less than a civil right. In this way we have greatly improved the situation of much of our society. Not so in Nephi’s time and place: the wealth of his parents was inexorably tied to Lehi’s learning, and both that wealth and the learning with which it is associated bear di...

“This is according to the account of Nephi; or in other words, I, Nephi, wrote this record.” Dr. Hugh Nibley, arguably the father of Latter-day Saint apologetics, points out that the First Book of Nephi “starts out with a colophon telling us whose hand wrote it, what his sources were, and what it is about” ( Since Cumorah , 170-171). This is far from unique in scripture ( e.g. the Jerusalem Colophon ), but the statement is important. Latter-day Saints understand that while the scriptures are indeed the word of God, they are the word of God filtered through the minds of His prophets. The level of perfection to which any scripture can attain is only to the extent that its author was willing and able to write His words in the way that He intended, and to the extent that the reader ( e.g. us) is willing and able to understand them in the way that He intended. By opening his record in this way, Nephi is stating, “This is scripture, but I’m totally responsible for the way it’s written. If...

“Nephi’s brethren rebel against him. He confoundeth them, and buildeth a ship. They call the name of the place Bountiful. They cross the large waters into the promised land, and so forth.” So now we get to the next big conflict: the ship. So why is this significant enough to merit inclusion in the headnote? I believe the significance is twofold. First, we have the contrast that Nephi is working so hard to show us: that between himself and his brothers; and secondly, the necessary backstory for how they “cross[ed] the large waters.” But why in such proximity? I believe that, too, has a dual significance. The first significance of this arguable conjugate is the obvious one, that of temporal proximity. The “rebellion” Nephi here cites occurs in 1 Nephi 17 , immediately following the Lord’s commandment that he build a ship ( v.8 ). So of course, these two things go together. However, these is a greater significance of these two items, especially when coupled with the seemingly out of pla...

“The course of their travels. They come to the large waters.” So once again we come to the question of “why.” If the headnote features the most important points of his book, why are “the course of their travels” and their arrival at “the large waters” so important to him, especially when, at least in our modern minds, the former is barely mentioned (see  1 Nephi 16:13 ) in the text itself? Well, I’m going to go out on a limb here: it’s important to him . Nephi was a living, breathing, very human human being. As a product of his time and society, the way he writes is as indicative of his life’s experience as the way you or I write, today. When he says, for example, that the Liahona led Lehi’s party “in the more fertile parts of the wilderness” ( 1 Nephi 16:16 ), it’s second nature to him. He knows where those “more fertile parts” are, so he doesn’t need to explain it to himself; and his audience—who, at this point, is still his own family and descendants—would either alr...

“Their sufferings and afflictions in the wilderness.” Nephi has already mentioned “sufferings” once in his headnote, with respect to his first trip back to Jerusalem (see 1 Nephi: Headnote, Part V ). The sufferings mentioned here are different, though: these are the sufferings of his entire extended family—wife and children, brothers and sisters, nieces and nephews, etc.—while “in the wilderness.” In fact, we know from 1 Nephi 17:4 that they spent “eight years in the wilderness,” so that’s a pretty good chunk of time for some pretty intense “sufferings” to occur. What happened to the families while in the wilderness? 1 Nephi 16 gives us some clue—hunger and even death were definitely part of their travails—but I suspect it was a lot more than that. Discomfort was probably the rule of the day, even in the city of Jerusalem. They didn’t have climate-controlled homes as do we, nor even electricity. They didn’t have running water in their homes. They didn’t have cars to hop over to Wal...

“They take their families and depart into the wilderness.” So let’s think about this for a minute. We’ve already established that Nephi and his brothers are married. Those of us who have read the book previously realize that this happened as a result of their second return to the land of Jerusalem, so it would seem that none of them were married before they left. On the other hand, it would seem that at least some of them also had children by that time, else why the use of the word “families”? Everything between chapter 7 (the second journey) and chapter 16 (when they “[take] of the daughters of Ishmael to wife”) seems to have preceded the weddings, which is not tremendously surprising since those chapters consist almost exclusively of Lehi’s vision and Nephi’s reprise thereof, with only chapter 16 relating a different series of events. Thus, they probably spent much of their “sojourn for the space of many years, yea, even eight years in the wilderness” ( 1 Nephi 17:4 ) as married ...

“They take the daughters of Ishmael to wife.” I suppose we’ll deal with this in more detail when I get to 1 Nephi 7, but I think it bears mentioning that Nephi found this tiny little detail—his marriage—important enough to mention in his headnote. With very few exceptions, women are never mentioned in the scriptures unless they are essential to the story or chronology. So by even mentioning it, we can see that Nephi views his marriage as a major event in his life and history. So what can we learn from this? Although Nephi’s parting commandment to his brother Jacob did allow him to “touch… lightly [upon] the history of this people” ( Jacob 1:2 ), the commandment that Nephi had himself received from God (ostensibly just before writing the headnote!) was that he “should make these plates, for the special purpose that there should be an account engraven of the ministry of [his] people” ( 1 Nephi 9:3 ). Furthermore, he states that: “the things which are pleasing unto the world I do n...

“Nephi taketh his brethren and returneth to the land of Jerusalem after the record of the Jews. The account of their sufferings.” I think this passage speaks a lot to the character of Nephi. Grant Hardy points out that Nephi, while not merely “a biased, self-aggrandizing character,” nonetheless “offers a didactic, one-side narrative that severely truncates events and flattens characters” (Hardy, Understanding the Book of Mormon , 44). I think this comes through quite clearly, in this passage. The events here summarized begin in 1 Nephi 3, when Lehi instructs his sons—on behalf of the Lord—to “go unto the house of Laban, and seek the records, and bring them down hither into the wilderness” ( 1 Nephi 3:4 ). While Nephi is certainly portrayed as the more obedient party, he never mentions “taking” his brethren with him; they simply “took [their] journey in the wilderness, with [their] tents, to go up to the land of Jerusalem” ( 1 Nephi 3:9 ). (Incidentally, the fa...

“He taketh three days’ journey into the wilderness with his family.” It’s so funny that I would get to this sentence, this morning. Last night I was researching something related to the Bible and discovered a web site that mocks the Book of Mormon. Such sites are, of course, a dime a dozen, but this one was different: never before have I seen such inaccurate information as this. I mean, it’s one thing to take issue with the doctrines or even the historical narrative; it’s quite another to come up with such incredibly obvious straw man arguments. Such is the statement that is brought to mind by this passage: “It only took Nephi and his family three days to travel from Jerusalem to the Red Sea. (A distance of 250 miles)” Let’s ignore, for the moment, the fact that this author couldn’t even manage grammatical accuracy in his argument. Where on Earth did s/he get this idea? Lehi didn’t start from the city of Jerusalem; he started from “the land of Jerusalem” (see “ Headnote, Part II ”). J...

“…because he prophesieth unto the people concerning their iniquity and they seek to destroy his life.” When the prophet Jeremiah—arguably the President of the Church in Lehi’s time—wrote of the impending destruction of Jerusalem, King Jehoiakim was, shall we say, not pleased. He burned the record and commanded that Jeremiah and his scribe, Baruch, suffer a similar fate ( i.e. imprisonment, if not death; see Jeremiah 36:21-26 , cf. 37:4 ). While Jeremiah was not there to hear the king’s words, the Lord gave him the sound-byte version: “Why hast thou written therein, saying, The king of Babylon shall certainly come and destroy this land, and shall cause to cease from thence man and beast?” ( Jeremiah 36:29 ). It didn’t take long for Jeremiah’s prophecy against Jehoiakim to come true, and Zedekiah was installed as his successor—and succeeded where his predecessor had failed ( Jeremiah 37:15 ). So when Nephi says that the people sought to destroy his father, he knew what he was talking ab...

“The Lord warns Lehi to depart out of the land of Jerusalem….” Over the years, I’ve had plenty of run-ins with those who would seek to destroy the Church. Some call them “anti-Mormons”; others, avoiding that colloquialism, use “contra-LDS” (as in Michael Ash’s Shaken Faith Syndrome ) or simply “critics.” Regardless of what they be called, these people often come back to an argument that they think proves the falseness of the Book of Mormon: that Alma 7:10 states Jesus shall be born in or at Jerusalem. While we’re obviously a few thousand verses away from Alma 7:10, it occurs to me that right here in the headnote to the First Book of Nephi, we see just why Alma would reference “Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers”: that’s what Lehi did—and with good reason. The late Hugh Nibley points out that: Though he “dwelt at Jerusalem,” Lehi did not live in the city, for it was after they had failed to get the plates in Jerusalem that his sons decided to “go down to the land of ou...