Vineyard vs. Orchard & Oliveyard

[Shulem]

The gist of this thread is not so much to criticize the plagiarized content that was cut and pasted from the Bible into an imagined allegory but to go right after the definition of what the allegory is based on which are TREES existing within the realms belonging to a tree doctor who is twice called the "master of the vineyard" or more aptly (33 times) as "Lord of the vineyard," vineyard being the key word. The entire parable is based "in the vineyard" and the text explicitly states that those involved would go or went "down into the vineyard."

The following clips describe what exactly is within the confines of the so-called "vineyard":

...all the trees of my vineyard
...the trees thereof have become corrupted
...go to and hew down the trees of the vineyard
...lose the trees of my vineyard
...grafted in unto the natural trees
...wild branches from the trees
...nourish again the trees of the vineyard
...pluck from the trees those branches which are ripened
...the trees of my vineyard may bring forth again good fruit
...dig about the trees, both old and young
...I lose the trees of my vineyard
...the trees had become again the natural fruit

From this we see that the entire operation of the so-called vineyard is all about TREE husbandry within what could rightly be called an orchard or more explicitly an oliveyard. There is no mention of any vines, grapes, or wine! The word "vineyard" should not have been used because there is no vineyard in the parable of Zenos! There is nothing in the parable to signify a vineyard. So, correct terminology for the parable should be as follows:

• Master of the oliveyard

• Lord of the oliveyard

• oliveyard

The parable of Zenos as expressed in Jacob 5 has nothing to do with a vineyard! This error is entirely the fault of the person who dictated the story while his face was in a hat.

[Shulem]

Let us correct Jacob's faulty narrative provided in chapter six where he sums up Zenos's parable with a few of his own thoughts, compliments of Joseph Smith who dictated these words while his face was in a hat:

1 And now, behold, my brethren, as I said unto you that I would prophesy, behold, this is my prophecy—that the things which this prophet Zenos spake, concerning the house of Israel, in the which he likened them unto a tame olive tree, must surely come to pass.

2 And the day that he shall set his hand again the second time to recover his people, is the day, yea, even the last time, that the servants of the Lord shall go forth in his power, to nourish and prune his vineyard oliveyard; and after that the end soon cometh.

3 And how blessed are they who have labored diligently in his vineyard oliveyard; and how cursed are they who shall be cast out into their own place! And the world shall be burned with fire.

4 And how merciful is our God unto us, for he remembereth the house of Israel, both roots and branches; and he stretches forth his hands unto them all the day long; and they are a stiffnecked and a gainsaying people; but as many as will not harden their hearts shall be saved in the kingdom of God.

So, as you can see, there never was a vineyard. Everything purported to have taken place is *within* the oliveyard!

[Shulem]

Joseph Smith again screwed the pooch with another parable while pretending to speak directly for God ("I, the Lord") who doesn't know the difference between a vineyard and an oliveyard.



So, for fun, let's correct stoopid Mormon God who proves his imperfection within this silly parable:

43 And now, I will show unto you a parable, that you may know my will concerning the redemption of Zion.

44 A certain nobleman had a spot of land, very choice; and he said unto his servants: Go ye unto my vineyard oliveyard, even upon this very choice piece of land, and plant twelve olive trees;

45 And set watchmen round about them, and build a tower, that one may overlook the land round about, to be a watchman upon the tower, that mine olive trees may not be broken down when the enemy shall come to spoil and take upon themselves the fruit of my vineyard oliveyard.

46 Now, the servants of the nobleman went and did as their lord commanded them, and planted the olive trees, and built a hedge round about, and set watchmen, and began to build a tower.

<snip>

51 And the enemy came by night, and broke down the hedge; and the servants of the nobleman arose and were affrighted, and fled; and the enemy destroyed their works, and broke down the olive trees.

52 Now, behold, the nobleman, the lord of the vineyard oliveyard, called upon his servants, and said unto them, Why! what is the cause of this great evil?

53 Ought ye not to have done even as I commanded you, and—after ye had planted the vineyard oliveyard, and built the hedge round about, and set watchmen upon the walls thereof—built the tower also, and set a watchman upon the tower, and watched for my vineyard oliveyard, and not have fallen asleep, lest the enemy should come upon you?

54 And behold, the watchman upon the tower would have seen the enemy while he was yet afar off; and then ye could have made ready and kept the enemy from breaking down the hedge thereof, and saved my vineyard oliveyard from the hands of the destroyer.

55 And the lord of the vineyard oliveyard said unto one of his servants: Go and gather together the residue of my servants, and take all the strength of mine house, which are my warriors, my young men, and they that are of middle age also among all my servants, who are the strength of mine house, save those only whom I have appointed to tarry;

56 And go ye straightway unto the land of my vineyard oliveyard, and redeem my vineyard oliveyard; for it is mine; I have bought it with money.

[Shulem]

In previous posts we saw how the parable of Zenos in Jacob 5 and the parable of the redemption of Zion in D&C 101 prove the ground and products cultivated therein are olive trees that are produced within their respective oliveyards. Consider the very definition tendered in Smith's dictionary and we see that trees within the parables were grown within the very confines of an oliveyard -- wholly independent of a grape vineyard.

OLIVE'YARD, noun An inclosure or piece of ground in which olives are cultivated.

INCLO'SURE, noun The act of inclosing.

1. The separation of land from common ground into distinct possessions by a fence.

2. The appropriation of things common.

3. State of being inclosed, shut up or encompasses.

4. A space inclosed or fenced; a space comprehended within certain limits.

5. Ground inclosed or separated from common land.

Note how inclosure for the piece of ground is clearly defined in Smith's parable:

• a spot of land, very choice

• set watchmen round about

• built a hedge round about

• watchmen upon the walls thereof

Thus we know that an oliveyard and a vineyard are two separate independent fields in which their respective fruits are grown and wherein two different products are the end result:

1. Wine
2. Oil

Restore, I pray you, to them, even this day, their lands, their vineyards, their oliveyards, and their houses, also the hundredth part of the money, and of the corn, the wine, and the oil, that ye exact of them.

There can be no doubt the parable of Zenos is fatally flawed as well as the parable in the D&C. The error cannot be justified. It's wrong. How uninspiring!

[Shulem]

KJV Isaiah chapter 5 was cut and pasted into the Book of Mormon and provides additional evidence in defining a vineyard as a separate enclosure surrounded by a fence/hedge/wall with a watchtower in the midst therein, all this seemed to go right over Joseph Smith's head who mistakenly classed a grove of olive trees (oliveyard) as a "vineyard" in his stoopid parables.

1 And then will I sing to my well-beloved a song of my beloved, touching his vineyard. My well-beloved hath a vineyard in a very fruitful hill.

2 And he fenced it, and gathered out the stones thereof, and planted it with the choicest vine, and built a tower in the midst of it, and also made a wine-press therein; and he looked that it should bring forth grapes, and it brought forth wild grapes.

3 And now, O inhabitants of Jerusalem, and men of Judah, judge, I pray you, betwixt me and my vineyard.

4 What could have been done more to my vineyard that I have not done in it? Wherefore, when I looked that it should bring forth grapes it brought forth wild grapes.

5 And now go to; I will tell you what I will do to my vineyard—I will take away the hedge thereof, and it shall be eaten up; and I will break down the wall thereof, and it shall be trodden down;

It's simply not reasonable to think a grove of trees would be planted within the vineyard described by Isaiah, but that didn't stop Joseph Smith from pretending to plant olive trees in the midst of his dreamy "vineyard!"

[Shulem]

I think if I wished to don the hat and coat of apologist I would propose the the word mixup was made by Jacob who may not have been familiar with or concerned with the proper name for a group of olive trees. I am not sure if that is better than saying Joseph Smith was unclear about the different meanings so translated with a poor choice of English word.

Huck, please note how the Lord himself ("I, the Lord") was speaking through Joseph Smith in the first person and tripped up using the word "vineyard" in D&C 101. There is no excuse for that and it wasn't even a translation whereby one can generate an excuse for selecting a poor word but God was allegedly speaking directly through his prophet by inspiration of the Holy Spirit. And thus we see the Holy Spirit speaking through Joseph Smith was a dodo -- a f-ing fool who doesn't know what he's talking about.

[Shulem]

To all concerned:

I am pulling down some posts from my Celestial forum thread about the 116-page Manuscript and pasting them here in hopes of keeping things tidy. I've asked Valo to please join us down here to continue this particular discussion so the thread in Celestial doesn't get derailed which was entirely my fault.

Valo,

It's my fault for allowing this thread (116-page Manuscript) to venture off into a lost vineyard. After this, would you mind if we continue this discussion down in the Terrestrial forum where my thread Vineyard vs. Orchard & Oliveyard focuses strictly on this subject? However, if you don't mind, I would like to comment on your last post and will do so here. I may decide to copy this post and paste it in the other thread.

Anciently olive trees were planted alongside with vines or in a vineyard because it works. Looks like you abandoned that argument and have focused on the one you think is stronger!

I have no problem with planting vineyards and oliveyards "ALONGSIDE" of each other whether in ancient times or today. But I do have a problem with planting an olive grove (orchard) *in* an ancient Jewish vineyard because the Law of Moses forbids it (Deut 22:9, Lev 19:19). And we can assume that Zenos followed the Law of Moses and kept that charge strictly. You will recall that pious Nephites & Lamanites were strict (Alma 30:3, Hel 12:1) to keep the Law of Moses and would have followed suit in maintaining husbandry according to the Law of Moses which was contained on the brass plates.

As to your "stronger" argument it appears you are hanging on the thread that vineyard somehow only recently began to mean "a sphere of endeavor" and that Websters dictionary is the only relevant dictionary available for this time frame. Okay.

How hardly would Moses or Zenos be obliged to harken to what Gentiles in 1300 AD thought about vineyard husbandry! The Law of Moses was the standard! Valo, your apologetic reasoning is fatally flawed.

Also vineyard has meant "a ground planted with vines" not grape vines, just vines, since before Joseph Smith was born.

https://books.google.com/books?id=z3kKA ... rd&f=false

Please note that your citation:

VINEYARD, (vin'-yard) A ground planted with vines.

Does not include olives because trees don't grow on vines!

So, just to be clear, it seems your argument is that the story in Jacob 5 was written later than the 1300s, in order to make the vocabulary work? Even though Joseph Smith was supposedly translating ancient documents, written long before that?

Did Zenos have a ghost committee also?

Thank you so much for chiming in, Marcus. I really appreciate it!

It's kinda my fault for getting sidetracked in this thread which is about the lost 116 pages, but that's okay. It's probably noteworthy to suggest the parable of Zenos was not in the lost 116 page manuscript. I think it was a special feature Smith added when resuming his translation storytelling while Cowdery dutifully recorded Joseph's babblings -- imagine having to listen to the mumblings of Jacob 5 while Joseph's face is buried in a hat! It's bad enough to have to read that awful chapter but I can't imagine having to listen to Smith narrate it. Poor Oliver! Can you imagine?

Valo referred us to the Johnson and Walker's Dictionary of the English Language which was published in London in 1755. Valo noted how the definition of vineyard is "A ground planted with vines." And that is my point because the only thing on the ground in *a* vineyard is plants that have vines! Olive trees do not grow on vines and do not belong in the confines of a vineyard. Vineyards and oliveyards grow different fruits within their own yards. Right?

[Brack]

A few LDS Apologists (such as the late John Tvedtnes) have claimed that a vineyard during biblical times could be a place where olive trees were grown by referring to Amos 4:9.
[9] I have smitten you with blasting and mildew: when your gardens and your vineyards and your fig trees and your olive trees increased, the palmerworm devoured them: yet have ye not returned unto me, saith the LORD. (KJV)

[huckelberry]

In celestial Marcus posted useful information to give more dimension to this thread.
Shulem said,
"I know the parable of Zenos is pure fiction created out of the mind of Joseph Smith..."
Marcus replied,
"I agree completely. I am reminded of a discussion we had here about the anachronisms of this Joseph Smith-created parable. In addition to using the wrong designation (vineyard), the description of grafting techniques applies to a 19th century vineyard of fruit, not an orchard of olive trees from many, many centuries earlier. Here's a summing up:"

...Jacob 5 is purported to be unique parable preserved from an otherwise unknown biblical prophet named Zenos who would have to have lived in the Kingdom of Judah prior to the Babylonian captivity. The Lehite party is claimed to have had his words preserved and brought with them to the Americas in the brass plates which the Book of Mormon describes as the pure form of the Old Testament before it was corrupted. This makes this parable unique in that it is composed by a person living in the middle east at an unknown time but at least before 600 BCE, but his works ultimately only end up being available to the migrated Lehite party living in the Americas. Part of what makes it especially unique is that it includes a description of the Nephites and Lamanites as offshoots of Israel. Were it to be discovered in manuscript form in the Old World, it would be immensely consequential as evidence for the Book of Mormon’s validity as an ancient text.

The parable describes a master of a vineyard that grows olives that are compared to the tribes of Israel. It makes use of olive tree grafting as an analogy for God having a chosen tree (Israel) that alternately bears good or bad fruit along with having healthy or unhealthy root stock which God, the master gardener along with his servants, either grafts from or into other branches in order to produce good fruit. The analogy cumulating with the restoration of Israel with it’s promised blessings being distributed throughout the world’s peoples as all the good fruit bearing trees share root and branch.

So the problem: The practice of grafting olive trees is not attested to among the Israelites in historical records during the timeframe when it could have reasonably made it into the brass plates before Lehi and his family left for the Americas. It is mentioned as a technology very prolifically as Greek influence spread a century or two later but not before this. The Bible may or may not describe grape vine grafting but it isn’t indisputable either. Olea culture among the Israelites would have included cultivating olives but not necessarily the important part for the parable – grafting.

When apologists hold up Jacob 5 as an example of, “How could Joseph have known?” they often point out the accuracy of various techniques used in grafting fruit trees. The grafting of apples was a common practice in the 19th century frontier, and when compared in detail the grafting techniques described in Jacob 5 are comparable to those used when grafting apples. Apples grown from seed are very genetically variable so an apple grown from seed from a parent whose fruit is sweet won’t necessarily be sweet and the grafting of branches from a tree known to bear sweet fruit onto one that bears sour or bitter fruit was very much part of the practice.

In short, Jacob 5 aligns very well with the practices of apple cultivation including grafting which Joseph Smith would have been familiar as his mother describes their family cultivating apples in her biographical works.

Jacob 5 can’t be known as to how well it aligns with the practices of pre-exilic Israelites when it comes to grafting if they did indeed practice olive tree grafting because it isn’t actually described in historical texts from the time period. Apologists who defend it report on later works but these are typically from a period when the practice has expanded out of Greece.

To add to this, the little bit from the Talmud quoted in the Purdue paper I shared earlier suggests that Israelites may not have grafted olive trees after they were familiar with its use as a horticultural technology with grapes or perhaps other fruit.

It appears, based on this, that Jacob 5 is better evidence for the Book of Mormon being a product of the 19th century than it is of ancient origin.

Having olive trees in a vineyard sounds like mixing up the names and causing confusion. It could be considered that the parable is not history or instruction about agriculture it is a about people in a community not a field of fruit. Calling the people a vineyard is a set Biblical pattern that people recognize. Talking of olives is not wrong. In the realm where vineyards and olive trees are people one could mix them whether or not they mix in agriculture. I do not see an error but it is clumsy in style. It brings up the question who would likely be the author of this clumsiness. Jewish parables and stories aim at being sharp, concise and to the point. This Zenos parable is anything but that. It meanders, mixes and barely finds its way to the end. I think Honorentheos's information is a good indicator of the time place context for this parable.

I think meander and run on may be stylistic tells.

[huckelberry]

I find myself wondering if it is such a commonplace to remember the Book of Mormon as having a Biblical sounding style which makes it sound like scripture that people overlook how much the style is not Biblical.

I do not know a way to be precise about recognition of style. To my mind there is a particular style throughout the Book of Mormon. It may have variations. Different subjects and times get some variation in treatment but my poor ears hear the same voice.

Now an apologetic to support the Book of Mormon which remains in my mind as not clearly useless is the word print observations seeing different authors behind different portions of the book. I am inclined to think word selection is naturally more variable for a new author and easily influenced by different inspiration sources. The bigger image of style may be a stronger indicator of the source of the book. I do not know a way to make that kind of observation objective, or mathematical.

I often imagine most peoples posts here are recognizable by style after one has read many of and individuals posts. Most authors have clear stylistic tendencies. I imagine I can recognize style.

Recently news has images of a brand new Van Gogh painting found in an attic. The article claim some experts agree it is real. I take one look at it and say no way. It does not pass my eyes judgement from sense of style (which is often pretty clear) Which reminds me that sense of style may be a good clue but is perhaps not as objective as it might seem. (I still suspect it to be more objective than word prints are)