Blog

1 Nephi 3:3 

3 For behold, Laban hath the record of the Jews and also a genealogy of my forefathers, and they are engraven upon plates of brass.

There was nothing unusual about Laban’s having family records. What was unusual was that they were written on brass plates, and that they apparently included the national history as well as the sacred writings. What is even more impressive is that they had survived the religious purge conducted during king Manasseh’s (Hezekiah’s son) long reign when he desecrated the Temple and made the worship of Baal the state religion. How effective that king’s purge of Jehovah-worship had been is indicated by the response of his grandson king Josiah to the scroll the workers found in the Temple when they were renovating it (2 Kings 23:1-3).

The fact that the plates were made of brass may tell us something of their history and importance. Some scholars have suggested that rather than brass, the plates were made of bronze, which was much more common. Bronze is an alloy of copper and about 10% tin. The tin makes the copper very hard and easy to cast into weapons or works of art.{1} However, when zinc is added to copper, it produces the golden colored brass from which Lehi said the plates of Laban were made. Sorenson has shown that the plates may have been brass.

Within the last few years, however, some ancient artifacts from the Mediterranean area have been tested by more sophisticated scientific techniques than before, and the tests reveal that actual brass, with zinc in it, was in use among the Etruscans, probably as early as Lehi’s time. That means that perhaps the brass plates of Lehi’s day are neither an anomaly of culture history nor an oddity of linguistic labeling, but of the literal metal.{2}

Apart from the unusual material from which they were made, an intriguing thing about the plates is the way Lehi described their content. He never refers to them as the plates of the tribe of Manasseh. Indeed, Joseph’s son Manasseh is not even mentioned by Lehi, and it is not until we learn Amulek’s genealogy in Alma 10:1-3 that we find that Lehi was of the tribe of Manasseh. Rather, both Lehi and Nephi write that the genealogy on the plates shows that they are descended from Joseph of Egypt. Nephi tells us the brass plates contained.

14 And it came to pass that my father, Lehi, also found upon the plates of brass a genealogy of his fathers; wherefore he knew that he was a descendant of Joseph; yea, even that Joseph who was the son of Jacob” (1 Nephi 5:14).

Lehi’s interest is focused on Joseph, and he does not mention either of Joseph’s sons. There is probably a very good reason for this. Manasseh was Joseph’s oldest son. Consequently, except for the instance of the patriarchal blessing he received from his grandfather (Genesis 48:12-22), Manasseh had every right belonging to the birthright son. One would expect, then, that the official family history and royal regalia would have been passed down through the sons of Manasseh, and represented the birthright of Manasseh’s distinguished father Joseph—and that is just how Lehi describes them. Nephi goes further, and leaves us asking some very intriguing questions. He writes,

10 And after they had given thanks unto the God of Israel, my father, Lehi, took the records which were engraven upon the plates of brass, and he did search them from the beginning.
11 And he beheld that they did contain the five books of Moses, which gave an account of the creation of the world, and also of Adam and Eve, who were our first parents;
12 And also a record of the Jews from the beginning, even down to the commencement of the reign of Zedekiah, king of Judah” (1Nephi 5:11-12).

In another place Nephi explains what he meant by the phrase, ‘from the beginning’:

20 And also… the words which have been spoken by the mouth of all the holy prophets, which have been delivered unto them by the Spirit and power of God, since the world began, even down unto this present time (1 Nephi 3:20).

If the brass plates were the family record of Joseph, or even a permanent copy of that family record, then it does not take a very great stretch of the imagination to guess that they might have been passed down from Joseph’s great-grandfather Abraham, and if that, perhaps from his forefathers as well. We get an idea of the broad range of time covered by the writings on the brass plates when another Nephi tells the people about the extensive prophetic testimonies of the Savior (Helaman 8:16-20). There we learn that the plates not only contained the writings of Moses and Abraham, but also of “many before the days of Abraham.”

That would make the brass plates one of the great treasures of the very ancient past—the sort of treasure one would expect to find only in the custody of a birthright prince. All that circumstantial evidence invites one to conclude that Laban, who possessed the history and genealogy of the house of Manasseh, was actually the prince of the tribe of Manasseh.

————————————-

FOOTNOTES

{1} “Weapons and Implements of War,” in The interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, 5 vols., Nashville, Abingdon Press, 1990 ), 4:821.

{2} John L. Sorenson, An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City and Provo: Deseret Book Co., Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1985), 283.

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

1 Nephi 2:20-22 

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.
21 And inasmuch as thy brethren shall rebel against thee, they shall be cut off from the presence of the Lord.
22 And inasmuch as thou shalt keep my commandments, thou shalt be made a ruler and a teacher over thy brethren.

“Prosper in the land” is one of those key phrases in the Book of Mormon that was frequently employed by its authors to convey an obvious message, but also a sacred, unspoken one. The obvious meaning is something akin to a rich harvest. The encoded meaning of the phrase is clarified here where it is first used. The opposite of prospering has nothing to do with a poor crop harvest. Rather, the opposite of “prosper” is to “be cut off from the presence of the Lord,” so to “prosper” is to be brought into the presence of the Lord. “Land” also has two meanings, one is the land of promise (America) to which the Nephites would come. The encoded meaning is the same as “earth” in the promise that “the meek shall inherit the earth.” That is clarified in D&C 88:17-20, which says that to inherit the earth means to “be crowned with glory, even with the presence of God the Father.”

The importance of the Lord’s promise to Nephi is emphasized by its frequent use by other prophets who employed the phrase the same way.{1} One of the most interesting uses of that phrase is in Zeniff’s short autobiography.

And I did cause that the men should till the ground, and raise all manner of grain and all manner of fruit of every kind. And I did cause that the women should spin, and toil, and work, and work all manner of fine linen, yea, and cloth of every kind, that we might clothe our nakedness; and thus we did prosper in the land–thus we did have continual peace in the land for the space of twenty and two years (Mosiah 10:4-5).

Perhaps the earliest use of “prosper” to mean being in the presence of the Lord is found in Elohim’s blessing to the king, in Psalm 45.{2} There the word “prosperously” includes the promise of the earthly and eternal successes of the king’s reign. It was probably no coincidence that the Lord chose to use the word “prosper” when he spoke the blessing that promised Nephi’s eternal kingship.

—————————————
FOOTNOTES
{1} Other examples are 2 Nephi 1:9, 1:20, 4:4; Enos 10; Jarom 9-10; Omni 6; Alma 9:13; 36:1; 37:13; 48:25; 50:20; 3 Nephi 5:22; 4 Nephi 18;and Ether 2:7-10.

{2} For a discussion of the king’s premortal blessing and the meaning of “prosper” see Who Shall Ascend into the Hill of the Lord, First edition, p. 259-90; Second edition, p. 188-206.

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

1 Nephi 2:19 

19 And it came to pass that the Lord spake unto me, saying: Blessed art thou, Nephi, because of thy faith, for thou hast sought me diligently, with lowliness of heart.

“Faith” is one of those scriptural code words that was never intended to be a code word.

In the New Testament, “faith” is translated from the Greek word pistis,{1} which is all about making and keeping covenants. In Paul’s time, pistis was not a religious term .{2} It was used either as a diplomatic word that had to do with making a treaty, or else as an economic term that had to do with securing the validity of a contract.{3} The closest modern English equivalent in meaning is probably “contract”— a legally binding contract.

Friedrich’s ten volume Theological Dictionary of the New Testament has more than 40 pages discussing pistis and related Greek words. In his primary definition of pistis, Friedrich wrote:

Stress is often laid on the fact that this is a higher endowment than wealth. … Concretely pistis means the “guarantee” which creates the possibility of trust, that which may be relied on, or the assurance of reliability, “assurance’. … pistis is the “oath of fidelity,” “the pledge of faithfulness,” “security.” This leads on the one side to the sense of “certainty,” “trustworthiness,” on the other to that of “means of proof,” “proof.” In particular pistis denotes the reliability of persons, “faithfulness.” It belongs especially to friendship.{4}

Much of the remainder of Friedrich’s definition shows the chronology of the evolution of the word’s meaning. He begins by giving the classic definition of pistis as the intent of the contract and the evidence upon which trust is based. Then he shows how that meaning has changed over the years. Early Christians shifted the focus of pistis to a religious term, and in time reduced it to mean simply believing without any further reference to either the covenant, its object, or its evidence. Consequently, in today’s common usage the meaning of “faith” often slides along a continuum that ranges from wishing hard to just anticipating without any substantiating covenant to support the anticipation.

Because our most common meaning for “faith” tends to be entirely different from the way the authors of the New Testament used pistis, when we read “faith” in the scriptures we may superimpose our own meaning onto the scriptural text and miss the author’s intent altogether. Paul defined pistis with succinct precision when he wrote:

11 Now pistis [our Bible translation reads “faith”] is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen (Hebrews 11:1).

The closest English equivalent to pistis is “contract.” Just as with a legal contract, there are five parts of Paul’s definition of pistis. Three are stated. Two are implied because they are obviously so necessary that they are simply presupposed.

1. (presupposed by Paul) There must be a covenant or contract that defines the agreement and the methodology by which it will be accomplished.
2. There must be a mutually understood “substance,” that is the object, objective, purpose, assurance, or intent of the covenant.
3. There must be binding “evidence” (a handshake, signature, or appropriate other token or tokens{5} ) that validates the agreement and guarantees the fulfillment of the covenant.
4. The next is a functional “hope.” That is, taking the covenant at full value and acting or living as though the terms of the covenant were already fulfilled.
5. (implied by Paul) Finally, the conclusion or fulfillment of the terms of the covenant.

Pistis (faith)always indicates such a covenant and the covenantal process—whether formal and explicit, or informal and implicit— because a covenant is the foundation of pistis. Were it not for the covenant, “faith” would only be acting on prior experience, or just wishing. But with the covenant “faith” is power.{6}

—————————

FOOTNOTES

{1} For a discussion of “faith” as pistis see Who Shall Ascend into the Hill of the Lord, First edition, p. 1007-24; Second edition, p. 696-721.

{2} New Testament writers often avoided using in-vogue religious terms when teaching the new gospel. LDS missionaries do the same. For example, in the South, missionaries avoid using the phrase “born again.” That is a powerful and very important scriptural concept, but it is a phrase Mormons cannot use when doing missionary work in the Southern States because the Baptists and others have already defined it their way. If Mormon missionaries used that phrase when speaking to those people, “born again” would be understood according to the hearer’s prior learning, and unless the missionary laboriously redefined it, his words would be understood according to their usage, so when Mormons discuss being “born again” we speak of becoming a son or daughter of God.

{3} “The words [beginning with] pist– did not become religious terms in classical Greek. . . . Nor did pistis become a religious term. At most one can only say that the possibility of its so doing is intimated by the fact that it can refer to reliance on a god.” (Gerhard Friedrich, ed., trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, 10 vols. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1964-1976), article about pistis, 6:179.

{4} Friedrich, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, 6:177. In the text pistis is written in Greek letters. In this quote pistis is written in italics. In the second to last sentence emphasis is added.

{5} Nibley completes the story:

These five things you have asked me about (the Lord tells the apostles after his resurrection, in the Kephalaia) appear very small and unimportant to the world, but they are really a very great and holy thing. I will teach you the mysteries now. These tokens (semeia) go back to the ordinances of the first man, Adam himself. He brought them with him when he came out of the garden of Eden, and having completed his struggle upon the earth, he mounted up by these very same signs and was received again into the Aeons of Light. The person who receives these becomes a Son. He both gives and receives the signs and the tokens of the God of truth, while demonstrating the same to the Church–all in hopes that some day these things may become a reality. So the apostles realized that these things are but forms and types, yet you can’t do without them. You cannot do without analogues. For us they may only be symbols, but they must be done here, the Lord says. They may be but symbols here, but they are indispensable steps to the attainment of real power. “In fact,” say the Pistis Sophia, “without the mysteries one loses one’s power. Without the ordinances, one has no way of controlling matter, for such control begins with the control of one’s self. The ordinances provide the very means and the discipline by which light operates on material things. “You don’t understand this now,” it continues, “but your level, or taxis, in the next world will depend on the ordinances you receive in this world. Whoever receives the highest here will understand the whys and the wherefores of the great plan.” “You can’t understand it now, but you will. Your faith is being tested here. It is through the ordinances that one makes this progress in knowledge, so that those who receive all available ordinances and teachings here shall pass by all the intermediate topoi and shall not have to give the answers and signs, nor stand certain tests hereafter.” (Hugh Nibley, Temple and Cosmos, 310-311)

{6} For a discussion of faith as pistis see “Meaning of ‘Faith’ — Pistis” Who Shall Ascend into the Hill of the Lord, first edition, 1007-25; second edition, 697-710.
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

1 Nephi 2:19-22  

19 And it came to pass that the Lord spake unto me, saying: Blessed art thou, Nephi, because of thy faith, for thou hast sought me diligently, with lowliness of heart.
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.
21 And inasmuch as thy brethren shall rebel against thee, they shall be cut off from the presence of the Lord.
22 And inasmuch as thou shalt keep my commandments, thou shalt be made a ruler and a teacher over thy brethren.

These verses contain the Lord’s commission to Nephi to “be a ruler and a teacher”—a king and a priest—to bless his people. In a way that Nephi understood perfectly, the whole legitimacy of the kings and prophets of the Book of Mormon rests on the authenticity of that commission.

In our time, when most people have never encountered a king except in a book, or in the movies, the word “king” evokes an image that tends to focus on an imaginary spectrum that reaches from wicked king John who fought brave Robin Hood on one end, or, to the other extreme, modern constitutional monarchs who some think are more decorative than useful.

But an ancient Israelite king was someone quite different from anything, anywhere along that imaginary spectrum. Kings like David and Solomon, who were the ruling monarchs of Israel, were, first of all, representatives of God. As such, a king was legitimatized by being an adopted “son” of God.{1} He was not just the “head of state,” he was the state personified.{2} His decrees were the only legislation; his power was the only executive authority. His private army enforced local law and protected the nation from outside enemies. His wisdom was the nation’s supreme court.{3} In religious matters, he was a prophet{4} and the nation’s highest High Priest.{5} The easiest way to understand the meaning of “righteous king” is to examine the multiple roles of King Benjamin in the Book of Mormon.

A reason why the Lord’s declaration was so important to Nephi and his posterity was that it established Nephi’s dynastic legitimacy. In ancient Israel, it was understood that the king was the representative of Jehovah in this world, and that his legitimacy rested on two necessary propositions: First, that he had been foreordained in the Council in Heaven to be king when he came to this world. Second, that, through appropriate ordinances, he be formally adopted as the son and heir of God. That was shown to be so during the Jewish temple drama of the Feast of Tabernacles.{6}

In an established dynasty, that heirship was presumed to belong to the oldest son. But when a dynasty failed, the new king had to give evidence that he had been foreordained to create a new dynasty. When Saul and his heirs were displaced by David, the Old Testament authors went to great lengths to demonstrate that David’s new dynasty was legitimate, that he was designated by God to be Israel’s king, anointed by the prophet, and that he represented Jehovah as his son and heir in Israel.

During the first Temple period, the Jewish Kings based their legitimacy on the fact that they were descended from David and could claim the Lord’s covenant with David for themselves.{7} The same concept held in the Book of Mormon, but these people were descendants of Joseph, not of Judah, so the legitimacy of their dynasty must rest on the covenant the Lord had made with Nephi. That covenant is found in the Lord’s words, “And it came to pass that the Lord spake unto me, saying: Blessed art thou, Nephi, because of thy faith, …And inasmuch as thou shalt keep my commandments, thou shalt be made a ruler [king] and a teacher [priest] over thy brethren” (1 Nephi 2:19-22).

In the Book of Mormon, we see Nephi initiating a new dynasty that will last a thousand years. During those years, Nephi’s descendants will first be kings; then Chief Judge and President of the Church (Mormon makes a point of saying that he and Alma were descendents of Nephi); and finally, after the Savior came, they were the prophets who led the Church. Throughout Nephite history, almost every important leader was a direct descendent of Nephi.

Everything is done in order, so ultimately both the Lord’s kingship covenants with David and Nephi are rooted in the blessings of Abraham (see Psalms 47 and 105). Their heirs must show their family ties to the founding king—to David and to Judah; or to Nephi and to Joseph—to claim the patriarchal blessing which Jacob gave to his sons along with their attendant promises of kingship. (Genesis 49) Then through Jacob to Abraham and priesthood “after the order of Melchizedek.” (Psalms 110).
—————————-

FOOTNOTES

{1} “Son” is the royal new name given by God to the king in Psalm 2. And as Koester observed, “I will be his Father and he will be my Son. The quotation is from 2 Sam 7:14 (LXX), the oracle in which Nathan told David that God would establish a Davidic dynasty.” (Craig R. Koester, The Anchor Bible, Hebrews (New York, Doubleday, 2001), 191-92.

{2} Carlo Zaccagnini, “Sacred and Human Components in Ancient Near Eastern Law,” in History of Religions (33:3, February 1994), 265-286.For a discussion of the Israelite government of the Old Testament, see Stuart A. Cohen, “Kings, Priests, and Prophets, Patterns of Constitutional Discourse and Constitutional Conflict in Ancient Israel,” in Zvi Gitelman, The Quest for Utopia, Jewish Political Ideas and Institutions through the Ages (Armonk, New York, M.E. Sharpe, Inc., 1992), 17-40.

{3} “Judge,” here, implies something like a supreme court rather than “judge” in the sense that Sampson or Deborah were judges. “Like Egyptian kings, Israel’s kings served as the final arbiter in judicial matters (2 Samuel 14:4-20; 1 Kings 3:16-28; 2 Kings 6:26-29.” James K Hoffmeier “From Pharaoh to Israel’s Kings To Jesus,” in Bible Review (13/2, June 1997), 47.
For a discussion of Israel’s king as judge, see Aubrey R. Johnson, “Hebrew Conceptions of Kingship,” in S. H. Hooke, ed., Myth, Ritual, and Kingship (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1958), 206-207. For a discussion of Israel’s pre-dynastic judges see, G. W. Ahlstrom, History of Religions (8:2, Nov. 1968), 94-99.

{4} For a discussion of David’s use of the Urim and Thummim, both before and after his anointing as king, see Cornelis Van Dam, The Urim and Thummim (Winona Lake, Indiana, Eisenbrauns, 1997), 187-188, 247-250.

{5} Two examples of the king acting as High Priest are: (1) David’s officiating at the sacrifice and pronouncing a blessing upon the people in the name of the Lord in 2 Kings chapter 6; and (2) Hezekiah’s taking the letter of the Assyrians into the Holy of Holies, kneeling before the throne of cherubims and showing it to the Lord, in 2 Kings 19:14-20. “And Hezekiah received the letter of the hand of the messengers, and read it: and Hezekiah went up into the house of the Lord, and spread it before the Lord. And Hezekiah prayed before the Lord, and said, O Lord God of Israel, which dwellest between the cherubims, thou art the God, even thou alone, of all the kingdoms of the earth: thou hast made heaven and earth.” (v. 14-15) For a discussion of the king as High Priest see, Aubrey R. Johnson, “Hebrew Conceptions of Kingship,” in S. H. Hooke, ed., Myth, Ritual, and Kingship (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1958), 211-214. Geo Widengren, “King and Covenant” in Journal of Semitic Studies, vol. II, no. I, 1957, is about the ancient Israelite king’s function as a high priest and mediator of the covenant. “The Davidic dynasty acted as the true heirs of the ancient king of Jerusalem, Melchizedek, at once priest and king.” Sigmund Mowinckel, He that Cometh (New York: Abingdon Press, 1954), 75.

{6} See the chapter “Psalm 2, The Ancient Israelite Royal King-name” in Who Shall Ascend into the Hill of the Lord. First edition, p. 499-516; Second edition, p. 360-373.

{7} “I will be his Father and he will be my Son. The quotation is from 2 Sam 7:14 (LXX), the oracle in which Nathan told David that God would establish a Davidic dynasty.” (Craig R. Koester, The Anchor Bible, Hebrews [New York, Doubleday, 2001], 191-92.)
“YHWH swore to David, a surety from which he will not turn back: “Your offspring [I will cause to be enthroned]; I will place (them) on your throne. If your sons keep my covenant, And my stipulation which I teach them. Their children also, forever, Shall sit upon your throne. (Ps 132:11-12).
“The irrevocable nature of YHWH’s oath to David is reiterated elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible, notably in the so-called “last words of David” (2 Sam 23:1-7) and in the following portion of an old liturgy: ‘Once I swore by my holiness; I will not be false to David. His seed will exist forever; And his throne like the sun before me’ (Ps 89:36-37),” (C. L.Seow, Myth, Drama, and the Politics of David’s Dance [Atlanta, Georgia, Scholars Press, 1989], 179-80).

{8} Those patriarchal blessings are found in Genesis 49.
Judah is promised, “The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come” (Genesis 49:10).
Joseph was given the birthright blessing: “The blessings of thy father have prevailed above the blessings of my progenitors unto the utmost bound of the everlasting hills: they shall be on the head of Joseph, and on the crown of the head of him that was separate from his brethren” (Genesis 49:26).

I suppose that is, in our day, a reason a declaration saying which tribe of Israel one belongs to is a necessary part of everyone’s patriarchal blessing, and one reason why patriarchal blessings are given before one goes to the temple.

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

1 Nephi 2:15-17 

15 And my father dwelt in a tent.{1}
16 And it came to pass that I, Nephi, being exceedingly young, nevertheless being large in stature, and also having great desires to know of the mysteries of God, wherefore, I did cry unto the Lord; and behold he did visit me, and did soften my heart that I did believe all the words which had been spoken by my father; wherefore, I did not rebel against him like unto my brothers.
17 And I spake unto Sam, making known unto him the things which the Lord had manifested unto me by his Holy Spirit. And it came to pass that he believed in my words.

One of the wonderful things about the scriptures is that they speak in many voices—and it is the reader, not the author, who chooses the voice. When one asks what a scripture means, there are two possible answers: the first is that it means what the Spirit teaches one that it means so that it may be most applicable to one’s life just then. Because that is true, the meaning we perceive may not only be different from person-to-person but it may have a different application as we mature or as our needs change. The second is that the passage means precisely what the author intended it to mean. These verses are an interesting example of that.

Nephi tells us: “I did cry unto the Lord; and behold he did visit me, and did soften my heart that I did believe all the words which had been spoken by my father.” As a boy I was taught that the “visit” was symbolic—that, in fact, there was no actual visit at all but that he had been filled with the Holy Ghost, and thus his heart had been softened that he could believe. I was also taught that if I would pray to be able to believe, the Holy Ghost would visit me in the same way. That was a good explanation, and an encouragement for a boy who wanted to be taught to believe.

I no longer believe that was what Nephi intended us to learn from his statement. He says, “he did visit me,” I believe that is a simple, concise, and accurate description of what happened.
—————————————-

FOOTNOTE

{1} See1 Nephi 2:4-6, Lehi’s Tent as a Tabernacle.

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

1 Nephi 2:11-13 

11 Now this he spake because of the stiffneckedness of Laman and Lemuel; for behold they did murmur in many things against their father, because he was a visionary man, and had led them out of the land of Jerusalem, to leave the land of their inheritance, and their gold, and their silver, and their precious things, to perish in the wilderness. And this they said he had done because of the foolish imaginations of his heart.
12 And thus Laman and Lemuel, being the eldest, did murmur against their father. And they did murmur because they knew not the dealings of that God who had created them.
13 Neither did they believe that Jerusalem, that great city, could be destroyed according to the words of the prophets. And they were like unto the Jews who were at Jerusalem, who sought to take away the life of my father.

If we follow the same chronology as used above (see comments on 1 Nephi 1:4), then Laman was about seven years old{1} when King Josiah was killed in battle with the Egyptians. Josiah’s son Jehoahaz ruled for three months until Pharaoh Necho replaced him and made Jehoiakim king of Judah. For the Jews, having a foreigner decide who would be king of Judah would have been a traumatic experience, and even Laman and his younger brother Lemuel would have been aware of the tension it caused. Jehoiakim ruled until Laman and Lemuel were in their late and middle teens. Then Nebuchadnezzar’s army marched into Jerusalem, took King Jehoiakim, Ezekiel, Daniel (who was probably about Nephi’s age), and many others captive to Babylon. Nebuchadnezzar placed Zedekiah on the throne, so Judah had another king who was ruling under the authority of a foreign country. Both Laman and Lemuel had lived their teenage years under the tensions of those international intrigues. Jeremiah, Lehi’s friend, had supported an alliance with Babylon. It is reasonable to assume Lehi did also. However, the two boys had grown up under Egyptian influence, and probably saw Nebuchadnezzar as an alien invader. If that is correct, the boys had a different political philosophy from their father.

Their religion was probably different also. The official Israelite/Jewish religion had changed during the years of Josiah, and had changed again after his death. Lehi was a prophet whose priesthood and religious training had roots back at least as far as the construction of Solomon’s Temple. It is apparent that his teenage sons had rebelled against this old religion and supported the new less observant form. It may have been their enthusiasm for those changes that would later cause them to insist that the Jews were a “righteous” people. “Righteous,” if translated from zedek, did not mean “good” or “worthy,” but rather “correct.” That is, the boys were asserting that the Jews were performing the ordinances of the Law of Moses in the right way, using the right words, in the right place, dressed the right way, and with the right authority. If so, then they were not arguing for the goodness of the people but rather that the correctness in the performances made up for anything lacked in the character of the rulers.

There was another complication. Laman was the oldest son. Under Jewish law, he would inherit his father’s family status as well as a double portion of his father’s wealth. Nephi’s comment that his father “left his house, and the land of his inheritance” (1 Nephi 2:4), suggests that Lehi may have had a house in Jerusalem as well as a country estate. If that is so, Laman, who was just coming of age, saw that their leaving Judah would cost him a lot of wealth, power, and prestige. In his short lifetime he had seen Jerusalem overcome by two foreign powers (once by Egypt and once by Babylon), but neither had done substantial harm to the city itself. There seemed to be no reason to believe the city would be more vulnerable in the future. Only a testimony like Nephi’s could outweigh such rationale. It is almost understandable, then, that Lehi’s oldest sons did everything in their power to resist going, and that they resented their younger brother’s interference.

—————————————

FOOTNOTE

{1} For a discussion of the ages of Lehi’s children, see “1 Nephi 1:4 — LeGrand Baker — reign of Zedekiah.”

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

1 Nephi 2:7 

7. And it came to pass that he built an altar of stones, and made an offering unto the Lord, and gave thanks unto the Lord our God.

The altar would have been from stones conveniently lying about, probably smooth stones from a stream bed. The Lord had instructed Moses that the altar he built was to be made of stones that had not been cut or shaped by man (Exodus 20:24-26).

There was a difference between an offering that is a sacrifice and a burnt offering. Under the law of Moses a burnt offering was something that was entirely lost to its owner – something that was given up and completely consumed by fire. Each morning and evening, at the Temple, an animal was slaughtered, skinned, cleaned, and quartered. The parts were heavily salted,{1} then placed on the fire atop the great altar in the Temple precinct. There, the entire animal was burned. Also, on special occasions, the Israelites offered burnt offerings to the Lord, when the entire animal was burned up by the fire (cf. Leviticus 1:3-9).

Sacrifices were not at all like that. In the scriptures, to sacrifice does not mean to lose something or to give it up. The word sacrifice comes from the same root as sacred, sacral, and sacrament. It means to set something apart and to make it sacred—to move it from the realm of the profane to that of the holy. Sacrifice itself comes from the Latin sacrificere, “to make sacred.” A thing that is sacrificed is sanctified. In 3 Nephi when the Savior spoke out of the darkness, he instructed the Nephites that they were no longer to make blood offerings or sacrifices but rather that their sacrifice should be a broken heart and contrite spirit. What that meant was that they were to sanctify their hearts and their spirits so that they would become holy and without blemish.

In our time, we are required to make only two sacrifices: The one that is the same for each of us is tithing. Unlike a fast offerings—which is somewhat like a burnt offering, that is, something that we give away—tithing is, in the most classical sense, a true sacrificial offering. We do not give it up. Rather, we set it aside, sanctify it, make it holy, dedicate it to be used for sacred purposes. Thus tithing is the only universal, tangible sacrifice we are all required to make.

The other sacrifice that is required of each of us is not a thing, but our whole selves—not to give up our lives but to sanctify our lives—to make sacred all that we are, all that we have, and all that we do. If we understand what that means, then that sacrifice is as individualistic as our callings and circumstances are different. However, in the end it is the same for each of us: To sanctify ourselves with a broken heart and contrite spirit in order that we may come to where the Savior is.

The psalms teach that. So Lehi and his family understood it. Nevertheless, they were also under the Law of Moses, so it was appropriate that when they crossed the river (analogous to the children of Israel’s crossing Jordan) they built an altar and sacrificed to the Lord. We are not told the exact nature of their sacrifice, but it may have had one or a combination of meanings. It may have been an expression of thanks, of re-commitment, or of rejoicing, but it was probably all three.

The sacrifice Lehi probably made was a peace offering Leviticus 7:11-16). Under the Law of Moses, such sacrifices were to be performed in the following manner: The animal was killed and cleaned, then only a portion of its blood and fat were sprinkled upon the fire, but the entire animal was not burned. Rather, the Law required that the sacrificial animal must be entirely eaten that same day, or the next. When made for thanksgiving, the persons also brought to the table bread and wine. This is what some scholars call the sacred temple feast. It was an ordinance celebrating the unity of God and his children, and would have been the most appropriate sacrifice for Lehi and his family at that time.{2}

————————————

FOOTNOTES

{1} See Baker, “What does it mean to be the ‘salt of the earth’?” Ensign, April 1999, 53-54.

{2} See: Leviticus 7:11-16, 19:5-10, 22:29-30; Deuteronomy 27:4-7; 2 Chronicles 29:27-32; and Jeremiah 17:24-27.

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

1 Nephi 2:4-7 
4. And it came to pass that he departed into the wilderness. And he left his house, and the land of his inheritance, and his gold, and his silver, and his precious things, and took nothing with him, save it were his family, and provisions, and tents, and departed into the wilderness. …
6. And it came to pass that when he had traveled three days in the wilderness, he pitched his tent in a valley by the side of a river of water.
7. And it came to pass that he built an altar of stones, and made an offering unto the Lord, and gave thanks unto the Lord our.

Even though Nephi tells us in the beginning of his story that his father’s family took more than one tent with them on their journey (v.4), Nephi never mentions his own tent—but throughout his account of their travels in the wilderness, Nephi makes frequent reference to his father’s tent. Many of those references imply that the tent had significance beyond being simply a portable house. It is not a coincidence that Nephi first mentions his father’s tent in conjunction with their building a sacrificial altar.{1}

Lehi’s vision of the tree of life was pivotal to Nephi’s own story and became a cornerstone of all of the rest of the Book of Mormon’s testimony of the Savior. Nephi tells about that vision in some detail, then makes a point of associating the vision with the importance of his father’s tent, writing:

1 And all these things did my father see, and hear, and speak, as he dwelt in a tent, in the valley of Lemuel, and also a great many more things, which cannot be written upon these plates (1 Nephi 9:1).

The phrase these things is often code and is a major key in understanding the prophets of the Book of Mormon. Almost every time it is used it is a veiled reference to the sacred things of the Israelite or Nephite temple services, or else to a vision that explains them. In this verse these things refers to Lehi’s vision of the tree of live. Then Nephi tells us of his father’s prophecies, and again reminds us:

16 And all these things, of which I have spoken, were done as my father dwelt in a tent, in the valley of Lemuel (1 Nephi 10:16).

In light of those frequent and important references to their activities in and around Lehi’s tent, it is appropriate to ask, “How much did they know about temple worship?” Or, perhaps a better question is, “How much do we know about what they knew?” The answer to that question is found as part of the Lord’s instructions to the Prophet Joseph about the purposes of the Nauvoo Temple.

33. For verily I say unto you, that after you have had sufficient time to build a house to me, wherein the ordinance of baptizing for the dead belongeth, and for which the same was instituted from before the foundation of the world, your baptisms for your dead cannot be acceptable unto me;
34. For therein are the keys of the holy priesthood ordained, that you may receive honor and glory.
35. And after this time, your baptisms for the dead, by those who are scattered abroad, are not acceptable unto me, saith the Lord.
36. For it is ordained that in Zion, and in her stakes, and in Jerusalem, those places which I have appointed for refuge, shall be the places for your baptisms for your dead.
37. And again, verily I say unto you, how shall your washings be acceptable unto me, except ye perform them in a house which you have built to my name?
38. For, for this cause I commanded Moses that he should build a tabernacle, that they should bear it with them in the wilderness, and to build a house in the land of promise [Solomon’s Temple at Jerusalem] that those ordinances might be revealed which had been hid from before the world was.
39. Therefore, verily I say unto you, that your anointings, and your washings, and your baptisms for the dead, and your solemn assemblies, and your memorials for your sacrifices by the sons of Levi, and for your oracles in your most holy places wherein you receive conversations, and your statutes and judgments, for the beginning of the revelations and foundation of Zion, and for the glory, honor, and endowment of all her municipals, are ordained by the ordinance of my holy house, which my people are always commanded to build unto my holy name.
40. And verily I say unto you, let this house be built unto my name, that I may reveal mine ordinances therein unto my people (D&C 124:33-40).

When one considers that before Lehi left, King Josiah had substantially changed the Feast of Tabernacles temple drama, that the Temple had been taken over by apostate sun worshipers (Ezekiel 8:16-17),{2} | and that soon after the Temple itself was about to be destroyed by the Babylonians, it is justifiable to assert that one of the major reasons Lehi and his family left Jerusalem was to preserve for themselves and their posterity the rites, ceremonies, and covenants of the Israelite temple service. That being so, the question, “How much did Lehi and Nephi know about their temple?” can be answered with a single phrase: all that was necessary!

————————————–
FOOTNOTES

{1} Other examples are 1 Nephi 2:15-16, 2:22, 3:1-6, 4:38, 5:7, 9, 7:5, 21-22, and 15:1.

{2} For a discussion of the Jewish apostates use of the Temple in Jerusalem see Who Shall Ascend into the Hill of the Lord, First edition, p. 45-74; Second edition, p. 47-65.

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

1 Nephi 1:18-20
18 Therefore, I would that ye should know, that after the Lord had shown so many marvelous things unto my father, Lehi, yea, concerning the destruction of Jerusalem, behold he went forth among the people, and began to prophesy and to declare unto them concerning the things which he had both seen and heard.
19 And it came to pass that the Jews did mock him because of the things which he testified of them; for he truly testified of their wickedness and their abominations; and he testified that the things which he saw and heard, and also the things which he read in the book, manifested plainly of the coming of a Messiah, and also the redemption of the world.
20 And when the Jews heard these things they were angry with him; yea, even as with the prophets of old, whom they had cast out, and stoned, and slain; and they also sought his life, that they might take it away. But behold, I, Nephi, will show unto you that the tender mercies of the Lord are over all those whom he hath chosen, because of their faith, to make them mighty even unto the power of deliverance.

Perhaps less than most of us, a prophet is unable to disguise the innate power of his own being. Prophets glow. One cannot always see the glow, but one who is aware can feel it. When someone encounters a prophet and recognizes the power that is simply a part of his person, that person is compelled to respond. The response may be love. In that case, the person will acknowledge the prophet’s divine call and follow his lead. Otherwise, the response would be hatred or fear—fear that the prophet can look into one’s soul and see the darkness that is there. In that case, if the person refuses to acknowledge the prophet’s divine call, he will seek to demonstrate that the prophet is a charlatan. To do that, he will seek to show that he has more power than the prophet has. The way he will try to do that may be to smear the prophet’s good name, to physically harm him, or even to kill him. Examples are found throughout scriptural history, from Abel who was killed by his brother Cain, to Isaiah, Abinadi, and the Savior, to the prophet Joseph.

Lehi and his friend Jeremiah were no exceptions to this rule. The easiest way for their enemies to prove that they were false prophets was to prove that they did not have the power to preserve their own lives: so they sought to kill them.

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

1 Nephi 1:11
11 And they came down and went forth upon the face of the earth; and the first came and stood before my father, and gave unto him a book, and bade him that he should read.

There was an ordinance performed at the Council in Heaven and reaffirmed during a prophet’s sode experience whereby the servants of God were given the authority to speak the words of God. That ordinance is described in several different ways by several different prophets.

John the Beloved writes that he was given a little book to eat (Revelation 10:1, 9). That book becomes the key to our understanding the meaning of the book that Lehi was given to read.

In Section 77 of the Doctrine and Covenants, the Prophet Joseph answers a series of questions to explain the meanings of some of the symbolism in the book of Revelation. One of those questions is:

Q. What are we to understand by the little book which was eaten by John, as mentioned in the 10th chapter of Revelation?
A. We are to understand that it was a mission, and an ordinance, for him to gather the tribes of Israel; behold, this is Elias, who, as it is written, must come and restore all things (D&C 77:14).

Here the book is described as both an ordinance and the mission. The ordinance was John’s receiving and eating the book, and his mission was the words that were written in the book. This key about the meaning of that passage in the book of Revelation becomes a key to our understanding similar accounts of such ordinances and missions as they were described by other prophets.

Like John the Beloved, Ezekiel was given a book to eat:

And when I looked, behold, an hand was sent unto me; and, lo, a roll of a book was therein; And he spread it before me; and it was written within and without: and there was written therein lamentations, and mourning, and woe. Moreover he said unto me, Son of man, eat that thou findest; eat this roll [scroll], and go speak unto the house of Israel. So I opened my mouth, and he caused me to eat that roll (Ezekiel 2:9-3:2).

Jeremiah described the ordinance differently, but it carried the same responsibility:

Then the Lord put forth his hand, and touched my mouth. And the Lord said unto me, Behold, I have put my words in thy mouth” (Jeremiah 1:9).

Isaiah described the ordinance as cleansing his mouth and purging his sins. Then the Lord gave him instructions about his mission on earth.

6 Then flew one of the seraphims unto me, having a live coal in his hand, which he had taken with the tongs from off the altar:
7 And he laid it upon my mouth, and said, Lo, this hath touched thy lips; and thine iniquity is taken away, and thy sin purged.
8 Also I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, Whom shall I send, and who will go for us? Then said I, Here am I; send me (Isaiah 6:6-8).

In two of the four accounts of Joseph Smith’s First Vision, he says that he was told that his sins were forgiven before he received instructions about what he should do.{1}

Psalm 45 was acted on the stage near the beginning of the ancient Israelite temple rites and depicted the foreordination of the king. In the psalm, prior to God’s giving the words of the blessing, the narrator says to the king, “grace is poured into thy lips.” It is important to note that during the temple rites of Solomon’s Temple the audience did not just sit and watch the drama being performed but they actively participated. When the king received the ordinance and blessing, symbolically the men in the congregation, representing the members of the Council in Heaven, received the same ordinance and blessing.{2}

These accounts make it apparent that members of the Council in Heaven were given an empowering ordinance and explicit assignments that included instructions about what they were to teach the people when in mortality. When the prophet returns to the Council in his sode experience, he receives a renewal or a reaffirmation of that ordinance and those instructions.

Given both the variations and the similarities in the accounts by other prophets, one can easily recognize Lehi’s receiving and reading the book as a similar ordinance and a mission. Part of the mission was that he must warn the Jews of their impending doom. The other part is not revealed to us—except that we are told about his reaction to it—and judging from his words, we may infer that it included the promise that he would come to America, where his descendants would become a mighty people, and that they would be visited by the Savior. Nephi records, “for his soul did rejoice, and his whole heart was filled, because of the things which he had seen, yea, which the Lord had shown unto him” (1 Nephi 1:15).
—————————————

FOOTNOTES

{1} The four accounts are quoted in my book, Joseph and Moroni, pages 5-8. The text of the book is available in the “published books” section of this website.
{2} Psalm 45 is discussed in Who Shall Ascend into the Hill of the Lord: First edition pages 255-304; Second edition pages 191-217.

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>