Color in Bright Light

1. The saga continues. Before I proceed, on this occasion I will alert the reader to the fact that I have chosen to quote several passages, some of length, out of the conviction that the context for this particular "race and color" scripture, as it may be called, was abundantly clear anciently, but that starting in the racially divided nineteenth century, Latter-day Saints (and in all fairness, a good many others) were predisposed by their racially divided society to understand the passage as a commentary on race and color. I will endeavor to demonstrate that the passage has no connection with human physical characteristics.
2. The question that I will deal with can succinctly be conveyed to the reader as it is put to me: "But doesn't The Book of Mormon actually give an account of dark(-skinned) people who became white(-skinned) as a result of their righteousness?" 
3. Again I ask, how does the passage in question actually read? What does the text actually say? The verse in question comes from The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ, from the book called Third Nephi, chapter 2, verses 14-16:
• (14) And it came to pass that those Lamanites who had united with the Nephites were numbered among the Nephites;
• (15) And their curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites;
• (16) And their young men and their daughters became exceedingly fair, and they were numbered among the Nephites, and were called Nephites. And thus ended the tenth year.
4. For the reader who is unacquainted with the key characters and groups of The Book of Mormon, "Lamanites" is a collective term referring to unconverted Amerindians and includes some actual descendants of Israelites who assimilated to the dominant cultures and religions of the region. The term "Nephites" is a collective term referring to converted Amerindians among whom there were descendants of Israelites who had preserved their ancient Israelite religion while, unsurprisingly, assimilating culturally and linguistically to the dominant cultures and languages of the region. More to the point, the Lamanites were described as being "dark-skinned" as a curse from God, whereas the Nephites remained "white-skinned" for their faithfulness. (Hint: This may be the third installment in the trilogy).
5. Fact, the text states that the skin of those Lamanites who had united with the Nephites  became "white" like unto the Nephites. This issue will be dealt with shortly, but for many Mormons (myself included), the point where we had become solidly convinced that the scripture was clearly referring to skin color is the statement that "their young men and daughters" became "exceedingly fair". 
6. When we Latter-day Saints paraphrase this verse (which is admittedly extremely rare, for we seldom dwell on the topic except in private, and then usually with some discomfort at what this passage seemingly describes), we usually say "their sons and their daughters turned white." The reason I wish to cite our usual (though again, infrequent) paraphrasing is that the verse does not actually say "sons and daughters" but "their young men and their daughters". 
7. But doesn't "their young men" mean "their sons"? Surely, I concede, that in the context of offspring the statement "their young men and their daughters" could just be an instance of stylistic expression. But on a quick search I found 42 references to "sons and daughters" in The Book of Mormon alone, and no doubt there are more. An even greater number of "sons and daughters" references are to be found in The Bible. As for the usage of "sons and daughters" in The Book of Mormon, a passage in Third Nephi 9:2 is exemplary not only because it purports to be the voice of Jesus, but because it was presumably written by the same author who wrote Third Nephi 2:14-16, namely, the prophet Nephi. In this excerpt the voice of Jesus addresses the people of Nephi after catastrophic natural disasters had laid their civilization to waste, and Jesus with sorrow refers to the victims as "the fair sons and daughters" of his people. 
• (2) Wo, wo, wo unto this people; wo unto the inhabitants of the whole earth except they shall repent; for the devil laugheth, and his angels rejoice, because of the slain of the fair sons and daughters of my people; and it is because of their iniquity and abominations that they are fallen!
8. Herein lies the key, I believe, to what is being said in Third Nephi 2:16, for one detail in particular reveals the author's intent: young men. If The Book of Mormon writers, including the writer of the book of Third Nephi, had no aversion to using the expression "sons and daughters" when in reference to actual offspring or the population at large (there are over 40 such reference in The Book of Mormon alone), why here did the writer choose to record "their young men and their daughters"? In fact, the combination "young men and daughters" is used exactly only once in the entire Book of Mormon, and indeed the combination "young men and daughters" is absent in the other three books of scripture (The Bible, Doctrine and Covenants, Pearl of Great Price). The next closest match to the pairing of young men and daughters is found in Joel 2:28 and quoted with some alteration in Acts 2:17:
• (28) And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions: 
• (17) And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:
9. In the citations from Joel and Acts, the word "sons" is paired with "daughters", and "old men" with "young men", but we do not have the combination of "young men and daughters" as we do in Third Nephi.
10. The expressions "young men" and "daughters" themselves had great significance to an ancient Hebrew prophet, and he is the most quoted prophet in The Book of Mormon: Isaiah. 
11. Isaiah, like his predecessor Moses, was of the royal court. Subsequently Isaiah received a superb education and had almost unprecedented access to the top leadership, political and ecclesiastical, of his day. Isaiah was also a gifted poet, and as someone skilled in expression, he found in daily experience the source for much of his symbolism. One of his more frequent sources for motifs was the military, and specifically, the soldiers. (Isaiah 13:17-18)
• (17) Behold, I will stir up the Medes against them, which shall not regard silver; and as for gold, they shall not delight in it.
• (18) Their bows also shall dash the young men to pieces; and they shall have no pity on the fruit of the womb; their eye shall not spare children.
12. Here we encounter Isaiah describing "young men" but separately from "the fruit of the womb" and "children". Isaiah's expression "young men", as a concrete referent, denotes soldiers, the vanguard of the defensive (or as the case may be, offensive) forces. Whole empires would rise or fall based on, in large measure, the prowess of the young troops. The reader should take note that this passage of Isaiah is quoted almost verbatim in The Book of Mormon, the relevant verse being Second Nephi 23:18.
13. Isaiah drew from the military significance of young men as the main supply of soldiers, and used "young men" in a different sense. By folding these young men under the authority of elders, the lying prophet, and errant leaders Isaiah seems to attribute a spiritual role to the young men, and to this extent it would probably not be incorrect to infer a priestly function. I cite Isaiah 9:14-17
• (14) Therefore the LORD will cut from Israel head and tail, branch and rush, in one day.
• (15) The ancient and honourable , he is the head; and the prophet that teacheth lies, he is the tail.
• (16) For the leaders of this people cause them to err; and they that are led of them are destroyed.
• (17) Therefore the Lord shall have no joy in their young men, neither shall have mercy on their fatherless and widows: for every one is an hypocrite and and evildoer, and every mouth speaketh folly. For all this his anger is not turned away, but his hand is stretched out still.
14. What is of interest in Isaiah's passage is that the ancient, i.e. "elder", and honorable as well as the lying prophet and the leaders of the people had gone astray, and for this reason the Lord would take no pleasure in "the young men" or have mercy on the fatherless and widows of the people (the distressed survivors of fallen adult soldiers). The imagery is bold, for it draws on combat scenery and its aftermath and forges a parallel to the spiritual battle. In the spiritual conflicts too there are combat casualties and distressed survivors, only these people had mobilized not with the objective of supporting the Lord's work, therefore the Lord could not apply his mercy to them, for the people had shunned his offer. The principle is salient, that the vanguard of defense, the young men, will not find the Lord's favor (i.e. success, prosperity, his presence), and consequently the nation will collapse, if the people choose to follow errant leaders, which means emulating examples that the people knew to be wrong. The reader should take note that the passage just cited is quoted almost verbatim in The Book of Mormon, the relevant verse being Second Nephi 19:17. 
15. Book of Mormon writers also used phrase "young men" in a military sense, as in Mosiah 10:9, "...and I also caused that all my old men that could bear arms, and also all my young men that were able to bear arms, should gather themselves together to go to battle against the Lamanites; and I did place them in their ranks, every man according to his age."
16. Assuming that I have demonstrated a possible link to Isaiah's usage of "young men", would not the reference to "daughters" be straightforward enough in regards to female offspring? Isaiah used "daughters", indeed "women" and "daughters", in a manner that may suggest that "women" represented his people at one level, presumably one of some authority, and "daughters" as his people under the authority of the former. Such an ordering is a consistent model Isaiah used, that of leaders and followers. I cite Isaiah 32:9-18:
• (9) Rise up, ye women that are at ease; hear my voice, ye careless daughters; give ear unto my speech.
• (10) Many days and years shall ye be troubled, ye careless women: for the vintage shall fail, the gathering shall not come.
• (11) Tremble, ye women that are at ease; be troubled, ye careless ones: strip you, and make you bare, and gird sackcloth upon your loins.
• (12) They shall lament for the teats, for the pleasant fields, for the fruitful vine.
• (13) Upon the land of my people shall come up thorns and briers; yea, upon all the houses of joy in the joyous city; 
• (14) Because the palaces shall be forsaken; the multitude of the city shall be left; the forts and towers shall be for dens for ever, a joy of wild asses, a pasture of flocks;
• (15) Until the spirit be poured upon us from on high, and the wilderness be a fruitful field, and the fruitful field be counted for a forest.
• (16) Then judgement shall dwell in the wilderness, and righteousness remain in the fruitful field.
• (17) And the work of righteousness shall be peace; and the effect of righteousness quietness and assurance for ever.
• (18) And my people shall dwell in a peaceable habitation, and in sure dwellings, and in quiet resting places;
17. The readers will notice that only "women" and "daughters" are addressed, and for their "ease" or "carelessness" they face a prolonged period of desolation, but when they strip off the garments (presumably their finery, i.e. their pride and sins) and repent, then the Spirit will be poured on them from on high, peace and the effect of righteousness and assurance will abide forever, and, most telling, "my people" shall dwell in peaceable habitation. The reason "my people" is relevant here is because this citation seems to suggest that the earlier referents of "women" and "daughters" were symbolic of the "people" of the Lord, and as such the relationship between "women" and "daughters" had to be of one engendering the other, "they shall lament for the teats" (i.e. lactation, mother nourishing offspring), which is why I suggest that "women" refers to those at a certain level of authority and daughters to those subject to the former.
18. I would refer the reader to a passage where, ostensibly the Lord excoriates young women for their vanity, (or so the citation is often interpreted), but would invite the reader to contemplate what the prophet may actually have intended. It may be profitable to bear in mind that "daughters" may represent the covenant people, specifically as those subject to others in authority. I cite Isaiah 3:16-26 and Isaiah 4:3-5:
• (16) Moreover the LORD saith, Because the daughters of Zion are haughty, and walk with stretched forth necks and wanton eyes, walking and mincing as they go, and making a tinkling with their feet;
• (17) Therefore the Lord will smite with a scab the crown of the head of the daughters of Zion, and the LORD will discover their secret parts.
• (18) In that day the Lord will take away the bravery of their tinkling ornaments about their feet, and their cauls, and their round tires like the moon,
• (19) The chains, and the bracelets, and the mufflers,
• (20) The bonnets, and the ornaments of the legs,  and the headbands, and the tablets, and the earrings,
• (21) The rings, and nose jewels,
• (22) The changeable suits of apparel, and the mantles, and the wimples, and the crisping pins,
• (23) The glasses, and the fine linen, and the hoods, and the vails.
• (24) And it shall come to pass, that instead of sweet smell there shall be stink; and instead of a girdle a rent; and instead of well set hair baldness; and instead of a stomacher a girding of sackcloth; and burning instead of beauty.
• (25) Thy men shall fall by the sword, and thy mighty in the war.
• (26) And her gates shall lament and mourn; and she being desolate shall sit upon the ground.
• (3) And it shall come to pass, that he that is left in Zion, and he that remaineth in Jerusalem, shall be called holy, even every one that is written among the living in Jerusalem:
• (4) When the Lord shall have washed away the filth of the daughters of Zion, and shall have purged the blood of Jerusalem from the midst thereof by the spirit of judgement, and by the spirit of burning.
• (5) And the LORD will create upon every dwelling place of mount Zion and upon her assemblies, a cloud and smoke by day, and the shining of a flaming fire by night: for upon all the glory shall be a defence.
19. There is much in the above passage to analyze, and I am not pretending to be capable of conducting a point by point exposition. However the reader may interpret the passages from Isaiah 3 and 4, we have here a similar pairing of "daughters" and "men", which recalls the pairing of "their young men and their daughters" used in Third Nephi. In the above-cited Isaiah passage the Lord reveals that he will cleanse the daughters of Zion specifically by the Spirit of judgment and the Spirit of burning. Isaiah then conveys that the Lord shall dwell among his people, as conveyed through the imagery of the Exodus from Egypt, namely the cloud of smoke by day, and the flaming fire by night. It is notable that the Lord shall dwell among his people after cleansing the "filth of the daughters of Zion", which detail yet again indicates to me that "daughters" is being used to refer to the covenant people collectively. The reader will note that the above cited passages are quoted nearly verbatim in The Book of Mormon in Second Nephi, chapters 13 and 14.
20. But what of turning white? I certainly am not purporting to establish a conclusive link between the phrase "their young men and their daughters" to Isaiah's passages, though the linguistic similarity is noteworthy. But what of their turning white/exceedingly fair? I would cite another Isaiah passage, Isaiah 9:2:
• (2) The people that walked in darkness have seen a great light: they that dwell in the land of the shadow of death, upon them hath the light shined.
21. The darkness that is upon people is a spiritual darkness, and this absence of light has no bearing on actual skin hues, but the people become bathed in light as they receive the Messiah. The reader will note that the same passage of Isaiah is quoted nearly identically in Second Nephi 19:2. 
22. We Latter-day Saints often cite the above passage of Isaiah with reference to the Lord Jesus extending his influence among those who passed from mortality to the world of spirits. Certainly I agree, though I would remind the careful reader that the same influence, the same spiritual illumination comes to the living in much the same way. When the apostle Matthew described the commencement of Jesus' earthly ministry, he recorded the following (Matthew 4:16): 
• (16) The people which sat in darkness saw great light; and to them which sat in the region and shadow of death light is sprung up.
23. The passage in Third Nephi 2:14-16 does not describe the process, the actual step by step of conversion to "white" or "exceedingly fair", but The Book of Mormon is actually abundant in its descriptions of this process. Though this passage is somewhat lengthy, in the instance of this posting I concluded that some detail is necessary for a proper framing of the expression "becoming white".
24. In The Book of Mormon, in the book of Helaman, the writer records an encounter between two missionaries of extraordinary faith, Nephi and Lehi, and their jailers, the latter who are on the point of executing the pair of missionaries, and this after subjecting the two preachers to several days of deprivation. The encounter is, in my opinion, the definitive example of what is meant by The Book of Mormon's writers when they describe people turning white through faith and conversion. I cite Helaman 5:28-48, a passage which begins with the jailers.
• (28) And it came to pass that they were overshadowed with a cloud of darkness, and an awful solemn fear came upon them.
• (29) And it came to pass that there came a voice as if it were above the cloud of darkness, saying: Repent ye, repent ye, and seek no more to destroy my servants whom I have sent unto you to declare good tidings.
• (30) And  it came to pass when they heard this voice, and beheld that it was not a voice of thunder, neither was it was it a voice of a great tumultuous noise, but behold, it was a still voice of perfect mildness, as if it had been a whisper, and it did pierce even to the very soul--
• (31) And notwithstanding the mildness of the voice, behold the earth shook exceedingly, and the walls of the prison trembled again, as if it were about to tumble to the earth; and behold the cloud of darkness, which had overshadowed them, did not disperse--
• (32) And behold the voice came again, saying: Repent ye, repent ye, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand; and seek no more to destroy my servants. And it came to pass that the earth shook again, and the walls trembled.
• (33) And also again the third time the voice came, and did speak unto them marvelous words which cannot be uttered by man; and the walls did tremble again, and the earth shook as if it were about to divide asunder.
• (34) And it came to pass that the Lamanites could not flee because of the cloud of darkness which did overshadow them; yea, and also they were immovable because of the fear which did come upon them.
• (35) Now there was one among them who was a Nephite by birth, who had once belonged to the church of God but had dissented from them.
• (36) And it came to pass that he turned him about, and behold, he saw through the cloud of darkness the faces of Nephi and Lehi; and behold, they did shine exceedingly, even as the faces of angels. And he beheld that they did lift their eyes to heaven; and they were in the attitude as if talking or lifting their voices to some being whom they beheld.
• (37) And it came to pass that this man did cry unto the multitude that they might turn and look. And behold, there was power given unto them that they did turn and look; and they did behold the faces of Nephi and Lehi.
• (38) And they said unto the man: Behold, what do all these things mean, and who is it with whom these men do converse?
• (39) Now the man's name was Aminadab. And Aminadab said unto them: They do converse with the angels of God.
• (40) And it came to pass that the Lamanites said unto him: What shall we do, that this cloud of darkness may be removed from overshadowing us?
• (41) And Aminadab said unto them: You must repent, and cry unto the voice, even until ye shall have faith in Christ, who was taught unto you by Alma, and Amulek, and Zeezrom; and when ye shall do this, the cloud of darkness shall be removed from overshadowing you.
• (42) And it came to pass that they all did begin to cry unto the voice of him who had shaken the earth; yea, they did cry even until the cloud of darkness was dispersed.
• (43) And it came to pass that when they cast their eyes about , and saw that the cloud of darkness was dispersed from overshadowing them, behold, they saw that they were encircled about, yea every soul, by a pillar of fire.
• (44) And Nephi and Lehi were in the midst of them; yea, they were encircled about; yea, they were as if in the midst of a flaming fire, yet it did harm them not, neither did it take hold upon the walls of the prison; and they were filled with that joy which is unspeakable and full of glory.
• (45) And behold, the Holy Spirit of God did come down from heaven, and did enter into their hearts, and they were filled as if with fire, and they could speak forth marvelous words.
• (46) And it came to pass that there came a voice unto them, yea, a pleasant voice, as if it were a whisper, saying:
• (47) Peace, peace be unto you because of your faith in my Well Beloved, who was from the foundation of the world.
• (48) And now, when they heard this they cast up their eyes as if to behold from whence the voice came; and behold, they saw the heavens open; and angels came down out of heaven and ministered unto them.
25. A lengthy passage, but it is the definitive play-by-play "dark turning white" episode in the whole scriptural record. In this encounter the Lord allows certain jailers to see their spiritual state, one of deep darkness overshadowing them. The jailers are struck with fear, but then see that their captives' faces are shining with light, and a pillar of fire encircles them. The voice of God calls the jailers to repentance, and one of the jailers, having once been a believer, is stirred to remembrance, and he encourages his companions to call upon the voice until they have faith in Christ. The jailers do so, and the darkness dissipates as the great light shines upon them. Soon the jailers too have become encircled in a pillar of fire as the Holy Spirit of God comes upon them. A more detailed step-by-step description of the process could hardly be imagined, and the readers is reminded how well these steps concur with the very Isaiah passages cited above, to wit, that the people dwell in darkness, that through repentance the people invite the Spirit of God upon them, which Spirit cleanses them, the Light rests upon the people, and the people begin to enjoy the presence of the Lord among them.
26. I realize that the Isaiah passages may have only a coincidental linguistic similarity, and the reader is not obligated to modify his or her view on the passage from 3 Nephi 2:14-16. One additional aspect of the "young men and daughters" passage seems problematic: Why did Nephi not dwell on the details of the conversion to white/exceedingly fair? Nephi makes his statement in a matter-of-fact fashion as if the mere mentioning itself was sufficient for the reader to comprehend what the event consisted of. In my experience, such usage in passing is typical of idiomatic expressions. That is to say, linguistically, the usage of the expressions "becoming white" and "becoming exceedingly fair" concords with their utilization as idiomatic expressions, ones clearly understandable in their ancient religious and cultural framework, but unfortunately evoking imagery of racial superiority in an era when societies had divided and elevated or subjected whole populations based on physical characteristics. 
27. As a tidbit, when in English we say "blacks and whites", we understand this to be people of African ancestry and people of European ancestry. When Russians say "blacks and whites", they understand this to be "black-haired people, usually Turkic peoples of southern Russian" and "blonds, ethnic Slavs, usually northern Russians." In the Russian example, both groups are Caucasian, but hair color and ethnicity are implied by the same two referents that in English seem so clearly to refer to African vs. European ancestry. I suspect an analogous situation is present in the ancient references to dark skin turning white, that is, that the ancients understood this as the light of the Lord falling upon those who had been in darkness, whereas in our modern usage of skin color, we understood the passage to be one of racial characteristics undergoing a metamorphosis.
28. In conclusion I submit the case to the reader to decide for him or herself whether or not these citations on "their young men and their daughters" turning white/exceedingly fair symbolizes the Holy Spirit of God falling upon the priesthood holders and the people they serve, two groups who together constituted a very people of God. However we conclude though, the excerpts I have brought forward your consideration are, even if viewed as randomly selected, in the very least, actually textual.

Black Skin versus Blackness

Black Skin versus Blackness: Part 1 of a Scriptural Trilogy

1. What a momentous month December 2013 has turned out to be!
2. The issue I wish to address is one that is put to me from time to time, to wit, does the Mormon book of scripture, The Book of Moses, contained in The Pearl of Great Price, really teach that black skin, the dark complexion most commonly associated with people of Africa, is a curse from God?
3. For much of its history members, including top leadership (prophets and apostles), of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints taught that indeed black skin was a sign of God's disapproval of the actions of dark complexioned people or their distant ancestors, actions committed in this life or prior, in (per LDS doctrine) one's pre-earth or premortal life. But on December 6, 2013, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints set the record straight:
• "Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form."
4. But the statement from LDS leadership does not delve into the scriptures that, for many members, again, top LDS leadership included, until very recently (the LDS Church finally understood that reticence on the subject of past racist statements by prophets and apostles would not be understood as a disavowal, only as evasion, and thus issued the belated clarification cited above) understood precisely to mean that black skin was the mark of divine disfavor.
5. So let us see what the text actually says. The verse in question is in the context of the preaching of the antediluvian prophet, Enoch, and a people who had separated from the larger mass of Adam's descendants, a people to whom Enoch would not be sent:
• "For behold, the Lord shall curse the land with much heat, and the barrenness thereof shall go forth forever; and there was a blackness came upon all the children of Canaan, that they were despised among all people." (Moses 7:8)
6. To many a Mormon this verse stuns their sensibilities and their belief in the equality of all people before God. I would draw the reader to two points.
7. Point 1: The Lord cursed the land with much heat. Why the land? Perhaps because "land" not only denotes a geographic location but more importantly represents a "state of being", living under the influence of God, spiritually being in his presence: "If ye will keep my commandments ye shall prosper in the land--but if ye keep not his commandments ye shall be cut off from his presence." (Alma 37:13). It is worth noting that the antithesis of "prospering in the land" is "being cut off from God's presence", thus to prosper in the land, in the scriptural sense, is not a promise of monetary means but rather a promise of "being in God's presence". In the scriptures the most enduring image of dwelling in God's presence is being in the Garden of Eden, which itself is symbolized by Temples. 
8. Point 2: The phrase "blackness came upon all the children of Canaan" is the scriptural expression that denotes "not being in the light of God", and being in a state of sorrow, but not actual skin hue. To this point I will cut to the chase, for brevity is to preferable to verbosity. I cite the Old Testament prophet Joel, chapter 2, verses 1-6:
• (1) Blow ye the trumpet in Zion, and sound an alarm in my holy mountain: let all the inhabitants of the land tremble: for the day of the LORD cometh, for it is night at hand;
• (2) A day of darkness and of gloominess, a day of clouds and of thick darkness, as the morning spread upon the mountains: a great people and a strong; there hath not been ever the like, neither shall be any more after it, even to the years of many generations.
• (3) A fire devoureth before them; and behind them a flame burneth: the land is as the garden of Eden before them, and behind them a desolate wilderness; yea, and nothing shall escape them.
• (4) The appearance of them is as the appearance of horses; and as horsemen, so shall they run.
• (5) Like the noise of chariots on the tops of mountains shall they leap, like the noise of a flame of fire that devoureth the stubble, as a strong people set in battle array.
• (6) Before their face the people shall be much pained: all faces shall gather blackness.
9. I will draw the careful reader's attention to Joel's descriptions, for "darkness", "gloominess", "clouds" and "thick darkness" would spread over the land. Then fire would devour the land leaving desolation, a description which recalls the phrase "curse the land with much heat" from Moses 7, save for one land that would be "as the garden of Eden". Then finally, all faces (or presumably the faces of all people not in the Eden-like land) shall gather "blackness". The prophecy is not declaring that all humanity will become Negroid, but that those outside the presence of God shall be in a spiritually dark and mournful state. 
10. Thus, to be "black" in the scriptures is not literally to have a dark complexion. To be "black" in the scriptures signifies that the individual in question is not in the light of the Lord and has gathered spiritual darkness rather than joy and light. Though I have a penchant for citing numerous examples (I am given to making the case, when I have a conviction that truth needs to be disseminated), I will rest this matter to the careful reader as is. Some may disagree or see this posting as Mormon "damage control". However you conclude, I would remind my brethren of one thing only: these passages are actually textual.

To Be or Not To Be...an Idol

       I got stumped. Truth is I get stumped all the time, often in study and research, so my friends do not often see it, but I am open about this. Getting stumped means only that I did not have the answer at the moment, but I knew where to find it. A friend of mine, who is Atheist, looked at me in disbelief when I told her that God speaks to me. She could not fathom my expression as I clarified that I do not hear His words by the usual means of auditory perception, but that I perceive them in my mind and in my heart, as real as any personal communication made to me. More so even. I am not asserting that such communication is daily, at least not in the most powerful of my personal examples, but in softer tones, like wavelets lapping at my furrows, relaxing their contractions and shedding clarity and peace where once there was perplexity and anxiety. This experience is daily, and it feeds my faith.

The Bible? It's All French to Me.

1.       It is no secret that Jimmie has a penchant for the French language. French was the first foreign language I studied from scratch that I found a knack with. Though I have hardly mastered the language (I have not dedicated the time and energy), my love for it endures. I even love Polish the same way, for Polish is the “French” of Slavic languages.

2.       I am fond of pointing out that, by some estimates, of the core vocabulary that English speakers and writers usually use, up to 7 out of 10 words come from French.

3.       Avoiding French would, logically, be hard to do, for we as we sit at our table (French), on our chairs (French), eating beef (French) and vegetable (French) salad (French) with a fork (French), off our plates (French), and downing it fresh (French) fruit (French) juice (French), we all are surrounded, immersed and enriched by la richesse de la langue Française. Ou la la!

4.       Nor is our belief system outside the bounds of a little French finesse. We have faith (French), which leads to repentance (French), which in turn (to Christians and Jews, and in a modified form to my Muslim and Hindu brothers and sisters) leads to baptism (French).

5.       So what is in a name? Take the Holy Bible, Old and New Testaments. This tome is the singularly greatest record in the history of mankind, making no exaggeration. I put forward that The Bible, when properly understood (herein is the catch), inspired the best in civil law, art, music and whet mankind’s appetite for the moral, the spiritual, the sublime in life. The Old Testament was the foundation of the New Testament. Both tomes, Old and New, are revered in the Qur’an as the Tawrat (Torah), Zabur (Psalms to David), and Injil (Gospel to Jesus). The Bible along with The Book of Mormon contain, say Latter-day Saints, the “fullness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ”.

6.       So I put it forward for consideration: Where does the name “Bible” come from, and what does it mean?

7.       Well, if you have gotten my drift thus far, you’d be right. To cut to the chase, our word “Bible” came from, you guessed it (you had a 7/10 chance of getting it right), French: la Bible.

8.       Wonderful! But consider this. In English, “Bible” is singular, for we say “one Bible”. The plural would be “2 (or more) Bibles”. The same is true of our donor language, French: “une Bible” and “deux Bibles”.

9.       The knowledge that English obtained the name “Bible” from French, however, only transfers to sunny French soil the issue of provenance: Where did the French get their name “Bible” from? The French got their name, predictably, from Latin: (French) Bible < (Latin) Biblia. The same pattern of singular vs. plural was present in Latin, hence “una Biblia” vs. “duo Bibliis” (‘one Bible’ vs. ‘two Bibles’).

10.   The knowledge that the French name “Bible” came from the Latin name “Biblia”, again, only transfers the issue of origin to the lovely landscapes of Italy. But where did the Romans get the name “Biblia” from? The predictable answer is, the Romans got the name “Biblia” from Greek:   τὰ βιβλία, tà Biblía.

11.   Only here, the interesting thing is, that the pattern of singular : plural does not hold up, for the Greek name “Biblía” is already plural. So if the Greek name “Biblía” is plural, what was the singular and what did it mean? Well, herein is no mystery at all. The singular of the Greek name Biblía is βιβλίον biblion, and it meant “book”.

12.   In the fourth century A.D., Latin-speaking and Greek-speaking congregations came together to form a church that would inherit the legacy (so to say) of first century Christianity. Thus was born the Greco-Roman Catholic Church, and its first leader or pope, Emperor Constantine, commissioned councils to settle doctrinal variations, establish unity in belief and practice, and then to create a single tome of Christian scripture. By the fifth century A.D. the process had come to fruition, and the result was the union of the Hebrew scriptures (in Greek translation) to the (recently) approved Christian scriptures (much of them in Greek translation) as a single book of holy writ. Greek scribes christened this tome, (a work which was destined to become no less than the greatest single book in world history), modestly, “ τὰ βιβλία, tà Biblía”, ‘the Books’.

13.   The reader may be wondering, “But if “ta Biblía” meant ‘the Books’ in Greek, how did “in Biblia” (‘the Bible’) in Latin come to be singular, and hence, singular in French, “la Bible”, and singular in English, “the Bible”?

14.   The answer is, quite easily. Greek had three grammatical genders for nouns (and adjectives): masculine, feminine, and neuter. Latin had two grammatical genders for nouns and adjectives: masculine and feminine. The Greek word book, βιβλίον biblion, was neuter singular. The Greek word phrase “the books”, “τὰ βιβλία, tà Biblía”, was neuter plural. However, Latin had the suffix –ia, only in Latin –ia denoted feminine singular nouns: acrimonia ‘acrimony’, harmonia ‘harmony’ et al. Latin speakers naturally heard the Greek name “Biblía”, a plural in Greek, as a singular in Latin. Latin speakers then treated “Biblia” as a singular noun, and from thence we reach English were “Bible” is singular.

15.   So in summary, here is the word origin:

                 Singular           Plural

English:      One Bible        Two Bibles

French:      Une Bible         Deux Bibles

Latin:         Una Biblia        Duo Bibliis

Greek:        ένα βιβλίον     δύο βιβλία 

                 éna biblion     dúo biblía 

                ‘one book’      ‘two books’

16.   Perhaps the most cited example of the Greek term biblion ‘book’ in the Bible comes from the Book of Revelation. Of the books that in the fourth and fifth centuries A.D. were accepted as canonical by the nascent Greco-Roman Catholic Church, the Book of Revelation was the second-to-last book to have been written. The book of Revelation was placed as the last book in the most copies of the New Testament, though in one, the Codex Alexandrinus, the Book of Revelation is the third-to-last book, inasmuch as the Codex Alexandrinus contains two erstwhile canonical tomes, 1 Clement and 2 Clement, both of which fell out of favor in the fourth and fifth centuries A.D. when some of their doctrines were found to be out of harmony with the recently held doctrinal declarations.

17.   I will quote from the KJV of Revelation 22:19:

And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

18.   This verse mentions book three times: “words of the book of this prophecy”, “book of life”, “this book”. In all three instances a form of the Greek singular βιβλίον biblion is used. This is of interest because for the last fourteen hundred years, many Christians have taken this verse to be a reference to the entire Biblical tome, as if the Apostle John had written: “And if any man shall take away from the words of the Bible…” However, in my calculation, the reader should ponder two things: (1) John wrote his Book of Revelation circa 90 A.D. and his Gospel in circa 95 A.D., both of which predated the formation of the New Testament by some 300+ years, and (2) had John intended the reader to understand that his warning against the unauthorized editing of his work (unfortunately a common practice with every known work of scripture to have survived unbroken transmission from prophet to the public over the last three millennia), he would presumably have used “τὰ βιβλία, tà Biblía” as his expression.

19.   The etymological chain that leads from the English name “Bible” all the way to the very question as to whether the Bible itself allows for more sacred writ is a rather interesting series of facts and questions. I will leave them to the reader to ponder. It may be all French to many of us, but the matter is, in the very least, actually textual. 

Cookies and the Annunciation to the Virgin Mary in the Qur'an: A Look at Three Inspired Accounts

 

1.       When I finished my two-year mission to Guatemala I returned home to San Francisco.

2.       On one occasion I was visiting a member of my congregation, an English teacher who was, in the way of English teachers, a careful and precise speaker.

3.       She lifted a plate of cookies and asked, “Would you like a cookie?”

4.       My answer was in the affirmative.

5.       Then she asked, “Oh, James, would you not like a cookie?”

6.       I hesitated, and she chuckled adding, “Questions posed in the negative always cause people to pause with a certain level of uncertainty.”

7.       My point in mentioning this will follow suit.

8.       My main objective in this blog entry is to compare two accounts of the Virgin Birth and its significance to two religious traditions: The Qur’an and The Book of Mormon, texts which are central to Islam and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, respectively.

9.       I will presume some familiarity with the account as described in The Gospel According to Luke (Luke 1:26-37):

a.       (26) And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth,

b.      (27) To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary.

c.       (28) And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.

d.      (29) And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be.

e.      (30) And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God.

f.        (31) And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS,

g.       (32) He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:

h.      (33) And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.

i.         (34) Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?

j.        (35) And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

k.       (36) And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.

l.         (37) For with God nothing shall be impossible.

m.    (38) And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her.

10.   This event, the Annunciation by the Angel Gabriel, is the inception of the pivotal event dating from which the entire tome known as The New Testament proceeds. This, the arrival of the promised Messiah, the Son of God, is the central message of Christianity, and its importance to Christians cannot be understated. As is commonly known, Mary goes on to deliver the child Jesus in Bethlehem, according to the New Testament account.

11.   My fellow Christian acquaintances may find it interesting to discover that The Holy Qur’an also gives a narrative account of the Annunciation of the Angel Gabriel to the Virgin Mary, and of the Virgin Birth (“Mary”, Surah 19:16-26):

a.       (16) Relate in the Book the story of Mary, when she withdrew from her family to a place in the East.

b.      (17) She placed a screen (to screen herself) from them: then We sent to her Our angel, and he appeared before her as a man in all respects.

c.       (18) She said: “I seek refuge from thee to the Most Merciful: Come if thou dost fear God.”

d.      (19) He said: “Nay, I am only an Apostle of thy Lord to announce to thee the gift of a pure son.”

e.      (20) She said: “How shall I have a son, seeing that no man has touched me, and I am no unchaste?”

f.        (21) He said: “So it will be: thy Lord saith, ‘That is easy for Me’: and We shall appoint him as Sign unto mankind and Mercy from Us: it is a matter so decreed.”

g.       (22) So she conceived him, and she retired with him to a remote place.

h.      (23) And the pains of childbirth drove her to the trunk of a palm-tree: she cried (in her anguish): “Ah! Would that I had died before this! that I had been a thing forgotten.”

i.         (24) But a voice cried to her from beneath the palm-tree: “Grieve not! for thy Lord hath provided a rivulet beneath thee;

j.        (25) “And shake towards thyself the trunk of the palm-tree: it will let fall fresh ripe dates upon thee.

k.       (26) “So eat and drink and cool (thine) eye. And if thou dost see any man, say, ‘I have vowed a fast to the Most Merciful, and this day will I enter into no talk with any human being.’

l.         (27) At length she brought the babe to her people, carrying him in her arms, they said: “O Mary! truly a strange thing hast thou brought!

m.    (28) “O sister of Aaron! thy father was not a man of evil, nor thy mother a woman unchaste!”

n.      (29) But she pointed to the babe. They said: “How can we talk to one who is a child in the cradle?”

o.      (30) He said: “I am indeed Servant of God: He hath given me The Book and made me Prophet:

p.      (31) “And He hath made me blessed wheresoever I be, and hath enjoined on me prayer and charity as long as I live;

q.      (32) “He hath made me kind to my mother, and not overbearing or unblest;

r.        (33) “So Peace is on me the day I was born, the day that I die, and the day that I shall be raised up to life!”

s.       (34) Such was Jesus son of Mary: it is a statement of truth about which they vainly dispute.

t.        (35) It is not befitting to God that He should beget a son. Glory be to Him! when He determines a matter, He only says to it, “Be”, and it is.

u.      (36) Verily God is my Lord and your Lord: Him therefore serve ye: this is Way that is straight.

12.   The message of the Qur’anic account is stunning: God declares that he dispatched the Angel to make the Annunciation to Mary, she conceives because God so decreed, God decrees that the child Jesus shall be his Sign to mankind and his Mercy from God, Mary labors in pain by a palm-tree, a rivulet (stream) appears beneath her when the child Jesus is born, Mary is commanded by a voice to shake the palm-tree (which palm-trees are said to be so sturdy that they do not shake) and it miraculously shakes then yielding dates (understood by their Arabic name to be yellowish-white dates, the lightest color dates). Also note that the fruit of the tree as well as the rivulet become accessible or appear immediately after Jesus’ birth. Mary then fasts in silence and Jesus, though a newborn, speaks declaring himself to have received “The Book”, to be Servant of God, to be Prophet, and Jesus calls on all to worship His Lord and our Lord. This message is in and of itself is stunning, all the more so given that, in my own ignorance, I had no knowledge that my fellow believers in the God of Abraham, Muslims, held a series of beliefs so akin to mine. This account is exquisite, not only for its wealth of religious symbolism and literary style, but for its compelling and emotive crescendo.

13.   Two issues stand out to me and a good many other Christians: (1) The Qur’anic account does differ in some key regards from the New Testament account and (2) Jesus makes the statement, “It is not befitting to God that He should beget a son.”

14.   I am certainly not proposing that I will harmonize the Biblical and Qur’anic accounts, at least not so far as judging between the merits of the details of either account. I will, however, propose a comparison be made with another text that purports to predate the New Testament account by six-hundred years and the Qur’anic account by roughly one thousand years: The Vision of the Tree of Life in The Book of Mormon.

15.   Likewise, I will not touch upon the historicity of The Book of Mormon itself other than to acknowledge that The Book of Mormon is viewed as genuine by the Latter-day Saints (and that includes yours truly), and that besides the Latter-day Saints few if any view The Book of Mormon as anything other than a nineteenth-century work. Regardless of provenance, The Book of Mormon has been known of since 1829. In the first book of The Book of Mormon a prophet named Lehi receives a vision of The Tree of Life. Lehi’s prophet-son Nephi, believing his father's account of the vision, seeks further to understand the symbolism of the vision and, after his prayerful contemplation, he is granted his own vision in which the symbols are explained. The symbol whose interpretation Nephi most sought was that of an extraordinarily beautiful white tree that shone in a dark desert, a white and bright tree bearing white fruit that was extraordinarily sweet and joyous to the taste, a tree with a spring of pure water emanating nearby. The interpretation comes in the form of an angelic visitation, a vision, and a dialogue with the heavenly messenger (1 Nephi 11:1-25):

a.       (1) For it came to pass after I had desired to know the things that my father had seen, and believing that the Lord was able to make them known unto me, as I sat pondering in mine heart I was caught away in the Spirit of the Lord, yea, into an exceedingly high mountain, which I never had before seen, and upon which I never had before set my foot.

b.      (2) And the Spirit said unto me: Behold, what desirest thou?

c.       (3) And I said: I desire to behold the things which my father saw.

d.      (4) And the Spirit said unto me: Believest thou that thy father saw the tree of which he hath spoken?

e.      (5) And I said: Yea, thou knowest that I believe all the words of my father.

f.        (6) And when I had spoken these words, the Spirit cried with a loud voice, saying: Hosanna to the Lord, the Most High God; for he is God over all the earth, yea, even above all. And blessed art thou, Nephi, because thou believest in the Son of the most high God; wherefore, thou shalt behold the things which thou hast desired.

g.       (7) And behold this thing shall be given unto thee for a sign, that after thou hast beheld the tree which bore the fruit which thy father tasted, thou shalt also behold a man descending out of heaven, and him shall ye witness; and after ye have witnessed him ye shall bear record that it is the Son of God.

h.      (8) And it came to pass that the Spirit said unto me: Look! And I looked and beheld a tree; and it was like unto the tree which my father had seen; and the beauty thereof was far beyond, yea, exceeding of all beauty; and the whiteness thereof did exceed the whiteness of the driven snow.

i.         (9) And it came to pass after I had seen the tree, I said unto the Spirit: I behold thou hast shown unto me the tree which is precious above all.

j.        (10) And he said unto me: What desirest thou?

k.       (11) And I said unto him: To know the interpretation thereof—for I spake unto him as a man speaketh; for I beheld that he was in the form of a man; yet nevertheless, I knew that it was the Spirit of the Lord; and he spake unto me as a man speaketh with another.

l.         (12) And it came to pass that he said unto me: Look! And I looked as if to look upon him, and I saw him not; for he had gone from before my presence.

m.    (13) And it came to pass that I looked and beheld the great city of Jerusalem, and also other cities. And I beheld the city of Nazareth; and in the city of Nazareth I beheld a virgin, and she was exceedingly fair and white.

n.      (14) And it came to pass that I beheld the heavens open; and an angel came down and stood before me; and he said unto me: Nephi, what beholdest thou?

o.      (15) And I said unto him: A virgin, most beautiful and fair above all other virgins.

p.      (16) And he said unto me: Knowest thou the condescension of God?

q.      (17) And I said unto him: I know that he loveth his children; nevertheless, I do not know the meaning of all things.

r.        (18) And he said unto me: Behold, the mother whom thou seest is the mother of the Son of God, after the manner of the flesh.

s.       (19) And it came to pass that I beheld that she was carried away in the Spirit; and after that she had been carried away in the Spirit for the space of a time the angel spake unto me saying: Look!

t.        (20) And I looked and beheld the virgin again, bearing a child in her arms.

u.      (21) And the angel said unto me: Behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the Son of the Eternal Father! Knowest thou the meaning of the tree which thy father saw?

v.       (22) And I answered him, saying: Yea, it is the love of God, which sheddeth itself abroad in the hearts of the children of men; wherefore, it is the most desirable above all things.

w.     (23) And he spake unto me saying: Yea, and the most joyous to the soul.

x.       (24) And after he had said these words, he said unto me: Look! I looked, and I beheld the Son of God going forth among the children of men; and I saw many fall down at his feet and worship him.

y.       (25) And it came to pass that I beheld that the rod of iron, which my father had seen, was the word of God, which led to the fountain of living waters, or to the tree of life; which waters are a representation of the love of God; and I also beheld that the tree of life was a representation of the love of God.

16.   On the surface Nephi’s Vision of the Tree of Life and the interpretation of it may seem to have only tangential points of correspondence with the Qur’anic narrarive. However, consider the following parallels:

             Qur’an                        Book of Mormon

Angel Appeared as a         The Spirit of the Lord 
Man in all Respects            in the Form of a Man

Jesus to Be a Sign             The Witness of the Son 
unto Mankind                    of God to Be a Sign

Jesus to Be Mercy             The Tree (of Life) is 
from God                           the Son, the Love of God

Mary, a Virgin,                   Mary, a Virgin, 
Conceives                          Conceives 

Mary Labors and                Mary Delivering is 
Delivers by a Tree               the Meaning of the Tree

Rivulet Appears                  Fountain of Living Waters 
Under Mary at Tree           (Love of God) at Tree

Mary Partakes of                Fruit of Tree is White 
Whitish Dates                     and is Love of God

Jesus is Given                     Rod of Iron, Word of God, 
“The Book”                        Leads to the Tree

17.   Placed side-by-side these similarities in the two narratives are striking. The question is, (to the extent that any reader would be drawn to scrutinize this comparison), what to make of it?

18.   Certainly the opinion that “Smith plagiarized the Qur’an” has been put forward. I freely admit that, absent any compelling conviction that The Book of Mormon was miraculously translated from a manuscript etched on metal plates, which manuscript predates both The New Testament and The Qur’an, the conclusion of plagiarism or emulation (in a softer sense) would be tempting. Balancing that temptation, however, would be the ability to demonstrate plagiarism, for similarities and correspondences can also point to a common source for any two texts. Further study is, therefore, to be advised.

19.   It is surprising, though, if one leans towards a theory of textual borrowing, as many non-Latter-day Saints who may examine this issue do, that Joseph Smith, a Christian, would extract a Muslim narrative in order to fashion a Christian vision, one that would be central to the entire tome, which in this case is so, as The Tree of Life vision is central to the entire Book of Mormon.

20.   As I intimated at the outset of this blog post, I was not presuming to harmonize or settle two separate accounts of similar events. I believe the texts, The Holy Qur’an and The Book of Mormon, are spiritual, their value immense in the building up of faith, and faith, viewed a guide to actions with the intention of achieving what the agent is certain s/he will achieve, but whose confidence in the achievement process only grows as ethical and moral confirmation is accumulated via active practice, this type of faith in God leads to answers. The non-believer may not regard such answers as come from diligent faith, but come the answers do. Certainly I believe I have answers now, and hint-hint, maybe that is why I carry two copies of the Qur’an with me alongside my Latter-day Saint scriptures (in Bosnian and Arabic-English).

21.   One thing I will do, however, is address the issue of the critical divergence between the Qur’anic Account of Mary and The Book of Mormon (as well as The New Testament), at present, but in a broader sense, the divergence of Islam and Christianity.

22.   First of all, again, I am not presuming to resolve or settle differences. I have faith, and I believe that as any people search for God, and take steps to draw nearer to Him, we will draw nearer to each other. All differences are and will be settled by drawing nearer to God.

23.   I hold all books of scripture to have at least as many sources as authors contributed, or as compilers drew from. Certainly The Holy Bible has multiple authors, The Qur’an, though tradition holds it to have one author, Mohamed, at least quotes various prophets, which in a sense is a multi-faceted source, and The Book of Mormon, too, has multiple authors. Personally, I believe the Qur’an to be an amalgam of Monotheistic scriptures that were once extant in the Arabian Peninsula. Mohamed gathered, expounded, preserved, and spoke by inspiration. The same might be said of how the Old and New Testaments were joined in the fourth century A.D., where a Christian Canon, assembled by the nascent Greco-Roman Catholic Church was added to the Jewish Canon which itself had finally been approved, explicitly or tacitly, by Rabbinic Jewish authorities (the Pharisees) either in the latter first century A.D. or the second century A.D. If one views Mohamed’s role in gathering in, preserving, and contributing to a second parallel canon of Monotheistic writ as constituting authorship, then Mohamed may be viewed as the book’s single author. This I reiterate, is my personal view, in my, at best, dilettante musing.

24.   That said, the obvious point of diversion in the two accounts is this:

The Qur’anic Account:

(35) It is not befitting to God that He should beget a son. Glory be to Him! when He determines a matter, He only says to it, “Be”, and it is.

(36) Verily God is my Lord and your Lord: Him therefore serve ye: this is Way that is straight.

The Book of Mormon Account:

(21) And the angel said unto me: Behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the Son of the Eternal Father! Knowest thou the meaning of the tree which thy father saw?

(22) And I answered him, saying: Yea, it is the love of God, which sheddeth itself abroad in the hearts of the children of men; wherefore, it is the most desirable above all things.

25.   The moving narrative in the Qur’an comes to this great crescendo “It is not befitting to God that He should beget a son”, but affirms the greatness and power of God, our Lord. The Book of Mormon vision reaches its crescendo with the words “Behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the Son of the Eternal Father!”, and then affirms God’s love for all the children of men (children of Adam).

26.   I have been asked if such a point of divergence is not offensive to me. My response now as a wiser (though not yet ‘wise’) 48-year-old is, “No, nor could it be. How could a profession of faith, especially with obvious love of God be offensive to me. I love God, and I make no pretense at being ‘right’ about everything. Let us all follow God, and if we are taught by him humbly, he will bring us to a unity in all points.”

27.   I had this conversation just last Thursday with a Somali brother. He shared this very passage of the Qur’an with me, and I shared the very passage of The Book of Mormon with him. But fancy this, questions posed in the negative are often misunderstood by the addressee. Remember the question at the outset, “James, would you not like a cookie?” I put it to the reader that even in scripture such statements can get misunderstood.

28.   When Moses conversed with the Lord, per The King James Translation, the Lord said the following about his name (the Lord’s name) (Exodus 6:3):

a.       (3) And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known unto them.

29.   So, per the translation of the account, this moment was the occasion when God revealed his name JEHOVAH unto a prophet, and by him to the world. Except, fancy the following which was written, says the textual tradition, by the same prophet, Moses:

a.       Genesis 24:3 “I [Abraham] will make thee swear by Jehovah, God of heaven, and God of earth…"

b.      Genesis 22:14 (Abraham in the presence of Isaac) “And Abraham called the name of that place [where Abraham was called to sacrifice Isaac] Jehovah-Jireh ‘Jehovah will provide’…"

c.       Genesis 28:13 (Jacob’s Vision of a Staircase or Ladder) “And, behold, Jehovah stood above it, and said, I am Jehovah, God of Abraham thy father, and the God of Isaac…”

30.   So how does one account for the King James translators (and in all honesty, for a good majority, probably, of Christian and Jewish translators) rendering that God had not revealed himself as Jehovah to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, when in reality God had revealed himself as Jehovah to all three, directly or, in the account of Isaac, via Abraham’s mentioning the name?

31.   I will call on us to remember one peculiarity of ancient scripts: there was no punctuation. More to the point, there was no question mark. I put it to you that the text in Hebrew reads accurately, but absent punctuation, translators and even Hebrew teachers of religion, could misread and do misread the text. What God most likely said to Moses was not version (A) but version (B); please note the difference:

a.       (A) And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known unto them.

b.      (B) And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, and by my name JEHOVAH was I not known unto them?

32.   By the way, in Biblical Hebrew there was no word for “but”, rather “and” was used to cover both coordinating functions (that is why in the translation I felt at liberty to change “but” to “and”).

33.   Getting back to the topic of the Qur’an, the same was true of old Arabic or Syriac script: no punctuation. I put forward that a legitimate alternate reading, and what I believe is the intended reading based on the text and its almost hyper-abundant Messianic symbolism, I put forward that the seemingly divergent phrase in the Qur’an (one of only a few) actually reads as such:

a.       (33) “So Peace is on me [Jesus] the day I was born, the day that I die, and the day that I shall be raised up to life!”

b.      (34) Such was Jesus son of Mary: it is a statement of truth about which they vainly dispute.

c.       (35) Is it not befitting to God that He should beget a Son? Glory be to Him! when He determines a matter, He only says to it, “Be”, and it is.

34.   My fellow Monotheists, my Muslim brethren, may disagree with my interpretation, and I respect their views. But fancy this: I (and scholars of the Qur’an) put forward that the Qur’an is an amalgam of Monotheistic writings—some Jewish, many Christian, others Arabic Monotheistic—though subsequently efforts were made to smooth out the differences in doctrinal points among the various contributing texts. My Muslim brethren often share with me that “Christ did not die but was taken to heaven”, often by quoting the Qur’an: “That they said, ‘We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Shiloh of God’;--but they killed him not, nor crucified him. Only a likeness of that was shown to them…” (Surah IV: 157) Surely the text declares what my friends state, except that Jesus is quoted as saying “So Peace is on me the day I was born, the day that I die, and the day that I shall be raised up to life!”, thereby affirming his coming death and resurrection, also as quoted in the selfsame Qur’an. This, in my reading, is a vestige of the early amalgamation of texts in the Qur’an.

35.   Of course, the reader may make of these citations what he or she will. I see a reason to compare the previously examined texts—that reason being origin from a common source, be it textual or oral, but one that predates all the texts, dare I say one that is the ultimate source of inspiration—and personally I believe I have been enriched by what The Bible, The Book of Mormon and The Qur’an have to teach, all tomes as presently constituted. Others may legitimately see no compelling reason to juxtapose these three accounts, in particular the accounts from the latter two tomes, The Qur’an and The Book of Mormon. But however we conclude, hopefully all will at least ponder this: Are these accounts not actually textual?