Addressing the question of a God who apparently commanded genocide in the Old Testament

One of the arguments I’ve heard from people who object to Christianity is that they question the Old Testament stories that depict a God who commanded the Israelites to kill the inhabitants of the promised land in order to take possession.  They point to those stories and say, “I can’t believe in a God who commanded genocide.”  They essentially frame him as a cosmic Hitler.

I admit that when looked at in this light, the stories are disturbing.

However, there are two things I think need to be taken into account.

First, if one charges God with crimes against humanity and essentially put Him on trial, then along with our modern definitions of crime, one has to use modern standards of justice.  In order to be just in this trial, one has to consider the evidence for and against the thing God did. If God had good reason for using His people to wipe out the inhabitants of Palestine at the time of Moses/Joshua, then God was justified. But if the inhabitants were not evil, then God was not justified.

The tricky thing is, there is not much documentary evidence in the Bible about what kind of people the inhabitants were.  And there is some evidence in God's favor, but it is scarce.  Because of this scarcity, it is tempting to acquit the inhabitants and condemn God, but actually our court standards require us to presume innocence until proven guilty. So one must withhold judgment against both the inhabitants that were killed and against God who commanded their killing.

And that leads to an interesting point where one presumes innocence of both the inhabitants and the God who had them destroyed.  But this might lead one to ask oneself, “Who is likely to be more innocent—man or God?”

Second, it might be useful to imagine ourselves in God’s position at that time and consider the particular situation God was in and the goals He might have been working toward and the cultural situation of the peoples He had to work with.

So, imagine you are God.

Ready?

You have a group of people who believe in you, and they have been slaves for perhaps a generation, maybe two. You’ve delivered them from bondage so that they can serve you and become a better people. They have practically nothing. They know how to work hard, but their greatest labors have been coerced, so you’ll need to teach them about being internally motivated.  They also have a sad but understandable tendency toward disobedience and complaining that you’ve been trying to train out of them with 40 years in the wilderness.

Where are you going to settle these people of yours? Is there an empty land that is reasonably easy to cultivate? How will they survive in the time it takes to cultivate a season of crops if they have nothing? (You’ve been feeding them with manna all this time.) Where will they get the tools and seed to use, if they have practically nothing? How far will they need to travel to get to this land?

Is there a culture nearby who has enough charity and care for humanity that they will be willing to give relief to your people? Will they be able to tolerate the religious duties you have set your people?

Suppose, for argument’s sake, that there was such a people. Would there be any need to give your people the command to destroy?  No, of course not.  Your people would likely find refuge there and over a period of years find places to settle.

Now, suppose that the other cultures are hostile to everything you’re trying to teach your people.  Suppose there are serious problems with moral corruption, perversion, violence, and injustice.  (Suppose you tried all kinds of ways to reach these people before and they don’t listen.)  You understand the pressures to culturally assimilate, and the last thing you want is for your people to start learning those nasty practices. 

Destroying the inhabitants starts to look like a viable option.  (Naturally, there are a lot of additional factors that God would probably take into consideration, along with a large dose of mercy and forbearance, but I think we get the idea.)

But does it have to be your people who destroy the inhabitants?  Wouldn’t it be better to let the inhabitants destroy one another?  There’s a small problem with this.  Nature abhors a vacuum, and as soon as one culture destroys another, the land will be taken over by the victorious side, so it would still be occupied. 

Why not destroy the inhabitants with massive natural disaster, like Sodom and Gomorrah?  There’s a problem with that too. If the inhabitants get wiped off the map with natural disaster, it is likely their possessions and tools would be too, and you need to preserve that stuff to help your people get a leg up.

Why not hit the inhabitants with a deadly disease then?  Problem is, it’ll leave all their stuff covered in germs, and while your people are instructed in cleanliness and washing as part of the law you’ve given them, all it takes is one person carrying it and you’ve got a pandemic on your hands.

Commanding your people to destroy the inhabitants starts to look more viable..

But why not try to use lots of big miracles to convince the inhabitants to receive the Israelites?  Well, actually God did that.  The news of the Exodus miracles and all the subsequent miracles spread to the Palestine peoples, but instead of deciding to help the Israelites, the inhabitants were frightened and most preferred to fight.  One king (Balaak) even tried to have Israel cursed.

Ultimately, these considerations still may not be convincing to some, but as a person who believes in the God of the Old Testament, they help me remember several things:

--A decision of the kind God made is an incredibly heavy responsibility and would require full and complete knowledge. In a word, omniscience. 

--I don’t know all the factors leading to this particular command, but the ones I can imagine give me a hint of how God worked with the conditions of the time.

--The Bible doesn’t tell the full story. But I have faith that ultimately there will come a day when all the whys and wherefores of God’s doings will be explained.

Probably the most worrisome aspect of this discussion may be the implication that such a command might be given again.  But I think that unlikely.  That particular command was instruction customized to a particular set of conditions, much like God’s command to Noah to build an ark was customized to circumstances in his day.   

Since God is omniscient, no doubt He knew that future generations would not have a full record of the conditions that would make conquest by His people necessary. He knew He would be painted in black colors as an angry tribal God, but since He intended to bear the blame and fault for all mankind to give us all a chance to repent, He was not deterred by that. 

When Jesus taught the people during His mortal ministry, He declared Himself as Jehovah, the God of the Old Testament. Since He bore the sins of the Palestine inhabitants, He certainly had authority to say when their time was up. It is possible that He intended our sparse Biblical record to be a test to see if people could muster the faith to believe He was good even though it might look like He did something that would appear unjustified.

Family History: Why We And Our Dead Can’t Be Made Perfect Without Each Other

15 And now, my dearly beloved brethren and sisters, let me assure you that these are principles in relation to the dead and the living that cannot be lightly passed over, as pertaining to our salvation. For their salvation is necessary and essential to our salvation, as Paul says concerning the fathers—that they without us cannot be made perfect—neither can we without our dead be made perfect….

18 I might have rendered a plainer translation to this, but it is sufficiently plain to suit my purpose as it stands. It is sufficient to know, in this case, that the earth will be smitten with a curse unless there is a welding link of some kind or other between the fathers and the children, upon some subject or other—and behold what is that subject? It is the baptism for the dead. For we without them cannot be made perfect; neither can they without us be made perfect. Neither can they nor we be made perfect without those who have died in the gospel also; for it is necessary in the ushering in of the dispensation of the fulness of times, which dispensation is now beginning to usher in, that a whole and complete and perfect union, and welding together of dispensations, and keys, and powers, and glories should take place, and be revealed from the days of Adam even to the present time. And not only this, but those things which never have been revealed from the foundation of the world, but have been kept hid from the wise and prudent, shall be revealed unto babes and sucklings in this, the dispensation of the fulness of times. (D&C 128:15,18)

I have pondered that statement about how neither our dead nor us can be made perfect without each other and the vicarious ordinances of the gospel sealing us all together.  It has puzzled me a long time, as I have tried to understand it. 

Several answers we are given here—that the dispensations have to be welded together so that all have the keys, powers, and glories, and that things must be revealed that have been kept hidden. 

After a long thought, I think it all comes down to the importance of developing charity.  We can’t be made perfect without gaining every possible measure of charity, and the efforts of family history help us develop charity in fuller measure. 

Consider. The world would say that once a person is dead, there is nothing more that can be done for them.  But the sealing power of the priesthood helps us to reach beyond the grave into the eternities to help those who the world believes are beyond all help.  And it’s no ordinary help; it’s everlasting salvation we can offer.  And we can offer this to people that we’ve never even seen in the flesh. 

It is one brand of hero who tries to save those he knows. It is another level of heroism to save those one doesn’t know too.  And again, its yet another higher level of heroism to try to save in addition those who one has never personally met and never will meet in this life. It's the same kind of charity Christ demonstrated in bearing the burden of sin not just for those He knew, but those He'd never met in His mortal ministry (including us).

So far that helps answer why we can’t be made perfect without them. 

But why can’t they be made perfect without us?  

Easy answer: They need saving ordinances to access the sanctifying power of the atonement.

Going deeper: It may also have something to do with their new perspective beyond the veil once they have been taught the gospel. They are in a position to see what eternally matters and what doesn’t, and they have to watch us scraping along, making our choices, both good and bad, without the ability to interfere to influence us (except according to the Lord's will).  They depend upon us. 

How we must tax their patience as they wait for us to do their saving work for them!  It might be something like a parent forced to depend on a 5-year-old to drive a car on a mountainous road.  It’s easy enough for anyone to turn away in disgust and frustration when forced to watch a loved one make foolish decisions. Far too easy to give up and repudiate. What charity it must require of them in their helplessness to love us even in our short-sightedness!  It is something like the love God has for His children. 

And I suppose that sooner or later, all of us, even those of us who have already completed our own work, will eventually be in that place of having to silently watch those who come after, loving in spite of what the following generations do.

So, both the giving and receiving of the gift of vicarious ordinances helps develop the charity we need to become perfect.

Some scriptures about pleasure

For curiosity’s sake, I thought I would look pleasure up in the Topical Guide to see what could be found there.  Here is what I found, organized a bit to put similar insights together.

·      I will prove thee with mirth, therefore enjoy pleasure … this also is vanity: Eccl. 2:1 .

·      lovers of pleasures more than … God: 2 Tim. 3:4 .

·      And that which fell among thorns are they, which, when they have heard, go forth, and are choked with…pleasures of this life, and bring no fruit to perfection. Luke 8:14 .

·      For we ourselves also were sometimes foolish, disobedient…serving divers lusts and pleasures: Titus 3:3 .

·      she that liveth in pleasure is dead: 1 Tim. 5:6 .

·      He that loveth pleasure shall be a poor man: Prov. 21:17 .

·      Wherefore have we fasted, say they, and thou seest not?...in the day of your fast ye find pleasure: Isa. 58:3 .

·      Ye have lived in pleasure on the earth, and been wanton: James 5:5 .

·      And shall receive the reward of unrighteousness, as they that count it pleasure to riot in the day time: 2 Pet. 2:13 .

·      ye … have pleasure in unrighteousness: D&C 56:15 .

·      Felix, willing to shew the Jews a pleasure, left Paul bound: Acts 24:27 .

·      Laman and Lemuel thought Nephi meant to make himself king so he could do with his brothers according to his own will and pleasure. (1 Ne. 16:38)

I get the sense from the above scriptures that pleasure can be dangerous, that they tend to distract us from God, that and that it is possible to find pleasure in the wrong kinds of things.  In particular, I was struck by Ecclesiastes 2:1, which implies that our pleasures prove what kind of people we are.

God, on the other hand, has His own special brand of pleasure, which we can find out about.

for thy pleasure they are and were created: Rev. 4:11 .

the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his [Christ’s] hand: Isa. 53:10 .

God adopts the Saints to himself through Jesus Christ according to his will and pleasure (Eph. 1:5)

It is your Father’s good pleasure to give you the kingdom: Luke 12:32 .

The Lord taketh pleasure in them that fear him: Ps. 147:11 .

I make known unto them [that fear and serve me to the end] the good pleasure of my will concerning all things: D&C 76:5, 7

Do good in thy good pleasure unto Zion: Ps. 51:18 .

Who buildeth up at his own will and pleasure: D&C 63:4 .

Let the Lord be magnified, which hath pleasure in the prosperity of his servant: Ps. 35:27 .

these things [scriptures] shall go forth according to the will and pleasure of God (2 Ne. 25:22)

according to mine own will and pleasure, that great things be required at the hand of their fathers. (D&C 29:48)

From the above, I get the sense that the Lord takes pleasure in every stage of the work of salvation, from the creation, to the atonement, to conversion, to placing the kingdom in the hands of his righteous servants, to revealing his will, and in all that serve him.

What does the Lord not have pleasure in?

·      When thou vowest a vow unto God, defer not to pay it; for he hath no pleasure in fools: Eccl. 5:4 .

·      thou art not a God that hath pleasure in wickedness: Ps. 5:4 .   

·      Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die: Ezek. 18:23 .

I also ran across a great example of Moses, who, according to Paul (Heb 11:24-25), chose to forsake pleasure and his high status as Pharaoh’s daughter’s son in exchange for affliction just to be with the people of God.  You have to give him credit for priorities in the right place and great strength of purpose.  How many of us are willing to sacrifice our pleasures like that?

One of the things I learn from this study is how important it is to find pleasure in the right things (things of eternity). I also learn that it is important to have some, but not to overdo the harmless temporary pleasures of life.  The Family Proclamation lists “wholesome recreational activities” as one of a list of important principles of establishing successful families. When I think of recreation, I like to read it as “re-creation,” as a way to re-create bonds of unity and re-create strength.  That gives a good way to judge the quality of my pleasure and fun. 

Zeniff's powers of persuasion

I suspect that Zeniff was a very persuasive fellow.  Consider the instances when he used his persuasion:

1) As a member of the first group sent to re-colonize Nephi-Lehi, Zeniff contended with his people to try to convince them to make a treaty with the Lamanites instead of invading and destroying them.  He convinced enough people that the leader seems to have wanted to permanently shut him up by commanding that he be slain.  (Zeniff must have had a lot of good arguments, but in his record he merely says, “I saw that which was good among them.” Ostensibly, he suppresses his reasoning in his record because it won’t fit well with his final indictment of the Lamanite culture.  He is reluctant to seem inconsistent; few of us like to seem inconsistent so we should be able to understand this..)

2) Zeniff returns to Zarahemla with the 50 who were not slain in the contention, and he tells the tale of what happened to everyone else in a persuasive enough way that the families of those who were slain do not seek retribution. 

Zeniff’s account in Mosiah 9:2 says he contended with his brethren not to kill the Lamanites, but in another account in Omni 1:28 by Amaleki, the story is that the leader caused a contention among them.  Amaleki may have gotten the official story told to the families, whereas in Zeniff’s own account he feels free enough to give a different view, perhaps one closer to what actually happened. 

As I think about the version in Omni, it does seem very odd that a leader would cause a contention among a group.  Usually someone else besides the leader causes a contention.  The leader represents the official policy, and others with different alternatives cause contention.

3) Zeniff manages to convince ANOTHER party of Nephites to come on a second colonizing party even after the first one failed.  He seems to have been able to persuade them that a peaceful settlement among the Lamanites was a cinch and they had nothing to worry about.  He didn’t even know where they would settle, yet he was able to make it sound possible and reasonable.  Also take into account that he didn’t even know the disposition of the Lamanite king yet. 

4) Once Zeniff returned to Nephi-Lehi, he was able to persuade the Lamanite king to give up some of Lamanite lands, evacuate his people, and let the Nephites settle in their place.  Zeniffi later attributes his success to Lamanite cunning plans to destroy and bring Nephites into bondage, but I can’t help but wonder why the Lamanites would wait a full 12 years before attacking instead of attacking at the beginning?  Why would they not try to bring them into bondage at the beginning as well?  Wouldn’t they try to make some sort of tribute agreement?

Another detail I noticed that makes me wonder is the fact that Zeniff says in Mosiah 9:6 that the Lamanite king covenanted with Zeniff that the Nephites would possess the land of Lehi-Nephi and the land of Shilom.   “Covenant” usually means a two-way promise.  Yet Zeniff only records one side—what the Lamanites would do for the Nephites (give up land).  It seems extraordinarily generous of the Lamanites to just vacate their land immediately like that, especially if they were as bloodthirsty, hateful, fierce, and cunning as Zeniff later insists they are. 

I suspect that Zeniff actually had an obligation of his own to fulfill in this covenant, but that he chose not to record it.  I suspect that he promised to provide the Lamanites with a certain amount of tribute crops and animals.  Then, I suspect that after 12 years, that burden of tribute began to feel too obnoxious, so he decided to skip paying it. 

So now, consider that first Lamanite attack on the Nephites that comes out of the blue after 12 years of peace.  Its focus is rather unusual.  Instead of attacking the city, the Lamanite army attacks the Nephites in their fields.  Then they start taking off their flocks and the corn of their fields.  It is like the Lamanites are hungry. 

However, this makes perfect sense if you assume that Zeniff agreed to a tribute of food and then didn’t pay it on the 12^th year.  He even inserts his reasoning that the Lamanites were lazy, idolatrous, and wanted to glut themselves on the labors of the Nephites hands.  This is the same kind of resentful grumbling you will hear from people determined to avoid paying their taxes.  “The government is stealing from us. The government is a parasite!” they will say.  If Zeniff withheld tribute, then the Lamanite army attack would be completely understandable.  They would be sent to collect what was agreed upon. 

Another point of Zeniff’s narrative that makes me wonder is his description of the reason for the second battle the Lamanites start with the Nephites.  He says that the new king of the Lamanites began to stir up his people in rebellion against Zeniff’s people (Mosiah 10:6).  Rebellion is such an interesting word here.  It implies that somehow Zeniff’s people had gained some sort of ascendancy, as if they were starting to subjugate the Lamanites.  I have to wonder if this actually describes the reality, or if Zeniff was just twisting the narrative a little.

But either way, calling the Lamanite attack a rebellion raises questions.  If the Lamanites were rebelling against Nephite domination, then Zeniff actually kept some very important contextual information out of his record.  On the other hand, if Zeniff called it a rebellion when it was nothing of the kind, then he bent the truth for his own purposes.  One way he withheld truth, another way he bent the truth.

(Things that make you go, “Hmmmmm..”)

Anyway, all these little details, little inconsistencies add up to a picture of a man who was very persuasive and who was skilled at bending the truth to whatever purpose he had in mind, even going so far as to rewrite his version of history.

Now, when a ruler is adept at bending the truth for his purposes according to circumstances, what are the ruler’s children going to learn to do?   They will do the same, and they may push things even further.  

Thus, this accounts for the wild mismatch of views between King Noah and his wicked priests on one hand and Abinadi on the other about what is happening in the land.  King Noah and his wicked priests are bending the truth and not only have they bent the Nephite historical narrative, they are now bending the Law of Moses to fit their purposes.  Abinadi’s view represents the clear truth to which the Lord desires to bring the people back.

Three Different Ways King Mosiah was Righteous

And it came to pass that king Mosiah did walk in the ways of the Lord, and did observe his judgments and his statutes, and did keep his commandments in all things whatsoever he commanded him. (Mosiah 6:6)

Somehow this verse caught my eye.  It seems to say three different times that Mosiah was a good man and a good king, but with different wording.  This made me wonder if it simply said it three times or if it was describing different aspects of his righteousness.    (Aha, analysis is called for!)

“king Mosiah did walk in the ways of the Lord” – This uses the metaphor of righteousness as a path.  King Mosiah had to know that path—what the Lord’s ways were—in order to walk in it.  He probably asked himself the question, “What would the Lord do?” when faced with something tricky.   Is walking in the Lord’s ways accidental?  No, it has to be deliberate. It has to be learned and practiced.

"[Mosiah] did observe his [the Lord’s] judgments and his statutes" – The word observe has a number of meanings that help us here. 4 of 9 possible definitions are the following:

--show respect towards

--behave as expected during holidays or rites

--stick to correctly or closely

--conform one’s action or practice to

Another interesting thing is that the words “judgments” and “statues” imply the existence of certain things.  Observing judgments in once sense implies noticing the judgments of God at work and pointing out how natural consequences fit with the Lord’s commandments. Or, it might imply sticking with the precedents formed by a body of case law. Observing statutes implies keeping to smaller facilitating laws.

“[Mosiah] did keep his [the Lord’s] commandments in all things whatsoever he commanded him” – This shows us Mosiah received personal revelation and followed it. We get the account of several instances of his doing this. 1) translating the 24 plates Limhi’s people brought with them, and 2) receiving revelation that he should let his four reconverted sons go preach to the Lamanites. Changing the Nephite government from monarchy to a judge-ruled government may have been part of this, but that is only speculation.

So, having examined these things more closely, we see that those three phrases about Mosiah’s righteousness describe different aspects.  It may strike you as it has struck me that they aren’t only for kings.  We also can walk in the ways of the Lord, observe His statutes and judgments in our stewardships, and keep the Lord’s commandments in all things He commands us.    What a heaven this world would be if we all did that.

Alma as a type of Christ

15 And now it came to pass that Alma, having seen the afflictions of the humble followers of God, and the persecutions which were heaped upon them by the remainder of his people, and seeing all their inequality, began to be very sorrowful; nevertheless the Spirit of the Lord did not fail him.

16 And he selected a wise man who was among the elders of the church, and gave him power according to the voice of the people, that he might have power to enact laws according to the laws which had been given, and to put them in force according to the wickedness and the crimes of the people….

18 Now Alma did not grant unto him the office of being high priest over the church, but he retained the office of high priest unto himself; but he delivered the judgment-seat unto Nephihah.

19 And this he did that he himself might go forth among his people, or among the people of Nephi, that he might preach the word of God unto them, to stir them up in remembrance of their duty, and that he might pull down, by the word of God, all the pride and craftiness and all the contentions which were among his people, seeing no way that he might reclaim them save it were in bearing down in pure testimony against them.

20 And thus in the commencement of the ninth year of the reign of the judges over the people of Nephi, Alma delivered up the judgment-seat to Nephihah, and confined himself wholly to the high priesthood of the holy order of God, to the testimony of the word, according to the spirit of revelation and prophecy. (Alma 4:15-20)

These verses describe how Alma gave the office of chief judge to someone else and retained the office of high priest so he could go out and preach to the people to try to reclaim them.

It struck me that Alma here was a type of Christ’s condescension among men.

Christ is both our judge and high priest. He put aside His role as judge for a time to come down as high priest among men to preach and testify in order to save us.

Probably a very small insight, but it is still neat to find types of Christ in the Book of Mormon where I didn’t notice them before. 

Is it by the Spirit of truth or some other way?

D&C 50 was given because the elders did not understand the manifestations of different spirits that were abroad on the earth, which were not uncommon among the members, some of whom claimed to be receiving visions and revelations.

Gospeldoctrine.com pulls together a number of accounts of these kinds of manifestations, so we can know what the elders were up against.

12 Now, when a man reasoneth he is understood of man, because he reasoneth as a man; even so will I, the Lord, reason with you that you may understand.

13 Wherefore, I the Lord ask you this question—unto what were ye ordained?

14 To preach my gospel by the Spirit, even the Comforter which was sent forth to teach the truth.

15 And then received ye spirits which ye could not understand, and received them to be of God; and in this are ye justified?

16 Behold ye shall answer this question yourselves; nevertheless, I will be merciful unto you; he that is weak among you hereafter shall be made strong.

17 Verily I say unto you, he that is ordained of me and sent forth to preach the word of truth by the Comforter, in the Spirit of truth, doth he preach it by the Spirit of truth or some other way?

18 And if it be by some other way it is not of God.

19 And again, he that receiveth the word of truth, doth he receive it by the Spirit of truth or some other way?

20 If it be some other way it is not of God.

21 Therefore, why is it that ye cannot understand and know, that he that receiveth the word by the Spirit of truth receiveth it as it is preached by the Spirit of truth?

22 Wherefore, he that preacheth and he that receiveth, understand one another, and both are edified and rejoice together.

23 And that which doth not edify is not of God, and is darkness. (D&C 50:12-23)

One of the great things these verses teach is that the elders must preach by the Spirit of truth, and the listeners must receive the preaching of the Spirit of truth. I notice there is a lot of repetition and emphasis on the word “preach” in these verses, which would be very helpful to the Saints. The manifestations they wondered about did not involve preaching, but instead involved strange movements, fits, and generally disorderly conduct. Thus, emphasizing preaching would eventually filter out the weird stuff people did.

(Today we focus a little more on the part about having the Spirit of truth, as opposed to perhaps the spirit of speculation or the spirit of contention and controversy or the spirit of emotionalism.)

When the church was restored, there were a lot of false ideas about how someone under the influence of the Spirit would act that were borrowed from other sects. People were familiar with what happened at big revival meetings and may have thought that they had to demonstrate some sort of odd or unusual behavior to prove they were converted or prove they were influenced by the Holy Ghost. And if they couldn’t identify for themselves what the Spirit really did, or if its influence was different from what they thought would happen, or if it didn’t help them prove their spirituality like they thought it should, their insecurity might tempt them to make something up or act odd as though that were the Spirit.

Emphasizing preaching by the Spirit and the necessity for edification helped the Saints know that only edifying demonstrations should be received as from God. Intelligence should be gained by both the preacher and the listener.

I will have mercy and not sacrifice

10 ¶And it came to pass, as Jesus sat at meat in the house, behold, many publicans and sinners came and sat down with him and his disciples.

11 And when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto his disciples, Why eateth your Master with publicans and sinners?

12 But when Jesus heard that, he said unto them, They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick.

13 But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance. (Matthew 9:10-13)

I knew that Jesus said he was sent to heal the spiritual sick, but I was a bit confused about that part in verse 13. I had this idea Jesus was saying the Pharisees should be merciful to the sinners, or else saying He as the Son of God wanted to have mercy for his disciples rather than their sacrifices.

This time when I read it, I noticed a footnote to Hosea 6:6, which I went and looked at, including its context. I got a different impression from the meaning than I had before.

4 ¶O Ephraim, what shall I do unto thee? O Judah, what shall I do unto thee? for your goodness is as a morning cloud, and as the early dew it goeth away.

5 Therefore have I hewed them by the prophets; I have slain them by the words of my mouth: and thy judgments are as the light that goeth forth.

6 For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings. (Hosea 6:4-6)

Hosea called attention to how transitory Israel’s righteousness was, and how quickly they wandered from God. The words of the prophets, since they spoke the Law of Moses, taught them the right way, but also revealed how lost and fallen they were.

Therefore, the proper attitude of worship when making sacrifices was to seek for God’s mercy with faith in the Messiah’s sacrifice, rather than exulting in one’s own obedience. If they approached their sacrifices with an attitude of, “Look at me; I’m so obedient to offer sacrifices,” then they totally missed the point. But if they approached it from the perspective of, “I need to be redeemed; I need the mercy from the Messiah’s atonement, which my sacrifice is meant to remind me of,” then they would be prepared for the Lord’s redeeming power to work on them.

So when Jesus told the Pharisees to learn what Hosea meant about wanting mercy more than sacrifice, He meant they needed to learn their need for His mercy.  They hadn’t realized that yet. They thought they were enough by themselves.

Every once in a while, you hear people spouting that affirming line, “You are enough,” in order to encourage people who feel inadequate.  No, we are not enough. We need the Lord’s mercy.  We are not enough, but His grace is sufficient.

Sifting as Chaff

And let my servant Lyman Wight beware, for Satan desireth to sift him as chaff. (D&C 52:12)

Gospeldoctrine.com has some little explanation about this that I thought useful to include:

"Chaff is the non-nutritious waste product of wheat and is separated from the grain by the wind when it is tossed into the air. This process is called sifting. Chaff is like a rudderless vessel that is driven at will by the wind. Satan desires to sift the Saints like chaff, to separate them from the soul-saving, nutritious grain of the gospel and carry them away in the winds of wickedness." (Hoyt W. Brewster, Jr., Doctrine and Covenants Encyclopedia [Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1988], 520.)

"[Lyman Wight] had been ordained a High Priest at the Conference and had received a vision. He was a most zealous and successful missionary. He was fearless as a lion in the defense of the Saints, and he was a terror to the enemy. At the April Conference, 1841, he was appointed an Apostle. But, notwithstanding all, there was a flaw in his character which the Lord saw, and of which He warned him in this Revelation. In April, 1844, he was tried before the High Council at Far West for teaching false doctrine. He acknowledged his fault then and was forgiven. But, after the martyrdom of the Prophet. he declared that he would not turn his hand over to be one of the Twelve, and when the Saints went to the Rocky Mountains, as the Prophet Joseph had predicted they would do, he and George Miller led a small company to Texas. Wight died in that State, March 31, 1858." (Hyrum M. Smith and Janne M. Sjodahl, Doctrine and Covenants Commentary [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1978], 305.)

So back to this idea of chaff being like a rudderless vessel driven at will by the wind. There are two problems that can cause us to behave like chaff more than grain. 1) Rudderless- without using our agency to choose, we let others steer our lives. 2) Driven by the wind – without our own good purposes to drive us and motivate us, without the Lord’s purposes to bring about our immortality and eternal life, we are at the mercy of the purposes and drives of others and every wind of doctrine in society.

Furthermore, our faults in our character give Satan an opening to try to chisel us away from the Saints and the church. In Lyman Wight’s case, he seems to have been okay as long as Joseph Smith was alive, but once Joseph was dead, something in him balked at uniting with and working with the other apostles. He didn’t acknowledge their authority or see why he should unite with them.

We all have some particular weakness(es) that Satan will try to use to separate us from the church. We don’t have specific warnings addressed to us in the Doctrine and Covenants like Lyman Wight, but we do have patriarchal blessings, which usually have particular warnings in them. I have warnings in mine that I did not understand the need for until maybe 20 years after getting it.

Pre-conversion Alma the Younger

My husband and I were reading Mosiah 27 about the conversion story of Alma the Younger, and it seemed to me that it was impossible that he had not been taught the gospel by his father Alma while growing up.  It’s easy to wonder where Alma the Younger started to go wrong.

Mosiah 26 describes a great purge of the church, when many members who were unrepentantly sinning were cut off. It is perfectly possible that Alma the Younger and the four sons of Mosiah were cut off from the church for their wickedness at that time.  Later, Alma the Younger himself later tells of how he and Mosiah’s four sons went forth with anger and mighty threatenings to destroy the church (Alma 26:18).  That sounds very much like the anger of someone who felt they had been excommunicated unjustly, someone who rebelled against the authority of the priesthood.

Alma the Younger may have convinced himself that what happened to him and his friends was unjust and that the church needed reform.

So, part of what the angel’s visit would have settled for Alma the Younger and Mosiah’s four sons was that his father was right and was on God’s side, that God did have power and that Alma the Younger was wrong.  And if he was wrong, then his efforts to fix the church were wrong and amounted to persecution  and destruction rather than reform.

The cool thing about Alma the Younger’s conversion story is that it shows us that even an angry ex-member of the Church is not a lost cause. It shows us Alma the Elder’s example of praying for those who separate themselves from us and for those who have been cut off for transgression.  They may yet be brought to the knowledge of the truth.