The Eye of Faith

[Guest]

Quote

And the Lord said unto him: Because of thy faith thou hast seen that I shall take upon me flesh and blood; and never has man come before me with such exceeding faith as thou hast; for were it not so ye could not have seen my finger. Sawest thou more than this?

Ether 3:9

I've been impressed by these words more than once.  The entire encounter appears to have so much more meaning than the underlying narrative.

We tend to think of faith as what we lean on until we can "know" later on.  But the Brother of Jared found that faith is the tool of learning itself.  Faith is the eye by which we not only see things as they were and are, but as they are to come.  Faith is not simply an attitude.  It is the spiritual urim and thummim by which we can see all things.

So, why did the Lord give Mahonri the two stones AFTER he had already developed the faith to even passively see the future mortal condition of the Lord?

[The Folk Prophet]

Faith is action.

[CV75]

4 hours ago, Carborendum said:

I've been impressed by these words more than once.  The entire encounter appears to have so much more meaning than the underlying narrative.

We tend to think of faith as what we lean on until we can "know" later on.  But the Brother of Jared found that faith is the tool of learning itself.  Faith is the eye by which we not only see things as they were and are, but as they are to come.  Faith is not simply an attitude.  It is the spiritual urim and thummim by which we can see all things.

So, why did the Lord give Mahonri the two stones AFTER he had already developed the faith to even passively see the future mortal condition of the Lord?

This is explained in verses 23-28. They were prepared for the benefit of future seers for the purpose of translating lost languages, a task or risk the Jaredites had been blessed with not having to face.

Edited May 3, 2017 by CV75

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, CV75 said:

This is explained in verses 23-28. They were prepared for the benefit of future seers for the purpose of translating lost languages, a task or risk the Jaredites had been blessed with not having to face.

Thank you.  So, you're saying that these were made for the Jaredites to keep for many centuries/millenia without ever having to use them?  I'm having trouble figuring out why that would be.  Mosiah was already a seer prior to obtaining them.  I'm guessing he had his own seer stone.

I could suppose that other, future Jaredite prophets used them for their generations because they were not as gifted as Mahonri.

[Guest]

4 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Faith is action.

While a true statement, I'm not sure what that has to do with the current context.

[The Folk Prophet]

6 hours ago, Carborendum said:

I've been impressed by these words more than once.  The entire encounter appears to have so much more meaning than the underlying narrative.

We tend to think of faith as what we lean on until we can "know" later on.  But the Brother of Jared found that faith is the tool of learning itself.  Faith is the eye by which we not only see things as they were and are, but as they are to come.  Faith is not simply an attitude.  It is the spiritual urim and thummim by which we can see all things.

So, why did the Lord give Mahonri the two stones AFTER he had already developed the faith to even passively see the future mortal condition of the Lord?

 

5 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Faith is action.

 

54 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

While a true statement, I'm not sure what that has to do with the current context.

I would think the context of what faith is in a discussion of faith would be clear.

What is it you're trying to discuss then?

[Guest]

12 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I would think the context of what faith is in a discussion of faith would be clear.

What is it you're trying to discuss then?

There are different aspects of faith.  I spoke of the aspect of using faith to "see" things as they really will be (among other things).  You spoke of the aspect of faith=action.  Two different aspects.  

The gist of my discussion point was that we normally think of faith as a principle of belief.  I am looking at it as not only a principle of knowledge, but of obtaining new knowledge.  You were talking about it as a principle of action.

I submitted that it was the principle of obtaining knowledge that allowed Mahonri to see the Lord's hand.  How would you apply the "faith is action" principle to how he was able to see the Lord's hand?

Hence I mentioned "context", not words.

Edited May 3, 2017 by Guest

[CV75]

12 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Thank you.  So, you're saying that these were made for the Jaredites to keep for many centuries/millenia without ever having to use them?  I'm having trouble figuring out why that would be.  Mosiah was already a seer prior to obtaining them.  I'm guessing he had his own seer stone.

I could suppose that other, future Jaredite prophets used them for their generations because they were not as gifted as Mahonri.

They seem to have been prepared for whoever those future seers/users would need them. Jared and his kin were spared the confounding of their language, but future generations and cultures were not. The brother of Jared was able to see the Lord because this form of communication was not confounded by the Lord, as human language tends to be.

Taking this a step further, Alma 37:18-35 explains how the stones "shall shine forth in darkness unto light." This is in anticipation of the need for them in a much darker world than that which the Jaredites came from and lived in. Their "dispensation" was not a restoration and did not arise out of an apostasy; they were spared precisely that when they were led from the tower with their language/priesthood/religion intact. The stones were prepared for those who would follow, and were passed on to a remnant of the apostatized dispensation of Moses (Mosiah being the first to inherit them centuries later, and instructed to use and pass them along with the Nephite records). Ether 12:23-25 shows that the Nephites were not mighty in writing, and so their translation of the Jaredite records, and Joseph's translations of theirs, would require some assistance, even though Joseph  both saw the Father and the Son and several of the Nephite prophets saw the pre-mortal and resurrected Lord.

So I would say that the need for the stones was not a function of anyone's lack of faith, but a function of the darkness with which the users were surrounded and their capacity to read and write lost languages, a problem the Jaredites did not have.

Sacred relics are a form of inter-generational testimony. For example, Moses used them in the ark and Adam's garment is said to have been one, and of course the stone box containing the gold plates had some. These stones seem to have been that kind of relic.

[Guest]

23 minutes ago, CV75 said:

They seem to have been prepared for whoever those future seers/users would need them. Jared and his kin were spared the confounding of their language, but future generations and cultures were not. The brother of Jared was able to see the Lord because this form of communication was not confounded by the Lord, as human language tends to be.

Taking this a step further, Alma 37:18-35 explains how the stones "shall shine forth in darkness unto light." This is in anticipation of the need for them in a much darker world than that which the Jaredites came from and lived in. Their "dispensation" was not a restoration and did not arise out of an apostasy; they were spared precisely that when they were led from the tower with their language/priesthood/religion intact. The stones were prepared for those who would follow, and were passed on to a remnant of the apostatized dispensation of Moses (Mosiah being the first to inherit them centuries later, and instructed to use and pass them along with the Nephite records). Ether 12:23-25 shows that the Nephites were not mighty in writing, and so their translation of the Jaredite records, and Joseph's translations of theirs, would require some assistance, even though Joseph  both saw the Father and the Son and several of the Nephite prophets saw the pre-mortal and resurrected Lord.

So I would say that the need for the stones was not a function of anyone's lack of faith, but a function of the darkness with which the users were surrounded and their capacity to read and write lost languages, a problem the Jaredites did not have.

Sacred relics are a form of inter-generational testimony. For example, Moses used them in the ark and Adam's garment is said to have been one, and of course the stone box containing the gold plates had some. These stones seem to have been that kind of relic.

I'm not sure how you're addressing my confusion about your earlier statement.  But first, let me clarify/correct some of the things you just posted.

1. Moses did not inherit these stones from the Jaredites.  (I hope that's not what you meant).  He wasn't even on the same continent.  The Lord made a different set for Moses.
2. The stones in the box with the Gold plates were most likely from Mosiah (the first mention in the BoM).  They may have been inherited from Moses.  But I don't know of anywhere it says that.

Now, the issue I had with your earlier statement was:

• The Jaredites did not have a confounded language.
• The Jaredites were given these interpreters.
• The Jaredites populated the continent for over 1000 years, perhaps nearly 2000 years, before they died out.
• For all we know the Jaredite urim and thummim were never passed on to the Nephites since Mosiah had his own.
• So why would the Jaredites have interpreters for a language that they themselves spoke when they never even passed those interpreters to another people?

My speculative answer was that the Jaredite Urim and Thummim were not for interpretation, but for revelation.  My earlier comment was that Mahonri did not need them for himself because he was a living urim and thummim.  But his successors may not have been as gifted as he.  So, they were given to the first prophet of his dispensation and handed down to future prophets of his people.

The only other thing I can figure you meant was that they were made for the Jaredites, taken away from the Jaredites (by Heavenly means) given to Moses (by Heavenly means) then passed onto Mosiah.  This would mean that Lehi/Nephi had them when they crossed the waters.  But such a thing would probably have been mentioned somewhere before Mosiah.  So, it is more likely that they were taken away again (from Israel) and then handed to the Nephites at some point until Mosiah got them.  Since they were in the box with the plates, chances are they were the same pair that were handed down from Mosiah to Moroni.

Edited May 3, 2017 by Guest

[mordorbund]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

Sacred relics are a form of inter-generational testimony. For example, Moses used them in the ark and Adam's garment is said to have been one, and of course the stone box containing the gold plates had some. These stones seem to have been that kind of relic.

@Carborendum I think this paragraph is supposed to be about relics in general (Moses' tablets, pot of manna, Aaron's budding rod, Adam's garment, etc) and not specifically Mahonri's stones (until the last sentence).

[zil]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

The stones were prepared for those who would follow, and were passed on to a remnant of the apostatized dispensation of Moses (Mosiah being the first to inherit them centuries later, and instructed to use and pass them along with the Nephite records).

Translation of above sentence:

1) Something called "the dispensation of Moses" exists.

2) That dispensation apostatized. (Israel and Judah)

3) There is a remnant of said dispensation. (Lehi, et al)

4) The seer stones given to the brother of Jared were passed on to someone from said remnant. (Mosiah)

...at least, that's how I read it.

[Guest]

58 minutes ago, mordorbund said:

@Carborendum I think this paragraph is supposed to be about relics in general (Moses' tablets, pot of manna, Aaron's budding rod, Adam's garment, etc) and not specifically Mahonri's stones (until the last sentence).

I wasn't exactly sure what he was saying that is why I used the slashie -- clarify/correct.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

I wasn't exactly sure what he was saying that is why I used the slashie -- clarify/correct.

I apologize for the confusion.

I identified Mosiah (a descendant of Lehi, who fled corrupt Jerusalem/Israel near the latter apostasy of Moses’ dispensation) as the first Nephite to get the Jaredite stones. I was thinking that this might be in conjunction with his finding the large stone (Omni 1:20; Mosiah 8:13), but as you pointed out, that is not a given since he could have gotten a unique set of interpreters in some other way.

@zilexplains my reference to Moses. Thank you!

@mordorbund, yes, thank you. Since Mosiah likely had his own unique stones, Mahonri's interpreters would not necessarily be among the relics in the stone box Mornoni buried (unless... see below).

Ether 3:20-28 explains that the Lord gave the brother of Jared the stones as the only means to translate the things he was commanded to write and seal up. Their express purpose is to translate the vision referred to in these verses in the Lord’s due time, which is the sealed portion of the Book of Mormon plates. Strictly speaking, this would make them a unique set of interpreters designed for this specific purpose, and not the same as Mosiah’s which ended up in the stone box with the gold plates that Joseph was led to.

However, the gold plates include the sealed portion of the brother of Jared’s record. Perhaps the brother of Jared’s interpreters are sealed in a compartment within that sealed section of plates, or sealed up somewhere else altogether. At any rate, great pains are taken to ensure that only those specific interpreters can translate that specific document. This is why I’m thinking along the lines that the need for them is not tied to a prophet’s abilities but to a sacred security system. They remain relics, whether in the sealed portion, the stone box, or somewhere else, which serve as a testament and a sign that the Lord's plan and work runs along a continuum of generations and millennia.

[Guest]

@CV75,

That still doesn't really address my question:

Quote

So why would the Jaredites have interpreters for a language that they themselves spoke when they never even passed those interpreters to another people?

No, I don't think the stones Joseph used were Jaredite stones:

1. The stones in the box were attached to a breastplate, not hidden in the Jaredite record.
2. Moroni even refers to them as the NEPHITE interpreters.
3. The Jaredite record was never placed in the box anyway.  It was Moroni's abridgment of the Jaredite record.
4. Limhi mentioned the plates.  Ammon mentioned the interpreters.  Limhi didn't mention anything of any stones.  There is no reason to believe the Jaredite stones were ever passed to another after Ether.  Why would you believe they did?

So, if they were never passed beyond the Jaredites, then why did they have them?  They didn't need it for linguistic purposes.  Why?

Edited May 3, 2017 by Guest

[CV75]

7 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

@CV75,

That still doesn't really address my question:

No, I don't think the stones Joseph used were Jaredite stones:

1. The stones in the box were attached to a breastplate, not hidden in the Jaredite record.
2. The Jaredite record was never placed in the box anyway.  It was Moroni's abridgment of the Jaredite record.
3. Limhi mentioned the plates.  Ammon mentioned the interpreters.  Limhi didn't mention anything of any stones.  There is no reason to believe the Jaredite stones were ever passed to another after Ether.  Why would you believe they did?

So, if they were never passed beyond the Jaredites, then why did they have them?  They didn't need it for linguistic purposes.  Why?

One way to look at this is that the stones in Ether 3 were not passed down from prophet to prophet in their line.

The Lord gave the brother of Jared the stones as the only means to translate the things he was commanded to write and seal up, along with the stones. This makes them inaccessible to any other prophet until the Lord says so (Moroni being one of them):

“And behold, these two stones will I give unto thee, and ye shall seal them up also with the things which ye shall write. …I will cause in my own due time that these stones shall magnify to the eyes of men these things which ye shall write. …And the Lord said unto him: Write these things and seal them up; and I will show them in mine own due time unto the children of men. And it came to pass that the Lord commanded him that he should seal up the two stones which he had received, and show them not, until the Lord should show them unto the children of men.”

This seems to indicate that no one in the Jaredite line was intended to possess the stones or the record, only someone long after them, such as Moroni, who said, “Behold, I have written upon these plates the very things which the brother of Jared saw; and there never were greater things made manifest than those which were made manifest unto the brother of Jared. Wherefore the Lord hath commanded me to write them; and I have written them. And he commanded me that I should seal them up; and he also hath commanded that I should seal up the interpretation thereof; wherefore I have sealed up the interpreters, according to the commandment of the Lord.”

Now I’ve assumed that these interpreters were sealed up with the plates in the stone box, but as you pointed out that may not be the case. Moroni, as the brother of Jared, may have also sealed up the stones separately from the plates, their sealed portion, and the other contents of the stone box; perhaps elsewhere in the hill, or in another hill, or in heaven.

The Jaredites would not have necessarily had the interpreters (if Mahonri sealed them up somewhere inaccessible to them) and may not have necessarily passed those interpreters to another people. But somehow Moroni received them in the Lord's due time and in turn sealed them up somewhere.

[Guest]

@CV75,

So, I went and looked some more and found that the Lord declared them to be the same stones (Joseph and Mahonri) in D&C 17:1.  So, let that die.

 

My question shall be modified, but still remains:

Quote

So why would the Jaredites have interpreters for a language that they themselves spoke?

Why was it important for the Jaredites to have the stones that they would never themselves use?

[CV75]

26 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

@CV75,

So, I went and looked some more and found that the Lord declared them to be the same stones (Joseph and Mahonri) in D&C 17:1.  So, let that die.

 

My question shall be modified, but still remains:

Why was it important for the Jaredites to have the stones that they would never themselves use?

Good work -- I was putting together a "chain of custody" from the Book of Mormon for the stones / sealed record to answer that question. I hadn't gotten to other canon yet.

The only reason I can think of that the Lord would give Mahonri a set of interpreters that the Jaredites would never use for opening or interpreting his sealed record would be to keep them linked with the sealed record and pass these things along the generations as a testament (the role of sacred relics and a method of secure encryption), even though they were not to be used until centuries later by Moroni to interpret the sealed Jaredite portion into "Nephite" and then seal it up again, and then more centuries later by some future prophet (we still don't have it) at another juncture to interpret what Moroni had sealed up.

It seems that other Nephite prophets and Joseph Smith used them in the interim for purposes other than looking at the brother of Jared's sealed record. Perhaps the brother of Jared and other Jaredite prophets used them for other purposes too (translating languages they did not understand, or for revelation, etc.).

Edited May 3, 2017 by CV75

[Guest]

19 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Perhaps the brother of Jared and other Jaredite prophets used them for other purposes too (...for revelation, etc.).

That's what I said, but you seemed to discount the idea.

[The Folk Prophet]

8 hours ago, Carborendum said:

There are different aspects of faith.  I spoke of the aspect of using faith to "see" things as they really will be (among other things).  You spoke of the aspect of faith=action.  Two different aspects.  

I disagree that they are different aspects.

8 hours ago, Carborendum said:

The gist of my discussion point was that we normally think of faith as a principle of belief. 

Which is mistaken. "We" tend to be dumb about the matter. And I'm not sure where it comes from. Even the dictionary defines it as "complete trust or confidence in someone or something", and yet when applied to God it somehow becomes belief?

8 hours ago, Carborendum said:

I am looking at it as not only a principle of knowledge, but of obtaining new knowledge. 

And I am saying that the means of obtaining new knowledge is by action.

8 hours ago, Carborendum said:

You were talking about it as a principle of action.

Because it is.

8 hours ago, Carborendum said:

I submitted that it was the principle of obtaining knowledge that allowed Mahonri to see the Lord's hand.  How would you apply the "faith is action" principle to how he was able to see the Lord's hand?

Technically action is a result of what faith is. Faith is trust and loyalty. Action follows because if one is loyal one acts. If one simply believes then it doesn't mean loyalty, commitment, trust, etc. One can believe without acting. One cannot be loyal without acting. They are requisite one to another. Hence faith without works is dead. That does not mean that faith is a separate principle that exists independently of works. It means that works is requisite to faith or it is NOT faith. Faith without works is not faith.

Mahonri acted in many ways to show his faith, not the least of which was praying. An expression of belief is also an act.

Belief does tie into faith, of course, because choosing to believe is an action. And, of course, one would be unlikely to be loyal to and trust in something that they did not believe in. But belief is, in my opinion, not requisite to faith. At least not complete belief. One can be trusting, loyal and committed to something that they don't know if they fully believe in, and that is still an exercise of faith.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

That's what I said, but you seemed to discount the idea.

I am only so inclined when the idea is framed in terms of some prophets not being as gifted as the brother of Jared, who may have used them also.

But now that we've established that they were passed from the Jaredites to the Nephites and then to the Prophet Joseph, with their original and ultimate purpose being to translate Mahonri's sealed record, there may have been other applications as you described, such as translating other non-Jaredite language records and receiving revelation. Jaredite prophets could have used them for those purposes, and  at least one Nephite seer, Mosiah, did. But from the Lord's original instructions, we know that they are indispensable for interpreting the sealed portion of the Book of Mormon (as Moroni did), no matter how a prophet may learn to translate and receive revelation, or what or how much he has been shown in his interviews with the Lord.

The Lord uses prophets as custodians or repositories of His means to bring about His purposes (Alma 37:1-7) so this may explain why He expected the stones to remain within the Jaredite and Nephite lines for so long. He also uses symbolism, so the relics may have been kept for that purpose also.

As a side note, it is interesting to me that they were "sealed up" and yet passed along family/prophetic lines. Perhaps the term refers to keeping them sacred or consecrated and in authorized hands (even if angel's hands) as well as hidden and protected.

[Vort]

10 hours ago, Carborendum said:

My speculative answer was that the Jaredite Urim and Thummim were not for interpretation, but for revelation.  My earlier comment was that Mahonri did not need them for himself because he was a living urim and thummim.  But his successors may not have been as gifted as he.  So, they were given to the first prophet of his dispensation and handed down to future prophets of his people.

I believe this is incorrect. I assume (please correct me if I'm wrong) that the idea that seer stones are a sort of ersatz method of receiving revelation stems from stories about Joseph Smith giving up use of his chocolate-colored seer stone and his comments to the effect that he didn't need it any more. Let me make two points:

1. We have no first-hand account of Joseph saying that, only a second-hand account. Hard to put absolute confidence in a solitary account of a memory.
2. The fact that Joseph no longer needed to use his own personal, egg-shaped, chocolate-colored seer stone for certain purposes does not imply that he would therefore not have needed to use any seerstones at all for any other purposes ever. Remember that Moroni took the Jaredite seer stones from him when he finished his translation of the plates. Remember also that John promises those who inherit celestial glory a "white stone", doubtless a seer stone.

So Mahonri may very well have needed the seer stones he was given, despite his enormous faith. For some purposes, the possession of a seer stone -- which after all is the very definition of a "seer" -- may be required, and not at all a question of the strength of one's faith.

[Vort]

5 hours ago, Carborendum said:

So, if they were never passed beyond the Jaredites, then why did they have them?  They didn't need it for linguistic purposes.  Why?

As I recall, Joseph used the Urim and Thummim to receive revelation, aside from "translations", in whatever sense that word was used. The first sentence from the "Urim and Thummim" entry in the Guide to the Scriptures on lds.org confirms this: "Instruments prepared by God to assist man in obtaining revelation and in translating languages."

[Vort]

3 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

And I'm not sure where it comes from. Even the dictionary defines it as "complete trust or confidence in someone or something", and yet when applied to God it somehow becomes belief?

Alma 32:21 reads:

Quote

And now as I said concerning faith—faith is not to have a perfect knowledge of things; therefore if ye have faith ye hope for things which are not seen, which are true.

 

[The Folk Prophet]

56 minutes ago, Vort said:

Alma 32:21 reads:

 

I'm not sure if you're meaning to support my thought or challenge it.

[Guest]

5 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I disagree that they are different aspects.

I guess we'll have to get into semantics.  Maybe we already are.

Quote

1. appearance to the eye or mind; look:
2. nature; quality; character:
3. a way in which a thing may be viewed or regarded; interpretation;view:
4. part; feature; phase

Nope.  I'll disagree and say that they are different aspects of the same principle.  If you prefer, I could say different applications, functions, or uses.

5 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Which is mistaken. "We" tend to be dumb about the matter.

You think so?

Quote

Articles of Faith

We believe...

I also remember from primary lessons as a child that the manuals actually said that "Faith is the belief that Jesus is the Savior."  Now, this may have simply been dumbed down for little children's sake.  And therefore, not entirely correct.  But apparently quite a few people do believe it.

So, when I said "we" it obviously does not include you.  But many people do.  Faith is the evidence of things not seen.  It is that which allows us to believe in something without physical evidence.  Does that not make it a "principle of belief"?

5 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

And I am saying that the means of obtaining new knowledge is by action.

What I notice from the passage I quoted about Mahonri is that he didn't expect, hope, believe, anything about the physical body of Jesus.  He did nothing to move his mind or body in that direction.  There was no action he took to even conceive of that idea.

So unexpected it was that he fell down with fear.  It simply happened.  And the Lord then says that he was able to do so because of his exceeding faith.

Quote

And the Lord said unto him: Because of thy faith thou hast seen that I shall take upon me flesh and blood; and never has man come before me with such exceeding faith as thou hast; for were it not so ye could not have seen my finger. Sawest thou more than this?

Ether 3:6

So I'm asking for the connection between the "faith is action" being connected to this passage.  What is the connection?  Keep in mind, I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you.  I just am not seeing the connection between any "action" of faith that would allow him to receive this revelation when he wasn't even thinking in that direction.

5 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Because it is.

I'm not disagreeing.

5 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Technically action is a result of what faith is. Faith is trust and loyalty. Action follows because if one is loyal one acts. If one simply believes then it doesn't mean loyalty, commitment, trust, etc. One can believe without acting. One cannot be loyal without acting. They are requisite one to another. Hence faith without works is dead. That does not mean that faith is a separate principle that exists independently of works. It means that works is requisite to faith or it is NOT faith. Faith without works is not faith.

Mahonri acted in many ways to show his faith, not the least of which was praying. An expression of belief is also an act.

Belief does tie into faith, of course, because choosing to believe is an action. And, of course, one would be unlikely to be loyal to and trust in something that they did not believe in. But belief is, in my opinion, not requisite to faith. At least not complete belief. One can be trusting, loyal and committed to something that they don't know if they fully believe in, and that is still an exercise of faith.

Again, how did any of his actions relate to him receiving a revelation "by default" that didn't seem to have anything to do with his actions?