Vineyard vs. Orchard & Oliveyard

[Shulem]

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)

Stoopid apologetics!

Botanical Studies
One of the enigmatic aspects of Zenos's allegory is the use of the term vineyard to refer to what is obviously an olive orchard. Was Zenos or Jacob confused in the use of the term in this allegory? John Tvedtnes addresses the question in a botanical and lexical study. He presents convincing evidence to support his conclusion that "the use of the term "vineyard' to depict a place where olive trees were planted is not an error in the Zenos account in Jacob 5, but that it is perfectly in keeping with ancient practices and with the imagery of the vineyard" (pp. 481-82).

Amos 4:9 does NOT imply that vines and trees were contained in a single yard -- a vineyard. The verse tells us that blasting and mildew wreaked havoc on all plant life resulting in the general destruction of crops throughout the entire land!

• gardens

• vineyards

• fig trees

• olive trees

It's important to note that gardens and vineyards are listed in PLURAL form signifying the effects were universal and not just subject to a single garden or a single vineyard. Trees are plural because that's how they grow whether in a single grove or in multiple groves throughout the country. The entire chapter makes it clear how the destructive effects were felt throughout the entire land (Israel) and not just on someone's individual property.

John Tvedtnes either didn't know what he was talking about or was attempting to deceive through typical crooked apologetics.

RIP

[Shulem]

I'd like to comment about ancient Jews having knowledge of tree surgery (horticultural techniques) such as grafting that is described in the Bible and Book of Mormon. I think it's a weak argument to assume Jews in the Zenos era didn't practice advanced forms of cultivation with trees; it's inconclusive and could be argued either way. It wouldn't surprise me to learn that Solomon's workforce was aware of such things because knowledge of advanced methods gets around and Solomon was a man of the world. I'm of the understanding that grafting trees was practiced in ancient Mesopotamia and Asia so it wouldn't surprise me to learn that ancient Israel shared the bounty in tending their groves.

[Shulem]

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.

Smith aimed to make the Book of Mormon sound as biblical as possible and he did a pretty good job for the most part. There is no question in my mind that he lifted the "Lord of the vineyard" out of the Bible in order to make what he thought was a good match. But it was flawed because a vineyard is not a grove. "Lord of the vineyard" is expressed only in the New Testament gospels, a total of four times, all by Jesus himself. The expression "vineyard of the Lord" occurs once in the Bible -- in Isaiah 5 which Smith copied into 2 Nephi 15: "vineyard of the Lord of hosts is the house of Israel, and the men of Judah his pleasant plant."

Interestingly enough, the plural expression "vineyards of the Lord" is expressed one (1) time in all of LDS scripture and during the pre-Christ era of Alma (28:14) who said, "And thus we see the great call of diligence of men to labor in the vineyards of the Lord." Alma's remark referenced Book of Mormon land and is subtle evidence attesting to Smith's sloppiness in his pious attempt to speak for God and make his book sound biblical. The pluralization of vineyard for Alma's ministry clearly shows how Smith goofed yet again.

[Shulem]

Let's take a peak inside the mind of the childish LDS Book of Mormon Student Manual wherewith stoopid Mormons treat their scripture as if it were written for Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny.

An allegory uses symbolic representations to convey moral or spiritual ideas...“This allegory as recounted by Jacob is from the outset intended to be about Christ. …

BS!

Mormons fail to realize how a lost Jewish parable of a so-called prophet named Zenos would have not disregarded common sense statutes of the Law of Moses with regard to planting trees and vines in the same yard and ascribing the whole arrangement as belonging to the Lord of the vineyard. Needless to say, the parable of Zenos says nothing about a future Messiah who would disrespect organized husbandry after the divine order echoed by St. Paul, saying, "For we are laborers together with God; ye are God’s husbandry; ye are God’s building." (1 Cor 3:9)

The Mormons claim Zenos was writing about Christ even though there is no mention of Christ in the parable! The repetitive ramblings of Zenos is nothing more than Joseph Smith lifting material out of the Bible to fashion his own parable and ascribe it to whatever he wanted. But it's important to note that Christ/Messiah is not specifically described therein. The parable of Zenos never existed in ancient times and is nothing more than Smith-like pseudepigrapha. It's fake and utter rubbish!

[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.

Smith aimed to make the Book of Mormon sound as biblical as possible and he did a pretty good job for the most part. There is no question in my mind that he lifted the "Lord of the vineyard" out of the Bible in order to make what he thought was a good match. But it was flawed because a vineyard is not a grove. "Lord of the vineyard" is expressed only in the New Testament gospels, a total of four times, all by Jesus himself. The expression "vineyard of the Lord" occurs once in the Bible -- in Isaiah 5 which Smith copied into 2 Nephi 15: "vineyard of the Lord of hosts is the house of Israel, and the men of Judah his pleasant plant."

Interestingly enough, the plural expression "vineyards of the Lord" is expressed one (1) time in all of LDS scripture and during the pre-Christ era of Alma (28:14) who said, "And thus we see the great call of diligence of men to labor in the vineyards of the Lord." Alma's remark referenced Book of Mormon land and is subtle evidence attesting to Smith's sloppiness in his pious attempt to speak for God and make his book sound biblical. The pluralization of vineyard for Alma's ministry clearly shows how Smith goofed yet again.

shulem, I would imagine Alma thinking of two vineyards, the one he is in and the other on the other side of the ocean. Plural is unusual but makes sense I think.

You are certainly correct to see a lot of Biblical related style in the Book of Mormon. There are Biblical themes, teaching, phrases, terms, paraphrases of Biblical passages and quotes.

[Shulem]

shulem, I would imagine Alma thinking of two vineyards, the one he is in and the other on the other side of the ocean. Plural is unusual but makes sense I think.

Two vineyards??

But the whole point of the allegory is a figurative expression to liken the house of Israel as a single vineyard which belongs to the Lord. Recall Isaiah and Nephi saying, "For the vineyard of the Lord of hosts *is* the house of Israel." Biblically speaking, the Lord's vineyard is portrayed as ONE vineyard that belongs to the Lord. LDS scripture follows suit with the concept of a single vineyard except in the case of Alma (28:14) when Smith flubs up and pluralizes it and does so without reference to a separate vineyard on the other side of the ocean. Granted, in the next chapter, Alma expresses how he wished he was an angel and could cry repentance unto every people even to the ends of the earth; but there is still only ONE worldwide vineyard of the Lord just as there is only one divine Shephard and ONE worldwide flock wherein all the sheep, wherever they may be, thus there shall be one fold, and one shepherd. (John 10:16)

• One (1) Lord of the vineyard and one (1) worldwide vineyard of the Lord

• One (1) Shepherd of the flock and one (1) worldwide flock of the Shepherd

And now for bonus points to make my point:

Did you know the plural words "flocks" and "vineyards" are not mentioned in the New Testament?

Go figure!

[Shulem]

You are certainly correct to see a lot of Biblical related style in the Book of Mormon. There are Biblical themes, teaching, phrases, terms, paraphrases of Biblical passages and quotes.

Right you are, huck.

Now let's refresh and take a peek at biblical material that influenced Smith in creating his own false parable in misnaming an oliveyard. Recall we already touched on Isaiah 5 which is cited in its entirety by Nephi. It's a "song" (parable) about the "vineyard of the LORD" but includes key words that are NOT in Zenos's so-called vineyard; thus, none of the following words from Isaiah's vineyard are found in Zenos's vineyard wherein the very word "vineyard" is mentioned a whopping 90 times:

1. grapes
2. vine
3. winepress

So, how can it be a vineyard if it doesn't have vines and grapes?

ANSWER: Joseph Smith goofed up and misnamed his parable in thinking trees and vines grew together by order of the Lord. He couldn't have been more wrong!

[Shulem]

And now let's take a peek at what St Paul said about tree grafting which undoubtedly influenced Smith in creating his own parables of Gentiles being grafted into the house of Israel.

I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.

So, Paul declares he is of the stock of Israel through the tribe of Benjamin. Continuing further down the chapter:

For if the firstfruit be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the root be holy, so are the branches.

So, holy dough makes holy bread and holy roots make for holy branches. Okay.

And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert grafted in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;

The Gentiles are like a branches off a wild olive tree that may be grafted into the tame olive tree which is the house of Israel.

Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee.

Don't be too proud of yourself and always remember that it's the branches that are held up and supported by the roots.

Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be grafted in.

Branches may be grafted (joined) into a tame olive tree of the house of Israel.

Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:

Unbelieving branches are broken off but faithful branches remain by faith.

For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.

God will not spare anyone (Jew or Gentile) that fails to keep the faith!

Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.

God is strict and will cut off (prune) unrighteous branches whereby they fall from grace.

And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be grafted in: for God is able to graft them in again.

God is able to graft in those who repent and abide by faith.

For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert grafted contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree?

God is able to graft wild branches into a natural tree as well as repentant natural branches that had fallen and graft them back into the natural tree.

Now, notice there is no mention of a vineyard! Why? Because vines and grapes don't apply to the allegory of olive trees in an oliveyard. A vineyard that entails grapes is another subject; it's not contained within the boundaries of the Lord's oliveyard.

Do recall how James taught that blessings and cursing should not proceed out of the same mouth and neither should sweet water and bitter water proceed out of the same fountain (James 3:10,11). James is exact when pointing out that vineyards and oliveyards are TWO separate things:

Can the fig tree, my brethren, bear olive berries? either a vine, figs? so can no fountain both yield salt water and fresh.

[Moksha]

Shulem, what if apologists were to tell you that words don't have definite meanings and can fluctuate in definitions of whatever they are talking about at the time?

[Shulem]

Shulem, what if apologists were to tell you that words don't have definite meanings and can fluctuate in definitions of whatever they are talking about at the time?

Mormonism is all about making whatever definition suits their lying fancy. For example:

King Pharaoh, whose name is given in the characters above his head.

This is not only a lie but a prime example of the first apologist making up whatever he wanted to suit his own definitions even though he didn't know what the hell he was talking about.

Mormons today have no intelligent answer in which to defend their false prophet. Whether it be a king's name or a vineyard inside an olive grove -- it's wrong. Period.

Isn't that right, Moksha?