- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
SilentDawning wrote:
This is a spin-off from another thread where we were talking about the Book of Mormon. Old Timer indicated he felt Nephi was the annoying little brother who was self-righteous, favored, and a thorn in the side of his older brothers. The older brothers weren’t visionaries and therefore, maybe couldn’t be expected to share in the visions of Nephi or their father, Lehi. Feel free to correct what I said here if this doesn’t accurately reflect what you meant/said OT. That is how I understood it though.I was talking to my TBM, ex-Bishop Mormon friend about this interpretation. He seemed to think this interpretation was a justification for Laman and Lemuel’s treatment of Nephi. My friend actually censured Laman and Lemuel saying a) they weren’t righteous people b) they tried to kill Nephi — not appropriate even given Nephi’s annoying behavior c) they tied him up and smote him with a rod d) they even saw an Angel telling them to change their ways, and they still didn’t listen to Nephi and e) after they untied Nephi God stopped the storms when they traversed the ocean. My friend implied that these latter two facts indicated Nephi was acting as he should have from God’s perspective. He also had little sympathy for Laman and Lemuel.
Just wondering what your thoughts are on this counterpoint OT, or anyone else who wants to participate.
What is interesting to me is that in all scripture references when two brothers contend for the patriarchal birthright to the priesthood that in all cases (with no exceptions) that the birthright has gone to the younger brother. That the Book of Mormon is consistent with scripture is not conclusive proof by itself but it is like a brick of evidence in a wall of proof that Book of Mormon (as well as other scripture) is not fiction but rather a stylized pattern (type and shadow) concerning various divine revelation of things.
Except for Jehovah and Lucifer? Just saying. I think there are relatively few examples in history where the younger brother receives “the birthright” – so they always need to justify it. The easiest justification is that the oldest brother didn’t deserve it. The problem with that argument is when it is the youngest brother, which makes it necessary to claim some kind of unique, divine gift to skip all of the other brothers – like being visionary. For example, by all measures, Sam was an obedient, righteous son – so to skip him Nephi had to be extraordinary.
The core “problem” with this “pattern” is that the youngest child often is the spoiled child due to the father being “retired” and having more time to spend with them – or being an unexpected “blessing” in old age (often seen as a gift from God). That dynamic alone creates issues beyond a simple divine standing. It also adds a layer of understandable interpersonal tension, frustration, and even anger from older brother(s) who feel, rightly, that they are being slighted, ignored, and “robbed” of their birthright – which in that time was a HUGE thing in practical, economic terms. (It was, essentially, nearly all or nothing.)
Old-Timer wrote:
Except for Jehovah and Lucifer? Just saying.I think there are relatively few examples in history where the younger brother receives “the birthright” – so they always need to justify it. The easiest justification is that the oldest brother didn’t deserve it. The problem with that argument is when it is the youngest brother, which makes it necessary to claim some kind of unique, divine gift to skip all of the other brothers – like being visionary. For example, by all measures, Sam was an obedient, righteous son – so to skip him Nephi had to be extraordinary.
The core “problem” with this “pattern” is that the youngest child often is the spoiled child due to the father being “retired” and having more time to spend with them – or being an unexpected “blessing” in old age (often seen as a gift from God). That dynamic alone creates issues beyond a simple divine standing. It also adds a layer of understandable interpersonal tension, frustration, and even anger from older brother(s) who feel, rightly, that they are being slighted, ignored, and “robbed” of their birthright – which in that time was a HUGE thing in practical, economic terms. (It was, essentially, nearly all or nothing.)
I am not an expert in ancient text but from my studies “firstborn” does not of necessity mean strictly the oldest – it means the most noble or best. A parallel in our modern society would be first class travel. First class travel is the essence of the best that is offered and certainly, seldom if ever, not the “oldest”. An example of this use of firstborn in ancient Biblical literary works is when the first born of Egypt were killed during the initial Passover. What this meant was that the ruling bureaucratic cast of the Egyptian society under the supreme Suzerain was killed which meant, among other things, that the ruling family had no heir.
I do not give this as doctrine but rather as a matter of speculation and a topic to be pondered. Jehovah and Lucifer may not be the exception you are suggesting. Lucifer had the title of “son of the morning” or morning star which is in essence the heir and first born. This does explain the rebellion in the pre-existence heaven. We know from scripture that Lucifer was also anointed (meaning a Messiah or Christ) but never given that distinction in translations – only anointed? I personally do not see Jehovah diminished in any way, I am satisfied that of all G-d’s children, he was and is the most noble even if he was not the oldest.
It is interesting that in most ancient societies that the oldest son was not only given the distinction of being in charge of “all the father had” was also responsible for overseeing and taking care of his siblings. Of course, most often greed rather that responsibility was the defining result. It is interesting to me that Lucifer was not willing to be responsible for the agency of his spiritual siblings and that Jehovah was.
As a side note I have experienced the spoiling of younger and last-born children. Both among my siblings and children. I refer to such distinctions as Old Testament children verses New Testament children of a family.
What I am saying is that people justify the things they do, particularly when those actions cause major issues. I see no pattern except that tendency. I have studied ancient texts, although I am nowhere near a scholar. I simply will say that Lucifer being the oldest, birthright son is not the standard view of most scholars. The more common belief is that Michael and Lucifer were twins, with Michael being the older one. That would add some interesting dynamics to Michael having the lead role as the first man, which could have made Lucifer angry that the oldest got it by default. (He might have been the conceited younger brother.)
Culturally, the birthright going to the oldest son was a very big deal. It would be hugely insulting to choose another son for this honor/responsibility. Nephi’s family seemed to take this very seriously. So much so that when the boat to the promised land was finished the entered it in order by age.
Quote:“we did go down into the ship, with all our loading and our bseeds, and whatsoever thing we had brought with us, every one according to his age; wherefore, we did all go down into the cship, with our wives and our children.”
This is actually something that can be looked at as evidence of ancient origin for the BOM since it wouldn’t make much sense for JS to place such emphasis on birth order.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.