Dear Gramps,

I was reading the Bible, and in Genesis 6 the Nephilim was mentioned. It started to mention that they were sinful beings and that’s one of the reasons God ordained the flood. Why then, do we look up to Nephi in the Book of Mormon? Hope you have a great day!

Koda

Answer

Koda,

I’m afraid you’ve come across a faulty etymology and a common misconception at the same time.

You may notice that Lehi named his first two sons with proper Hebrew names (Laman and Lemuel).  But Sam and Nephi got Egyptian names.  We suppose because his merchant business had finally spread to Egypt by that time in his life.  Nephi also mentions that part of his education was of the Egyptian language.

Just to be thorough, “Sam” is not a Jewish name.  Samuel is.  But the names “Sam” and “Nephi” are simply not found among ancient Jewish records.

Let’s take a look at the word Naphilim. Notice that I use a slightly different spelling because that would be a more accurate transliteration.  But that may not mean much since the vowels in Hebrew tend to not mean much.

The word is often translated as “giants.”  But the common understanding is that the word comes from “fallen.”  Naphal is the Hebrew word for “to fall.”  Again, vowels tend to not mean much in Hebrew.  So, which is it?  Giants? Fallen men?  No one knows.  It is an ancient word with no proper context.

How “the fallen” came to mean “giants” is anyone’s guess.  But that is all it has ever been — a guess.  Many scholars have supposed that due to the language of Genesis 6:4 that the Naphilim were created by fallen angels having sex with mortal women and formed a giant race.  But the wording in the verse doesn’t say that.  The Naphilim were mentioned as existing.  But it doesn’t say what or who they were.

The remainder of the verse is often misinterpreted.  LDS teachings say that the ancient meaning of this passage was that the “Sons of God” were men who held the priesthood and were of the true faith.  It was these men who had fallen, not angels.

Were these Naphilim actually the children of these fallen men of the priesthood?  We have no knowledge of that.  The way the verse is written, various pronouns could be linked to multiple antecedents.  And each phrase could be read to mean a dozen different things.

For all we know they could refer to animals that simply don’t exist today — perhaps Gorillas or other similar humanoid creatures.

Bottom line is:  We really don’t know who or what the Naphilim were.

Now, to your question about why we look up to Nephi is a different matter.  We don’t look up to him because of his name.  I’m not sure if we actually “look up” to him at all.  He was certainly a pretty good man who tried his best to obey the Lord.  And if we do look up to him, that is why.  His soul and example, not his name.

As Juliet said,

“A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.”

It has nothing to do with his name whether of good, bad, or indifferent origin.  It was because he was a pretty good guy by whatever name he was given.

Gramps

Gramps,

My friends children call him Abba. He was born Jewish and converted to the church. I’m not trying to be judgemental but I thought Abba was a really sacred name Jesus called Heavenly father and that it shouldn’t be used in casual conversation. Can you shed some light on this?

Eve

Answer

Eve,

Let’s take a closer look at this word.

It appears three times in the New Testament (Mark 14:36, Rom 8:15, & Gal 4:6).  And it is only written in Greek as a transliteration (Αββα).  All the Hebrew and Aramaic versions in the Old Testament (as far as I know) are not Abba, but Ab (אַבָּ).  And that simply means “Father.”

The addition of the additional syllable is basically baby talk.  Baby babble is commonly repeated vowels and consonants.  And the “ah” sound is probably the most consistent default sound that babies make throughout all cultures and languages.  Ab then, easily becomes Aba.  So, we can correctly interpret Abba as the Hebrew form of Daddy or Dad.  It is essentially a child’s way of saying father.

Elder Jeffrey R. Holland is quoted to say:

In that most burdensome moment of all human history, with blood appearing at every pore and an anguished cry upon His lips, Christ sought Him whom He had always sought—His Father. “Abba,” He cried, “Papa,” or from the lips of a younger child, “Daddy.”

 

This is such a personal moment it almost seems a sacrilege to cite it. A Son in unrelieved pain, a Father His only true source of strength, both of them staying the course, making it through the night—together.

 

Fathers, this Easter weekend may we be renewed in our task as parents, bolstered by images of this Father and this Son as we embrace our children and stand with them forever, I pray in the name of Jesus Christ, amen.

While it is true that many will translate Aba/Abba to be Dad or Daddy, the usage is somewhat different than the English Daddy/Dad today.

Classically, it implies both familiarity and formality at the same time. It also implies a pledge of obedience.  So, if you can understand what my generation implied when our childhood selves said, “Yes, Sir, Daddy” or “Yes, Ma’am, Mommy”  then you can understand the meaning of Abba.  It is a sense of love, familiarity, intimacy, respect, and obedience all rolled up in one.

Notice that there is nothing sacred about the word.  It is simply the word for “father” or “dad” in another language.  And there is nothing wrong with saying a very common word in another language.  We call our fathers “Father”.  But that certainly doesn’t tarnish the usage of “Heavenly Father” when we pray.  In fact, I know a friend who was named Absalom (Father of Peace).  But he goes by Avi (an alternate pronunciation of Abba).  He introduces himself as Avi, just as someone named Phillip would introduce himself as Phil.

Additionally, modern usage has shifted the meaning of Abba in modern Jewry today.  It has become less formal.  Depending on the family and what enclave you’re in, you may come across some who insists it still denotes obedience.  Yet others use it exactly the same way we use “Dad” — as a common term of endearment.

Bottom line:  It is not considered blasphemous.  And there is nothing wrong with Jewish children addressing their father as Abba.

 Gramps

Gramps,

Peace be unto you… I would like to know the difference between a law and a commandment.   I would like to also understand  if they mean the same thing and if they do then why does Apostle Paul say we’re are no longer living under the law but still we observe the COMMANDMENTS.   For example  tithing and the ten commandments and not following the LAW ( circumcision &others. And furthermore to understand what is the relationship among the law, the commandments and the Grace.

Thank you

Mesabeni

Answer

Mesabeni,

Words can have more than one meaning.   When God gave the commandments to Israel through Moses, they were known as the Law.  (See the Commandments and the Law of Moses).  All of the commandments in the Law of Moses were designed to point the people toward Christ and his atonement, so that they could gain a remission of sins.

Then Christ came and atoned for all the sins of mankind.  This fulfilled the Law of Moses and all of the commandments that were designed to point people toward Christ.

This required new commandments and laws to point people towards Christ and remind them of what he had already done.

The Jewish people had a hard time letting go of what they had done for centuries.  This caused Paul to preach about the deadness of the Law.  He was talking to the Jews, who knew that when Paul spoke of the Law, he meant the Law of Moses, or the old commandments. The old Law (of Moses) was replaced by the new commandments.

Which leaves grace.  The prophet Nephi made this relationship clear:  “For we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do.” (2 Nephi 25:23).  None but Christ perfectly obeyed the laws and commandments.  No one but Christ earned (or could earn) Heaven through obedience to the commandments.  Everyone else falls woefully short.  Christ is both our Savior and our Judge, and his judgment will be the perfect balance of mercy and justice based on our personal situation and willingness to follow him.

Gramps

Gramps,

Where did it originate and what does the noun “pricks” refer to? Is it a biblical phrase or is it a 19th century term?

Will

Answer

Dear Will,

In Noah Webster’s 1828 Dictionary of the English Language, the noun prick is defined as “a slender pointed instrument or substance, which is hard enough to pierce the skin, such as a goad or a spur.” You may be acquainted with a prickly pear, which is a cactus with very sharp spines, or pricks. In New Testament times goads, which were thin metal rods with pointed ends were used to goad or prick the animals that were being driven or herded, to help them keep up the pace. The cowboy’s spurs are used for the same purpose.

The noun prick is used one time in the Old Testament—

But if ye will not drive out the inhabitants of the land from before you; then it shall come to pass, that those which ye let remain of them shall be pricks in your eyes, and thorns in your sides, and shall vex you in the land wherein ye dwelt.  (Num 33:55).

Here, the noun pricks is used as a synonym to the word thorns. The word pricks is translated from the Hebrew, sek, meaning thorn. The word. thorn, in the same passage, is translated from the Hebrew, gots, also meaning thorn, or thornbush.

In the New Testament the term is used only twice. In both cases, Paul is quoting the Savior, whom he saw in a vision while on the road to Damascus intent on persecuting the saints—

And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks (Acts 9:5).

And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks (Acts 26:14).

President Spencer W. Kimball had this to say:

“I often wondered just what this meant. I found one authority who offered this:

 

‘ . . Those who kick at the goad, that stifle and smother the convictions of conscience, that rebel against God’s truths laws, that quarrel with His providences, that persecute and oppose His ministers, because they reprove them . . . and fly in the face of their reprovers, they kick against the pricks, and will have a great deal to answer for.’ (Commentaries by Henry M. Scott.)

 

“A goad is defined as a spear or a sharp pointed stick used to sting or prig. The burro who kicks the sharp instrument with which he is being prodded is kicking at the pricks. His retaliation does little damage to the sharp stick or to him who wields it but brings distress to the foot that kicks it.

 

“I well remember in my youth a neighbor who moved about some days on crutches. He was evasive when asked the cause of his misfortune, but an ear witness told me, as he chuckled: ‘John stubbed his toe on a chair in the night and in his quick, fierce anger, he kicked the chair and broke his toe.’ The rocking chair rocked on and on, and perhaps smiled at the stupidity of man.” (Conference Report, April 1955, p. 94.)

He also said:

“In this figure of speech is captured the essence of rebellion against God; we can only hurt ourselves. If one is pricked by a goad and angered by the pain, he may foolishly strike out at the source of irritation, only to suffer even more.” (Faith Precedes the Miracle, p. 305.)

As a child, I lived in an area where there were many prickly pears, and I have kicked them wearing tennis shoes. Some of the spines penetrated the shoes and stuck in my toes. Those spines are endowed with little barbs along the shafts that make them almost impossible to pull out, and so they work their way through the flesh, coming out on the other side. I have since retained a graphic image of the Savior’s statement, it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.

Gramps

Hi Gramps,

Did people in that time use “miles” or some other term of measurement like leagues? Was it really that far from Nazareth to Bethlehem?

Rebecca

Answer

Dear Rebecca,

Among the lengths of measure used in the Bible

cubit, Matt 6:27, Luke 12:25, Gen. 6:16 The standard cubit is 21 inches. In practice it was the length of the forearm to the doubled-up fist.

span, Exod 28:16; Ezek 43:13 (six references)

mile, Matt 5:41, from the Greek milion, which among the Romans was the distance of 1000 paces, which is somewhat less than our mile.

furlong, Luke 24:13; Rev. 21:16 (five references)

And, behold, two of them went that same day to a village called Emmaus, which was from Jerusalem about threescore furlongs.

And the city lieth foursquare, and the length is as large as the breadth: and he measured the city with the reed, twelve thousand furlongs. The length and the breadth and the height of it are equal. *

*The footnote to verse 16 says, Gr, stadia. A stadium was about 607 English feet or 185.2 meters.

—Let’s pause at this point to make a couple of statements. From Luke 24:13 the distance from Jerusalem to Emmaus was threescore furlongs or about seven of our miles.

However, the measurements given for the New Jerusalem are astounding!

12,000 furlongs times 607 feet/furlong = 7,284,000 feet, or 1380 miles! If placed in the western United States, the New Jerusalem would extend from San Francisco to St. Louis, and would be 1380 miles high! (The length and the breadth and the height of it are equal) 1380 miles is about 65% of the diameter of the moon.

Can you imagine what an impact on the conditions on the earth such a city would make? It would change the center of mass of the earth so that it would wobble on its axis. It would drastically change all the climatic conditions on the earth. How could you ever get elevators to take you up 1380 miles? The city would have to be hermetically sealed in order to contain an atmosphere. However, it’s in the scriptures and I believe it. Further, I don’t have a problem with it. The scriptures do not say that the New Jerusalem will be ON the earth. Verse 10 says that the New Jerusalem will descend out of heaven. It doesn’t say that it will even touch the earth. And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God.

So let’s suppose that the New Jerusalem will be a near-earth orbiting satellite–such as the moon. Being it orbit around the earth it will experience no gravity. People in the city was be as weightless as are the Shuttle astronauts. NO PROBLEM!—

Now, back to business—

reed, six cubits or 36.75 feet.

span, the distance from the point of the thumb to the point of the little finger of a stretched out hand. The zereth, or large span was 10.5 inches and the small span 7 inches.

And behold a wall on the outside of the house round about, and in the man’s hand a measuring reed of six cubits long by the cubit and an hand breadth: so he measured the breadth of the building, one reed; and the height, one reed.  Ezek 40:5

Exercise for the reader–reconstruct the house described in Ezek. 40.

Sabbath day’s journey, Acts 1:12, 4000 cubits, or about 1.3 miles.

The distance from Nazareth to Bethlehem is about 70 miles as the crow flies.

Gramps

Gramps,

Did God really rest on the seventh day? I was reading the Pearl of Great Price and it clearly said that Heavenly Father used reckoning of Kolob (1000 earth years=1 Kolob day) to create earth–Abr 5:13. That means that it took 1,000 years to make earth fully, with man in it. But since Adam was created on the sixth “day” and he lived 930 years, then God didn’t really rest because he was in contact with Adam. I don’t know, could you help me figure this out?

Sphelele

Answer

Dear Sphelele,

What is not quite so apparent in reading the scriptures about the creation is that the word “day” may be equally interpreted as the word “time.” The Hebrew word from which the word “day” is translated in our English Bibles, is “Yowm,” which means either day or time or year. The context in which this word is used in the creation account is the word “time,” not the word, “day.” This is established by the wording of the creation account in the Pearl of Great Price, Chapter 4, where the word “time” is used in place of the word “day” in Genesis—

8 And the Gods called the expanse, Heaven. And it came to pass that it was from evening until morning that they called night; and it came to pass that it was from morning until evening that they called day; and this was the second time that they called night and day.

13 And it came to pass that they numbered the days; from the evening until the morning they called night; and it came to pass, from the morning until the evening they called day; and it was the third time.

19 And it came to pass that it was from evening until morning that it was night; and it came to pass that it was from morning until evening that it was day; and it was the fourth time.

23 And it came to pass that it was from evening until morning that they called night; and it came to pass that it was from morning until evening that they called day; and it was the fifth time.

31 And the Gods said: We will do everything that we have said, and organize them; and behold, they shall be very obedient. And it came to pass that it was from evening until morning they called night; and it came to pass that it was from morning until evening that they called day; and they numbered the sixth time.

32 And the Gods said among themselves: On the seventh time we will end our work, which we have counseled; and we will rest on the seventh time from all our work which we have counseled.

So the word, “day”, even with the reckoning of Kolob, may not mean 1000 years, but just a period of time, as for instance in Job 29:2—

Oh that I were as in months past, as in the days when God preserved me.

Concerning the age of Adam, he lived for 930 years from the time the biblical record began. But Adam was born on a terrestrial world. He helped in the organization of this earth, and according to Brigham Young, he brought the plants and animals to this earth from other worlds, “and brought a wife with him and stayed here.” After they partook of the forbidden fruit the earth was transformed from a terrestrial to a telestial world, and they were changed to a state of mortality. When the Lord said, In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die, Gen. 2:17, we may again use the term in the time that thou eatest thereof. So we have no specific recorded information at all of the true age of Adam.

Gramps

Dear Gramps,

Why do we not accept all of the canonized books of the Vulgate bible?  Do we actually use a protestant version of the bible?  Why did we exclude some of the books the Catholic church accepts?

Rebecca

Answer

Dear Rebecca,

The parts of the Latin Vulgate (or the Douay-Rheims Version, which is the English translation of the Latin Vulgate) which are not accepted by the Mormon Church, and many other Christian denominations, are called the Apocrypha. The word, apocrypha, means writings or statements of dubious authenticity. The etymology of the word relates to ‘things hidden away,’ which implies secret or esoteric literature.

In some Protestant Bibles, the apocryphal books are placed between the New and Old Testaments. In the Roman Catholic Bibles they are interspersed with the rest of the text.

Jerome, in 450 AD, rejected the Apocrypha when he was translating the Bible into Latin This was because no Hebrew version of these texts could be found, even though they were present in the Greek Old Testament (the Septuagint). However, they eventually were accepted by the Catholic Church, and most of them remained part of Catholic Bible.

Protestants rejected the Apocrypha during the Reformation as lacking divine authority. They either excised them completely or placed them in a third section of the Bible. The Roman Catholic Council of Trent, on the other hand, declared in 1546 that the Apocrypha were indeed divine.

When the Prophet Joseph Smith was translating the Bible in 1833 he received a revelation from the Lord, now included in the Mormon Scripture, the Doctrine and Covenants, as Section 91, in which he was told—

Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you concerning the Apocrypha–There are many things contained therein that are true, and it is mostly translated correctly;

 

There are many things contained therein that are not true, which are interpolations by the hands of men.

 

Verily, I say unto you, that it is not needful that the Apocrypha should be translated (D&C 91:1-3).

The versions of the Bible that are used by the Mormon Church depend on which language is spoken. In English, the accepted version of the Bible is the King James Version, and the Mormon Church accepts it, and all other versions, only insofar as they are translated correctly.

Gramps

Gramps,

Answer

Dear Leo,

Latter-day Saints are uniquely aware of how sensitive a person can be when it comes to getting his name right (just ask Symonds Ryder). We also know how important it is to get a name right when it comes salvific ordinances. I can tell you from life experience that your friend’s analogy just doesn’t hold up. I have worked with a number of individuals who have requested to be called by an English name. Most memorable is a “Steven” Kim who thought it would be fun to share a name with the pro wrestler Steve Austin.

Jesus insisted that it was essential to get the name of His church right – and that means it has to bear His name. “[H]ow be it my church,” Jesus asks, “save it be called in my name? … if it be called in the name of a man then it be the church of a man; but if it be called in my name then it is my church.” (3 Nephi 27:8)

Today Christ has seen to it that the Church follow this pattern. “[T]hus shall my church be called in the last days,” He declares, “even The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.” (D&C 115:4)

Had my coworkers asked to be referred to as Xiaodong or Bixiang, I would have done what I could to learn their names. Instead they told me I could call them John or Sean and no hard feelings exist between us. Jesus has told us that His church ought to be in His name. Rather than telling us to use Jehoshua, Joshua, Yeshua, or Yehoshua, He has asked that we use the name Jesus Christ. Additionally, the additional scripture we’ve received has made it clear that Jehovah is also an acceptable moniker for Yahweh or YHWH (see Moroni 10:34, Abraham 1:16, and Abraham 2:8).

Gramps

Gramps,

In the Book of Mormon it mentions in several different places phrases (example Mormon 1:18) where the treasure or physical items became “slippery”. What does slippery mean?

Does it mean the items physically disappeared or did people steal them?

Patrick

Answer

Patrick,

As we consider this verse there are four important elements we need to notice: the Gadianton Robbers, they buried their treasures, their treasure became slippery, and the curse on the land.

In answer to your question, I think it is important to highlight two possible interpretations to the idea of their treasure becoming slippery. The first idea, stolen, definitely would be a possible interpretation of this scripture since the Gadianton Robbers are mentioned at the beginning of this verse. Although people may take extreme measures to bury their treasure, if left unattended and someone happened to see where it was buried, then the items buried could easily have been dug up and stolen.

The second idea may represent items which were buried and forgotten. I can see two possible scenarios regarding items being forgotten. The first represents an individual who buries their treasure near a tree, when they return to the tree, they realize it was the wrong tree. They try again, at another tree, and another and realize the actual burial place has been forgotten and the treasure is beyond their reach.

The other example, in relation to a treasure being forgotten, is shared with me by a friend relating a story he was once told by his uncle. His uncle shared a conversation he once had with my friend’s grandpa. This conversation happened a few years before his grandpa passed away. The grandpa showed his son a pvc capsule, 2 feet in length and 8 inches or so in diameter. The grandpa shared, “every time I’ve settled in a new place I bury these nearby and dig them up before I leave. I have so many of these buried in these woods and no one else knows where they are.” The son inquired, “Pa, don’t you think you should at least tell Ma where they are”? Grandpa responded, “She doesn’t need to know that.” My friend now tells his children that there is silver buried on their family land. If Grandpa passed away without telling anyone where he buried these capsules then this treasure is slippery — beyond the reach — of others (forgotten). Maybe one day, with my friend’s grandpa’s treasure we may hear stories like this buried treasure find.

On a side note, with treasure being slippery, I am reminded of my own family reunions by which a $20, $50, or $100 bill was placed on top of a pole. The pole then was lathered with grease. We then tried endlessly to be the one person that actually climbed the pole and grabbed the bill, although it was always beyond my young reach. One might say, this treasure, truly was “slippery.”

Gramps

Thank you.

Dave

_____________

Dave,

As far as we can tell, Jesus’ name in the Aramaic of his day was Yeshua, which corresponds to the Joshua of the Old Testament (Yĕhowshuwa`). An indication that we’re on the right track is found in Acts 7:44-6,

“Our fathers had the tabernacle of witness in the wilderness, as he had appointed, speaking unto Moses, that he should make it according to the fashion that he had seen. Which also our fathers that came after brought in with Jesus into the possession of the Gentiles, whom God drave out before the face of our fathers, unto the days of David; Who found favour before God, and desired to find a tabernacle for the God of Jacob.”

Read that a few times and you’ll realize the Jesus mentioned here is that Joshua who succeeded Moses in leading the children of Israel into the Promised Land.

The name Joshua means “Jehovah is salvation”, and is based on the root yasha`, which means “to save” or “to deliver”. Both angels and the vilest of men used this as a play on words. When the angel greeted the shepherds, they identified which of all the children born that night was their Messiah, “For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour (yasha), which is Christ the Lord” (Luke 2:11). On the cross detractors taunted, “He trusted in God; let him deliver him now, if he will have him: for he said, I am the Son of God” (Matthew 27:43), or in other words, “Yeshua (Yahweh + yasha) trusted in Yahweh, let Yahweh yasha him now, if he will have him.”

-Gramps

Thank you, I have been going to the discussions of a woman my husband and I met at Church. The missionaries introduced her to us because she is Catholic and my husband was Catholic before he joined the church. She is a golden contact and accepts all that she hears. I am not happy with the way the missionaries have answered her questions about Salvation. In Mormon Doctrine there are three different kinds of salvation. In your opinion how would you describe salvation? They have told her that salvation is for everyone, and that is one of the definitions, but it seems more involved than that. I do not want to upset things, but it isn’t clear how they are explaining it. She is very bright, I know she would understand something more involved. Thank you,

Donna Tagliaferri

Dear Donna,

I wouldn’t worry too much about what the missionaries are telling their investigator. It’s not the doctrine that is preached that converts the investigator, but it is the witness of the Holy Spirit that comes to a person when the missionaries testify to the truthfulness of the gospel.

Actually, all but the sons of Perdition are saved in one kingdom or another, but to get into those kinds of depths in gospel details during the missionary discussions usually just adds confusion and may detract from the Spirit. If you add your testimony to that of the missionaries, it will have a powerful effect on the investigator, as they would see you as a lay member and not a member of the clergy.

You might consider the example in the Book of Mormon of Alma explaining the concept of God to King Lamoni-

And Aaron answered him and said unto him: Believest thou that there is a God? And the king said: I know that the Amalekites say that there is a God, and I have granted unto them that they should build sanctuaries, that they may assemble themselves together to worship him. And if now thou sayest there is a God, behold I will believe.? (Alma 22:7-10)

And now when Aaron heard this, his heart began to rejoice, and he said: Behold, assuredly as thou livest, O king, there is a God.

And the king said: Is God that Great Spirit that brought our fathers out of the land of Jerusalem?

And Aaron said unto him: Yea, he is that Great Spirit, and he created all things both in heaven and in earth. Believest thou this

-Gramps

Dear Gramps,

In D&C 33:7 what does thrust in your sickle mean and in verse 9 laden with sheaves upon your back?

Tana

Answer

Dear Tana,

During His ministry here in mortality, the Lord used parables or stories to teach the people.   There are several reasons why He did this.  In the Bible Dictionary it states:  “We learn the reason for this method.  It was to veil the meaning.  The parable conveys to the hearer religious truth exactly in proportion to his faith and intelligence; to the dull and uninspired it is a mere story, “seeing they see not,” while to the instructed and spiritual it reveals the mysteries or secrets of the kingdom of heaven.”  He also used terms which were known to the people he was talking to so that they could better understand what he meant. Often he referred to olive trees and the process of making olive oil, which was something they were very familiar with.

The verses you quoted are an example of terms being used that members living in the mid 1800’s would have been familiar with and which would have helped them understand the point the Lord is making.  Prior to combines, grain was harvested by cutting it with a sickle, which is a curved hooklike blade mounted in a short handle.  The person using it would have to bend over and swing or thrust  it with full strength in order for it to cut the grain cleanly.  This was very difficult and back breaking work.  Once the grain was cut, it was bound into bundles or sheaves and then carried to where it would be threshed.  Threshing is the process of separating the grain from the stalk or straw.  They would carry as many sheaves of grain on their backs as they could to speed up the work and lessen the number of trips they needed to take.  Also the more sheaves they brought in the greater would be their harvest.  The fields of grain were ready to be harvested when the grain turned ‘white’.

Having been involved in this kind of work or at least observed it, the people realized that the grain was ready to be harvested or that many people were ready to hear the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  In order to find these people and bring them into the fold, they would need to work diligently and with all their might, mind and strength.  The reward would be that they would bring many into the Gospel or be able to receive many sheaves of grain for their harvest.

The terms in these verses are used other places in the Doctrine and Covenants, as well as in talks given by the General Authorities in our day.  They are associated with the calling we each have to warn our neighbor and preach the Gospel to those living on the earth.

Gramps