21 February 2000

Brother Martins,

I was studying today and had a question come up that I didn't really know what to do with, so I thought I'd take advantage of your invitation to check some of our questions out with you. I was reading in Moses 5, where it talks of Adam's posterity, specifically Cain and Abel. Cain and Abel brought their sacrifices before the Lord, Abel with exact obedience according the commandments he'd been given, while Cain brought a sacrifice, but not one authorized by the Lord, because of the symbolism it should bear. It shows us that Cain didn't have the Savior (the Only Begotten) in his heart and at his focus, and it was consequently not accepted of the Lord, and Cain became wroth and his countenance fell (what does that mean by the way?). But my question derives from verse 23. The Lord had spoken to him and asked, "Why art thou wroth, why is thy countenance fallen... If thou doest well, thou shalt be accepted..." Was the Lord just saying, "Come on Cain, it's not that big of deal, I just want the sacrifice to be done in a certain way, because it represents this and this and this, if you just go back and do it right it too will be accepted, it's not you but your offering that I did not accept..." I don't mean to make this folksie and colloquial, but I am just trying to organize it more so I can imagine for myself what the Lord what meaning. Was He merely warning Cain not to get offended, to go his way and sin no more, but if he wouldn't, the inability to take counsel from the Lord would allow Satan to have him? I thought it sounded so, especially the way the verse ends, "...and thou shalt rule over him." Then after Satan had rejected the greater counsel which was had from God, loved Satan more and united with him in secret, killing Abel, then the Lord comes again and says to him, "Whosoever slayeth thee, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And I the Lord set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him." Why? I understand why the Lord didn't just kill him, that He doesn't work that way (most often), but why was he to an extent "preserved"? The Lord cursed those that would try. - Why? He set a mark on him, lest any try. - Why?

Now from the Old Testament, another question I came across as I was reading. In the 30th chapter of Genesis, it is referring to the sons of Jacob as his wives and concubines conceived and bore them. He labored was deceived and had Leah to be his wife. Then was something I don't understand, Laban, her father makes the requirement of Jacob, "Fulfil her week, and we will give thee this also..." - What custom or what meaning does this have, "fulfil her week..."?

The account continues on with Leah being blessed and Rachel in a way being cursed, remaining barren - was there something behind it or just the fact that Leah was hated? And why was it later that He then "remembered Rachel..., and opened her womb..."?

Then, in verse 14 sets off an interesting little situation where apparently Reuben found some mandrakes (small poisonous plant, the root of which "was thought to have magical powers because of the fancied resemblance to the human shape") in the wheat field. Rachel wants them - was she hoping that magic would let her conceive, because she barters her husband's going in to Leah, so she could have them. Man girls could be just as scheming back then as they can sometimes nowadays!

Well those were my thoughts and questions. I know some of them might just have to be answered with, "Because" or "we have no way of knowing" or "who cares!?" but I just wanted to see if there weren't some history or traditions behind that I might understand better or get some other insight, that you might have access to. Thanks for all, I enjoy the class, it's inspiring personal growth.

Chad E. Sundquist

Doct. of the Gospel (M,W - 11:00)