Sunday School Lesson #24

Lesson 24: 2 Samuel 11-12; Psalm 51

2 Samuel 11

Verse 1: What do you make of the fact that the story is set at the time of the year when “kings go forth to battle,” but David sent his army to battle and stayed behind himself? What is the writer telling us about David when he says “But David tarried still at Jerusalem”? (Note: presumably the time when battles could once again commence was at the end of the rainy season, approximately the beginning of May.)

Verses 2-5: How do you suppose that David could see Bathsheba bathing? Where do you think people would usually have bathed? How do you think David’s house was situated relative to the other houses? What does verse 4 suggest about why she was bathing? Why is it significant that Uriah was a Hittite? Who were the Hittites? The Hittite empire was no more at this time, so what does it mean to call Uriah a Hittite? Since the name Uriah means “the Lord is light,” he appears to be an Israelite, though calling him a Hittite makes him a foreigner. Do you think that might have had anything to do with the way that David dealt with him? How is verse 4 ironic? What would the punishment be if Bathsheba were found to be pregnant and, therefore, to have committed adultery? Does Bathsheba betray her husband willingly? What evidence in the story can you adduce for your answer? Does David intend to continue the affair after his initial encounter with Bathsheba?

Verses 6-11: What is David trying to do in these verses? What is his ostensible reason for summoning Uriah? What is his real reason? Why did David send Uriah a “mess,” literally, a gift? (Though the gift was probably of food (compare Genesis 43:34), the words “of meat” are added by the translators; that is why they are in italics. At the time of the King James translation, the word “mess” meant “what is set before you” (from the French mets), so it meant “a serving of food.” It is where we get the phrase “mess hall.”) It may be that men in battle were expected to abstain from sexual intercourse. (See Deuteronomy 23:10 and 1 Samuel 21:5.) How would that explain the encounter between David and Uriah? If that is true, would there be any advantage to David to have Uriah break the law (beyond making it possible to attribute the pregnancy to him)? How does Uriah’s behavior (verses 9-11) contrast with David’s? Why do you think he stayed in the guardroom at the king’s door rather than going home?

Verse 13: Why does David make Uriah drunk? Does that make what David is doing even more tawdry?

Verse 14: What do you make of the fact that David has Uriah carry the letter ordering Uriah’s own death to Joab?

Verse 15: Specifically what does David ask Joab to do? How does this compare with his treatment of Saul in 1 Samuel 24? Why does David want Uriah killed? Had Uriah lived, could he have prosecuted David for adultery–or rape? How has David changed? What do you think accounts for this change?

Verses 16-17, 20: What does Joab do instead? How do you explain the difference? What would David’s plan have cost the army? What would it have cost Joab? What does Joab’s action cost the army? What does it cost him? How many people has David had killed so that he can have Bathsheba?

Verse 19: Why does Joab think that David will be angry?

Verses 20, 23-24: The servant doesn’t follow Joab’s instructions. Why not? What does he do instead? What are both he and Joab afraid of? What does that suggest?

Verses 25-26: What is disgusting about David’s message to Joab? Compare David’s response to the news of Uriah’s death with Bathsheba’s. What does this comparison show?

Verse 27: In particular, what displeased the Lord? Literally, the text says that “David did evil in the sight of the Lord.” The word translated “evil” can also mean “injury” (e.g., Jeremiah 39:12), “distress” (e.g., Amos 6:3), or “disaster” (e.g., Isaiah 45:7). Has the Lord’s prediction of what would happen to Israel if it had a king come true? How?

2 Samuel 12

Verses 1-7: Notice that the ability of the prophets to rebuke the kings makes Israel different than other ancient societies. What does that say about the structure of Israelite society? About Israelite values? Does it teach us anything about the cultures in which we live? In David’s mind, how serious is the oppression that he hears about in Nathan’s story? How does David describe the rich man who has taken the pet lamb? What do you make of the difference in punishment decreed in verse 5 and that decreed in verse 6? What does verse 7 tell us about Nathan?

Verse 9: How many of the Ten Commandments did David break. How does David’s disobedience mean that he despises (i.e., has contempt for) the Lord? Is all disobedience contempt? If not, why not? If so, how so?

Verses 10-11: David decreed that the rich man must make a fourfold restitution. Does the writer intend us to see the death’s of three of David’s children (Bathsheba’s baby, Amnon (2 Samuel 13:29), Absalom (2 Samuel 18:14)—and Tamar’s fate was equivalent to death in ancient Israel (2 Samuel 13:20)) as any kind of parallel? In any case, what are we to make of this kind of decree? Does God punish us by causing evil to happen to us?

Verse 13: What does it mean to say that the Lord has put away (literally “gone beyond”) David’s sin? Does it mean that David will not be punished? (See D&C 132:39.)

Verse 14: This verse contains a translation problem. The Hebrew literally says that David blasphemed the enemies of the Lord. Trying to deal with that, the King James translators changed the text so that it says David caused the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme. However, most scholars believe that the Hebrew text we have was “corrected” by a scribe or that an error was made in copying. They assume that the text originally said that David blasphemed the Lord. Why do you think they make that assumption? How did David blaspheme the Lord? Many believe that this verse was added by later editors. How does whoever wrote this verse see the world differently than we?

Verse 18: What do the court officials fear David will do when he hears that the child is dead? Why might they think that?

Verse 20: The Law of Moses forbids washing and anointing oneself and changing clothing during mourning. Why do you think David does these things? Why does he cease to mourn for the child before the time of mourning is over?

Verse 23: When David says “I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me,” what does he mean?

Verse 24-25: David names Bathsheba’s second child Solomon, “peaceful.” (See 1 Chronicles 22:9.) However, some contemporary scholars argue that the name may actually mean “his replacement.” Either way, why do you think David gave him that name? Nathan gives him another name, Jedidiah or “beloved of the Lord.” Why do you think Nathan gives him that name?

Verse 28: What point is Joab making here? How does what he says relate to what we learned in verse 1?

Verse 30: It is possible that “their king” should have been translated “Milcom” or “Moloch,” the name of the Ammonite god. If so, David’s behavior violates the Law (cf. Deuteronomy 7:25-26). A talent is approximately 60 pounds. Why would David have placed a 60-pound crown on his head?

Verse 31: What did David do to the captives? (Compare 2 Samuel 8:2.)

Psalm 51

The heading was added by later scribes, so it doesn’t establish that David was, indeed, the author of this psalm. Though the psalm is about sin, it isn’t necessarily about the specific sin of David. The literal translation of the last part of the heading would be “When Nathan the prophet came unto him [David] as he had gone into Bathsheba.” How do these two events compare to one another. Why would David preface the psalm with that comparison?

The general structure of the psalm is (1) 1-2: the theme of the psalm—an appeal for mercy and to be made clean; (2) 3-4: appeal for mercy; (3) 5-8: confession of sin; (4) 9-14: request to be made clean and promise to praise; (5) 15-19: vow to sacrifice; (6) 20-21: prayer for Jerusalem.

Verse 1: The writer is praying for mercy (chesed) and loving kindness (racham). Chesed occurs frequently in the Old Testament and is difficult to translate into English. (See the notes on Ruth, Lesson 20.) It can be translated “mercy” or “grace,” and it implies steadfast love. Racham is an intensive form of a word that in its other uses means “womb” or “bowels.” Why would a word that means “womb” or “bowels” in Hebrew come to mean “compassion”? What are mercy, grace, and compassion? Why do we need them in our relations with each other? in our relation with God? We could translate “blot out my transgressions” as “expunge my rebellions” or “undo my covenant-breaking.” What is the suppliant asking for? What does this tell us about repentance and forgiveness? The Hebrew word translated “sin” here (meaning “rebellion” or “covenant-breaking”) (see 2 Kings 3:4-5), also occurs also verse 3, where it is translated “transgressions.” How is sin rebellion? How is it covenant-breaking? Is all sin covenant-breaking? Is it all rebellion?

Verse 2: The writer has spoken of forgiveness in terms of having mercy, blotting out, washing, and cleansing. Why does he use so many different words for forgiveness (and also for sin)?

Verse 3: Why is it important that the petitioner acknowledge his sin? The word translated “acknowledge” is, literally, “know.” In what sense does someone asking for forgiveness know her sin that she didn’t know it before?

Verse 4: Could David say that he has sinned only against God? Didn’t he also sin against at least Uriah and perhaps also Bathsheba? If this psalm were written by David, how could he say this? If we assume that “done this evil in thy sight” is parallel to “my sin is ever before me” in verse 3, the writer is saying that what he did, he did with God watching. What point is he making about sin?

Verse 5: What is the point of this verse? Is the writer making excuses for what he did, or is something else going on here? Even those scholars who believe in the doctrine of original sin don’t believe that this verse is about original sin? But if it isn’t, what is it about?

Verse 6: What does it mean to say that the Lord “desires truth in the inward parts”?

Verse 7: The word translated “purge” means literally “unsin.” What is the import of the word “unsin”? What is hyssop? How was it used? (See Exodus 12:22, Numbers 19:6, and Leviticus 14:4.) What do these parallels tell us about how the writer understands his sin?

Verse 8: What does the writer mean when he asks the Lord to make him hear joy and gladness? What is he talking about when he refers to his broken or crushed bones?

Verse 10: Why does he have to ask for a clean heart and a right spirit? Why can’t he make his own heart clean and renew his own spirit? What does that teach us about our own sins?

Verse 11: What does it mean to be cast from the presence of God? How do we enter into that presence?

Verse 12: Another translation of the second half of this verse is: “Let a willing spirit uphold me,” a request to have a spirit that responds willingly to what is right. Which translation do you think is more consonant with the Gospel?

Verse 13: What reason does the writer give for why he should be forgiven?

Verse 14: What is the righteousness of the Lord that the writer will sing about?

Verse 15: Why would the Lord have to open the writer’s lips? Can’t he praise God if he has not been forgiven? Why or why not?

Verses 16, 19: Why does the writer say that the Lord doesn’t want sacrifices in verse 16 and then, in verse 19, speak of him accepting legitimate or righteous sacrifices? In these verses, how does the writer understand the connection between keeping the commandments and the sacrifices of the temple? Compare Psalm 50:7-14.

Verses 18-19: What does this prayer for the temple have to do with the preceding prayer for forgiveness? Some believe that these verses were added later, as a prayer for the restoration of the Temple after its destruction by the Babylonians. If so, then the person adding them took the psalm to be not only an expression of individual remorse, but also an expression of Israel’s collective remorse. How is it legitimate to understand the scriptures to apply to more than one event?

21 comments for “Sunday School Lesson #24

  1. Karl D.
    June 23, 2006 at 3:04 pm

    Jim, do you think 2 Samuel 11:11 hints that Uriah knew? The verse almost seems to have a mild accusing tone”

    Uriah said to David, “The ark and Israel and Judah remain in booths; and my lord Joab and the servants of my lord are camping in the open field; shall I then go to my house, to eat and to drink, and to lie with my wife? As you live, and as your soul lives, I will not do such a thing.”

    If Uriah did know then I think the letter carrying incident is quite remarkable. Although I suppose Uriah was probably illiterate. If he knew and was illiterate, then that really heightens the awfulness of David’s action for me.

  2. June 24, 2006 at 1:08 am

    Karl D: I agree that the tone is there in the KJV translation. My reading on commentaries makes me think, however, that that is an artefact of the translation rather than something in the original text. Uriah was remaining because it was probably the practice for soldiers at war not to engage in sexual relations. He is still on duty, so he remains in the palace with the other soldiers, not going home to his wife.

    For me, what makes this part of something awful also awful is that David is trying to get Uriah to go sleep with Bathsheba so that the pregnancy will seem to be Uriah’s, but he is unable to do so because Uriah is an exemplary soldier. David’s plan to cover up his rape and lack of discipline is undone by Uriah’s loyalty and discipline. So what does David do? Rather than repent, he orders Uriah executed and he has Uriah himself carry the instrument that will bring about that execution.

  3. Karl D
    June 24, 2006 at 2:20 am


    You’re probably right. I might be overreaching. My thinking was roughly the following: David exclusively acts through messengers (in fact I don’t think he ever leaves his house), and consequently David’s servants certainly know about the affair. One could easily imagine rumors spreading (maybe I am imposing modern assumptions on the text though). This combined with Uriah’s response to David left me thinking that Uriah might know about affair (note: I think the accusing tone shows up in the NRSV too which is what I was quoting).

    In addition, the reason why David’s awfulness is heightened for me (if Uriah knows of the affair) is that Uriah becomes even more impressive. He would be taking a message that is the instrument of his death (as you rightly point out), but Uriah might be aware that it is the instrument of his death, and he either can’t or won’t read it.

  4. annegb
    June 25, 2006 at 10:09 pm

    Jim F. Our teacher today blamed Bathsheba for tempting David. He never said a word about rape. Could you extrapolate?

  5. June 26, 2006 at 1:27 am

    Geoff J. has a thread that links David’s sin with Bathsheba to Christ’s 3 temptations in an interesting way. With annegb’s help, I also fed a threadjack there with LDS quotes on whether David will inherit the Celestial, Terrestrial, or Telestial Kingdom.

  6. June 26, 2006 at 1:28 am

    Geoff J. has a post that links David’s sin with Bathsheba to Christ’s 3 temptations in an interesting way. With annegb’s help, I also fed a threadjack there with LDS quotes on whether David will inherit the Celestial, Terrestrial, or Telestial Kingdom.

  7. June 26, 2006 at 2:39 am

    (Sorry for the double post above, feel free to delete/edit.)

    If nothing else, reading 2 Samuel really whets my appetite to reread Faulkner’s Absalom, Absalom!. I don’t remember the novel very well, but I’m guessing Faulkner’s Henry is, at least on the first level, supposed to be like Absalom in killing his oldest brother (Amnon/Charles Bon) who was in love with his sister (Tamar/Judith). I would guess one parallel theme in the Bible and novel would be the notion that hate/revenge/violence begets more hate/revenge/violence.

    B/c of Jim’s other thread, the issue I’ve been thinking more about is how the narrative technique in Faulkner’s novel sheds light on historical issues and interpretation of the Bible. In the novel, I felt it was worthwhile to understand each each character’s perspective of the events, which I think is also important in reading scriptural narratives (cf. Nate’s post).

    I also think that, like interpreting the novel, there is room to interpret the Bible many different ways that are worthwhile and that I shouldn’t be too opinionated that my views, no matter how well researched or thought out, are not the only worthwhile way to approach scripture. In other words, it makes me more sensitive to scriptural snobbery in the same way I’m sensitive to literary snobbery. Who’s to say that others’ interpreations of the scriptures, even if they don’t have as much textual integrity, are inferior or incorrect? After all, if I enjoy a novel or a movie for idiosyncratic, personal reasons, I’m offended when I read a pretentious movie critic’s clever criticisms of the movie and implicit criticisms of anyone who likes the movie….

  8. annegb
    June 26, 2006 at 9:41 am

    Well, since we’re threadjacking. The thing I love about King David the most is his love for those who betrayed him. How he lamented the death of Saul.

    There is a song, a really sad song, that incorporates the words of his lament at the death of his son, who was out to get him. I think of those words, oh, my son, would to God I had died for thee.

    There is such a contradiction between that person and that other person who seduced(raped), had carnal knowledge of a woman married to such a good man and arranged the death of that man
    and the one who loved so deeply.

    I’m skeptical that he was damned for his part in Uriah’s death. I’ve heard it both ways and I think only God is figuring out that one.

  9. June 26, 2006 at 11:54 am

    Annegb: A woman bathes (probably performing ritual bathing after her period) in one of the most private places of her house. The king, who presumably has a house higher than hers, sees her. He tells her that they are going to have sex and they do. It is possible that she was willing, but there is nothing in the text that suggests that she was. If a person in power uses that power to have sex with another person, that’s rape. It seems to me that’s what David did. Not all rape is forcible rape.

  10. annegb
    June 26, 2006 at 12:33 pm

    Was that part of the lesson in the manual? Was there anything in the lesson about women being more modest or young girls dressing more modestly? I have a personal reason for asking.

  11. June 26, 2006 at 1:18 pm

    Thanks for the link Robert.

    Jim — Very interesting point about the possibility that this was rape and rather than simply adultery. You make a pretty strong case for that possibility.

    Annegb — Here is the link to the lesson manual. I don’t see anything about modesty in there.

  12. June 26, 2006 at 3:59 pm

    Geoff J: Thanks for giving annegb the link. I also didn’t see anything in it about modesty. I suspect that many use the story to teach that lesson: “Don’t dress in a way that will excite young (or mature) men.” However, I don’t think that is at all what the story is about.

    I think the story is about David’s abuse of power; it is the fulfillment of the Lord’s prediction of what would happen to Israel if it insisted on a king (which is, I think, the over-arching point of the story): rape and then murder to cover up the rape.

    I don’t know about David’s exaltation, and I don’t care, but it is important to recognize that–even if we believe that Bathsheba was willing–David was guilty of much worse than adultery.

  13. June 26, 2006 at 4:56 pm

    Jim F.: I think the story is about David’s abuse of power; it is the fulfillment of the Lord’s prediction of what would happen to Israel if it insisted on a king

    I couldn’t agree more. Interestingly, I got roped in to teaching the 9-10 year old primary class yesterday when the teacher didn’t show and in the absence of a manual I taught my lesson on this very subject. I left out the seedier details and focused on power and the tendency we all have (even 9-10 year olds) to abuse it. (I had them read D&C 121:39 as part of that.) I was amazed at how well the discussion went and how all 11 of them (including 7 rowdy boys) were so drawn in to this discussion of the proper use of power. Good stuff.

  14. June 26, 2006 at 5:09 pm

    As Arthur Henry King first showed me years ago, the story of David, culminating in his confrontation with Nathan is powerfully dramatic. As you point out, it can be told to 9-10-year-old boys as profitably as to adults.

  15. annegb
    June 26, 2006 at 7:38 pm

    Thanks, you guys.

  16. June 26, 2006 at 11:42 pm

    In 2 Sam 7:16, God (through Nathan) promises David, “thine house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever before thee: thy throne shall be established for ever.” This unconditional promise to David is the basis for many subsequent prophecies that a messiah would come through the lineage of David. I’ve been reading a fair amount about this because I think it’s important for understanding many of the later OT writings as well as for understand to what extent Christ fulfilled messianic prophecies (and to what extent these prophecies are unfulfilled). The Feast wiki site is still down, so I’ll post my thoughts here instead of simply a link to my thoughts there.

    First, I want to respond to some quotes Clinton posted: In the second quote, Friedman addresses a frequently discussed question about the extent to which the Davidic Covenant is unconditional. He argues that David’s line is promised “the throne” unconditionally, but only “the throne of Israel” conditionally. I think this is an interesting approach, though I haven’t come across it elsewhere. What I think is important to understand, however, is that the promise that David’s seed would occupy a/the throne is unconditional, but God’s protection of Israel is conditional: if the king is righteous, Israel will incur God’s favor, otherwise they will incur God’s wrath (cf. 1 Kgs 6:12-13). Later writers prophecy of a messianic heir to the throne of David who will reign in righteousness forever (e.g. Isa 9:7; Ezek 37:25; Dan 7:13-14)—this is separate from (though related to) the two promises just described.

    I think this distinction is crucial for understanding many subsequent passages. For example, Psalm 89 is a lament questioning whether God will remember his covenant with David. I think the lament can be viewed mainly as impatience for the 2nd and 3rd promises I’ve described rather than the first, unconditional one that an heir of David would occupy the throne. The lament is a result of an unrighteous (temporary) Davidic king and impatience for the promised, righteous king.

    Next, the 3rd Friedman quote that Clinton quoted has to do with the interplay between the Davidic and Sinai Covenants and the possibility of the Davidic throne sitting vacant. I think this possibility of a vacant throne is important to consider b/c I think there are periods when it seems there is no heir of David on the throne as was unconditinoally promised. I also think the interplay between the Sinai and Davidic Covenants is an interesting issue to think about, though I keep vascillating on how important I think this is in terms of understanding grace and works (although I liked this view at first, I became skeptical, but have recently found more and better arguments that are pushing me back toward this view). Briefly, I think Israel’s failure to live the Mosaic law, let alone the higher law that Israel wasn’t ready for, provides an important scriptural need for a New Covenant to save Israel. I think God establishes the Davidic Covenant not only as a response to Israel’s demand for a king (1 Sam 8), but also as part of a pre-figured plan (cf. Deut 17:14-20) which would help Israel look forward to Christ as a redemptive figure.

    For future reference, I think the following article is very helpful in getting an overview of both what the scriptures say about the promised Davidic King and LDS thought regarding Christ as the one who will fulfill the as-of-yet unfulfilled prophecies: “The Two Davids by Rodney Turner (BYU) in Witness of Jesus Christ: The 1989 Sperry Symposium on the Old Testament, Richard D. Draper ed. (link is to, accessible with BYU login, or I think with a membership subscription…). In particular, I think the discussion of the second David is interesting b/c Draper is seems quite open to the notion of the second David not referring to Christ. Draper also makes an argument that Joseph Smith probably did not think that the second David would be Jesus Christ (I find this surprising b/c, FARMS—Bruce Porter in particular—was quite critical of Gileadi’s notion of the Davidic King in Isaiah not referring to Christ; my sense is that Bruce R. McConckie’s repeated assertion, esp. in his Messiah trilogy, that Christ is the second David, has played an important role in making alternative views unpopular in FARMS circles, though I’d like to go back and read Porter’s criticisms more carefully now that I’ve studied the issues more…).

  17. June 27, 2006 at 10:03 am

    (Sorry, here’s a corrected link to the article through BYU: a href=”″>

  18. June 27, 2006 at 10:04 am

    It’s going to be a long day:

  19. June 27, 2006 at 10:25 am

    And here’s the FARMS review I was referring to. My view is that Porter makes some good points that Gileadi doesn’t address very well, but I think Porter oversimplifies the dual-nature or at least potential of many of these prophecies. That is, I believe many of the messianic prophecies refer to Christ’s mortal life and atonement and a “last days” messiah. Although I don’t dispute that the more common LDS view is that this last-days messiah will be Christ, I’m not convinced that there are compelling reasons to believe that this must be Christ instead of some other mortal preparing the way for Christ’s Second Coming….

  20. June 27, 2006 at 10:55 am

    Sorry, one more note: Bruce Porter’s review was of Gileadi’s first Isaiah book, which only made sweeping generalization-type claims about the Davidic King. Gileadi’s second book (The Literary Message of Isaiah) is where he presents more careful arguments for his view of the Davidic King. David Seely reviews this newer book, but does not address the Davidic King concept in very much depth (and doesn’t seem to raise the dual-nature issue I described above). I’m anxious to read non-LDS commentary, esp. on Isaiah, to get a broader perspective on these Davidic King and messiah concepts.

  21. Mark Butler
    June 27, 2006 at 4:28 pm

    Well, I have always found Elder McConkie’s interpretations of Old Testament prophecies to be unusually strained, extremely selective in the use of evidence, and constantly pulling assertions completely out of context to fit a fore-ordained conclusion that seems to match more with some conventional Protestant scholarship than a careful examination of the text itself.

    And what is doubly odd is that there is ample evidence in the scriptures (some of which was promoted by Joseph Fielding McConkie within three years of his father’s death, that we do not need to see salvific roles in such a bipolar Protestant way, quite the opposite in fact):

    “Therefore, thus saith the Lord unto you, with whom the priesthood hath continued through the lineage of your fathers— For ye are lawful heirs, according to the flesh, and have been hid from the world with Christ in God—
    Therefore your life and the priesthood have remained, and must needs remain through you and your lineage until the restoration of all things spoken by the mouths of all the holy prophets since the world began.
    Therefore, blessed are ye if ye continue in my goodness, a light unto the Gentiles, and through this priesthood, a savior unto my people Israel. The Lord hath said it. Amen.
    (D&C 86:8-11)

    “Behold, I say unto you, the redemption of Zion must needs come by power; Therefore, I will raise up unto my people a man, who shall lead them like as Moses led the children of Israel.
    For ye are the children of Israel, and of the seed of Abraham, and ye must needs be led out of bondage by power, and with a stretched-out arm. And as your fathers were led at the first, even so shall the redemption of Zion be.
    Therefore, let not your hearts faint, for I say not unto you as I said unto your fathers: Mine angel shall go up before you, but not my presence. But I say unto you: Mine angels shall go up before you, and also my presence, and in time ye shall possess the goodly land.”
    (D&C 103:15-20)

    “Behold, my servant shall deal prudently; he shall be exalted and extolled and be very high. As many were astonished at thee—his visage was so marred, more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men—
    So shall he sprinkle many nations; the kings shall shut their mouths at him, for that which had not been told them shall they see; and that which they had not heard shall they consider.
    Verily, verily, I say unto you, all these things shall surely come, even as the Father hath commanded me. Then shall this covenant which the Father hath covenanted with his people be fulfilled; and then shall Jerusalem be inhabited again with my people, and it shall be the land of their inheritance.”
    (3 Nephi 20:43-46)

    “Yea, the work shall commence among all the dispersed of my people, with the Father to prepare the way whereby they may come unto me, that they may call on the Father in my name.
    Yea, and then shall the work commence, with the Father among all nations in preparing the way whereby his people may be gathered home to the land of their inheritance.
    And they shall go out from all nations; and they shall not go out in haste, nor go by flight, for I will go before them, saith the Father, and I will be their rearward.”
    (3 Ne 21:27-29)

Comments are closed.