Crying Out in the Name of YHWH

Faith is a belief that motivates me to take action because I am hopeful and confident that I can achieve the result. I receive confirmations that my faith or motivated belief is true based on the results, those being chiefly (1) how the guidance I am adopting leads me to evolve into a more virtuous person, (2) how I experience greater peace, love, and kindness by adhering to the principles I am ultimately testing via practice, and (3) how this motivated belief actually brings me into real interactions, responses, knowledge of God.

I have faith in The Bible as the Word of God. I have faith in The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ. Often, quite often, my fellow Christians and well as my beloved brethren of Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism and Atheism ask me for "proofs", a witness via archaeology and geology, evidence that the scientific community itself would rally behind...and then my brethren state that they would be more willing to believe. 

But I ask, "Then my brethren would be more willing to believe what?" I have my proof, they are the three things I noted above--increasing virtue, greater peace, love and kindness, and real and personal knowledge of God. This is the experiment that most matters to me, and I put it forward, that ought to matter to all people. I cannot wear or feel archaeology or geology, much as I do esteem them and all disciplines of science and learning, but I can live and enrich my life as I outlined above (virtue, peace/love/kindness, and the personal knowledge of God) and know the goodness of this impact on me. 

I read the following in The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ (2 Nephi 9:52-53):

Behold, my beloved brethren, remember the words of your God; pray unto him continually by day, and give thanks unto his holy name by night. Let your hearts rejoice.

And behold how great the covenants of the Lord, and how great his condescensions unto the children of men; and because of his greatness, and his grace and mercy, he has promised unto us that our seed shall not utterly be destroyed, according to the flesh, but that he would preserve them; and in future generations they shall become a righteous branch unto the house of Israel.

This is from Nephi Ben Lehi, the putative second prophet of The Book of Mormon, circa 559 B.C. His points can be organized into a list.

1. Remember the words of our God.
2. Pray unto Him by day.
3. Give thanks unto His holy name by night.
4. Rejoice in one's heart.
5. Consider the great covenants of the Lord.
6. Consider His condescensions (visits, voluntary descents to earth) unto the children of men (humanity).
7. Because of His greatness, grace and mercy God promises the ultimate preservation of our descendants even if these fall away during some subsequent time.  
8. These shall be a righteous "branch" of the House of Israel.

These points are interesting. I would like to start a closer scrutiny of these eight points starting with God's condescensions because I have found that if this matter is considered, the other points fall into a pattern that has its foundation in nothing less than the Law of Moses itself.

In Exodus 19:18 Jehovah is described as descending upon Mount Sinai in fire. In Exodus 20:1-3, God, "Elohim", speaks to Moses in direct speech (referring to Himself as "I" and Moses, His addressee, as "thou"):

And God [Elohim] spake all these words, saying, 

I am the LORD thy God [Jehovah thy Elohim], which [I] have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.

Thou shalt have no other gods before Me.

Most Christians and Jews, and I would suspect a good number of my beloved Muslim brethren, are familiar with this encounter. God descended to the earth and addressed Moses on Mount Sinai. God identified Himself as Jehovah thy God and commanded that no other god [in Hebrew "Elohim" or 'Gods'] be had before Him.

The encounter of Exodus 20 is the delivery of the Ten Commandments, the first version at least, in the Torah, (another version does follow). Less commonly studied are the subsequent descents or "condescensions" of God. For this I will cite first Exodus 33:19:

And he [Jehovah] said, I will make all my goodness pass before thee, and I will proclaim the name of the LORD before thee; and will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will shew mercy on whom I will shew mercy.

In this exchange Jehovah tells Moses that He, Jehovah, will "proclaim" the name of Jehovah. However, that is not what the Hebrew text says. The Hebrew text is clear and declarative; it is in the translation that the message is modified somewhat. This is a more careful rendering from Hebrew:

And He said, I will make all my goodness pass before thee, and I will cry out in the name of Jehovah before thee; and I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and I will shew mercy on whom I will shew mercy.

Now, this reading gives pause. Jehovah said that He is going to "cry out in the name of Jehovah". What does that mean? Well, I put it to my readers that this expression "cry out in the name of Jehovah" means in Exodus 33:19 precisely what it always meant before this, "to turn to Jehovah, to pray to Him." Preaching could be subsumed in this, but the emphasis is on the actual addressing of Jehovah by one of His sons or daughters, and addressing by name. I refer the reader to the first usage of this expression in our received texts, which is in Genesis 4:26:

And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the LORD.

Here, however, the King James translators handed us their interpretation when the actual reading was clear enough:

And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he [Seth] called his name Enos [meaning 'man, human, mortal man']: then began he [Enos] to cry out in the name of Jehovah. 

So what did it mean that Enos, and by extension a good many other people who, at the teachings of the early patriarchs and matriarchs, decided to follow God? It meant that these turned to God, prayed to Him, served Him; in short, they "cried out in the name of Jehovah".

Alright, but then what does it mean that even Jehovah "cried out in the name of Jehovah"? Well, welcome to the real Bible text: There are Two Jehovahs in The Bible! One was the Father and the other His Son. Jehovah the Father is, in the more familiar and familial New Testament form of address, "God the Father" or "Heavenly Father", whereas the second Jehovah, His Son, is antemortal Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the world. Inasmuch as the Son was and is an Angel to His Father (Exodus 32:34 "behold, mine Angel shall go before thee"), delivering and performing only the will of the Father, there was ultimately little difference in distinguishing Who exactly was speaking at any given time.

However, we do remember that God spoke in the "first" person in Exodus 20, "I am Jehovah thy God". The reader is counseled to remember that Hebrew (like Aramaic and Arabic) has never had capital letters nor "be" in the present tense. The King James translators italicized words that they added to the English translation to make the English read more grammatically correct. Hence the King James translators italicized "am", because the Hebrew actually says "I Jehovah thy God" (no forms of "be" in the present tense).

Let us briefly examine what the Lord says and does when He follows through with His promise to Moses, the promise to "cry out in the name of Jehovah" in front of Moses. Exodus 34:5:

And the LORD descended in the cloud, and stood with him there, and proclaimed the name of the LORD.

As you may have anticipated, I will offer the reader a more precise rendering of the Hebrew, one without obfuscation to cover for a situation the translators could not fathom, namely, why and how Jehovah would be seen praying to Jehovah.

And Jehovah descended in the cloud, and stood with him there, and cried out in the name of Jehovah.

The message Jehovah delivers is in Exodus 34:6-7.

And the LORD passed by before him, and proclaimed, The LORD, The LORD God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth,

Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth generation.

Here, again, a more careful translation is warranted.

And Jehovah passed by before him [Moses], and proclaimed, Jehovah, Jehovah Elohim is merciful and gracious, long-suffering, and abundant in goodness and truth,

Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means excuse; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth. 

Please note: My decision to insert "is" is not fortuitous nor biased, since the subsequent verbal form of "will by no means excuse/cover" is in the third person.

So not only did Jehovah cry out (i.e. "pray") in the name of Jehovah, Jehovah also proclaimed Jehovah to be (now using the third person form of address) "merciful, long-suffering, abundant in goodness and truth, keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity, transgression and sin, not excusing (literally "covering"), and eventual mercy for the descendants of the rebellious. We might make a list:

1. Jehovah cries out in the name of Jehovah (vocal prayer).
2. Jehovah proclaims Jehovah's mercy, 
3. grace, 
4. long-suffering (great patience), 
5. abundance of goodness and truth, 
6. mercy for thousands, 
7. forgiveness for iniquity-transgression-sin, 
8. not excusing (i.e. respecting agency or ability for us to choose by holding us responsible),
9. eventual mercy for descendants of the rebellious. 

I would draw attention to the list I compiled of the main points from 2 Nephi 9:52-53. The similarities are not so close as to trigger suspicion of plagiarism or borrowing, but the structural similarities are astonishing: prayer precedes the extolling of God's virtues, the principal virtues being mercy and grace, but emphasis also falls on the responsibility for our behavior, but even here, God's ultimate mercy to the descendants of the rebellious. 

I will add one comment: Such an uncanny parallel between the Biblical Hebrew text and The Book of Mormon, not the King James translation that Joseph Smith was so fond of in life, but the underlying Hebrew of The Bible, which Hebrew text Joseph Smith only began to appreciate in the years after he published The Book of Mormon, this is "textual archaeology" and to some extent (loci, locations) "geology" for me, that is textual evidence in Palestine and America, and the text is ultimately what we have in hand to scrutinize. 

Still, correspondences of this sort only encourage my faith; it is the three points I outlined earlier (growth in virtue, increase in peace-love-kindness, and greater personal knowledge of God) that have led me and lead me still to know that The Book of Mormon is actually true, it is the Word of God alongside The Holy Bible.

The reader is at great liberty to take any portion of what I have presented, including zero, as seems fit. However, I would ask that all remember one point mainly: that all citations are actually textual.

Two Related But Unalike: Do Mormons Really Believe that Jesus and Satan are Brothers?

A dear missionary I met and with whom I had the pleasure of working on a couple of occasions called me. He had been out, bearing the heat, the disciplines and rigors of missionary life to share the message of Jesus Christ restoring all that He had once sent to bless this world: Ordinances performed by divine authority (Priesthood), The Gift of the Holy Ghost, modern revelations (both personal, family, and Church-wide), living prophets and apostles, scriptures both revealed now though from the past and revealed freshly in our day joined to the received tome, The Holy Bible, in short, God's abiding love for all mankind.

The Elder encountered a man, a man who doubtlessly loves God and reveres the Word of God, but who had a concern that seemed like so blatant a doctrinal absurdity as to invalidate all the Elders stood there to offer: That according to Mormon doctrine, Jesus Christ and Satan are brothers.

The Elder asked me if I could respond to this. So here is my response. These words are chosen carefully: Here is "my" response.

1. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has no scripture that overtly states "Jesus Christ and Satan are brothers."
2. That said, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has four books of scripture (in order of publication): The Holy Bible (King James Version), The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ, The Doctrine and Covenants, The Pearl of Great Price. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints holds to the faith that as time goes on, more books of scripture will be revealed, so many that the revelation would be deemed a flood of the knowledge of God that will fill the earth.
3. In the scriptures there are sufficient teachings to establish that all beings, embodied, unembodied, disembodied, are children of the same God, our Heavenly Father, and are thus brothers and sisters. So yes, not only are Jesus and Satan brothers, but we all who now live, ever have lived, and ever will live, are brothers and sisters of Jesus Christ, as well as the Adversary, Satan, and his hosts.

All Spirits Are Children of God

The Psalmist, David, penned perhaps the most beautiful declaration of the divine nature of all humanity in Psalm 82:1,6:

1: God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods.

6: I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.

This declaration, however bold, is somewhat muted in translation. I offer a more careful rendering of the Hebrew:

1: God [Elohim] standeth in the Church of God [El]; He judgeth among the Gods [Elohim].

6: I have said, Ye are Gods [Elohim]; and all of you are children of the Most High.

God, "Elohim", standeth in a Church, His Church, the Church of God, presumably a congregation in Heaven. And He, God, judges among Gods. What Gods? The angels. How would angels be Gods? They are His children. But the Palmist does not stop there. He goes on to affirm what else God Himself declares: "Ye are Gods, and all of you are children of the Most High." We humans are, likewise, Gods, children of the Most High.

The prophet Malachi recorded God addressing Himself as "Father" (Malachi 1:6)

6: A son honoureth his father, and a servant his master: if then I be a father, where is mine honour? and if I be a master, where is my fear? saith the LORD of hosts unto you, O priests, that despise my name. And ye say, Wherein have we despised thy name?

If that citation was not direct enough, Malachi poses a question that today may be viewed as a doctrinal declaration, though in its context this was an appeal to a belief already widely held (Malachi 2:10):

10: Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us? why do we deal treacherously every man against his brother, by profaning the covenants of our fathers?

Jesus further clarified this doctrinal point by declaring that of all the titles God could choose for us to use to address Him, He chose "Father" (Matthew 6:9)

9: After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.

As we saw in Psalm 82, God chooses to call not only angels but us humans His children and indeed Gods, children of God. This very point is in Psalm 8:4-5:

4: What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man that thou visitest him? 

5: For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour. 

I would point out that the translators opted to write "a little lower than the angels", though the Hebrew clearly states "For thou hast made him a little lower than Gods, and hast crowned him with glory and honour."

The New Testament Apostle Paul referred to God as the "Father of our spirits" (Hebrews 12:9):

9: Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live? 

These verses are sufficient to demonstrate that both angels in heaven and human beings are the children of God, for God is the Father of spirits.

The Relationship Between Angels and Mankind

To be direct, all people lived before we were born in this earth; we lived with God the Father.

(Alma 29:17) And now may God grant unto these, my brethren, that they may sit down in the kingdom of God; yea, and also all those who are the fruit of their labors that they may go no more out, but that they may praise him forever. And may God grant that it may be done according to my words, even as I have spoken. Amen.

(Ecclesiastes 12:7) Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.

(Numbers 16:22) And they fell upon their faces, and said, O God, the God of the spirits of all flesh, shall one man sin, and wilt thou be wroth with all the congregation? 

(Zechariah 12:1) The burden of the word of the LORD for Israel, saith the LORD, which stretcheth forth the heavens, and layeth the foundations of the earth, and formeth the spirit of man within him.

These citations are fairly indicative of the antemortal character of man's spirit. Zechariah 12:1 is of particular importance. First of all, a more careful rendering of the Hebrew would be useful:

1: The burden of the word of the LORD for Israel, saith the LORD, the Stretcher-forth of the heavens, the Layer of the foundations of the earth, and the Former of the spirit of man within him.

This citation is noteworthy. When did the Lord stretch forth the heavens and lay the foundation of the earth? And for that matter, when did the Lord form the spirits of men, the very spirits Zechariah was told are within man? The answer is Genesis 2:1-5:

1: Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.

2: And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.

3: And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

4: These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,

5: And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. 

Four very relevant points are to be discerned in this passage.

1. That God had finished the heavens, the earth, and their host prior to the seventh day. 
2. The plants and herbs were made before they actually grew in the earth (spirit creation preceded physical/tangible creation).
3. That physical man (the Hebrew word used for "man" in verse 5 is "Adam") had not yet been made for the purpose of tilling the earth.
4. Anything God sanctifies He has first made, and then the "sanctification" is declared or performed on it. "On the seventh day God ended his work...rested on the seventh day...and sanctified it." The full significance of this principle will be demonstrated shortly.

The oft overlooked teaching held in this citation is that Moses had recorded that the heavens, the earth, and their host were created prior to the seventh day, the day when God rested. It is worth noting that the Hebrew term "tzava" translated as 'host' most often means '(military) division', and it is a military term denoting an organized gathering of soldiers.

So I ask the question: If God finished His labors of creation on the seventh day, and He has angels in Heaven, when did He, God, create these angels? Answer: Since God does not mention creating them (or the Heavens where God dwells, for that matter) during the six creative periods, and on the seventh He rested, the only conclusion I can draw is that God created the spirits that He later calls His sons/children, "Gods", prior to the physical creation of this earth in the six creative periods.

Now, earlier I stated that there is significance in God's sanctifying the seventh day after He rested from all His labors on the seventh day. The principle at play here is demonstrated time and time again in the scriptures. Put succinctly: First an entity is formed/shaped/fashioned/created, then it is sanctified. God does not sanctify something before bringing that entity into being. Bearing that in mind, look at Jeremiah 1:5 for what the Lord told that great Old Testament prophet:

5: Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.

So, God reveals that He knew Jeremiah before He, God, had formed him in the belly. God also sanctified Jeremiah before he was born. I am reminded of what was recorded in Deuteronomy 34:10 about how God knew Moses:

10: And there arose not a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses, whom the LORD knew face to face.

God knows us intimately, and if He declares that He knew us, it was personal, face to face. One final point on the matter: It is a simple issue of syntax (how words are combined to convey an idea) that if the message of Jeremiah 1:5 were simply an example of God's foreknowledge, it would read "Before I formed thee in the belly I knew of thee", which the text does not. God is declaring not foreknowledge (of which He has full foreknowledge), but real, experience-based knowledge, presumably of the face-to-face type.

Some Spirit Children of God Rose to the Forefront: Morning Stars and the Sons of God

In one of God's many addresses to Job, the ancient prophet and exemplar of steadfastness in the face of excruciating suffering and setbacks, God posed this question to the suffering Job, a series of questions meant to reaffirm Job's worth, his role, his divine character (Job 38:4-7):

4: Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.

5: Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?

6:  Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;

7: When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? 

Notice how God mentions a broad category and a specific instance or example of that category: "measures: line", "foundations : corner stone". Then he mentions that "morning stars : all the sons of God" are one and the same, though the implication of "morning stars" is that they were a subcategory of God's children, presumably the first to appear, most likely the first to rise to the forefront. Nevertheless, the ultimate honor is be called a "son/daughter of God".

Jesus refers to Himself as "the bright and morning star" in Revelation, 22:16:

16: I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

So there were several "morning stars" among the "sons of God", but "the bright and morning star" was Jesus Christ.

One Morning Star Fell From Grace

Under inspiration the prophet Isaiah had referred to Lucifer himself as a "son of morning", but one that fell (Isaiah 14:12):

12:  How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

It is worth noting that the King James translators exercised a little poetic license in this passage. A more careful reading from the Hebrew follows:

12: How thou didst fall from heaven, O Morning Star, son of the dawn. Thou wast cast down to earth, one laying low to the nations!

Here we see that the fallen angel was indeed a "morning star".

The prophet Lehi, upon reading the above-cited passage from Isaiah, drew the following conclusion (2 Nephi 2:17-18, The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ):

 17: And I, Lehi, according to the things which I have read, must needs suppose that an angel of God, according to that which is written, had fallen from heaven; wherefore, he became a devil, having sought that which was evil before God.

18: And because he had fallen from heaven, and had become miserable forever, he sought also the misery of all mankind. Wherefore, he said unto Eve, yea, even that old serpent, who is the devil, who is the father of all lies, wherefore he said: Partake of the forbidden fruit, and ye shall not die, but ye shall be as God, knowing good and evil.

The prophet Jacob, son of Lehi, also emphasized the fall of the angel, (2 Nephi 9:8,9):

8: O the wisdom of God, his mercy and grace! For behold, if the flesh should rise no more our spirits must become subject to that angel who fell from before the presence of the Eternal God, and became the devil, to rise no more.

9: And our spirits must have become like unto him, and we become devils, angels to a devil, to be shut out from the presence of our God, and to remain with the father of lies, in misery, like unto himself; yea, to that being who beguiled our first parents, who transformeth himself nigh unto an angel of light, and stirreth up the children of men unto secret combinations of murder and all manner of secret works of darkness.

Thus we see that two ancient prophets, Lehi and Jacob Ben Lehi, concluded and affirmed that an angel had fallen from the presence of God, and it was that fallen angel who tempted the primordial parents, Adam and Eve, and who continues an adversarial role in the lives of all humanity. Thus the fall of a "morning star", called "Lucifer" in the Latin (Catholic) tradition and translation, preceded the six creative periods by the process of relative chronology: If Lucifer tempted Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden, and no mention of his creation as a morning star is made in the six creative periods, then the creation of the sons of God including the vanguard of "morning stars" as well as the fall of a morning star preceded the creation periods.

How Satan Fell: Gross Pride

In the Pearl of Great Price God revealed to the Prophet Moses how it was that Satan came to be the devil (Moses 4:1-4)

1: And I, the Lord God, spake unto Moses, saying: That Satan, whom thou hast commanded in the name of mine Only Begotten, is the same which was from the beginning, and he came before me, saying--Behold, here am I, send me, I will be thy son, and I will redeem all mankind, that one soul shall not be lost, and surely I will do it; wherefore give me thine honor.

 2: But, behold, my Beloved Son, which was my Beloved and Chosen from the beginning, said unto me--Father, thy will be done, and the glory be thine forever.

3: Wherefore, because that Satan rebelled against me, and sought to destroy the agency of man, which I, the Lord God, had given him, and also, that I should give unto him mine own power; by the power of mine Only Begotten, I caused that he should be cast down;

4: And he became Satan, yea, even the devil, the father of all lies, to deceive and to blind men, and to lead them captive at his will, even as many as would not hearken unto my voice. 

Satan offered God an alternative plan for the salvation of God's children, and for this plan, Satan required (or attempted to do so) that he be given the honor of being chosen as the Redeemer.

God revealed to the Apostle John that there had been war in heaven, and that it consisted of Satan and the angels that followed him contending against the other angels. Consequently, Satan and his followers were cast out of heaven (Revelation 12:7-9):

7: And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,

8: And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven.

9: And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

John describes Satan's followers as "a third" of the "stars of heaven" (Revelation 12:4)

4: And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born.

 God Grieved Over the Loss of His Children

In vision the Prophet Joseph Smith saw the fall of Satan and many others of God's spirit children who chose to follow Satan. However, in this vision Joseph Smith fills in an important detail (Doctrine and Covenants 76:25-29)

25: And this we saw also, and bear record, that an angel of God who was in authority in the presence of God, who rebelled against the Only Begotten Son whom the Father loved and who was in the bosom of the Father, was thrust down from the presence of God and the Son,

26: And was called Perdition, for the heavens wept over him--he was Lucifer, a son of the morning.

27: And we beheld, and lo, he is fallen! is fallen, even a son of the morning!

28: And while we were yet in the Spirit, the Lord commanded us that we should write the vision; for we beheld Satan, that old serpent, even the devil, who rebelled against God, and sought to take the kingdom of our God and Christ--

29: Wherefore, he maketh war with the saints of God, and encompasseth them round about.

This brilliant vision affirms the conclusions and revelations from the past, but one critical detail is included: that the heavens, God and His other children, wept over the loss of these fallen spirit children of God. God loved and still loves His fallen children, but He being holy cannot allow the unholy to dwell in His presence.

Summary: We Are All (All Humans and Spirits, Good and Bad) Children of God, Brothers and Sisters

So we have seen that God created all the spirits of mankind before the six creative periods, how one morning star contended against God's will and fell, but not before persuading one third of his brethren and sisters to follow him to misery. We saw how the scriptures teach that both the angels in heaven who await birth (including the fallen angels who will never have the opportunity to be born and receive bodies with the divine destiny to return to God's presence never more to depart) and those who have been born in this life are the sons/children of God, and God calls them Gods. Thus there is no impropriety in stating that Jesus and Lucifer are siblings any more than there is in stating that we are all brothers and sisters, you, James (moi), the Dalai Lama, Adolf Hitler, Mother Theresa, Joseph Smith, Joseph Stalin, Mary the Mother of Jesus, etc. We all have One Father, He loves us all, and He prepared the way for all of His children who chose to follow His will while still in Heaven and who will renew that commitment at this stage of life (and many who will do so after passing on to the realm of the spirits of the deceased), which can be summed up in following way: Jesus is the way, the truth and the life; no man cometh unto the Father but by Him.

Happy Sabbath and blessed week to all!

Our Lord, Come!

I love languages. I love linguistics. More than that, though, I love how language is the mode for conveying meaning. Take for instance a not-too-often quoted expression used by the apostle Paul. In the ante-penultimate verse of 1 Corinthians 16, Paul wrote the following:

If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ,

let him be Anathema

"Maran-Atha".

This expression "Maran-Atha" is from Palestinian Aramaic, the language Jesus, his apostles and indeed most first century Jews spoke. The expression is often translated as 'Come, O Lord'. Time and again I find that when translations are offered precision is preferable to flow. The word "Maran" is to be parsed "Mar" 'Lord' "-an" 'our' and "Atha" 'come': "Our Lord, Come!"  

In ancient Hebrew the Israelites had the practice of referring to Deity by various forms of the word "God" (a topic for another day) and YHWH 'Jehovah' or "Adonai" 'Lord'. About three centuries before the birth of Christ Alexandrian Jews translated many Hebrew holy books to Greek. These translators opted to render both YHWH and Adonai identically, "Kyrios" 'Lord'. 

When the Aramaic-speaking Jews, however, translated their scriptures from Hebrew to Aramaic, the translators preserved the distinction between YHWH and Adonai through an ingenious device. The Aramaic-speaking translators took their word "Mar" 'Lord' and affixed "Yah" to it, "MarYah" 'Lord Jehovah', as the translation for YHWH 'Jehovah.' The title "Yah" (alternative spelling is "Jah", though the pronunciation should still be [Yah]) is the short-form of the name Jehovah. In English we say "Jehovah", though the Ancient Hebrews most likely said "Yahweh", and they took the first syllable, "Yah" as the short form of Jehovah. 

If the reader were to examine Psalm 146 verse 1, (just one of several such examples), the reader would see the verse begin with the expression "Praise ye the LORD" (King James Version). The plural command "Praise Ye" in Hebrew is "Hallelu" and "Yah" is the short form of Jehovah, hence together, "Hallelujah" means "Praise ye the Lord". 

When the Aramaic-speaking translators saw the Hebrew word "Adonai", they simply used "Mar" 'Lord' as the translation. Again, where the translators saw "YHWH" they rendered "MarYah" (alternative spelling "MarJah", though the pronunciation would still be [MarYah]).

I am grateful to these translators for at least preserving a form of YHWH in their translation. However, I want to demonstrate something interesting about affixation in Aramaic. First, however, I will indulge an example of Finnish. The Finnish language is said to be "agglutinative", meaning that endings can be strung to the ends of words. Follow this pattern.

auto 'car'

auto-ssa 'in (the) car'

auto-ssa-ni 'in my car'

Aramaic shares a feature in common with Finnish (and Hebrew, Arabic, and a good many other languages), namely, that possession is expressed by affixing a suffix to the end of the noun rather than by using independent, stand-alone words. Compare English to Finnish and Aramaic:

"My Lord" (English)

"Herra-ni" (Finnish)

"Mar-i" (Aramaic)

All three examples have the same meaning, 'my Lord', but English forms this expression by using two independent words in a single noun phrase, 'my Lord', whereas Finnish and Aramaic accomplish the same objective, but they use a single independent word, "Lord", to which they add a suffix ("ni" in Finnish, "i" in Aramaic) that carries the meaning of 'my'.

Aramaic, the language Jesus spoke, as shown above, used "Mari" to mean 'my Lord', and, as seen at the outset of this blog post, "Maran" to mean 'our Lord'. 

Here is where the case gets interesting. Aramaic speakers would use (depending on their objective) "MarYah" 'Lord Jehovah' or "Mari" 'my Lord' in reference to the Deity, but if these Aramaic speakers wanted to express possession, as in "my Lord" or "our Lord", their only option was to drop the suffix "Yah" and add the possessive ending "i" 'my', "an" 'our', etc. In other words, even if the speaker intended to convey the meaning of "My Lord Jehovah", it appears that it was not normative in Aramaic to say "MarYah-i" but rather "Mari" 'My Lord', without the second component "Yah". 

Now, the reason I am posting this is because, unbeknownst to a good many people, myself until very recently included, Aramaic-speaking Christians preserved New Testament writings in the Aramaic language. It appears that the Gospels and Acts were originally penned in Aramaic, then translated to Greek, and that a large number of New Testament writings may have been prepared for release in both Greek and Aramaic originals, but certainly some portions of the New Testament (such as Jude) were translated from Greek to Aramaic. Scribes later would tweak the Aramaic writings to have them conform with the Greek texts, leading a good many people to conclude that the entire New Testament was written in Greek. However, I find sufficient reason to view the Aramaic New Testament as a mostly reliable reflection of the original writings.

One thing is certain: Jesus spoke Aramaic to his apostles and to the general public, so the record of his addresses in Aramaic have potentially much to offer by way of nuance. I draw your attention to Matthew 22:42-46:

Saying, What think ye of Christ?

whose son is he?

They say unto him,

The Son of David.

He saith unto them,

How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying,

The LORD said unto my Lord,

Sit thou on my right hand,

till I make thine enemies thy footstool?

If David then call him Lord,

how is he his son?

Matthew records that the audience was unable to answer Jesus a word and posed no more questions to him from that time forth.

I find it interesting that the King James translators used the all capital "LORD" here, in the New Testament, just as they had in the Old Testament. In the Old Testament "LORD" was their translation of "YHWH" or "Jehovah", but "Lord" was their translation of "Adonai". Sure this passage in Matthew is a quote of Psalm 110:1, where "LORD" indeed stands for "YHWH". However, the Greek text from which our New Testament is translated reads "the Lord said unto the Lord of me" with no terminological distinction between "the LORD" and "my Lord" as we have in our King James Version.

Bear in mind that Jesus did not say this in Greek, but in Aramaic. For this reason the Aramaic New Testament is invaluable for conveying what may have been Jesus' actual words. This passage goes as follows (remember that "MarYah" means 'Lord Jehovah' whereas 'Mari' means either 'my Lord' or 'My Lord Jehovah':

Saying, What think ye of Christ?

whose son is he?

They say unto him,

The Son of David.

He saith unto them,

How then doth David in spirit call him MarYah, saying,

MarYah said unto Mari,

Sit thou on my right hand,

till I make thine enemies thy footstool?

If David then call him MarYah,

how is he his son?

When Jesus states "if David then call him Lord", he is referring to the second "Lord", the one that LORD or Jehovah speaks to saying "Sit thou on my right hand". But did you notice what the Aramaic record witnesses? The Aramaic record witnesses that to Jesus the underlying meaning of "my Lord" was "MarYah" or "Lord Jehovah" for that is precisely how Jesus chooses to rephrase "Mari" 'my Lord'. This would be the rendition in straightforward English:

Saying, What think ye of Christ?

whose son is he?

They say unto him,

The Son of David.

He saith unto them,

How then doth David in spirit call him Lord Jehovah, saying,

Lord Jehovah said unto my Lord (Jehovah),

Sit thou on my right hand,

till I make thine enemies thy footstool?

If David then call him Lord Jehovah,

how is he his son?

This is not something that many Christians will hear over the pulpit nowadays, nor many Jews, nor many Muslims, namely, that the ancient Hebrews believed in Two Jehovahs, the difference between the Two being that One was the Father and the Second His Son. It is conventional for Latter-day Saints today to refer only to Jesus as "Jehovah" and God the Father as "Elohim" (itself one of several Hebrew versions of 'God', but the most frequently used version in the Hebrew Bible). However, even LDS scriptures record Joseph Smith addressing God the Father as "Jehovah" (Section 109:29,34, compare "Holy Father" of verse 29 to "O Jehovah" in verse 34). 

The above citation is not the sole instance of two Jehovahs in either the Old or New Testaments, not to mention The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ and the Doctrine and Covenants, but this citation is special because in it Jesus uses the depth of expression in Aramaic to make the case that the Messiah was the Lord Jehovah, Son of the Lord Jehovah, as well as a literal descendant of King David. 

That having been said, I love what Jesus repeatedly taught about prayer: "Our Father who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name." With the wealth of beautiful titles for God, the one He chose for us to address Him with is "Father". 

This Father is as real to me, more so, than even my earthly father. My earthly father encouraged me to pray to God, but God bonded me to Him by answering me. I love my earthly dad, and hearing from him makes me happy, but my Heavenly Father is accessible anywhere and at any time, and He brings me peace and joy even when this crazy life of mine should have me going bonkers. 

One last point, Jesus did not start praying to His Father when He was on earth (Matthew 6:9 "Our Father which art in heaven, hallowed be thy name"). Jesus, Jehovah, prayed to Jehovah, His Father, on earth, in front of Moses (Exodus 34:5-6). I will offer the rendition from Hebrew versus the translation from the King James which reflects how perplexed the King James translators were when then scrutinized this passage (possibly wondering how Jehovah could be praying to Jehovah):

And Jehovah descended in the cloud,

and stood with him [Moses] there,

and cried out in the name of Jehovah.

And Jehovah passed by before him, 

and proclaimed, 

Jehovah, Jehovah Elohim is merciful and gracious,

longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth.

So even before His birth from the Virgin Mary, Jesus, "Jehovah", modeled prayer to His Father ("Jehovah"), and modeled the pattern of witnessing to our brethren (and sisters) of the goodness and mercy of our Father.

Happy and peaceful Sabbath Sunday to all!

Eve and Adam, Adam and Eve

On and off I have had impressions, faint suggestions that nudge me towards a clearer understanding of familiar passages. Presently I am referring to Genesis 3:14-19, the saga of Adam and Eve when they, having transgressed a law of God (at the instigation of the serpent), now faced their Father and Judge to learn of the consequences.

The oft repeated "summary", one I was first exposed to at the Baptist Church on Folsom Street (San Francisco), but perennially reinforced even as a Latter-day Saint, is that the serpent, Eve and Adam were all cursed for their actions, but since Eve first strayed, she was made subservient to Adam. The LDS soften the blow, somewhat, in part through additional narratives (The Book of Moses) in which Eve demonstrates great wisdom regarding the purposes of God, and in part by teaching that Adam was duty bound to follow God, thus Eve was in essence following God via her husband.

The entire concatenation has always left me disquieted, and I have learned that this unease is often a subconscious perception that some aspect has been overlooked, a perspective that once grasped, will kaleidoscopically rearrange the entire picture, without adding or removing a single reflective piece.

Question Number 1: Ever notice that the only being to be cursed is the serpent?

Genesis 3:14-15 "[14] And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of the life: [15] And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel."

Genesis 3:16 "Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thou sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee."

Genesis 3:17-19 "[17] And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten or the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; [18] Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; [19] In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it was thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return."

At first glance it appears that Deity exacted a high price for disobedience. However, only the serpent was actually cursed on his person "thou art cursed". Eve was told that she would bear children, abundantly, with pain (as such is inherent to the process), but subsequent elucidations in scripture teach that mortality brings with it pain, pain that enables the sufferer to appreciate joy. Adam was told he would toil in the earth, but the earth would often bring up weeds of sorts, despite his efforts. Adam, like Eve, was not cursed personally, rather "cursed is the ground" he was told. Certainly mortality awaits the human family "unto dust shalt thou return", and we later see Adam and Eve sent out of the garden, but we also subsequently see God prepare a way for their return.

Question 2: Ever notice that when the serpent is cursed, part of his condemnation is a prophecy that the woman's seed shall crush his head?

It is a simple enough detail to gloss over, but in scriptures the terminology referring to reproduction was analogous to our current wording: men have "seed", "And in thy [Abraham's] seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed...(Genesis 22:18), whereas woman have "fruit", "Lo, children are an heritage unto the LORD, and the fruit of the womb is his reward" (Psalm 127:3). Yet here the woman shall have "seed", only this seed shall crush the "head" of the serpent. This is the point of departure, the moment at which, in my opinion, the narrative clearly accomplishes more than the admittedly monumental task of laying out the foundation for human life: the family. The point where God prophecies that the woman shall have seed, and that this seed shall crush the serpent's head, this is the juncture at which "plan" comes to the foreground, specifically, that a virgin (that woman who shall have "seed", hence, independent of a man) shall conceive a child, which child shall lay waste to an alternative plan for humanity.

Question 3: Ever notice that only Eve is told she is going to bear children, that Adam is not told that he will beget offspring?

This is a spectacular omission. I concede that the Adam and Eve saga in its entirety is useful for organizing teachings on family structure, hierarchy, and collective diligence. The model of the first earthly parents can serve as a point of dedicated emulation. However, if the sole purpose of the narrative is to teach family obligations, then the omission of Adam's role as pater familias is stunning. It is here that the reader, I aspire, will begin realizing that the narrative of Adam and Eve, intentionally, was meant clearly to teach something germane to a subject greater even than parental roles within the home.

There is more that may have escaped our attention (familiarity encourages inadvertence). Yes, Eve is told she will bear children, but oddly there is no mention made to the effect that she will "bear Adam children" or "bear sons and daughters unto Adam." It is worthwhile to examine how Moses described Rachel's accouchement (my ritual nod to la langue française).

Genesis 17:16 "And I [God] will bless her [Sarah], and give thee [Abraham] a son also of her: yea, I will bless her, and she shall be a mother of nations; kings of people shall be of her."

Genesis 21:2 "For Sarah conceived, and bare Abraham a son in his old age, at the set time of which God had spoken to him."

When Sarah was to bear a child, God said that Abraham would have a son also of her, and then Moses recorded that Sarah "bare Abraham" a son. Then in the case of Eve it is curiouser still (as the Brits say) that Eve should have her conception multiplied (meaning she would bare many), but no mention is made that she will bear them unto Adam.

As I stated earlier, there is no mention that Adam shall beget children in Genesis 3:17-19. This omission is particularly odd given the Biblical record-keeper's propensity for laying out detailed genealogies along patriarchal lines.

Genesis 5:2-6 "[2] Male and female created he [God] them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created. [3] And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth: [4] And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters. [5] And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died. [6] And Seth lived an hundred and five years, and begat Enos."

The absence of any statement in Genesis 3:17-19 of Adam begetting children, in my estimation, is very telling of what the passage is actually communicating. I repeat, if the primary purpose of the declaration of God's judgment upon Adam was to delineate his role in mortality, then the absence of any statement on fatherhood is certainly an instance where less detail should catch more attention.

Question 4: Ever notice that ancient prophets routinely referred to assemblies of men and women collectively (all humanity in fact) as "a woman" or "a mother", and her "husband" is always the Lord?

Isaiah may have had the motifs of the story of Adam and Even in mind when he recorded what is now Isaiah chapter 54.

Isaiah 54:1,4-8 "[1] Sing, O barren, thou that didst not bear; break forth into singing, and cry aloud, thou that didst not travail with child: for more are the children of the desolate than the children of the married wife, saith the Lord. [4] Fear not; for thou shalt not be ashamed; for thou shalt not be put to shame: for thou shalt forget the shame of thy youth, and shalt not remember the reproach of they widowhood any more. [5] For thy Maker is thine husband; the LORD of hosts is his name; and thy Redeemer the Holy One of Israel; The God of the whole earth shall he be called. [6] For the LORD hath called thee as a woman forsaken and grieved in spirit, and a wife of youth, when thou wast refused, saith thy God. [7] For a small moment have I forsaken thee; but with great mercies will I gather thee. [8] In a little wrath I hid my face from thee or a moment; but with everlasting kindness will I have mercy on thee, saith the LORD thy Redeemer."

It is interesting to read here that an entire assembly or body, both of men, women and children, are collectively referred to as a sole "woman", yet this woman was barren, for she had been refused (presumably for her behavior), one would surmise early on in the relationship, hence her barrenness. Her "husband" is none other than her Maker, the Lord of Hosts, the Lord her Redeemer. He explains that for a brief moment he had hidden his face from her, but will soon embrace her with loving kindness, and she will bear more abundantly than all others.

Question 5: So what is the final analysis for Genesis 3:16-19?

Ultimately readers should consider and conclude for themselves. As for me, I see strong reason to believe that in the Genesis narrative, at the point when judgment is passed upon her just prior to her expulsion to the mortal world, Eve came to represent all of humanity, and this is the reason why her natality is so emphasized (her childbearing represents that of all of humanity, into the state of mortality). It was because Eve, at that beckoned moment may have represented the entire mortal experience of humanity that no mention there was made of her bearing children unto Adam, that is, because at this point in the narrative the objective was to teach the great plan of redemption.

Eve's being beguiled by the serpent, but Adam's choice to partake in order not to let her enter the world alone may, in fact, not imply that women are impulsive but men rational (as is, let's face it, a common underlying teaching). The narrative may signify that all of humanity is easily beguiled, often by having our good intentions used, as it were, against us. Yet there was someone who was not beguiled who instead partook of our mortality in order not to abandon us.

Adam is the figure that represents the Husband, the Lord, the Redeemer, the one who sacrifices himself rather than let humanity, the woman, enter mortality alone (for God so loved the world...). She could be described as "barren" because humanity strayed from God from the very beginning separating itself, "herself", from the loving Husband. Yet the Father foretold that Eve's "desire shall be to [her] husband, and he shall rule over [her]", in my view, quite possibly with a signification greater even than family structure; Eve's desire and submission to her husband meant that humanity's only salvation would be to draw to the Redeemer, the Husband, and to accept to have him rule over them, the world, in his mercy and loving kindness.

If Adam indeed symbolizes the Christ, again, at that point in the narrative (Genesis 3:17-19), then his toil in his fields in order to eat the good herbs, fields that would constantly push up all manner of weeds all his efforts notwithstanding, may symbolize the rebellious nature of humankind despite the nurturing of the Good Husbandman. Adam's duty is to toil in the earth and achieve his good herbs and bread, "by the sweat of [his] brow". His mission is to work the cursed land to achieve the blessed harvest.

Certainly, my personal conclusion that the judgment of Adam and Eve carries with it an outline of the great plan of redemption seems to account for curious details in the verdict, namely, the woman having "seed", Eve bearing children though not explicitly unto Adam, Eve submitting to Adam, and the absence of child-rearing in the declaration of Adam's duties, all which have tended to leave many a good reader to conclude quite innocently that Adam's or male humanity's primary role in this life is to be breadwinners and heads of household with fatherhood only implicit, not explicit, unlike Eve whose maternity is spelled out. However, the very verses may in fact be the exposition on the plan of salvation and the central role of God's mercy and Jesus Christ as Savior in this plan.

As one final point, if Genesis 3:17-19 lays out the Messianic role, then it would then follow that Jesus' recurrent (New Testament era) parabolic teachings of a sower whose seeds either do not germinate or are under constant threat of weeds would seem to connect the mortal Messiah to the very beginning of the sacred records. The reader will be advised to reference Matthew 13:3-9, The Parable of the Sower, but in particular Matthew 13:24-30:

Matthew 13:24-25 "[24] Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field: [25] But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among he wheat, and went his way."

I perceive greater depth in the Savior's parables when I can see their possible connection to what the sacred records had taught from the very beginning. It is tantalizing to consider that God had revealed the plan of redemption with his Son as the Redeemer from the very moment that Adam and Eve had transgressed his law. And if the Savior's role was so perspicaciously provided for, then one is tempted to contemplate how Adam and Eve, the actual earthly protagonists, may have opted into the greatest adventure ever known, mortal life, rather than having been duped into an agonizing period of challenges and ultimate physical demise. Viewed this way, the Genesis narrative is imbued with a form of influence far more nuanced and subtle, one that may prompt the reader to consider that we, like the early protagonists, knowingly opted in.

So is this romantic? To each his own. Given my personal proclivities I may not be the best candidate for writing Hallmark cards for Valentine's Day. But in my own little way, written from what is dear and known to me, I say to Womankind, blessed art thou! You represent all humanity, the best of our collective attributes and aspirations. Let us hold hands together, if only symbolically, and follow our merciful Husband. He will lead us onward, and as we emulate him, we will become good leaders to ourselves, our homes, and our communities, together and in gentleness.

I love how uplifting even the most familiar stories can be when we examine what is actually textual.

And finally, Brethren and Sisters, Happy Valentine's Day!

Unacrimonious Anachronisms: Take One

I have a fondness for apocryphal books. I hold the Old Testament apocrypha (those extra books held as genuine in the Roman Catholic Old Testament) dear, and my ardor expands to include a dozen or more books once regarded as inspired by Jewish and early medieval Christians groups.

When I find a passage or idea in an apocryphal book that expresses a view that the (first) Mormon prophet, Joseph Smith, later came to believe, per divine inspiration he asserted, I view the apocryphal passage as a sort of confirmation that the belief or tenet at hand had indeed once belonged to the religion of the ancient covenant people. Joseph Smith, in my view, then seems ever more to be the "restorer" he claimed he was, that is, when the relevant apocryphal passage was rediscovered after Joseph Smith's doctrinal declaration. The question "How could Joseph Smith possibly have known that ancient Jews/Christians believed this?" lightly bemuses me.

On and off over the last few weeks I have asked myself a question: "Why do I not experience the same excitement when I find a Book of Mormon (BoM) passage that predates a Biblical passage?" Surely the same rule would apply, that is, that a supposedly earlier BoM passage that teaches what a subsequent Biblical passage does would also be a confirmation, in this case, that the Biblical writers indeed preserved a teaching that belonged to the faithful saints of days gone by. Should this putative earlier passage in the BoM, for example, not also rally in me a deeper appreciation for Joseph Smith's role as a restorer?

The truth is that I do not always get as enthused. Why? The answer is no riddle, but quite simple: If I share with anyone not of my faith or church a passage of scripture in the BoM that supposedly predates the Bible's version, their conclusion may very well be that "Smith simply plagiarized the Bible. In fact, he was so sloppy about his appropriation that he used a scripture known to date to a certain time and attributed it to a fictitious character who supposedly lived hundreds of years earlier." Yes, the double specters of plagiarism and historical anachronisms rear their hoary heads.

So it was that on this frigid but restful morn I opened the Book of Mormon to a randomly chosen passage in order to share a moment of inspiration with the family; I take pains to start and end our days this way. Maybe the audience does not appreciate this, but I find some of my greatest personal insights this way.

Anyhow, my eyes landed on Second Nephi, chapter 25, verse 13, written (we Latter-day Saints believe) between 559 and 545 B.C., by a Jew named Nephi who left Jerusalem with his family and resettled somewhere in America, possibly in Mesoamerica, soon thereafter joining forces with Native Americans who were amenable to his faith and world view:

"Behold, they will crucify him [Christ]; and after he is laid in a sepulchre for the space of three days he shall rise from the dead, with healing in his wings; and all those who shall believe on his name shall be saved in the kingdom of God..."

Though the reader who only now is exposed to this passage may be puzzled at the clear Christian reference before Christ's actual birth, what I found more interesting initially was the expression "he shall rise from the dead, with healing in his wings". The adverbial phrase "with healing in his wings", it turns out, is known to the world only through the final Old Testament book, Malachi, chapter 4, verse 2, dated perhaps to the second century B.C.:

"But unto you that fear my name shall the Sun of righteousness arise with healing in his wings..." (KJV)

So did Nephi's use of the expression "with healing in his wings" truly predate Malachi's usage by perhaps as much as 400 years? Well, rest assured that I cannot prove it, so I will not undertake a wild goose chase through faith texts in an attempt to do so. But a frank acknowledgement of the inability to prove an assertion does not mean I have nothing else to share.

For starters, Nephi, per the text, states that Christ shall be crucified and buried, and that after three days he will rise with healing in his wings. The rising of Christ is his resurrection, and the healing in his wings would presumably be his power of resurrection for all. Contrast Nephi's description to Malachi's assertion that the "Sun of righteousness" (the capital "S" was the King James translators' decision since Hebrew has no capital letters) shall arise with healing in his wings. Here the object at hand is the sun, only it is a solar body that represents "righteousness", presumably by emitting powerful light.

I found something interesting, and I want very much to share it. About 800 B.C., roughly 200 years before the BoM prophet Nephi would have lived (if the record is taken as genuine and not merely Joseph Smith's composition, and this decision is the reader's prerogative), the King of Israel was Hezekiah. King Hezekiah chose a royal seal, a couple royal seals in fact, and interestingly enough, he borrowed an Egyptian motif, the winged sun for one of them (and a scarab beetle for the other, also Egyptian). First fancy this image of the Egyptian winged sun that represents the sun god Re of the ancient Egyptian religion, a symbol that was also used to represent the one true God Aten (Aton or Adon) preached by the monotheistic Egyptian Pharaoh turned religious reformer, Akhenaten.

Now examine a fairly recent archeological find, Hezekiah's royal seal, one of several such found in Israel within the last 20 years.

The text is in Hebrew, but not the Assyrian (Babylonian) letters now regarded as Hebrew, rather in the ancient Hebrew letters derived from Egyptian hieroglyphics. The text reads "To (the) King (of) Judah". The symbol is the sun with two long wings, and more interesting still, an "ankh" at the end of each wing. The "ankh" is the Egyptian symbol of life. Notice how the sun's wings are bent somewhat downwards implying movement upwards.

So essentially what we see in Hezekiah's seal (and this seal continued to be used for several hundred years) is the sun rising with life-force, "healing", it its wings. The idea that the solar sun represents Deity is common among world religions, and, surprisingly enough, common to religion of the ancient prophets, as we shall see shortly.

I mentioned Akhenaten, the great Pharoah who, he asserted, through personal inspiration and angelic visitation, converted from a belief in many gods, to the belief in the One True God, whom he called "Aten" (also pronounced "Aton" and possibly "Adon"). Nearly 1400 years B.C. Akhenaten wrote a hymn to Aten. Fancy this excerpt:

"Splendid thou risest in heaven's lightland, O living Aten, creator of life! When thou hast dawned in eastern highland, Thou fillest every land with thy beauty. Thou art beauteous, great, radiant, High over every land; Thy rays embrace the lands, To the limit of all that thou madest. Being Re, thou reachest their limits, Thou bendest them for the son whom thou lovest; Though thou art far, thy rays are on earth, Though one seeth thee, thy strides are unseen. When thou settest in western highland, Earth is in darkness as if in death; One sleepeth in chambers, heads covered, One eye doth not see another. Were they robbed of their goods, That are under their heads, People would not remark it. Every lion cometh from its den, All the serpents bite, Darkness hovers, earth is silent, As their maker resteth in lightland. Earth brighteneth when thou dawnest in lightland, When thou shinest as Aten of daytime; As thou dispelest the dark, As thou castest thy rays, The Two Lands are in festivity. Awake they stand on their feet, Thou hast roused them; Bodies cleansed, clothed, Their arms adore thine appearance."

If the reader's curiosity is piqued, read Psalm 104 and judge for yourself if Psalm 104 is not uncannily like the Hymn to Aten, down to the order of the noun descriptors and adverbial phrases used. But alas, Akhenaten's hymn and the psalmist is a topic for another day. Suffice the passage for the moment merely to demonstrate how the rising of the sun in Egyptian theology related to their beliefs of death and resurrection.

To touch upon a different Psalmist citation, if King David did indeed pen the Psalms, then they date to approximately one thousand years B.C. Consider this passage from Psalm 84:11:

"For the LORD God is a sun and shield: the LORD will give grace and glory: no good thing will he withhold from them that walk uprightly."

In my opinion, the most intriguing aspect of ancient Hebrews using the "solar sun" as a symbol of the Lord Jehovah is that, per the Hebrew scriptures, God (Elohim) made the solar sun to shine through the earth's atmosphere and give light and regulate time at the start of the fourth day (fourth creative period), just after the third day. Inasmuch as God would be seen as the Maker of the solar sun, God would be the creative Father of the solar sun.

The Book of Mormon's extended name (in the LDS Church) is "Another Testament of Jesus Christ", in part because the book recounts Jesus Himself visiting the Nephites, His Amerindian Hebrew-esque covenant people. At one point Jesus states that the Father wanted Him to deliver Jewish scriptures to the Nephites, scriptures that the Nephites lacked. Malachi was the book Jesus chose or was commanded by His Father to deliver. He cited Malachi 4:2 (3 Nephi 25:2) the following way:

"But unto you that fear my name, shall the Son of Righteousness arise with healing in his wings..."

In the Book of Mormon the "Sun of righteousness" mentioned by Malachi is unequivocally the "Son of Righteousness", the Son of God, and His rising with healing is His power of life over death, the universal resurrection.

Well, these passages are brought together by my personal sense of inquiry and searching. I leave it to the reader to decide if these citations belong together, and whether they are relevant to the passage of Nephi 25:13, be the Nephi passage a possible early witness to the Israelite symbol of the rising sun as the bringer of healing or life in its wings, or a clever nineteenth knock-off of Malachi. Whether you see the statement attributed to Nephi ("(Christ) shall rise with healing in his wings") as genuine, historically and archeologically plausible, coincidental or just plain out of left field, the passages cited are, at least, actually textual.

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.