There are different versions of the creation. The Moses, Abraham and Genesis accouts are similar in putting Adam alone at the point when the commandment was given to not partake of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. The Temple account does not preserve this.
All the accounts are intended as initiation ceremonies. In the Abraham account, for example, there are directions given to the players who perform the ceremony. They are all “endowment” documents.
Each ceremony can be viewed as a separate revelation. The fact that there are differences means nothing. All of them are intended to highlight or emphasize different teachings. It is foolish to ask “which one is right” because they are all right.
The creation (or transplant of man onto this world) is not really the reason for the various ceremonial accounts of the event. They are intended to orient us to how we got here (by a deliberate, planned act of God), why were are here (to find our way back to God) and why conditions here are difficult (to gain knowledge of good and evil). The accounts are really about us. Each of us was born innocent in the beginning, gradually become accountable, feel ourselves outside the presence of God, and must work to return.
As the Apostle John closes his Gospel, he adds this comment: “And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written ever one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written.” (John 21: 25.)
In D&C 7’s headnote we read that Section 7 is a “translated version of the record made on parchment by John and hidden up.”
In D&C 93 we read, “John saw and bore record of the fulness of my glory, and the fulness of John’s record is hereafter to be revealed. And he bore record, saying: …” (D&C 93: 6-7.) From verses 7 through 18 it is an excerpt from John’s more complete, and as yet unrevealed account.
[Bruce R. McConkie concluded that this was the testimony of John the Baptist, and not John the Beloved. I have accepted Elder McConkie’s position in books I have written, however, I believe the account in Section 93 is more likely John the Beloved’s record. Since the issue is only a 3 to me on the earlier scale I proposed, I have simply accepted Elder McConkie’s view in what I have written.]
John likely had a good deal more to add concerning the Savior, but deliberately withheld it. Similarly, we have the sealed portion of the Book of Mormon as a reminder that not everything has been revealed to us which prior generations had given to them.
We ought to have a bit more humility about our “Restoration” than we have. The fact is, we have never been given what the ancients were trusted to possess. We have never been equal to them. We certainly aren’t now. Until we take seriously the Book of Mormon (which will require us to both repent and become more humble than we’ve ever been), we aren’t qualified to receive more. (See, e.g., 3 Ne. 26: 7-12; D&C 84: 54-58.)
Of what then do we have to boast?
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has a three-year system for collecting and spending tithes.
In the first year the funds are collected.
In the second year the funds remain invested while a budget is prepared for spending the tithing.
In the third year the funds are spent.
During the time when the funds are collected (first year), they are put to use in investments or deposits which yield a return. Similarly, while they remain invested during the second year, they also yield a return. When the third year arrives, and the funds are being spent on budgeted expenses, until the day they are spent they continue to collect interest or a return.
The amount of tithing collected in the first year is the amount designated “tithing” contributions. This is the amount that is budgeted and spent in the third year. All of the return on tithing yielded in the form of interest or return on investments is treated as “investment income” not tithing.
When the church spends “tithing” on temples, chapels, publications, etc. those monies are confined to the original amount collected as “tithing” only.
When the church spends “investment money” those include the interest, return, etc. collected on the tithing money during the three year cycle from when originally collected until the time it is spent. It also includes the returns on the returns as they accumulate over the years.
Therefore, when the church announces that a project (like the large reconstruction of downtown Salt Lake City) is not “tithing” but is “investment income” of the church, this is the distinction which is being made.
Because of a question contained in the comments section under an earlier post, I am adding this explanation:
Elder Mark E. Peterson explained his view regarding the Second Comforter (a visitation by Jesus Christ with a believer) in conversations of his which have been repeated to me. He had been asked about the issue, and explained his view to those who asked. He believed that the Second Comforter experience was not available to Gentiles. He quoted 3 Nephi 15: 20-24 as the basis for his view, which includes this statement by Christ to the Nephites at the time of His appearance at the Temple in Bountiful: “they understood not that the Gentiles should be converted through their preaching. And they understood not that I said they shall hear my voice; and they understood me not that the Gentiles should not at any time hear my voice– that I should not manifest myself unto them save it be by the Holy Ghost.”
I interpret the above quote differently than Elder Peterson. It is my view that this statement made by Christ was explaining His immediate post-resurrection appearances. Those were limited to the scattered sheep of Israel. These scattered sheep were unknown to each other, and therefore “lost” from each other’s knowledge. However, they remained (just as the Nephites) in organized and believing bodies of scattered Israelites. It was to these organized bodies alone that the risen Savior’s ministry extended immediately following His resurrection.
In contrast, in the latter-days the prophecies are to the contrary. In the latter days, Christ’s appearances as the Second Comforter have been without regard to any limitation of who may be visited. Now, those who believe who are identified with the Gentiles, are grafted into the branches of Israel and become part of the covenant people. (See e.g., 1 Ne. 10: 14.)
With respect to the Gentiles in our day, it is promised directly to them by the Lord, through Nephi, that His appearances will include Gentiles, in very deed: “And it shall come to pass, that if the Gentiles shall hearken unto the Lamb of God in that day that he shall manifest himself unto them in word, and also in power, in very deed, unto the taking away of their stumbling blocks–” (1 Ne. 14: 1.) This is that day.
According to the Moses account of the creation, at the time the commandment was given to “not eat of” the tree of knowledge of good and evil, the woman had not been created. (Moses 3: 15-17.) It was after giving Adam this commandment that the woman was created. (Moses 3: 21-23.)
Eve’s knowledge of the commandment came from Adam, not from God.
God’s commandment to Adam was: “Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat. But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it, nevertheless, thou mayest choose for thyself, for it is given unto thee; but, remember that I forbid it, for in the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.” The restriction placed on Adam was to “NOT EAT” of the fruit of that tree.
Adam’s explanation to Eve was different. Eve explained her understanding to the serpent when the serpent tempted her: “God hath said–Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.” (Moses 4: 9.) Eve’s understanding of the commandment varied from what had been given to Adam by the addition of the words: “NEITHER SHALL YE TOUCH OF IT.”
Adam added to the Lord’s commandment. This additional precaution was the error which set the transgression in motion. For when Eve saw the serpent touching the fruit and not dying, it lent credibility to the assertion that “ye shall not surely die.” (Moses 4: 10.) Being innocent, and therefore vulnerable to deception, Eve could not know she was confronting a lie. Instead she saw with her own eyes that the commandment “not to touch” clearly did not result in death.
One of the great lessons of the Moses account is that adding to the commandments of God, no matter how well intentioned, is going to lead to error if not tragedy. We do as He asks. Without adding to, nor subtracting from what He has bid us to do, we should follow what we are asked by Him.
We cannot improve on His commandments. We cannot build a fence around His commandments by adding other precautions, gestures, supplements, or restrictions. When we do that we produce excess, rigidity, unintended consequences and error. We teach for doctrines the commandments of men. Inevitably leading to a form of godliness without any power. It’s an historic path to failure, diminishing power in the priesthood until it is gone altogether. Detracting from our spiritual as well as physical health. Removing our strength. Corrupting our posterity, as they are distracted from what they should receive as they seek for what they cannot attain by “some other way.”
I rather like Moses’ account.
The great latter day “pollutions” referred to by Mormon in Mormon 8: 31 are the behaviors of men; not environmental waste. Mormon identifies what those “pollutions” are: “murders, and robbing, and lying, and deceivings, and whoredoms, and all manner of abominations.”
Those are harsh indictments. But it becomes even more harsh when Mormon identifies US as the culprits. He calls us “pollutions.” He tells us we have polluted the “holy Church of God.” That can only mean the Restored Church. Sobering indeed.
“O ye pollutions, ye hypocrites, ye teachers, who sell yourselves for that which will canker, why have ye polluted the holy church of God?” (Mormon 8: 38.) Remember that Mormon saw us. Jesus Christ showed Mormon US. He was in a unique position to accurately tell us what ails us. (Mormon 8: 35.)
So why do we think ourselves in good spiritual condition? Why are we confident we aren’t condemned by the Lord? Why do we presume that as Latter-day Saints we are safe. Why do we think Mormon is talking to all those other churches; churches who will never read his book, and therefore cannot be warned by it? It defies common sense, really.
We are in a lot of trouble. He’s trying to help us. How foolish to think we can line up beside him and point the finger away from ourselves. He won’t let us do that, you know. He’s pointing the finger right at us.
April General Conference is upon us. I’m hoping to be able to see or hear some of it while at an out-of-state baseball tournament set for this weekend.
We have a tradition of attending General Priesthood meeting at the BYU Marriott Center. I’m worried that I won’t be back in time for that session. I always like to attend with a larger group, and since you don’t need tickets to attend at BYU, I like going there. All my sons grew up with this tradition.
If you’re in Utah County or Salt Lake County, I recommend it. Outside of the Conference Center itself, I think it is the largest single body of priesthood attending that session of conference.
Isaiah prophesied about the effect of losing knowledge about God. He wrote: “Therefore my people are gone into captivity, because they have no knowledge: and their honourable men are famished, and their multitude dried up with thirst.” (Isa. 5: 13.)
This is an apt description of people when they are not “fed” with truth and light.
In contrast, Nephi wanted the Latter-day followers of Christ to have a “feast” to consume while toiling in this fallen, difficult time. But Nephi notes the “feast” will come to us from hearing the words of “angels” and not from the “arm of flesh.” Nephi taught us: “Angels speak by the power of the Holy Ghost; wherefore, they speak the words of Christ. Wherefore, I said unto you, feast upon the words of Christ; for behold, the words of Christ will tell you all things what ye should do.” (2 Ne. 32: 3.)
Whether we are to “feast” or be “famished” is up to us. Seek, ask, knock: it will be opened. Stay content, do not ask, seek, or knock: you will remain dried up with thirst.
I was asked about the meaning of the statement in scripture that “God cannot lie.” It is an important concept and it has a highly specific application. I have dealt with it at length in the book Beloved Enos. I would suggest reading the discussion there. If there are still questions, send me another inquiry.
I’ve been impressed with Isaiah the last few weeks. His words are timeless. He describes patterns which recur whenever people seek to follow God. It is little wonder Nephi chose to adopt many of Isaiah’s words to describe what he (Nephi) had seen in vision.
I’m struck by how often one prophet will adopt the words of another prophet as his own. One of the great moments in scripture is when Jacob has his people come up to the temple, promising to give them a prophecy. When they arrive, he reads them the words of Zenos, found in Jacob Chapter 5. Then, after this long recitation of Zenos’ words by Jacob, he adds the following:
“As I said unto you that I would prophesy, behold, this is my prophecy– that the things which this prophet Zenos spake, concerning the house of Israel, in the which he likened them unto an unto a tame olive tree, must surely come to pass.” (Jacob 6: 1.) That’s it. His great prophecy: What Zenos said will happen!
I like that. Succinct. No messing around. Just telling these folks that this prophecy he read from another prophet was from God.
It’s a profound message. We endlessly lose light. Then assignments come to prophets to bring back a little (or a lot) of it, and they restore again. We’ve been in the process of restoring truth since Adam. This is because we have also been in the process of discarding truth since Adam. It’s a race between the discarding and the restoring. Mostly discarding seems to win.
Alta lost to Lone Peak in a snow flurry on Friday. They have a another game set for Tuesday at Alta. It is supposed to rain. It will be interesting to see how much different snow and rain make the game.
There was one pop-up in the infield by Lone Peak which went “major league” height – nearly out of sight. In the snow, the Alta shortstop called for the ball, backing off the second-baseman. As the ball descended, the wind and snow pushed it and the shortstop drifted with the ball. By the time it came down, the shortstop had moved within twenty feet of first base. He actually missed the catch. Between the snow and wind the play was anything but routine.
Both teams played in the same conditions. So there’s no excuses for the outcome. But I have to admit, I was grateful when it ended (despite the loss) because the weather made watching it so unpleasant.
I’m hoping the rain-play on Tuesday will be more tolerable to sit through.
Thankfully, state playoffs are generally played in warm, dry weather; and when you get far enough along, also on a neutral field.