Skip to main content

The Risen Jesus: The Immediate and Eternal Text


On September 26-27 back in 2008, a conference which aimed to explore 3 Nephi was held at BYU. The proceedings of that conference were recently published as Third Nephi: An Incomparable Scripture, edited by Andrew C. Skinner and Gaye Strathearn. I picked up a copy just the other day, and one thing that pleased me is that it included the panel discussion that took place at the end of the conference. In my experience, these are quite often where some of the best, most candid remarks are made, so it is disappointing to me that all too often these do not get published. So I made that the first thing (and so far, the only thing) I read from the volume. I found some of the remarks enlightening, inspiring, and edifying, and so I thought I would share some of those comments, unadulterated with my commentary. Because comments won’t be included in full, I have added some remarks [in brackets] for clarification. Page numbers mark the end of an excerpt and (obviously) indicate the page(s) that excerpt can be found on. Enjoy!

Grant Hardy: But one of the real differences [between the Bible and the Book of Mormon] is that in the narrative portions of the Hebrew Bible the narrators tend to anonymous. They don’t introduce themselves; they don’t talk about why they are writing… whereas with the Book of Mormon narrators, we get to know them pretty well through the course of the book, and perhaps that makes it more immediate as well. It seems like it is told by someone who knows us.

Daniel C. Peterson: And you can actually feel, I think, different personalities. I mean, I have a very strong sense of who Mormon was because he makes comments all throughout.

Robert L. Millet: Or Jacob’s anxiety. (pg. 379)

S. Kent Brown: Jesus himself is the text because he bears in his body the proof of the atonement… when one thinks about ancient texts, one thinks about texts that are inscribed on stone, clay tablets, metal, wood, eventually papyri, which is a softer, more perishable material. Each one of those kinds of surfaces can be destroyed, but the resurrected, glorified body of Jesus cannot. And it bears, as it were, witness of itself, and it carries, in its own way [through the scars in his hands, feet, and side], the text of his suffering and death and resurrection. In a concrete way, the immediate and eternal text is the Risen Jesus, bearing his body marks that will never go away. (pg. 381)

John W. Welch: When I go to the temple, I think of that as being my trip this month or week to Bountiful; what I experience at the temple is my opportunity to come as close as I can to what happened in 3 Nephi. Likewise, when I partake of the sacrament, I like to remember that the sacrament prayers we offer every Sunday don’t come initially from D&C 20, but from Moroni, chapters 4 and 5… Compare those words with 3 Nephi 18. The words in our sacrament prayers are a transformed version of Jesus’s first-person and second-person language recast as third-person text. So we celebrate the sacrament, not only of the Lord’s supper, but also of the Lord’s appearance in 3 Nephi. And when we partake of the bread, we should remember that we eat not only in remembrance of the body that has been broken for us –that’s the New Testament language. What does it say in 3 Nephi? “This ye shall do in remembrance of  the body which I have shown unto you.” That is, in remembrance of the physical, tangible body that, to use Kent’s expression, they were able to “read.” (pg. 381-382)

Grant Hardy: One of my favorite Biblical scholars is E.P. Sanders…Sanders says that study and prayer and temple service bring Israelites into the presence of God, and then he says this: “To study the Torah is to be in the presence of the God who gave it.” And I think that’s what 3 Nephi is like. To read 3 Nephi and to hear those direct quotations of the Savior is to put yourself in Bountiful at the temple. To study 3 Nephi is to be in the presence of the God who gave it, and that may make it incomparable. (pg. 382)

-------------------------------------------------------------

[I'm sure you noticed, but I got the title from the remarks made by S. Kent Brown]

Comments

  1. Great quotes. 3 Nephi is not like the rest of the Book of Mormon. We all should be careful not to take it for granted.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The 15 “Best Books” to Read BEFORE Having a Faith Crisis

Elder M. Russell Ballard recently stressed that it is important for Gospel educators to be well-informed on controversial topics, not only by studying the scriptures and Church materials, but also by reading “the best LDS scholarship available.” I personally think it is imperative in today’s world for every Latter-day Saint—not just Gospel educators—to make an effort to be informed on both controversial issues as well as knowing reliable faith-building information as well.
(Given that Elder Ballard’s CES address was published to general Church membership in the Ensign, I think it’s safe to say that Church leadership also feels this way.)
An important step in the process of getting informed is reading the 11 Gospel Topic essays and getting familiar with their contents. But what’s next? How can a person learn more about these and other topics? What are the “best books” (D&C 88:118) or “the best LDS scholarship available”?
Here are 15 suggestions.
1. Michael R. Ash, Shaken Faith S…

Responding to the New Video on Nahom as Archaeological Evidence for the Book of Mormon

Many of my (few) readers have probably already seen the new video by Book of Mormon Central on Nahom as archaeological evidence for the Book of Mormon, starring my good friend (and co-author on a related paper) Stephen Smoot. If you haven’t, check it out:


As usual, comments sections wherever this video is shared have been flooded by Internet ex-Mormons insisting this not evidence for the Book of Mormon. I’ve actually had a few productive conversations with some reasonable people who don’t think Nahom is, by itself, compelling evidence—and I can understand that. But the insistence that Nahom is not evidence at all is just, frankly, absurd. So I’ll just go ahead and preempt about 90% of future responses to this post by responding to the most common arguments against Nahom/NHM now:
1. The Book of Mormon is false, therefore there can be no evidence, therefore this is not evidence. First, this is circular reasoning. It assumes the conclusion (Book of Mormon is false) which the evidence pre…

New Paper on Isaiah in the Book of Mormon

Joseph M. Spencer, an adjunct professor at the BYU religion department, recently published a paper in the non-LDS peer review journal Relegere: Studies in Religion and Reception, titled, “Isaiah 52 in the Book of Mormon: Note’s on Isaiah’s Reception History.” Spencer is a young scholar who is doing exciting stuff on the Book of Mormon from a theological perspective.
The paper is described as follows in the abstract: Despite increasing recognition of the importance of Mormonism to American religion, little attention has been given to the novel uses of Isaiah in foundational Mormon texts. This paper crosses two lines of inquiry: the study of American religion, with an eye to the role played in it by Mormonism, and the study of Isaiah’s reception history. It looks at the use of Isa 52:7–10 in the Book of Mormon, arguing that the volume exhibits four irreducibly distinct approaches to the interpretation of Isaiah, the interrelations among which are explicitly meant to speak to nineteent…