There are 7 thoughts on “Lehi, Joseph, and the Kingdom of Israel”.

  1. I have been reluctant to comment on your fine article because my thoughts only disagree with one small part. I do not subscribe to the Documentary Hypothesis of Julius Wellhausen. Nevertheless I do not think that my disagreement invalidates your comments on the rest of your article. In my opinion the Book of Moses would indicate that Genesis 1 and 2 (Moses 2 and 3) were both written by the same author and were not spliced together from two different accounts. I find a totally different reason for the differences in the two accounts. In my personal belief there are three different creations spoken of in the scriptures. First in sequence was the “spirit” creation in which we were all created as spirit beings. We have no scriptural account of this creation, just some verses that indicate that there was one. The second creation is called in the scriptures the “spiritual” creation, the word spiritual contrasting with the word temporal, and in that sense spiritual means “eternal.” The accounts of this creation are found in Genesis 1:1 through 2:3, Moses 2:1 through 3:3, and in the temple. This was an actual physical but not mortal creation. Adam was created physically, but he was not mortal, and would have lived forever had things not changed. This creation took six days (times) and then was complete. The third creation is the “mortal” creation which we generally refer to as the fall. This last creation takes place in one day (time) and Jehovah is the individual listed as being in charge. The account of the beginning of this creation is found in Genesis 2:4 and Moses 3:4 and this account does not have an ending because the mortal creation is still in process. The differences between the two accounts of creation can be explained by the fact that they are different creations taking place during different time periods and with different individuals represented as being in charge. I find this explanation much more satisfactory than the Documentary Hypothesis, and much better supported by modern revelation. I realize that this is only a theory, and only mine at that, but it might provide some readers some thoughts for contemplation.

  2. It would be great to see this published somewhere in the upper tiers of the truly rigorous academic peer-reviewed scholarly literature.

    Why do we hide great scholarship like this beneath a bushel basket instead of declaring it boldly to the world?

    Or is the Interpreter and it’s contributors content to talk only to each other? Is our learned scholarship persuasive only for people who first have a burning bosom or some other ‘personal revelation’ that it’s true?

    Or do we publish in the bushel basket of the Interpreter to provide ourselves comfort and help shore up beliefs that we know can’t stand or endure on the strength of actual evidence or argument?

  3. Food for thought. Thank you for drawing these Elohist threads together some more. They are a suitable rebuttal to the idea that the Book of Mormon is not ‘Jewish’ enough for some would-be historicists.

  4. Thank you, Richley, for writing such an important article. I am certain that our late colleague, John A. Tvedtnes, is enjoying reading it on the other side of the veil.

    I will call it to the attention of my friend John L. Sorenson.

Add Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

 characters available

All comments are moderated to ensure respectful discourse. It is assumed that it is possible to disagree agreeably and intelligently and comments that intend to increase overall understanding are particularly encouraged. Individual authors are given the option to disallow commenting or end commenting after a certain period at their discretion.

Close this window

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This