The verses from Jacob Chapter 5 will be in blue while Gardner's commentary will be in italics.

While his commentary does not necessarily reflect the official position of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, it does share some of the Church's symbolism.

It should be worth noting that the Book of Mormon prophet Nephi taught the vineyard represented the house of Israel and not the world - "For the vineyard of the Lord of Hosts is the house of Israel, and the men of Judah his pleasant plant; and he looked for judgment, and behold, oppression; for righteousness, but behold, a cry" (2 Nephi 15:7).  See also Isaiah 5:7 and Matthew 21:33-46.

Let's begin...

1 - "Behold, my brethren, do ye not remember to have read the words of the prophet Zenos, which he spake unto the house of Israel".

According to the Book of Mormon, the "house of Israel" is meant to symbolize all of the tribes of Israel. "Behold, I say unto you, that the house of Israel was compared unto an olive-tree, by the Spirit of the Lord which was in our father; and behold are we not broken off from the house of Israel, and are we not a branch of the house of Israel?" (1 Nephi 15:12).

It is believed that the Lehites (of the tribe of Manasseh) were a branch of the house or nation of Israel.

Mr. Gardner says, "This allegory will be a description of the Lord's efforts with the children of Israel."

His question, "How can one who is rejected by Israel become the leader of Israel?" seems to be an echoing of Jacob (4:17) - "How is it possible that these, after having rejected the sure foundation, can ever build upon it, that it may become the head of their corner?"

Mr. Gardner writes, "The plant becomes the symbol of Israel as a nation."

But earlier we've seen that the plant was transformed by LDS Church teaching into the symbol of Christianity and not Israel as a nation.

3 - "For behold, thus saith the Lord, I will liken thee, O house of Israel, like unto a tame olive-tree, which a man took and nourished in his vineyard; and it grew, and waxed old, and began to decay."

"The Lord is the man who nourished the tree. Israel is the tree. All of Israel understood their special covenant with the Lord, so that the caretaker could be no other."

"One interpretation is that the master of the vineyard is Christ and the servant is a collective image of prophets. The second possibility is that the master is the Father, and the servant the Son."

A problem exists in that the servant throughout the allegory seems to be a single person and therefore cannot be made-over to become multiple prophets.

"How much of the allegory will fit into a precise translation into more identifiable people or events? While clearly applicable to the real world (else the allegory holds no meaning whatsoever) the absolute applicability of allegory is not required for instructional value, and indeed, virtually any allegory distorts history into story."

If Mr. Gardner believes this, then why is there much attempt to put the identity of the 4th branch on Lehi's group that left Jerusalem in 600 BC? Does the 4th branch represent a literal history or is it just a story used for instructional value?

"Pushed to precision, virtually all allegories fail to make a precise match to the events they symbolize."

And yet the author says that Lehi and company are a good match to the events of the 4th branch in their leading away from Jerusalem circa 600 BC?

"There is no clear identification of the servant."

If there is no clear identification of the servant, then the rest of trying to identify the branches in Jacob's parable and connecting them to this "unknown servant" becomes a lesson in futility. Then, can futile speculations be used to laud praises toward this chapter in Jacob?

"The servant is used as a literary device for providing the action of the story, in keeping with the idea that the master of the vineyard would not be the one who actually worked the vineyard."

But when you study this parable, it is full of indications that the master worked the vineyard just like the servant.

"Both the actions, and at times the pleadings of the servant will be best seen as literary devices than symbolic of any relationship between Jehovah and either Jesus Christ or a symbolic representation of prophets."

Is Mr. Gardner using "servant" to symbolize "prophets?" If yes, what do "servants" symbolize?

4 - "And it came to pass that the master of the vineyard went forth, and he saw that his olive-tree began to decay; and he said: I will aprune it, and dig about it, and nourish it, that perhaps it may shoot forth young and tender branches, and it perish not."

It seems that the master of the vineyard is more involved in action than the servant.

Earlier Mr. Gardner said, "The apostasy is a foregone event, not one that will be changed through repentance."

Now he says, "The repentance process, if followed, prunes off the decayed part of Israel because it turns to the Lord,
and is no longer decayed."

"In this action of sending prophets to Israel, the Lord accomplished that which a gardener would in the process of pruning and fertilizing."

But if you study the parable in this chapter of Jacob, the servant is not involved in the vineyard where the tame olive tree is planted until it begins to wax old and decay (verse 3). Does Mr. Gardner believe that no prophets existed in the days that Israel walked with the Lord?

6 - "And it came to pass that after many days it began to put forth somewhat a little, young and tender branches; but behold, the main atop thereof began to perish."

"The main top of the tree ... would refer to the leadership of Israel, those who maintain the status quo."

7 - "And it came to pass that the master of the vineyard saw it, and he said unto his servant: It grieveth me that I should lose this tree; wherefore, go and pluck the branches from a wild olive-tree, and bring them hither unto me; and we will pluck off those main branches which are beginning to wither away, and we will cast them into the fire that they may be burned."

The servant's first action is to pluck branches from a wild olive tree and bring them to the master of the vineyard (see verse 7). Does Mr. Gardner believe that the servant was not involved with Israel before decay began happening?

"Two parts of the event are listed, the destruction of the main branches and the grafting in of wild branches. These are events that can be correlated to historical events, but not events which will fit precisely into the timetable of the allegory."

What timetable?

Earlier Mr. Gardner said, "How much of the allegory will fit into a precise translation into more identifiable people or events?  While clearly applicable to the real world (else the allegory holds no meaning whatsoever) the absolute applicability of allegory is not required for instructional value, and indeed, virtually any allegory distorts history into story."

So, the two events can be correlated to historical events and yet any allegory distorts history into story?

"The destruction of Israel occurs in three places that have relevance to this allegory."

Do you see anywhere in the allegory where the tame olive tree is destroyed except at the end?  I don't.

"The grafting image is therefore to suppose a positive addition to the tree. The clearest reference for grafting is to the adoption of the gentiles into the Abrahamic covenant."

8 - "And behold, saith the Lord of the vineyard, I take away many of these young and tender branches, and I will graft them whithersoever I will; and it mattereth not that if it so be that the root of this tree will perish, I may preserve the fruit thereof unto myself; wherefore, I will take these young and tender branches, and I will graft them whithersoever I will."

Since the "root" is said to represent the Abrahamic covenant and promises, the Lord is saying that it doesn't matter that the "root" perishes?

"Grafting is the physical process of inserting a foreign into the main tree. The wild branches are very literally from a different tree."

Since it is believed that the Lehites are one of these young and tender branches placed in the nethermost part of the vineyard (verse 13), what exactly where they grafted into? The Lehites were not grafted into any existing civilization of people in America where they are believed to have gone. Some Latter-day Saints believed the Americas were devoid of any people when the Lehites and Jaredites supposedly migrated there.

"As a symbol for the covenant between God and his people, the grafting is the insertion of non-lineal people into the covenant of uniqueness with God. While not children of Abraham by birth, they become children of Abraham by adoption, and as adopted heirs receive fully of the benefits of the covenant. This reading reinforces the gentile Christian church as the beneficial grafting of the "wild" branches (and precisely parallels Paul) and precludes the Assyrian and Babylonian intermarriages as an explanation for the grafting, as they were not adopted into the covenant."

But the adoption of the Gentile Christians happened after 33 AD. And the grafting of the "young and tender branches into the nethermost part of the vineyard" (verse 13) was said to happen after the grafting in of the wild olive branches into the tame olive tree. Do you see the obvious problem with the time frame?

10 - "And it came to pass that the servant of the Lord of the vineyard did according to the word of the Lord of the vineyard, and grafted in the branches of the wild olive-tree."

It should be noted that if "servant" represents "prophet," then not only one "servant" was responsible for the grafting in of the Gentiles.

"With the association of the wild branches with the Christian gentiles, the idea that they were set in place of the "main top" branches that were cut off is perhaps significant. Verse 9 places the wild olive branches in the stead of the main top branches that were cut off. Returning to the association of this "main top," which was the leadership of Israel, we have the gentiles being not only grafted in, but grafted in to a position of leadership. This in-grafting would then foresee the shift in the emphasis of the covenant from the lineage of Abraham to the care of the adopted Christian bearers of that covenant. The covenant is now in the care of the adoptees, not the original inheritors."

Same comment as above. This happens before the branches are grafted into the nethermost parts of the vineyard (verse 13).

"Note the allegorical distinction between tree and roots. Once again the trunk is a collective designator, but the critical element is the root. The Lord of the vineyard is not taking care to preserve the tree, but the root. For the Lord, it is his covenantal relationship that is the important aspect of his relationship to man."

But verse 8 has the "Lord" saying it doesn't matter if the root perishes.

13 - "And these will I place in the nethermost part of my vineyard, whithersoever I will, it mattereth not unto thee; and I do it that I may preserve unto myself the natural branches of the tree; and also, that I may lay up fruit thereof against the season, unto myself; for it grieveth me that I should lose this tree and the fruit thereof."

"The antecedent for this verse is the young and tender branches mentioned in verse 8. The allegorical action is to take the branches of the tree and use them to plant trees in other locations."

If you read verse 8, you will see the allegorical action of grafting.

As the wild olive branches (said to be the Gentiles) were grafted into the tame olive tree (said to represent Israel), into what are the young and tender branches grafted into?

14 - "And it came to pass that the Lord of the vineyard went his way, and hid the natural branches of the tame olive-tree in the
nethermost parts of the vineyard, some in one and some in another, according to his will and pleasure."

"The olive is one of the few fruit trees that can be propagated by taking a branch of a tree and burying it in the ground. This is apparently what Zenos had in mind when he indicates that the Lord of the vineyard took branches and "planted" them, saying that the natural branches were "hid" in the ground."

Let us not forget that the allegory is about grafting into something rather than planting into just soil.

"The nature of the young and tender branches was that they grew in response to the less drastic original measures of the master of the vineyard. As was noted, they represent those who heard and headed the words of the prophets."

It is unclear where Mr. Gardner sees "prophets" mentioned in the parable as being those whom the young branches heeded to.

"The Book of Mormon also preserves the story of the Jaredites, who also fit the 'called out of Israel' model. Our current historical ability to list the Lehites, Jaredites, and the people of the Scrolls as types of these scattered branches suggests that they may have occurred at multiple times and in multiple locations."

For one thing, the Jaredites were not of the nation of Israel. Secondly, the Jaredites are said to arrived in America before the Lehites and the Mulekites. To Jared it was said, "And these are my thoughts upon the land which I shall give you for your inheritance; for it shall be a land choice above all other lands." (Ether 2:15; 9:20; 10:28; 13:2-3).

If one studies the characteristics of the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th branches, only the 4th branch was planted in "a good spot of ground; yea, even that which was choice unto me above all other parts of the land of my vineyard." (see verse 43).

The 4th branch is said to represent the Lehites.

14 - "And it came to pass that the Lord of the vineyard went his way, and hid the natural branches of the tame olive-tree in the nethermost parts of the vineyard, some in one and some in another, according to his will and pleasure."

Notice that the time frame of verse 14 is the future of verse 10.

How can you have the Gentile Christians grafted in after Christ's crucifixion when the young and tender branches (one of which is the Lehites) were grafted into another part of the world 600 years earlier? Do you understand the words of verse 14, "And it came to pass?"

"Not only do the servant and Lord of the vineyard seem somewhat surprised that the wild branches have borne fruit that is 'like unto the natural fruit' (Jacob 5:17), but this singular event did not last long."

Verse 17 says, "And it came to pass that the Lord of the vineyard looked and beheld the tree in the which the wild olive branches had been grafted; and it had sprung forth and begun to bear fruit. And he beheld that it was good; and the fruit thereof was like unto the natural fruit."

Where does one see a sense of surprise in this verse?

"In time the wild branches completely overran the roots and the tree became worthless (Jacob 5:37)."

Since the "roots" are said earlier to represent the covenants/promises of God, it is surprising that Mr. Gardner could believe that wicked men could overrun God's designs.

18 - "And he said unto the servant: Behold, the branches of the wild tree have taken hold of the moisture of the root thereof, that the root thereof hath brought forth much strength; and because of the much strength of the root thereof the wild branches have brought forth tame fruit. Now, if we had not grafted in these branches, the tree thereof would have perished. And now, behold, I shall lay up much fruit, which the tree thereof hath brought forth; and the fruit thereof I shall lay up against the season, unto mine own self."

"In more historical terms, the Lord is indicating that adoption of the gentiles into the Abrahamic covenant was an essential part of the preservation of the promises of the covenant."

Verse 18 is said to be a picture of the Gentiles being grafted in unto the church after Christ's ministry on earth.

Did you notice that verse 18 says that more than one person ("we") is involved in the grafting in of the wild olive branches whereas verses 9-10 has the Lord telling the servant to graft in the wild olive branches? To complicate matters, verse 34 has the servant saying that the Lord grafted in the wild olive branches. Do you notice the confusion between the Lord and the servant?

And verse 8 has only the Lord grafting in the natural olive branches in the nethermost parts of the world.

19 - "And it came to pass that the Lord of the vineyard said unto the servant: Come, let us go to the nethermost part of the vineyard, and behold if the natural branches of the tree have not brought forth much fruit also, that I may lay up of the fruit thereof against the season, unto mine own self."

Is the Lord unsure (if?) the branches have brought forth fruit? Or is his doubt directed to the the servant to ponder?

Notice that only the Lord and the servant are involved in the parable so far. Thus, "servant" cannot be used to identify "prophets." Just who is this servant involved in the pruning thus far?

"And it came to pass" shows that verse 19 happens after verse 18.

20 - "And it came to pass that they went forth whither the master had hid the natural branches of the tree, and he said unto the servant: Behold these; and he beheld the first that it had brought forth much fruit; and he beheld also that it was good. And he said unto the servant: Take of the fruit thereof, and lay it up against the season, that I may preserve it unto mine own self; for behold, said he, this long time have I nourished it, and it hath brought forth much fruit."

According to this, the Lord and the servant went where he had hid the branches in the nethermost parts of the vineyard.

Remember that this is after Christ's ministry on earth.

They come to the first branch first and the servant performs the labour of taking some fruit.

But The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches that after his resurrection, Jesus went to see the Nephites in America (the 4th branch).

Do you see the obvious problem with the timing?

Notice the words of the Lord, "this long time have I nourished it, and it hath brought forth much fruit."

When did the Lord ever nourish this first branch for a long time and how?

21 - "And it came to pass that the servant said unto his master: How comest thou hither to plant this tree, or this branch of the tree? For behold, it was the poorest spot in all the land of thy vineyard."

22 - "And the Lord of the vineyard said unto him: Counsel me not; I knew that it was a poor spot of ground; wherefore, I said unto thee, I have nourished it this long time, and thou beholdest that it hath brought forth much fruit."

"Even with our modern perspective, only the third location can be identified. While it is no help in identifying these other groups, the resurrected Savior did confirm that they exist. When Jesus comes to the Nephites at Bountiful he confirms that they are one of these special groups."

While Mr. Gardner feels that it may not help to identify branches 1-3, wouldn't it help to consider that the Lord visited the 1st branch before visiting the 4th one?

Assuming the Nephites arrived at Bountiful around 600 BC, were they still at Bountiful when Jesus is said to have visited them? Doesn't the Book of Mormon speak about an eventual migration west and then north with the building of ships?

If the Lord is Jesus Christ, then who is the servant He is speaking to in verse 22?

The LDS Church has identified the servants of verse 61 but not this particular servant here.

23 - "And it came to pass that the Lord of the vineyard said unto his servant: Look hither; behold I have planted another branch of the tree also; and thou knowest that this spot of ground was poorer than the first. But, behold the tree. I have nourished it this long time, and it hath brought forth much fruit; therefore, gather it, and lay it up against the season, that I may preserve it unto mine own self."

"And it came to pass" reveals that some time has passed. They behold the second branch and the same servant of the first branch labours with the second branch too to gather some fruit.

Once again, the Lord said that he nourished it for a long time.

Did you notice the error when comparing verses 21 and 23?

In verse 21, the servant says that the first branch was planted in the poorest spot in all the land of the vineyard. Why does verse 23 have the Master saying the servant knows the second branch was planted in a spot more poorer than the first when the servant did not know this but considered the first poorer than the second?

24 - "And it came to pass that the Lord of the vineyard said again unto his servant: Look hither, and behold another branch also, which I have planted; behold that I have nourished it also, and it hath brought forth fruit."

Now they behold the 3rd branch. It is odd that while the Lord has also nourished this branch for a long time, the servant does not perform any labor within it.

25 - "And he said unto the servant: Look hither and behold the last. Behold, this have I planted in a good spot of ground; and I have nourished it this long time, and only a part of the tree hath brought forth tame fruit, and the other part of the tree hath brought forth wild fruit; behold, I have nourished this tree like unto the others."

This last branch is through to represent the Lehites. Once again it is said that the Lord nourished it for a long time. Of all the four branches, only the 1st, 2nd, and 4th branches are said to have been nourished for a long time, even though verse 25 says the Lord nourished all the four alike.

Did the Lord of the vineyard only have the 4 transplanted natural branches plus the one tame olive tree in his vineyard to produce fruit?

The parable shows that only the Lord and the servant are active in the vineyard with the four branches up to this point. So how did the Lord nourish the fourth branch (the Nephites between 600 BC and approximately 433 AD) like the other 3 branches when verse 19 has the Lord and the servant visiting the 4 branches after the wild olive branches are grafted into the tame olive tree (verse 18)?

If the Nephites were nourished for about 1000 years (600 B.C. to 400 A.D.), do you see similar times of nourishment for the other 3 branches? And how about the mother tree? How long was it nourished for?

These verses also seem to imply that the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd branches were nourished for a long time before he even nourished the 4th branch. How is this implied? By the use of the words "And it came to pass" after the description of all the branches.

Or if the Lord nourished all the 4 branches at the same time, how did he do so?

It seems to indicate that the first branch was nourished already "this long time" before the wild olive branches were even grafted into the tame olive tree (verse 18).

It seems that the author is not only not concerned about the identity of the 3 branches, but he doesn't seem concerned about applying proper time frames to the parable.

It one wants to apply an identity to the fourth branch, then at least apply the correct timing of the parable.

"As was promised to Nephi, '1 Nephi 2:20 And inasmuch as ye shall keep my commandments, ye shall prosper, and shall be led to a land of promise; yea, even a land which I have prepared for you; yea, a land which is choice above all other lands." (this promise was also made with Lehi, see 2 Nephi 12:5)."

And this promise was made to Jared too, but he was not a branch of the house of Israel.

28 - "And it came to pass that the Lord of the vineyard and the servant of the Lord of the vineyard did nourish all the fruit of the vineyard."

At this point of the parable, it seems like the nation of Israel is not dealt with anymore. The 4 branches have been planted in the nethermost parts of the world and the Babylonian dispersion and the Roman destructions seems to be ignored in regards to the other inhabitants of the house of Israel.

29 - "And it came to pass that a long time had passed away, and the Lord of the vineyard said unto his servant: Come, let us go down into the vineyard, that we may labor again in the vineyard. For behold, the time draweth near, and the end soon cometh; wherefore, I must lay up fruit against the season, unto mine own self."

"In the allegory, the time that draws near is the time of the harvest. The allegorical time of the harvest is the last days."

The words "and it came to pass that a long time had passed away" now seems to be equated by Mr. Gardner as a period of at least 1,000+ years (assuming 1820 AD - 433 AD).

If we look back at the parable so far, verse 25 says that the four branches were nourished alike for a long time. Do you see any historical evidence of the Lord and the servant nourishing 4 branches alike for at least 1,000 years? The Lord (thought to be Jesus) is said to have come to the Lehites (the 4th branch) in a body of flesh and bones for about 3 days.

3 Nephi (15:20) - 3 Nephi (16:3) says that Jesus visited others too after the Lehites.

So, since the parable says that the 4th branch is the last branch (Jacob 5:25), are all these others not considered branches too since they are of the house of Israel? And what of those dispersed by the Roman destruction circa 70 AD? Are they not considered branches too?

30 - "And it came to pass that the Lord of the vineyard and the servant went down into the vineyard; and they came to the tree whose natural branches had been broken off, and the wild branches had been grafted in; and behold all sorts of fruit did cumber the tree."

"In this phase, the allegory describes the rise of modern Christianity in all of its diversity, a diversity that scholars are now finding reaches back to even the earliest days of the establishment of the church in the world, but certainly proliferating most greatly after the reformation movement."

Did you notice how the identity of the tree (which once used to represent the nation of Israel) has now been changed to Christianity?

31 -"And it came to pass that the Lord of the vineyard did taste of the fruit, every sort according to its number. And the Lord of the vineyard said: Behold, this long time have we nourished this tree, and I have laid up unto myself against the season much fruit."

Notice again that it is said that the Lord nourished this tree (Christianity?) for a long time (1,000+ years?).

The key thing to consider is what does it mean that the Lord nourished this tree alike (the terminology for branches 1-4 is the same) for a long time?

The Nephites are said to have their prophets from between 600 BC to about 433 AD (at least 1,000 years). If the tree (Christianity?) was nourished for a long time, why is it that the LDS Church teaches that they lost valid priesthood authority and Christianity became totally apostate shortly after the apostles died? Sounds like they were only nourished for about 100 years (let's assume 133 AD - 30 AD to make calculations simple).

Does 1,000 and 100 years sound like comparable periods of "this long time have we nourished this tree?"

32 - "But behold, this time it hath brought forth much fruit, and there is none of it which is good. And behold, there are all kinds of bad fruit; and it profiteth me nothing, notwithstanding all our labor; and now it grieveth me that I should lose this tree."

It was surprising that the author did not equate this to volume 1 of  "Joseph Smith - History of the Church" where he (Joseph Smith) is told to join none of the churches for they were all wrong and all their creeds were an abomination.

33 - "And the Lord of the vineyard said unto the servant: What shall we do unto the tree, that I may preserve again good fruit thereof unto mine own self?"

It is unclear whether the Lord lacks this knowledge or is just testing his servant.

34 - "And the servant said unto his master: Behold, because thou didst graft in the branches of the wild olive-tree they have nourished the roots, that they are alive and they have not perished; wherefore thou beholdest that they are yet good."

There is some confusion in verse 34 because the servant is saying that the master grafted in the wild olive branches. But when you take a look at verse 9, it was the master that told the servant to graft in the wild olive branches.

Here is a look at verse 9 again: "Take thou the branches of the wild olive-tree, and graft them in, in the stead thereof; and these which I have plucked off I will cast into the fire and burn them, that they may not cumber the ground of my vineyard."

Also notice that verse 34 says that the branches of the wild olive tree have nourished the roots.

But if the roots represent the Abrahamic covenant and the promises, wouldn't it be the Covenant that is nourishing the people instead of the other way around?

Another thing to consider is that the branches of this tree have produced all bad fruit ... and yet all this production of bad fruit has had the effect of nourishing the roots?

"The recurring theme of the allegory is the goodness of the roots. This is reiterated here. The covenant with God remains good, and remains in force. The root of our salvation is secure, it is our attempts to be fed by that covenant that have had mixed results in history."

Notice that Mr. Gardner's comments focus on the action of us ("we") being fed by that covenant ("the roots"). But the parable has it the other way around ... the branches have fed (nourished) the roots, not the roots feeding the branches. Big difference.

35 - "And it came to pass that the Lord of the vineyard said unto his servant: The tree profiteth me nothing, and the roots thereof profit me nothing so long as it shall bring forth evil fruit."

In verse 35, the Lord says that the Abrahamic covenant (the roots) is of no profit because it brings forth evil fruit.

How can the Abrahamic covenant produce evil fruit? Is not Satan the source of the evil fruit?

36 - "Nevertheless, I know that the roots are good, and for mine own purpose I have preserved them; and because of their much strength they have hitherto brought forth, from the wild branches, good fruit."

Verse 35 says that the root is of no profit for it brings forth evil fruit but here in verse 36 (as in verse 34), the root is profitable for it has brought forth good fruit.

Are you confused?  The root (the Covenant) produces evil fruit?

"The Abrahamic covenant is good, as it the message of the gospel delivered to all of the ancient prophets. Nevertheless, at this point in time the fruit of the tree is not "profitable." In spiritual terms, the result of having the gospel among mankind is not producing power to salvation. There may be good, there may be fruit with suitable appearance, but the final goal of the Lord of the vineyard remains unfulfilled. These forms of the gospel do not have the power to exalt."

If the tree is bad, the root is bad.

It seems like this is a reference to the belief that exaltation (becoming a god in LDS theology) is a mark of good fruit. Anything short of this final goal is a failure (bad fruit).

37 - "But behold, the wild branches have grown and have overrun the roots thereof; and because that the wild branches have overcome the roots thereof it hath brought forth much evil fruit; and because that it hath brought forth so much evil fruit thou beholdest that it beginneth to perish; and it will soon become ripened, that it may be cast into the fire, except we should do something for it to preserve it."

"The botanical description is that the wild branches have overrun the roots. The allegorical reference is to some aspect of the gentile grafting that has altered or perhaps diluted. the power of the root. With the root being the covenant, the overrunning of the root is some force that has made that covenant so that it is of lesser effect among mankind. The historical reference is the apostasy."

It seems like he is saying that wicked men were able to frustrate God's covenant to the point where is produced only bad fruit.

38 - "And it came to pass that the Lord of the vineyard said unto his servant: Let us go down into the nethermost parts of the vineyard, and behold if the natural branches have also brought forth evil fruit."

Why wouldn't the Lord and the servant see if the natural branches had brought forth good fruit instead?

In verses 30 and 38, it is recorded that both the Lord and the servant went down into the vineyard.

What exactly does going down into the vineyard really mean? Is it a physical visitation? Is it a physical visit in one instance, but non-physical in another? The parable seems to describe all visitations alike.

I don't think any commentary thus far has addressed this issue of the similiar types of visitations to the vineyard.

Who is the servant? Who is the Lord? How are they visiting all these different locations throughout the times mentioned?

39 - "And it came to pass that they went down into the nethermost parts of the vineyard. And it came to pass that they beheld that the fruit of the natural branches had become corrupt also; yea, the first and the second and also the last; and they had all become corrupt."

The Lord and the servant go down (how?, when?) into the nethermost parts of the vineyard and see that the first, second, third excluded?, and fourth branches have all become corrupt.

"In this trip to the nethermost parts of the orchard the branches in the poor, and poorer, soil have been disregarded. This visit is to the branches that had manifest two aspects, tame and wild. The end of the Book of Mormon has the Nephites in greater sin that the Lamanites. This is the time period alluded to in this allegorical visit."

Allegorical visit? All the visits made by the Lord and the servant are referred to as occuring in the same way. Are they all allegorical now instead of physical?

What is the time frame alluded to in this visit? Before 450 AD? When and how did the servant and the Lord make this visit?

Where in verse 39 does it mention that the trip is excludes a visit to the first and second branches? It says they went into the nethermost parts of the vineyard, not just the nethermost part.

40 - "And the wild fruit of the last had overcome that part of the tree which brought forth good fruit, even that the branch had withered away and died."

Here the focus is on the fourth branch. The branch withered away and died.

There is no mention of branches 1-3 withering away and dying. What happened to them?

Also, not all the Nephites and Lamanites died. Some of the Nephites became Lamanites and some of the Lamanites became Nephites.

This 4th branch (if indicative of the Nephites/Lamanites) did not wither away and die. The Lamanites (which included those Nephites that became evil) are taught to be the primary ancestors of the American Indians. Saying that the 4th branch produced corrupt fruit is one thing, but if this branch had withered away and died, then the LDS Church should change its teachings about who the American Indians are descended from.

"In this verse the historical event to which the allegorical overrunning refers is a literal, a military, overrunning. At the end of the Book of Mormon the people of Nephi are under serious attack. The attack by the Lamanites will be sufficient to destroy the Nephites, the analog of the branch that withered and died."

But it must be made clear that the branch is not only referring to the Nephites, but it includes both the Nephites and the Lamanites. They are the bad and good fruit of the same branch. Also, some Nephites became Lamanites, so technically not all the Nephites were destroyed.

41 - "And it came to pass that the Lord of the vineyard wept, and said unto the servant: What could I have done more for my vineyard?"

Is the Lord unsure or is he just testing the servant?

42 - "Behold, I knew that all the fruit of the vineyard, save it were these, had become corrupted. And now these which have once brought forth good fruit have also become corrupted; and now all the trees of my vineyard are good for nothing save it be to be hewn down and cast into the fire."

Why does verse 42 say that the Lord knew all the fruit had become corrupted when verse 38 says that he and the servant would go and see if the natural branches also brought forth evil fruit? Didn't he already know before going?

43 - "And behold this last, whose branch hath withered away, I did plant in a good spot of ground; yea, even that which was choice unto me above all other parts of the land of my vineyard."

"This is a specific reference to the Lehites, who are represented by the branches planted in the choice land."

As mentioned before, Lehi's descendants (the branch, not branches) did not all wither away and die.

How did the last branch wither away when the other 3 branches did not?

"The result of Lehite history is that the gospel did not continue, and that is the only reference here."

So the branch which withered away and died is now a reference to a gospel that disappeared?

44 - "And thou beheldest that I also cut down that which cumbered this spot of ground, that I might plant this tree in the stead thereof."

"Translated into history from the veiled terms of allegory, this is the only absolute reference to a population existing in the New World prior to the arrival of the Lehites. Just as Israel entered its promised land, and needed to "unencumber" their ground, so is it implied that the Lord has done the same for the Lehites. Of course we have no indication of how this clearing occurred."

It should be noted that Lehi and group fought no wars like Israel did when they are said to have come to their promised land.

"But every other part of the allegory of the Lehite 'branch' has had reference to a discernible historical fact."

As of yet, there is no historical reference to the Lord and the servant visiting branches 1 through 4 and who they are.

What spot of land is the Lord said to have cut down? Was it all of the American continent (north, central, and south)?

"Another possible reading of this verse is that all previous peoples will have died out, and that the reference is to the Jaredites. However, the Jaredites lasted until after the landing of the Lehites, and therefore were not cleared from the land for the planting of that branch of the house of Israel."

In the online version of the Book of Mormon, the word 'cumbered' is linked back to the destruction of the Jaredites.

Firstly, according to the Book of Mormon, the only Jaredite found surviving the great war was Coriantumr (Ether 15).

Secondly, let us not forget that branches 1-4 were grafted (into another existing civilization, which one?) as the wild olive branches were grafted into the tame olive tree. If branch 4 (the Lehite branch) was planted in a land where there were no inhabitants, then the analogy of "grafting" is inappropriate.

46 - "And now, behold, notwithstanding all the care which we have taken of my vineyard, the trees thereof have become corrupted, that they bring forth no good fruit; and these I had hoped to preserve, to have laid up fruit thereof against the season, unto mine own self. But, behold, they have become like unto the wild olive-tree, and they are of no worth but to be hewn down and cast into the fire; and it grieveth me that I should lose them."

Can a tame olive tree become a wild olive tree? What is 'the' (not 'a') wild olive-tree?

As of yet, we still do not know who the Lord and the servant are and how they have physically cared for the vineyard.

47 - "But what could I have done more in my vineyard? Have I slackened mine hand, that I have not nourished it? Nay, I have nourished it, and I have digged about it, and I have pruned it, and I have dunged it; and I have stretched forth mine hand almost all the day long, and the end draweth nigh. And it grieveth me that I should hew down all the trees of my vineyard, and cast them into the fire that they should be burned. Who is it that has corrupted my vineyard?"

Is the Lord unsure of who corrupted the vineyard or is he just testing the servant?

48 - "And it came to pass that the servant said unto his master: Is it not the loftiness of thy vineyard - have not the branches thereof overcome the roots which are good? And because the branches have overcome the roots thereof, behold they grew faster than the strength of the roots, taking strength unto themselves. Behold, I say, is not this the cause that the trees of thy vineyard have become corrupted?"

The bad branches (the evil ones) were able to prevail over God's covenant?

"While pride might be accounted as a problem with humanity it does not fit precisely with the image in this verse."

"The description of what is meant by the loftiness of the vineyard is given in the verse itself: "And because the branches have overcome the roots thereof, behold they grew faster than the strength of the roots, taking strength unto themselves."

Do you know of any plants that can grow faster than what the roots can provide to the plant?

Were the wicked ones really able to frustrate (overcome) the plans of God?

49 - "And it came to pass that the Lord of the vineyard said unto the servant: Let us go to and hew down the trees of the vineyard and cast them into the fire, that they shall not cumber the ground of my vineyard, for I have done all. What could I have done more for my vineyard?"

Is the Lord unsure of what more he could have done or is he just testing the servant?

52 - "Wherefore, let us take of the branches of these which I have planted in the nethermost parts of my vineyard, and let us graft them into the tree from whence they came; and let us pluck from the tree those branches whose fruit is most bitter, and graft in the natural branches of the tree in the stead thereof."

53 - "And this will I do that the tree may not perish, that, perhaps, I may preserve unto myself the roots thereof for mine own purpose."

"The event to which this refers is the gathering of Israel. The process of bringing scattered Israel back to the main roots is the image and reference. In the case of the Lamanites and Nephites, however there is an additional possibility, which is that the reason that this grafting will be beneficial is that the Book of Mormon comes as part of this re-grafting, and the words of those far flung branches of Israel will bring strength back to the original tree."

There are a few obvious problems with this interpretation.

If you study the interpretation of Jacob (5:10), the identity of the tame olive tree (Israel) was changed to Christianity (tame olive tree with grafted wild olive branches).

Now the branches (not only the 4th branch) from the the nethermost parts of the world are said to be grafted back into the tree from whence they came ... but this tree from whence they came is now the tame olive tree with the grafted wild olive branches.

Is it fair to alternate the identities of this important tree?

There is no mention of a Book of Mormon either. It should be noted that the Book of Mormon is basically a product of Manasseh's tribe, for there is no mentioned Ephraimite therein.

The initial part of the allegory dealt with branches (tribes?) of the nation Israel being taken away into other parts of the world. Is it not appropriate to believe that their grafting back in refers to those descendants of Israel coming back to the physical nation of Israel.

Where in the allegory do you see that a physical Israel has changed into a spiritual Israel? God still has promises for Israel and the Church.

54 - "And, behold, the roots of the natural branches of the tree which I planted whithersoever I would are yet alive; wherefore, that I may preserve them also for mine own purpose, I will take of the branches of this tree, and I will graft them in unto them. Yea, I will graft in unto them the branches of their mother tree, that I may preserve the roots also unto mine own self, that when they shall be sufficiently strong perhaps they may bring forth good fruit unto me, and I may yet have glory in the fruit of my vineyard."

"While the gathering of Israel is the event that is described by the image of the nethermost branches coming in to the main tree, the preaching of the gospel to all the world is the event imagined by the transferal of the branches from the main tree to the nethermost region."

It should be noted that the "main tree" is no longer the original tree. It has become the tame olive tree with the wild olive branch grafts. This tame olive tree (with the wild olive branches grafted in) did not change back into just being a tame olive tree).

55 - "And it came to pass that they took from the natural tree which had become wild, and grafted in unto the natural trees, which also had become wild."

56 - "And they also took of the natural trees which had become wild, and grafted into their mother tree."

Did the Israelites (the natural tree) become Gentiles (wild)?

What is your definition of what the tame and wild olive branches are?  If the tame olive tree was Israel, who was the wild olive tree?

58 - "And we will nourish again the trees of the vineyard, and we will trim up the branches thereof; and we will pluck from the trees those branches which are ripened, that must perish, and cast them into the fire."

59 - "And this I do that, perhaps, the roots thereof may take strength because of their goodness; and because of the change of the branches, that the good may overcome the evil."

Once again, what is the time frame of this? Who is "we" (the servant and the Lord) a reference to who will nourish again the trees of the vineyard (the world). Who is "we" who will trim up the branches and pluck away those who are ripened?

"The Lord justifies the destruction of the worst of the branches. This removal of the worst of the branches allows the strength of the root to concentrate on the more productive branches."

This is not what the verse seems to describe. It is saying that the strength of the roots (the Covenant) increased in strength when the perishing branches were removed.

60 - "And because that I have preserved the natural branches and the roots thereof, and that I have grafted in the natural branches again into their mother tree, and have preserved the roots of their mother tree, that, perhaps, the trees of my vineyard may bring forth again good fruit; and that I may have joy again in the fruit of my vineyard, and, perhaps, that I may rejoice exceedingly that I have preserved the roots and the branches of the first fruit."

But verses 55-56 say that the natural branches were not preserved because the trees had become wild.

61 - "Wherefore, go to, and call servants, that we may labor diligently with our might in the vineyard, that we may prepare the way, that I may bring forth again the natural fruit, which natural fruit is good and the most precious above all other fruit."

62 - "Wherefore, let us go to and labor with our might this last time, for behold the end draweth nigh, and this is for the last time that I shall aprune my vineyard."

After all this time, the Lord finally instructs the servant to go and call other servants to labour in the vineyard.

But once again, who is the servant that calls the other servants? And how do they all labour (with the Lord) in the vineyard?

"Verse 62 clarifies that these events are related to the last days. Verse 61 calls in other servants to assist in the task of this final gathering together. These are the missionaries on the latter day, both those called formally and those whose efforts effect missionary work without the formal calling."

So, if "servants" = "missionaries", who is the "servant" calling these missionaries? According to the parable, the servant is on the earth together with the servants. Who is the servant?

"These verses also refer to the "natural fruit." In other parts of the allegory, the fruit may be good or useful, but is not described as "natural."

Sure it is. While the word "natural fruit" is not specifically used up to this point so far, it is implied. Just re-read verse 61 carefully. "Wherefore, go to, and call servants, that we may labor diligently with our might in the vineyard, that we may prepare the way, that I may bring forth again the natural fruit."

"Again" infers that natural fruit was brought forth before.

See also verse 75. "I have preserved the natural fruit, that it is good, even like it was in the beginning."

"While the "natural" fruit is certainly good, there appears to be a greater meaning here, as this natural fruit is better than any other. In this context, it is the gospel truly understood and lived."

The natural fruit is now said to represent the gospel truly understood and lived.

63 - "Graft in the branches; begin at the last that they may be first, and that the first may be last, and dig about the trees, both old and young, the first and the last; and the last and the first, that all may be nourished once again for the last time."

"In this case, the last and first refer to the time periods of the grafting attempts. The last to occur was the grafting in of the wild branches to the main tree, or the preaching of the gospel to the gentiles. The first would have to be the natural branches sent to the farther reaches, or the "lost" of Israel including (but not limited to) the Lamanites."

It should be worth noting that the last to occur was not the grafting in of the wild branches to the main tree.

The grafting of the wild olive branches into the main (tame olive) tree is the first time period (see verses 9-10). After this first graft, the modified tree undergo's the Lord's nourishment and pruning.

A period of time passes and the Lord of the vineyard then went and hid the natural branches of the tame olive tree in the nethermost parts of the vineyard (see verse 14).

"The gospel is therefore to come to the world through the gentiles, and the gathering is to bring Israel in to the church which will be a combination of the Jew and the Gentile."

But this event happened after Christ's ministry.

Notice again how the allegory is interpreted to change the identity of the main tree from once being the nation of Israel into the Church.

"While this allegory clearly invokes the Lamanite/Nephite story from the Book of Mormon, it does not clearly describe the Restoration. We have the result of the Restoration in the missionary work to the world, but there is no part of the allegory that can describe the Restoration through Joseph Smith."

No part? But just earlier it was said, "The gathering is to bring Israel in to the church which will be a combination of the Jew and the Gentile."

Who but the movement started by Joseph Smith's Restoration is said to be bringing this to pass?

It must be noted that the central theme of Mormon missionaries sent throughout the world is that of a Restored Gospel. This Restoration is said to have begun by Joseph Smith.

If it is really believed that no part of this allegory describes the Restoration through Joseph Smith, we may have to throw away all the accolades mentioned at the beginning as well as the restorative efforts of the servants (Mormon missionaries?) of verse 61.

And what is to be done with the introductory notes in the Book of Mormon of Jacob chapter 5.

They say, "The scattering and gathering of Israel are prefigured. Gentiles shall be grafted into Israel".

Is there no part of Jacob's allegory that describes Joseph Smith's restoration movement?

"In terms of the allegory, this would be a grafting of the root (pure gospel) onto wild branch (gentile - not genetically related to the covenant) in the nethermost reaches of the vineyard."

Here, "root" is said to represent the pure gospel.

But it should be worth noting that in the allegory, it is the branches that are being grafted, not the roots.

"The allegory as written, functions completely without any need for a Restoration. Of course this does not suggest that there was no Restoration, but rather that the perspective and concerns of an ancient author would have produced the emphasis on the gathering, but not been interested in the Restoration that would have preceded it."

Say what?

There can be no gathering without a restoration preceeding it.

Joseph Smith's teachings about the gathering only occured when the Restoration was first introduced. See Doctrine and Covenants (57:1-2; 59:1; 101:20,70-71).

Joseph Smith taught the gathering to Missouri is a heavenly commandment, and is one of the main responsibilities of elders as they preach the gospel:

"And first, it becomes an Elder when he is traveling through the world, warning the inhabitants of the earth to gather together, that they may be built up an holy city unto the Lord. In speaking of the gathering, we mean to be understood as speaking of it according to scripture, the gathering of the elect of the Lord out of every nation on earth, and bringing them to the place of the Lord of Hosts, when the city of righteousness shall be built, and where the people shall be of one heart and one mind, when the Savior comes" (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pages 85, 92).

65 - "And as they begin to grow ye shall clear away the branches which bring forth bitter fruit, according to the strength of the good and the size thereof; and ye shall not clear away the bad thereof all at once, lest the roots thereof should be too strong for the graft, and the graft thereof shall perish, and I lose the trees of my vineyard."

How would the strength of the roots (the pure gospel, the Covenant) cause the graft to perish and the trees to be lost?

Is the individual who wrote this parable serious?

"The process will be the cross-grafting of the Gentiles with the gathered of Israel, and as that process proceeds, there will be a selective destruction of some of the competing branches."

But earlier it was said that there is no part of the allegory that can describe the Restoration through Joseph Smith.

Aren't the Latter-day Saints said to be carrying on the process of the restoration started by Joseph Smith?

"While this may be the destruction of the wicked in the last days, it appears to be more directly related to a pruning of the branches of Christianity and Judaism."

It should be worth noting that verses 62-65 is speaking about the pruning of the trees in various parts of the vineyard. Has the identity of the trees now been changed from representing nations (civilizations) to religions (Christianity and Judaism)?

What of the trees (religions?) of Islam and Hinduism?

Does Mr. Gardner believe that Christianity is one branch (or tree?) and Judaism is another branch (or tree)?

66 - "For it grieveth me that I should lose the trees of my vineyard; wherefore ye shall clear away the bad according as the good shall grow, that the root and the top may be equal in strength, until the good shall overcome the bad, and the bad be hewn down and cast into the fire, that they cumber not the ground of my vineyard; and thus will I sweep away the bad out of my vineyard."

The root is said to represent the gospel (Covenant). The "top" was said to represent "the leadership of Israel, those who maintain the status quo" (see interpretation of verse 6).

Why do you need to keep the root and the top equal in strength? Can't the root support one church and its members just as easily as it can support a hundred churches?

67 - "And the branches of the natural tree will I graft in again into the natural tree;"

68 - "And the branches of the natural tree will I graft into the natural branches of the tree; and thus will I bring them together again, that they shall bring forth the natural fruit, and they shall be one."

Will the branches (once natural, who then became wild) then become tame again and then be grafted into the natural tree?

69 - "And the bad shall be cast away, yea, even out of all the land of my vineyard; for behold, only this once will I prune my vineyard."

"The Lord of the vineyard has conscientiously avoided wholesale pruning up to this point. This is the destruction of the wicked at the beginning of the millennium. and it is continued through the end of the Millennium as the final act of this earth. This final destruction of the wicked is the only time that the Lord will actually destroy the wicked."

If you study a revelation by Joseph Smith, the wicked people to be destroyed are those who do not inherit eternal life (see
Doctrine and Covenants 29:27-28; 101:65-66).  An article about eternal life in the Basic Beliefs section can be read at the conclusion of this analysis.

70 - "And it came to pass that the Lord of the vineyard sent his servant; and the servant went and did as the Lord had commanded him, and brought other servants; and they were few."

"Even the impressive numbers of the modern LDS missionary force are still few when compared to the numbers to whom they are sent."

So, if "servants" represent actual LDS missionaries on earth, who is the servant on earth?

Earlier it was said that no part of the allegory describes the Restoration through Joseph Smith. But these LDS missionaries bring the message of a Restored gospel through Joseph Smith.

Think of a mathematical equation ... if A=B and B=C then A=C.

71 - "And the Lord of the vineyard said unto them: Go to, and labor in the vineyard, with your might. For behold, this is the last time that I shall nourish my vineyard; for the end is nigh at hand, and the season speedily cometh; and if ye labor with your might with me ye shall have joy in the fruit which I shall lay up unto myself against the time which will soon come."

72 - "And it came to pass that the servants did go and labor with their mights; and the Lord of the vineyard labored also with them; and they did obey the commandments of the Lord of the vineyard in all things."

"The Lord specifically gives the charge to the servants. The missionary force is sent at the direction of the father to accomplish his work in the gathering of his children."

Is the Lord of the vineyard = Heavenly Father?

When did Heavenly Father ever labour in the vineyard with the servant?

73 - "And there began to be the natural fruit again in the vineyard; and the natural branches began to grow and thrive exceedingly; and the wild branches began to be plucked off and to be cast away; and they did keep the root and the top thereof equal, according to the strength thereof."

Similar comment about keeping the root and the top equal in strength.

74 - "And thus they labored, with all diligence, according to the commandments of the Lord of the vineyard, even until the bad had been cast away out of the vineyard, and the Lord had preserved unto himself that the trees had become again the natural fruit; and they became like unto one body; and the fruits were equal; and the Lord of the vineyard had preserved unto himself the natural fruit, which was most precious unto him from the beginning."

Notice here that all the fruits were equal.  Recall what 'fruit' was meant to represent.

"The original Abrahamic covenant produces God's peculiar (his very own) people, and the benefits of the covenant produce children capable of exaltation."

It seems that natural fruit is a reference to those who become exalted (who become gods). The wicked fruits (the non-gods) are cast away as previously shown.

76 - "For behold, for a long time will I lay up of the fruit of my vineyard unto mine own self against the season, which speedily cometh; and for the last time have I nourished my vineyard, and pruned it, and dug about it, and dunged it; wherefore I will lay up unto mine own self of the fruit, for a long time, according to that which I have spoken."

"The laying up of the fruit "for a long time" refers to the Millennium during which Satan is bound."

The period "for a long time" is said to represent 1,000 years.

Now go back in this parable and search for the words "long time" and see if a time frame of 1,000 years applies to them.

"The basic structure of the allegory breaks down into four easily remembered pieces. We start with a single tree, from root to branch.  In the second phase, branches are removed and placed in a separate location. In the third phase, wild branches are grafted in to the main tree, and the final phase has the reuniting of all pieces into a single tree."

Does the reuniting of all the pieces into a single tree represent the gathering in of people into the nation of Israel (as this is how it started in the first place) or is the allegory the gathering of people into the Church?  It starts with the dispersing of the nation.  Does it end with the gathering of something different?

Do you mix and match the identity of the branches and the trees?

"Jacob's excursion into Zenos' allegory is specifically to answer a question he has posited: "Jacob 4:17 And now, my beloved, how is it possible that these, after having rejected the sure foundation, can ever build upon it, that it may become the head of their corner? How can we be reconciled to God through Jesus Christ? Remain attached long enough to our roots, the scriptural heritage revealed by the God of Israel."

Let us take a look at Jacob (4:15-18).

"And now I, Jacob, am led on by the Spirit unto prophesying; for I perceive by the workings of the Spirit which is in me, that by the stumbling of the Jews they will reject the stone upon which they might build and have safe foundation. But behold, according to the scriptures, this stone shall become the great, and the last, and the only sure foundation, upon which the Jews can build. And now, my beloved, how is it possible that these, after having rejected the sure foundation, can ever build upon it, that it may become the head of their corner? Behold, my beloved brethren, I will unfold this mystery unto you; if I do not, by any means, get shaken from my firmness in the Spirit, and stumble because of my over anxiety for you."

This now continues to Jacob (5:1-2).

"Behold, my brethren, do ye not remember to have read the words of the prophet Zenos, which he spake unto the house of Israel, saying: Hearken, O ye house of Israel, and hear the words of me, a prophet of the Lord."

Jacob chapter 4 concludes by referring to the Jews and chapter 5 speaks about the house of Israel.

It is believed by some that the Lehites (the Nephites/Lamanites through the ancestor Lehi) are not Jews (Jews being the tribes of Judah and Benjamin).  So it seems that the allegory is an answer to how the Jews (and not the Nephites nor Lamanites) could reject their Messiah and then later accept him again.

It is puzzling why this allegory is not also directly an answer to the non-Jews who are believed to have arrived on the American continent. Did they not also reject Christ as Saviour too?

Are we unfit to decipher this Mormon parable of the vineyard?  Or is it just a product of someone other than God?