Blog

3 Nephi 12:46-48
46 Therefore those things which were of old time, which were under the law, in me are all fulfilled.
47 Old things are done away, and all things have become new.
48 Therefore I would that ye should be perfect even as I, or your Father who is in heaven is perfect.

The old law that the Savior fulfilled was based on obedience in performances. That is, the Law was a catalog of things one must do and things one must not do. The new law eliminated almost all of the regulations and focused on personal integrity. Under the new law, is not conforming to cultural norms. Rather, obedience is a natural byproduct of knowing the doctrine.

A quick review of what the Savior had taught, beginning with what he said when he first spoke to the Nephites when they were enshrouded in darkness and continuing to this point in his sermon, leaves us amazed at the simplicity, forthrightness, and clarity of the new law. The Savior had given step by step instructions about how the could begin to fulfill his command that they become perfect: (If the following quick review of the of the principles taught by the Savior seems to ask more questions than it answers, you will find a careful discussion of each verse in my posts of the past weeks.)

The Savior’s words in 3 Nephi began with a lament for the destruction that had come upon those whose had not obeyed (3 Nephi 9:1-13), and he commends those who have obeyed (3 Nephi 9:14-18).

He instructed them about changes in the law of sacrifice (3 Nephi 9:19-22).

He fulfilled the promise that he would come to the earth, fulfill the law of Moses and bring the fullness of the gospel (3 Nephi 11:7-12).

They touched his side, his hands, and his feet as a testimony of the power of his love and the reality of the Atonement (3 Nephi 11:13-18).

He established his church, and gave Twelve authority over it (3 Nephi 11:18-41).

In the Beatitudes, he reviewed all of the principles and ordinances that are requisite to eternal life.

3 Nephi 12:1 — “Give heed to the words of the Twelve”
3 Nephi 12:2 — First principles (be visited by the Holy Ghost)
3 Nephi 12:3 — Endowment for the living
3 Nephi 12:4 — Endowment for the dead
3 Nephi 12:5 — Keep the covenants you made at the Council in Heaven
3 Nephi 12:6 — Hunger and thirst after priesthood and temple things and be filled with the Holy Ghost
3 Nephi 12:7 — How to be a priest and sacral king – merciful shall receive mercy
3 Nephi 12:8 — Zion (pure in heart) shall see God
3 Nephi 12:9 — Peacemakers called “children of God”
3 Nephi 12:10-12 — Persecution follows
3 Nephi 12:13 — Missionary work
3 Nephi 12:14-16 — A light — menorah among the people in the temple

The law of the gospel  (3 Nephi 12:21-24)
Chastity  (3 Nephi 12:27-32)
Truth in keeping covenants  (3 Nephi 12:33-37)

All that is preliminary to the Savior’s next instruction which was how to live the law of consecration.

The perfection the Savior was asking the Nephites to achieve was not about meeting a universal standard of obedience, but rather it was about each individual’s being absolutely true to the eternal law of his own being.

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

3 Nephi 12:33-37

33 And again it is written, thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths;
34 But verily, verily, I say unto you, swear not at all; neither by heaven, for it is God’s throne;
35 Nor by the earth, for it is his footstool;
36 Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair black or white;
37 But let your communication be Yea, yea; Nay, nay; for whatsoever cometh of more than these is evil.

As humans, we do not live in a world of absolute truthfulness, and that is not what the Savior was expecting of us. For example, when one’s options are between speaking kindness and frankness, kindness almost always needs the greater weight. When a lady asks if you like her new hairdo, there is only one appropriate answer, and, whatever you might think, that answer should never sound like: “Ouch! It makes you look like an unkept sheep dog!”

But that is not what the Savior was talking about. He is talking about lies whose intent is to deceive, to hurt, or to manipulate. His meaning is made clear in other places in other scriptures. For instance, when speaking of those who belong in the telestial glory, the Prophet Joseph wrote: “These are they who are liars, and sorcerers, and adulterers, and whoremongers, and whosoever loves and makes a lie (D&C 76:103).” Nephi’s brother Jacob said it more succinctly: “Wo unto the liar, for he shall be thrust down to hell (2 Nephi 9:34).” (There is no problem in the meaning of “hell” there. In the Book of Mormon the prophets see only two eternal options: either that one will be where God is, or one will be where God is not.)

To “forswear” means to swear falsely or to perjure oneself. In some cultures it is the norm for a person to give oneself credibility by evoking the credibility of some greater power. For example, Nephi tells us:

32 And it came to pass that I spake with him [Zoram], that if he would hearken unto my words, as the Lord liveth, and as I live, even so that if he would hearken unto our words, we would spare his life.
33 And I spake unto him, even with an oath, that he need not fear; that he should be a free man like unto us if he would go down in the wilderness with us (1 Nephi 4:32-33).

In our legal system, truthfulness in court is made by an oath. Even the American Constitution acknowledges the validity of this practice. It says of the President of the United States:

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States (Article 2, Section 1).”

There was a reason the phrase “or affirm” is included: Quakers took the New Testament admonition very seriously and would not swear a oath, even in court, even though their refusal might be used against them. So in order to not preclude a Quaker from becoming president, the option of not swearing an oath was included in the Constitution.

The Savior’s injunction, “But let your communication be Yea, yea; Nay, nay; for whatsoever cometh of more than these is evil,” probably has little to do with legal forms, but rather is about casual, flippant or perverse oath taking. Shakespeare echoed the Savior’s sentiment in one of his most beautiful loving scenes:

Romeo:        Lady, by yonder blessed moon I swear
.                     That tips with silver all these fruit-tree tops—
Juliet:          O, swear not by the moon , the inconstant moon,
.                    That monthly changes in her circled orb,
.                    Lest that thy love prove likewise variable.
Romeo:       What shall I swear by?
Juliet:          Do not swear at all;
.                    Or, if thou wilt, swear by thy gracious self,
.                    Which is the god of my idolatry,
.                   And I’ll believe thee. (Romeo and Juliet, Act 2, Scene 2)

A person of integrity does not need to decorate one’s words with meaningless assertions of honesty. The question, always, is not “What does he say?” but rather, “Why does he say it?” That is, “Is there is no gap between what he says, what he does, and the motive for which he does it.” And there’s the rub: unfortunately even the truth may be a lie.

Macbeth, who had believed the deceiving witches, learns too late the meaning of their doublespeak. As he finally confronts his own reality, he laments:

And be these juggling fiends no more believed,
That palter with us in a double sense;
That keep the word of promise to our ear,
And break it to our hope. (Macbeth, Act 5, Scene 8).

We are caught in this world of deceptions. We must not only pay attention to who tells the truth, but we must also be able to discern what kind of truth they tell.

There is a theme that runs as an undercurrent throughout the Savior’s entire sermon. It is that one must be true to the law of one’s eternal self. That theme comes very near the surface in these verses that conclude, “But let your communication be Yea, yea; Nay, nay.” As the revelation says about Hyrum Smith: “for I, the Lord, love him because of the integrity of his heart, and because he loveth that which is right before me (D&C 124:15).

Probably the most quoted lines in any of Shakespeare’s plays are these spoken by Polonius to his son Laertes.

This above all: to thine ownself be true,
And it must follow, as the night the day,
Thou canst not then be false to any man (Hamlet, Act 1, Scene 3).

Hidden within the depth of those words is, for each of us, the greatest mystery of the universe. The mystery is the answer to the question: “Who/what am I?” That mystery will ever be enshrouded in darkness until one can be honest enough with oneself to answer the question: “Who am I just now?” To answer that question we return to the Savior’s command: “But let your communication [with your Self] be Yea, yea; Nay, nay. ” It sounds easy, but in a world that imposes its own identities upon us, sometimes it is the most difficult thing of all. However, until we can do that, the answer to the great mystery will remain enshrouded in the darkness of self-indulgence, self-denial, or self-disdain.

An equally acceptable way of understanding our verses is that the Savior was talking about making and keeping covenants. Covenants are the face of integrity, and are not to be taken lightly. Virtually every facet of the gospel is founded on covenants—on the covenants the Savior and his Father have made with us—and the covenants we make with them and each other.

In the conversation between Jehovah and the brother of Jared, the latter “answered: Yea, Lord, I know that thou speakest the truth, for thou art a God of truth, and canst not lie (Ether 3:12). That is an extraordinary concept. In this world we deal with no one but little children about whom we can say “he cannot lie.” Yet, whether in this world or the spirit world to follow, until we can follow the Savior’s admonition to just speak only the truth, it is doubtful that we could be comfortable in the presence of a God who “cannot lie.”

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

3 Nephi 12:27-32

27 Behold, it is written by them of old time, that thou shalt not commit adultery;
28 But I say unto you, that whosoever looketh on a woman, to lust after her, hath committed adultery already in his heart.
29 Behold, I give unto you a commandment, that ye suffer none of these things to enter into your heart;
30 For it is better that ye should deny yourselves of these things, wherein ye will take up your cross, than that ye should be cast into hell.
31 It hath been written, that whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement.
32 Verily, verily, I say unto you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery; and whoso shall marry her who is divorced committeth adultery.

To say the commandment against adultery is not about sex, is like saying that taking someone to dinner is not about food. Each statement is both true and false. Taking someone to dinner is about being with the someone, it is not primarily about eating to avert starvation. Yet, eating the food is what one does, so taking someone to dinner is about food. Similarly, the probation against adultery was not so much about sex as it was about preserving the legal and sacral relationship of the wife and the husband. The covenant of fidelity is fundamental to the covenant of marriage. (For a discussion of Psalm 45 and the eternal nature of the marriage covenant, look in the “scriptures” section and then go to “Mosiah 13:22 — LeGrand Baker – Thou shalt not commit adultery.”)

Leviticus 20 is a catalogue of sexual sins. It lists almost every possible combination of partners except a man and his lawful wife. For each combination the punishment is the same: “they shall surely be put to death.” Apparently the law was not taken any more seriously in ancient Israel or among the ancient Nephites than it is in own culture. In the Bible and the Book of Mormon there many evidences that adultery was almost common place, but there are no accounts of mass executions on account of it.

The definition Leviticus gives of adultery is:

10 And the man that committeth adultery with another man’s wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death (Leviticus 20:10).

Adultery is defined as infidelity in marriage. It is violating the marriage covenant. Premarital sex is different from adultery because there has been no covenant to violate. However, casual premarital sex can inhibit or even negate one’s ability to later experience real emotional intimacy, and therefore might cripple a later marriage relationship.

When the Savior condemned adultery, he did not limit himself to condemning the act, rather he condemned the attitude that precipitated the act. Without the attitude coming first, the act would never happen.

Marriage is both a legal contract and a religious covenant. The legal contract can be broken by the act, but the religious covenant can be broken by the attitude. Just as the act can negate the contract, so can the attitude negate the covenant.

The last page of the Book of Mormon contains a review of the Feast of Tabernacles temple drama. The last verse of that review is a promise of eternal marriage and eternal increase. That verse reads:

31 And awake, and arise from the dust, O Jerusalem; yea, and put on thy beautiful garments, O daughter of Zion; and strengthen thy stakes and enlarge thy borders forever, that thou mayest no more be confounded, that the covenants of the Eternal Father which he hath made unto thee, O house of Israel, may be fulfilled (Moroni 10:28-31).

This is a paraphrase of Isaiah, so it comes from his culture rather than from Moroni’s. In the Near Eastern desert, when a man married, he gave his wife a tent, just large enough for the two of them. It was then hers, and she was responsible for it. As her family grew, she made additional flaps for the tent, and added more stakes to secure it. Thus, Moroni’s statement may be a reference to family homes—eternal families— “forever” —rather than being about future church units of wards and stakes. The Isaiah passage that Moroni paraphrased is also about God’s promise of eternal families. It reads:

2 Enlarge the place of thy tent, and let them stretch forth the curtains of thine habitations: spare not, lengthen thy cords, and strengthen thy stakes (Isaiah 54:2).

“Thine habitations” are homes. The tents are the places where families dwell. Moroni continues with the promise that the tent will be expanded “forever”:

and strengthen thy stakes and enlarge thy borders forever, that thou mayest no more be confounded, that the covenants of the Eternal Father which he hath made unto thee, O house of Israel, may be fulfilled (Moroni 10:31b).

As those words are about the ancient Nephite temple experience, so Moroni’s last words are about what one did after one left the ancient temple:

32 Yea, come unto Christ, and be perfected in him, and deny yourselves of all ungodliness; and if ye shall deny yourselves of all ungodliness, and love God with all your might, mind and strength, then is his grace sufficient for you, that by his grace ye may be perfect in Christ; and if by the grace of God ye are perfect in Christ, ye can in nowise deny the power of God.
33 And again, if ye by the grace of God are perfect in Christ, and deny not his power, then are ye sanctified in Christ by the grace of God, through the shedding of the blood of Christ, which is in the covenant of the Father unto the remission of your sins, that ye become holy, without spot (Moroni 10:32-33).

This is a portion of the discussion of Moroni’s review of the Nephite temple drama in Who Shall Ascend into the Hill of the Lord, 722-24.

The prophet Jeremiah used the word “adultery” in another way also. He represented the people of Israel as God’s covenant “bride.” and condemned them for “committed adultery with stones and with stocks,” referring to their worshiping pagan gods made of stone and wood. While the Savior does not make specific reference to that kind of adultery, it would certainly apply to anyone who breaks their sacred covenants (Jeremiah 3:6-11, Jeremiah 5:7-9).

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

3 Nephi 12:21-24 & 2 Nephi 9:41-42

21 Ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, and it is also written before you, that thou shalt not kill, and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment of God;
22 But I say unto you, that whosoever is angry with his brother shall be in danger of his judgment. And whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council; and whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
23 Therefore, if ye shall come unto me, or shall desire to come unto me, and rememberest that thy brother hath aught against thee—
24 Go thy way unto thy brother, and first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come unto me with full purpose of heart, and I will receive you.

At least three times, perhaps more, I have heard Hugh Nibley say that the Law of the Gospel is “to forgive and repent.” But I never heard him gave a source for that definition. Then one day when I read these verses spoken by the Savior, I understood. I cannot be sure that these verses where what Nibley was referring to, but I believe Nibley’s words are an adequate summation of what the Savior said.

The rules of behavior with which Moses governed the Israelites whom he led out of Egypt were just that—rules about how one should act. Neither his government nor ours has the power to legislate goodness. But inappropriate behavior is only half the sin, and not always the worst half. There is no sin committed by our hands that is not first committed by our minds. If I hurt you accidently it may be the result of something very foolish, but that is very different from a hurt that I first contrived in my mind then executed with my hand, or by my unbridled tongue. Premeditated bad behavior—no matter how vile—is a secondary sin. The primary sin happened in the mind.

Hamlet’s words (though quoted out of context) make the point very nicely: “there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.” (Hamlet, Act 2, Scene 2) .

Anger, hatred, the need for revenge, and the inability to forgive are corrosive forces that eat at the soul and form a callous that first rejects then excludes real love. As charity is the healing, sealing, and purifying power that prepares us to be with God, so anger and its attendant feelings disables us from being persons who can enjoy the eternal togetherness which is eternal life. Hatred precludes charity. Hatred destroys.

On the surface it looks to be very ironic. People who hate or feel contempt for others consider that attitude to be their strength. They are like a black hole that seeks to satisfy itself by sucking everything to itself, while in fact it lets nothing out, including its own light. Such a person is his own prison. He cannot reach out to love others because the only “love” he can experience is self-indulgence and self-aggrandizement.

In contrast, one who loves is like the sun who exudes light and warms those around him. When we love as the Savior loves, we become vulnerable. For such a one hides behind no masks, no facades, and has no hidden agenda.

After the Nephites built a temple like the one Solomon had built in Jerusalem (2 Nephi 5:16), Nephi’s brother Jacob delivered his sermon there. He reminded his hearers about who and what they must be as they were to approach the great veil of the temple that led to the Holy of Holies. He said:

41 O then, my beloved brethren, come unto the Lord, the Holy One. Remember that his paths are righteous. Behold, the way for man is narrow, but it lieth in a straight course before him, and the keeper of the gate is the Holy One of Israel; and he employeth no servant there; and there is none other way save it be by the gate; for he cannot be deceived, for the Lord God is his name.
42 And whoso knocketh, to him will he open; and the wise, and the learned, and they that are rich, who are puffed up because of their learning, and their wisdom, and their riches—yea, they are they whom he despiseth; and save they shall cast these things away, and consider themselves fools before God, and come down in the depths of humility, he will not open unto them (2 Nephi 9:41-42).

It seems to me that what the Savior said to the Nephites is that if they wish to “come unto him” then they must approach other people in the same way they approach him.

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

3 Nephi 12:21-24 & 2 Nephi 9:41-42

21 Ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, and it is also written before you, that thou shalt not kill, and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment of God;
22 But I say unto you, that whosoever is angry with his brother shall be in danger of his judgment. And whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council; and whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
23 Therefore, if ye shall come unto me, or shall desire to come unto me, and rememberest that thy brother hath aught against thee—
24 Go thy way unto thy brother, and first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come unto me with full purpose of heart, and I will receive you.

At least three times, perhaps more, I have heard Hugh Nibley say that the Law of the Gospel is “to forgive and repent.” But I never heard him gave a source for that definition. Then one day when I read these verses spoken by the Savior, I understood. I cannot be sure that these verses where what Nibley was referring to, but I believe Nibley’s words are an adequate summation of what the Savior said.

The rules of behavior with which Moses governed the Israelites whom he led out of Egypt were just that—rules about how one should act. Neither his government nor ours has the power to legislate goodness. But inappropriate behavior is only half the sin, and not always the worst half. There is no sin committed by our hands that is not first committed by our minds. If I hurt you accidently it may be the result of something very foolish, but that is very different from a hurt that I first contrived in my mind then executed with my hand, or by my unbridled tongue. Premeditated bad behavior—no matter how vile—is a secondary sin. The primary sin happened in the mind.

Hamlet’s words (though quoted out of context) make the point very nicely: “there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.” (Hamlet, Act 2, Scene 2) .

Anger, hatred, the need for revenge, and the inability to forgive are corrosive forces that eat at the soul and form a callous that first rejects then excludes real love. As charity is the healing, sealing, and purifying power that prepares us to be with God, so anger and its attendant feelings disables us from being persons who can enjoy the eternal togetherness which is eternal life. Hatred precludes charity. Hatred destroys.

On the surface it looks to be very ironic. People who hate or feel contempt for others consider that attitude to be their strength. They are like a black hole that seeks to satisfy itself by sucking everything to itself, while in fact it lets nothing out, including its own light. Such a person is his own prison. He cannot reach out to love others because the only “love” he can experience is self-indulgence and self-aggrandizement.

In contrast, one who loves is like the sun who exudes light and warms those around him. When we love as the Savior loves, we become vulnerable. For such a one hides behind no masks, no facades, and has no hidden agenda.

After the Nephites built a temple like the one Solomon had built in Jerusalem (2 Nephi 5:16), Nephi’s brother Jacob delivered his sermon there. He reminded his hearers about who and what they must be as they were to approach the great veil of the temple that led to the Holy of Holies. He said:

41 O then, my beloved brethren, come unto the Lord, the Holy One. Remember that his paths are righteous. Behold, the way for man is narrow, but it lieth in a straight course before him, and the keeper of the gate is the Holy One of Israel; and he employeth no servant there; and there is none other way save it be by the gate; for he cannot be deceived, for the Lord God is his name.
42 And whoso knocketh, to him will he open; and the wise, and the learned, and they that are rich, who are puffed up because of their learning, and their wisdom, and their riches—yea, they are they whom he despiseth; and save they shall cast these things away, and consider themselves fools before God, and come down in the depths of humility, he will not open unto them (2 Nephi 9:41-42).

It seems to me that what the Savior said to the Nephites is that if they wish to “come unto him” then they must approach other people in the same way they approach him.

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

3 Nephi 12:17-20
17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets. I am not come to destroy but to fulfil;
18 For verily I say unto you, one jot nor one tittle hath not passed away from the law, but in me it hath all been fulfilled.
19 And behold, I have given you the law and the commandments of my Father, that ye shall believe in me, and that ye shall repent of your sins, and come unto me with a broken heart and a contrite spirit. Behold, ye have the commandments before you, and the law is fulfilled.
20 Therefore come unto me and be ye saved; for verily I say unto you, that except ye shall keep my commandments, which I have commanded you at this time, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Three times the Savior said he had fulfilled the Law of Moses. To fulfil means to complete, to satisfy, to bring to fruition, to finalize. He later explained:

5 Behold, I am he that gave the law, and I am he who covenanted with my people Israel; therefore, the law in me is fulfilled, for I have come to fulfil the law; therefore it hath an end (3 Nephi 15:5).

The words, “therefore it hath an end” was very explicit. So the Law was no longer operative or relevant in the Nephite religion or in their personal lives.

This may sound strange: but while we can be assured that the Law was fulfilled, we really don’t know what the Nephites or the Savior understood by “the Law of Moses.” In Who Shall Ascend into the Hill of the Lord, Stephen and I explained:

A point that must not be lost is that the people of the Book of Mormon come out of the religious culture of the pre-exilic Old Testament—the period when Solomon’s Temple was standing and in use. So the religion of Lehi, Nephi, and their descendants was the religion of the Jews before the changes were made in our texts of the Old Testament. What we have in our Old Testament is a severely edited version of the Law of Moses. But the text on the brass plates was written before those editorial changes were made. That means that our most reliable contemporary text that date to pre-exilic times is found in the Book of Mormon (Who Shall Ascend into the Hill of the Lord, 460-61).

The fact is, we cannot know just what the Nephites understood by “the Law of Moses” because of the way they described it. They wrote repeatedly that the purpose of the Law was to help people understand the Savior and his Atonement. They considered the Law to be a type of the Savior’s coming. As Jacob said,

4 Behold, my soul delighteth in proving unto my people the truth of the coming of Christ; for, for this end hath the Law of Moses been given; and all things which have been given of God from the beginning of the world, unto man, are the typifying of him (2 Nephi 11:4. See also 2 Nephi 25:24-28, 2 Nephi 26:1, Jacob 4:5, Alma 25:15-16.)

If we look hard in Leviticus, we can find only a few parts of the Law that teach about the atonement, but Jacob’s description of the Law does not fit what is in our Old Testament. It is impossible for us to know what the Nephites understood by “the Law of Moses,” because the only thing we can be sure of is that it was different from the version of the Law that is found in our Bible.

After the Babylonian captivity the Jews had no more king, and the temple was destroyed. By the time they returned from Babylon they had lost the Melchizedek Priesthood also. Sometime during or after the Babylonian captivity the Jewish editors rewrote the Law to conform to their new political and ecclesiastical circumstances. Consequently, our Old Testament version of the Law reflects the post-exilic Jewish religion that was substantially different from the one that had been believed and practiced while Solomon’s Temple was standing and in proper use. These editors left so many fingerprints on their work that most scholars now believe the books of Moses were not written any earlier than 400 BC.

(For a discussion of the Jewish apostasy and its impact on the editorial changes in the Law see Who Shall Ascend into the Hill of the Lord, pages 47-67, the chapters called “The Ancient Jewish Apostasy that Rearranged the Order of the Psalms and Changed the Festival Drama,” and “Evidences of Ancient Jewish Apostasy.” For an example showing that the purposes of those editors was to remove from the record evidences of the gospel of the Messiah, the priesthood, and the temple, see the comparison between the stories of Noah and the ark as told in Genesis and in the book of Moses in the Pearl of Great Price, shown on the chart on pages 60-61.)

We also know almost nothing about the structure of the early Nephite church or how the Law of Moses was administered. What we do know is there is no evidence of an Aaronic Priesthood in the Book of Mormon, and that Lehi and the prophets had the Melchizedek Priesthood (otherwise he, Jacob, Alma, and others could not have seen God — D&C 84:19-22), and we also know that Lehi and others offered sacrifices and burnt offerings that we normally associate with the duties of the ancient Old Testament Aaronic Priesthood (1 Nephi 5:9, 1 Nephi 7:22, Mosiah 2:3.) Therefore, we cannot rely on the Old Testament to teach us how the Law of Moses would have been administered by Nephites who held the Melchizedek Priesthood.

There is enough discussion of consistent Melchizedek Priesthood temple rites from the beginning to the end of the Book of Mormon to let us know that those rites remained essentially unchanged throughout the full thousand years of Nephite history — both before and after the Savior fulfilled the Law of Moses (encoded examples are in 1 Nephi 1, 2 Nephi 1, Alma 12, and Moroni 10).

In the Sermon at the Temple in 3 Nephi 9 through 14, the Savior gave examples about how far-reaching the effect of his fulfilling the Law would be. There we learn that when put into practice, the new law would not only change the outward form of their religious practices, but would also change some of their most fundamental cultural and legal practices as well. Thereafter, an appeal to Leviticus to establish rules of personal conduct, family relations, moral code, or dietary practices was no longer a valid evidence to support an argument about what was right or wrong (just as it is not for us).

We needn’t wonder if the Nephites then did, as we sometimes tend to do, pick and choose from among the parts of the Law of Moses we wished to use to justify our beliefs and practices. They clearly did not. The description of the righteousness of the society of the next three generations teaches us that the Nephites took the Saviors instructions very seriously. Mormon does not tell us very much about the Fourth Nephi society, but what he does tell us is enough that we may know that the rigidity and bigotry that was justifiable under the Law had given way to acceptance of personal integrity rather than perfect conformity as the standard of individual excellence. I take it that in that society there could not have been found a picked-on teenager who felt the need to pray, “Dear God, make the bad people good and the good people nice.”

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

3 Nephi 12:15-16

14 Verily, verily, I say unto you, I give unto you to be the light of this people. A city that is set on a hill cannot be hid.
15 Behold, do men light a candle and put it under a bushel? Nay, but on a candlestick, and it giveth light to all that are in the house;
16 Therefore let your light so shine before this people, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father who is in heaven (3 Nephi 12:15-16).

The light that shins from our beings originated and continues in sacred space and sacred time. Its source is the true love and eternal friendships that have always animated our lives. In this world our love for our family and friends literally makes us more than we can otherwise become. It enlarges the very essence of our immortal being. As President McKay explains in the quote at the end of this little essay, we each have two identities. One is the physical person others can see. The other is the light [or darkness] that emanates from our person that others can feel. Our physical persons always remain separate from others, no matter how intimate with them we may be. But the light that shines from each of us merges with the light of others to create a oneness that is greater than our individual selves — a sublime intimacy whose very nature seeks to perpetuate itself into the eternities. This is reality, and there is no other. Everything in this world that we perceive as “real”— the things that we can touch, and see, and hear — all these things will pass away. Our bodies will die, but our spirit will live, and our intelligence — the source of the light with which we shine — will remain alive forever, and its ultimate definition will be the quality of love/light with which it shines. In our future spirit world and ultimately in our resurrection, the quality of our love/light will define us. Each of us will gravitate to those whose light is like our own. If that quality is celestial, then the relationships we enjoy in this life will perpetuate themselves into the eternities, and those who radiate pure celestial light will be one, just as the Savior prayed we might be (John 17).

Two scriptures that explain that eternal oneness are:

1 When the Savior shall appear we shall see him as he is. We shall see that he is a man like ourselves.
2 And that same sociality which exists among us here will exist among us there, only it will be coupled with eternal glory, which glory we do not now enjoy (D&C 130:1-2).

40 For intelligence cleaveth unto intelligence; wisdom receiveth wisdom; truth embraceth truth; virtue loveth virtue; light cleaveth unto light; mercy hath compassion on mercy and claimeth her own; justice continueth its course and claimeth its own; judgment goeth before the face of him who sitteth upon the throne and governeth and executeth all things.
41 He comprehendeth all things, and all things are before him, and all things are round about him; and he is above all things, and in all things, and is through all things, and is round about all things; and all things are by him, and of him, even God, forever and ever. …
67 And if your eye be single to my glory, your whole bodies shall be filled with light, and there shall be no darkness in you; and that body which is filled with light comprehendeth all things.
68 Therefore, sanctify yourselves that your minds become single to God, and the days will come that you shall see him; for he will unveil his face unto you, and it shall be in his own time, and in his own way, and according to his own will (D&C 88:40-41, 67-68).

In Who Shall Ascend into the Hill of the Lord, Stephen and I wrote:

The mandate in the Beatitudes begins with the words, “I give unto you to be. …” They are not a suggestion, but a commission that is part of the definition of one who has been anointed to be a priest and sacral king. The previous commission “to be the salt of the earth” began with the same words. That was a charge to teach those who were not yet a part of the kingdom. The present one, “to be the light of this people,” is a charge to fulfill one’s covenants with regard to our relationship with the Saints of the Kingdom. It is about individual and communal friendships with each other and with God. “A city [Zion] that is set on a hill” was to be a place of sanctuary and peace. And while it is also a beacon toward which others might look, it is primarily the home of the pure in heart. Within Zion is a Temple, and within the Temple is the menorah, a “candlestick.”

Christ is the light and the life of the world, often represented as the Tree of Life—a tree of light. In the Holy Place in Solomon’s Temple there was a great menorah, the “candlestick” that was not a candlestick at all, but a lamp stand. It was shaped like a tree, which represented the tree of life whose three sets of branches lift toward heaven as in prayer, uttered three times. The cups at the ends of its upraised branches were filled with olive oil—the same kind of oil that was used to anoint priests and kings. The fires from these lamps lit the interior of the Temple, and symbolically the light reached out to light the rest of the world as well. Thus it became a burning bush that lights the way—the tree of life that invites one to come to the great multi-colored veil of Solomon’s Temple. It is a tree of anointing light.

The Savior asked, “Behold, do men light a candle and put it under a bushel?” Then he responded to his own question. “ Nay, but on a candlestick, and it giveth light to all that are in the house.” His reference to a candlestick invites one’s mind into the Temple where the great Menorah stood just outside the veil. Thus the “house” would be the Temple, where the Saints may come at will. He adds, “Therefore let your light so shine before this people, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father who is in heaven.” (Who Shall Ascend into the House of the Lord, 689-90)

The Savior was speaking — not just to the Twelve — but to the entire congregation. The light of each was to enlighten and enhance the light of the others. This was a charge to bless and be blessed, to enlighten the enlightened, and to love and be loved by those who exuded charity.

In a message called “Radiation of the Individual” President David O. McKay explained:

Every man and every person who lives in this world wields an influence, whether for good or for evil. It is not what he says alone; it is not alone what he does. It is what he is. Every man, every person radiates what he or she really is. Every person is a recipient of radiation. The Saviour was conscious of that. Whenever He came into the presence of an individual, He sensed that radiation — whether it was the woman of Samaria with her past life: whether it was the woman who was to be stoned, or the men who were to stone her; whether it was the statesman, Nicodemus, or one of the lepers. He was conscious of the radiation from the individual. And to a degree so are you. and so am I. It is what we are and what we radiate that affects the people around us.

As individuals, we must think nobler thoughts. We must not encourage vile thoughts or low aspirations. We shall radiate them if we do. If we think noble thoughts; if we encourage and cherish noble aspirations, there will be that radiation when we meet people, especially when we associate with them.

As it is true of the individual. so it is true of the home. Our homes radiate what we are, and that radiation comes from what we say and how we act in the home. No member of this Church — husband, father — has the right to utter an oath in his home, or ever to express a cross word to his wife or to his children. You cannot do it as a man who holds the priesthood and be true to the spirit within you by your ordination and your responsibility. You should contribute to an ideal home by your character, controlling your passion, your temper, guarding your speech, because those things will make your home what it is and what it will radiate to the neighborhood. ….

Church Members Should Radiate Love and Harmony

As men of the priesthood, as women of the Church, we have greater responsibilities than ever before to make our homes such as will radiate to our neighbors harmony, love, community duties, loyalty. Let our neighbors see it and hear it. Never must there be expressed in a Latter-day Saint home an oath, a condemnatory term, an expression of anger or jealousy or hatred. Control it! Do not express it! You do what you can to produce peace and harmony, no matter what you may suffer.

The Saviour set us the example. He was always calm, always controlled, radiating something which people could feel as they passed. When the woman touched His garment, He felt something go from Him — that radiation which is divine.

Each individual soul has it. That is you! The body is only the house in which you live.

The Church is reaching out, radiating not only by its prayers, its houses of worship and meetings, but now through television and radio it is radiating throughout the whole world.

God help us as members of the priesthood, as members of the Church. to radiate Faith. Love of humanity, Charity, Control, Consideration. and Service! (The Instructor, October, 1964, p. 373-374).

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

This is a paper I wrote that was published in the Ensign, April 1999, p. 53-54.

‘What does it mean to be the ‘Salt of the Earth’?’ by LeGrand L. Baker

Response by LeGrand L. Baker, curator Wells Freedom Archives, Harold B. Lee Library, Brigham Young University, and a member of the Cherry Hill Ninth Ward, Orem Utah Cherry Hill Stake.

The scriptural phrase “salt of the earth” has come to mean many things. In likening the scriptures unto ourselves (see 1 Ne. 19:23), we may sometimes overlook the author’s primary intent and the key points of comparison in his use of metaphor. A full understanding and appreciation of a given passage of scripture may thus elude us. [I was especially pleased that sentence got in unchanged.]

That sometimes appears to be the case with the metaphor of salt. Perhaps we have observed that just as salt enhances the taste of certain foods, so we must be as salt, living our lives to bless and enhance the lives of others and make the gospel palatable to them. We may have also noted that salt is a preservative not unlike the preserving influence of righteous Saints who uphold gospel ideals in a world of shifting values.

While such applications are relevant and meaningful to Latter-day Saints worldwide, to the ancients the central figurative meaning of salt had to do not with taste but with smell.

When sacrifices were offered upon the altars of ancient Israel, the Israelites did not give the Lord the flesh of the animal, the fruit of the ground, or the ashes or smoke of such sacrifices. The acceptable part of the offering presented to the Lord was the smell, “a sweet savour unto the Lord” (Lev. 1 17).

In the Bible, the word savour most often refers to the pleasant smell of burning sacrifice in the temple. To ensure that the smell would be sweet, the Mosaic law required that the offering be liberally sprinkled with salt.

The scent of an unsalted burnt offering would be the stench of scorched flesh. But if the meat were generously salted, the odor would be quite different, due to the reaction of the salt upon the cells that compose animal flesh. Under high-salt conditions, cellular fluid rapidly escapes the cells to dilute the salts outside cell membranes. When accentuated by heat, these fluids cause a sweet savor to emanate.

The Lord’s requirements concerning their offerings was clear. Referring to “the salt of the covenant,” the Lord instructed ancient Israel, “With all thine offerings thou shalt offer salt” (Lev. 2:13). Flavius Josephus, the ancient Jewish historian, explained how that was done. He wrote that the priests “cleanse the bodies [of the sacrificial animals], and divide them into parts, and salt them with salt, and lay them upon the altar, while the pieces of wood are piled one upon another, and the fire is burning…. This is was the way of offering a burnt offering” (Antiquities of the Jews, trans. William Whiston [1875], 3:9:1).

The purpose of the law of performances and ordinances given to the children of Israel through Moses was to point their souls to Christ and to bear witness of His gospel. The atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ perfectly fulfilled the law of Moses and ended blood sacrifice. The resurrected Lord explained the new law of sacrifice to His followers on the American continent: “Ye shall offer up unto me no more the shedding of blood; yea, your sacrifices and your burnt offerings shall be done away….

And ye shall offer for a sacrifice unto me a broken heart and a contrite spirit. And whoso cometh unto me with a broken heart and a contrite spirit, him will I baptize with fire and with the Holy Ghost (3 Ne. 9:19-20).

In this context the charge to be the “salt of the earth” takes on marvelous significance. The Lord said, “I give unto you to be the salt of the earth; but if the salt shall lose its savor wherewith shall the earth be salted?” (3 Ne. 12:13). The Savior’s audience no doubt understood the law of Moses and the close connection between salt and acceptable sacrifice.

It is clear that under the new covenant the followers of Christ, as “salt,” are responsible for extending gospel blessings to the whole earth. “When men are called unto mine everlasting gospel, and covenant with an everlasting covenant,” the Lord explains, “they are accounted as the salt of the earth and the savor of men” (D&C 101:39). It is our privilege and blessing to lovingly lead our brothers and sisters to Christ, helping them receive their covenant blessings. As we do so, we become the figurative salt that makes it possible for them to offer the acceptable sacrifice of a broken heart and a contrite spirit. In addition, our own covenant sacrifice of time, talents, and means is pleasing to the Lord.

This tremendous responsibility of helping bring salvation to others is coupled with caution: “But if the salt shall lose its savor wherewith shall the earth be salted? The salt shall be thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out and to be trodden under foot of men” (3 Ne. 12:13). Salt used anciently for sacrifice could easily lose its savor, and always for the same reason – impurity. If such impure salt was heated, the combination of impurities and salt can result in an unpleasant odor. It was therefore discarded, lest its use desecrate the sacrifice and offend the Lord.

Likewise, we are displeasing to the Lord to the degree that we are impure and ineffective “not the saviors of men,” but instead “as salt that has lost its savor”
(D&C 103:10).

So how do we become the salt of the earth? The Apostle Paul points out that charity is a key to this process: “Be ye therefore followers of God, as dear children;

“And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweetsmelling savour” (Eph. 5:1-2). We must seek to love others purely, as the Savior loves us. It is through this love that we can help bring souls to Him, that they and we might be found acceptable – “unto God a sweet savour of Christ” (2 Cor. 2:15).

3 Nephi 12:10-12 — LeGrand Baker — persecution and persecuted

10 And blessed are all they who are persecuted for my name’s sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
11 And blessed are ye when men shall revile you and persecute, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake;
12 For ye shall have great joy and be exceedingly glad, for great shall be your reward in heaven; for so persecuted they the prophets who were before you (3 Nephi 12:10-12).

The previous Beatitude read: “Blessed are the peacemakers.” The very antithesis of that are people who persecute others. The only reason for persecuting other people is to assert one’s own assumed moral or other superiority by taking pleasure in seeing someone else uncomfortable or worse.

The form of persecution is usually dictated by culture. For example, in the dark ages a woman was burned to the stake for hiding a few pages of the Bible under her floorboards. We don’t do stake burnings any more, so we have to use other more socially accepted ways of persecution. Bullying is common at schools. Adults do the same sorts of thing. We just don’t call it bullying if its done by an adult. Children, teenagers and adults dehumanize before they attack. Dehumanize is too strong a word, but I don’t know the right one. They define someone as an “other” which means he is “not like us.” Because they see themselves as the standard of goodness, wisdom, and virtue, then by defining someone else as different, as an “other,” they classify him as unworthy, inferior, or even evil. They do this because they cannot tolerate his differences. After they have defined him as an “other,” they can emotionally justify the conclusion that he does not deserve to be treated as an “us” (i.e. he is unnatural, something less than a real human) then their conscience is clear as they ostracize him from their society or deny him job opportunities, or do him social, mental, or physical harm. Persecution is inflicted on most everyone who is different—because being an “other” is a punishable cultural sin.

Intolerance for cultural sins is the most usual rational for persecution of “others.” Real sins rarely are. Real sins disqualify one from being in the presence of God; cultural sins usually only disqualify one from being comfortable in the presence of those whose sins are real.

Real sins are those that canker the human spirit. They begin in one’s mind. Some always stay there: sins like hate, covetousness, jealousy, contempt, bigotry. The Savior added adultery to that list. These sins infect our soul and will condemn us on judgement day if we do not repent. Sometimes these sins of the mind mature into actions that are contemptuous, dishonest, hurtful, or even brutal. There are laws that protect people from other’s illegal actions, but governments cannot legislate against the sins of the mind. Consequently, except for physical violence and theft, most of the real sins are tolerated by our culture.

The “sins” that evoke persecution are usually not the real sins. The “sins” that culture does not tolerate are the visible differences that define someone else as an “other.” Having the wrong colored skin is a simple example. Whether a black man in a white culture or a white man in a black culture, the “other” is not culturally correct, therefore not trustworthy, therefore, by definition the personification of sin. Another example from our not so distant past is the woman who’s dress exposed her ankles. She was a bad woman. However, at the same time a proper lady could have a neck line just as low as nature would permit and she was only “fashionable.” Examples among children and teenagers are the small or studious boys who do not play sports and are mercilessly bullied for just being who they are. Cultural sins are not sins for which one has to repent. Most are not sins for which it is possible to repent. But the punishment for such sins may cause immense emotional and sometimes physical pain. In the past, and in some places still in the present, by just being a Mormon we define oneself as an “other,” and therefore, manifestly as a cultural “sin.”

In religious cultures, it is usually their god who is given the credit for canonizing cultural sins. Self-defined righteous people know instinctively that their god would never make any good person different from themselves. Therefore, their god justifies the persecution of anyone who is “not like us” and can easily be identified as an “other.”

We Mormons also do that sometimes — but never to our credit. I suppose the correct response to cultural sins is summed up by the bumper sticker President Uchtdorf quoted in April Conference, 2012, “Don’t judge me because I sin differently than you.”

In our Beatitude, the Savior is talking about a specific group of “others.” It is those who are persecuted “for my name’s sake” As there is always a new name associated with a new covenant, “name” is often a code word for “covenant.” As, for example, when Isaiah quotes the Lord as saying, “for I will not suffer my name to be polluted, and I will not give my glory unto another (1 Nephi 20:11).” That can be understood as “ I will not suffer my covenant to be polluted.” Similarly the Beatitude might be understood as saying “blessed are all they who are persecuted for the sake of my covenant.”

The Savior has already described such people as “peacemakers,” so we can be assured that they are not boastful or obnoxious in presenting the gospel to others. They do not “deserve” to be treated with contempt except that their very being calls attention to the crudeness of their persecutors and makes the persecutors uncomfortable. That is the problem: The wicked are made uncomfortable by the very existence of the righteous, so the wicked persecute them to prove they are inferior and do not have the power to defend themselves. Thus the wicked find a perverse kind of self-importance and self-validation in the very act of persecuting the righteous.

The righteous, the peacemakers, are wise enough to leave it to God to execute judgement in his own time and his own way. Because the righteous have the hope that gives peace, they know everything will ultimately turn out just fine. But for the others, the people who do the persecuting, their actions are real sins, but the attitudes that produce the actions may be even more damning. For Latter-day Saints (as long as they feel no need to repent), such attitudes and actions virtually preclude even the possibility of the celestial resurrection which they anticipate for themselves, but which they would so vigorously deny to those who are burdened with the cultural sins that identify them as “others.”

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

3 Nephi 12:9 

And blessed are all the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God (3 Nephi 12:9).

25 With the merciful [hesed – adj.] thou wilt shew thyself merciful [hesed – verb]; with an upright man thou wilt shew thyself upright (Psalms 18:25). {1}

The Savior was apparently paraphrasing that psalm when he said:

7 Blessed are the merciful for they shall obtain mercy (3 Nephi 12:7).

The Savior was probably paraphrasing Psalm 18 when he spoke those words. The Psalm reads:

25 With the merciful [hesed – adj.] thou wilt shew thyself merciful [hesed – verb]; with an upright man thou wilt shew thyself upright (Psalms 18:25). {A}

As observed elsewhere, Psalm 25 is set in the context of our premortal covenants. In it, words translated “lovingkindnesses” and “mercy” are from the Hebrew word hesed. {B} The psalm uses the Hebrew word hesed four times, and by so doing, it brings those covenants into a deeply personal friendship/relationship. The Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament shows the power of that friendship/relationship:

We may venture the conjecture that even in cases where the context does not suggest such mutuality it is nevertheless implicit, because we are dealing with the closest of human bonds. {C}

An explanation and clarification of their phrase, “dealing with the closest of human bonds,” is found in a new edition of Strong’s Concordance:

hesed, unfailing love, loyal love, devotion. kindness, often based on a prior relationship, especially a covenant relationship. {D}

There is a quality of personal power that transcends sorrow, pain, uncertainty, fear, and disappointment. The scriptures express it in two different ways. The first is “Hope” which means living as though the covenant is already fulfilled. Hope in the fulfillment of God’s covenants is the ultimate inner fortress against “the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune.”{1}

The other way is expressed by such words as peace, peacemaker and peaceable. Peace is a gift one may give or receive. When the peace is from God it gives us hope. For ourselves, while hope is the power one carries within one’s Self, peace is an outward expression of that inner hope, and is therefore the power one shares with others. Peacemaker and peaceable are words that describe those who have hope and give peace as a gift to other people. That is all explained very well in the first few verses of Moroni 7. Mormon’s sermon is an elaboration on our Beatitude. Like the Beatitude, it begins by addressing those who have hope and can give peace, and, like the Beatitude, it concludes, “… that ye may become the sons of God.”{2}

Mormon identifies his audience in terms of their having hope and their ability to give peace. He says:

3 Wherefore, I would speak unto you that are of the church, that are the peaceable followers of Christ, and that have obtained a sufficient hope by which ye can enter into the rest of the Lord, from this time henceforth until ye shall rest with him in heaven.
4 And now my brethren, I judge these things of you because of your peaceable walk with the children of men (Moroni 7:3-4).

Here the phrase “sufficient hope” is the key to understanding these verses. It is also the key to understanding the entire sermon. A peacemaker is one who has “sufficient hope” to sustain his own peacefulness and thereby to sustain his “peaceable walk with the children of men.”

In that same sermon Mormon asks and then answers:

41 And what is it that ye shall hope for? Behold I say unto you that ye shall have hope through the atonement of Christ and the power of his resurrection, to be raised unto life eternal, and this because of your faith in him according to the promise (Moroni 7:41).

The Book of Mormon itself ends with a kind of crescendo of faith, hope and charity, repeated three times in Ether 12, Moroni 7, and Moroni 10.

Ether 12 teaches us about faith, hope, and charity, then in verse 39 it concludes with a personal visit between Moroni the Savior

Moroni 7 concludes by teaching us how we “may become the sons of God; that when he shall appear we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is; that we may have this hope; that we may be purified even as he is pure. Amen (Moroni 7:48).

And in Moroni 10, Moroni teaches us that “Wherefore, there must be faith; and if there must be faith there must also be hope; and if there must be hope there must also be charity. And except ye have charity ye can in nowise be saved in the kingdom of God; neither can ye be saved in the kingdom of God if ye have not faith; neither can ye if ye have no hope (Moroni 10:20-21). Then Moroni concludes: “if ye by the grace of God are perfect in Christ, and deny not his power, then are ye sanctified in Christ by the grace of God, through the shedding of the blood of Christ, which is in the covenant of the Father unto the remission of your sins, that ye become holy, without spot (Moroni 10:33).”

If what I have suggested is true, then the trilogy of faith, hope, and charity are also parts of pairings showing what one IS as related to what one DOES:

Faith (pistis) is made effectual by being faithful (pistos);{3} that is by keeping one’s covenants. Faith and being faithful are essentially the same. That is, they are two sides of the same coin, for when the covenants one makes with God dominate our sense of self, then our always remembering and keeping those covenants is the honest expression of our Self.

Hope is living as though God’s part of the covenants are already fulfilled. It is the power of our hope that enables us to help others experience peace. Hope is the power within one’s Self. Peace is our expression of that hope and is a gift to others. They are also the same, two sides of the same coin, for when hope defines what one is, then being peaceful and giving peace is what one does.

Charity is love that brings one to salvation. Charity is a power within one’s Self. It is manifested by living the law of consecration. In the Book of Mormon charity is the ultimate goal to which we reach. In the Doctrine and Covenants the law of consecration is that goal. They are also the same, two sides of the same coin, for when charity is what one IS, then consecration is what one DOES.

The threesome faith/faithful, hope/peace, and charity/consecration represent a sequence of progression. In the Beatitudes there are a lot of steps and much time between the first faith (actually “believe” {4} ) in verse 2 and peacemakers in verses 9-12, and it goes on to charity in verses 13-16. All those steps and the time it takes for us to achieve them is described in the phrase “endure to the end.”

The Beatitude says, “And blessed are all the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God.” The word “called” can be read “named.” It identifies a royal king name. The new name associated with “peacemakers” in verse 9 is “children of God.” It is similar to the king name in Psalm 2 {5}and denotes sonship, priesthood, and kingship, just as does the phrase “for theirs is the kingdom of heaven” in the next verse of the Beatitudes.

These references to priesthood and kingship brings to our memory another use of “peace” in one of the most frequently quoted scriptures in the scriptures.{6} In Isaiah that scripture is the acknowledgment of the kingship of Jehovah. But for Abinadi it is also a promise of inheritance as a child of God. The Isaiah passage reads:

6 Therefore my people shall know my name: therefore they shall know in that day that I am he that doth speak: behold, it is I.
7 How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him that bringeth good tidings, that publisheth peace; that bringeth good tidings of good, that publisheth salvation; that saith unto Zion, Thy God reigneth! (Isaiah 52:6-7).

But for Abinadi it is also a promise of inheritance as a child of God.

14 And these are they who have published peace, who have brought good tidings of good, who have published salvation; and said unto Zion: Thy God reigneth!
15 And O how beautiful upon the mountains were their feet!
16 And again, how beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of those that are still publishing peace!
17 And again, how beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of those who shall hereafter publish peace, yea, from this time henceforth and forever!
18 And behold, I say unto you, this is not all. For O how beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him that bringeth good tidings, that is the founder of peace, yea, even the Lord, who has redeemed his people; yea, him who has granted salvation unto his people;
19 For were it not for the redemption which he hath made for his people, which was prepared from the foundation of the world, I say unto you, were it not for this, all mankind must have perished.
20 But behold, the bands of death shall be broken, and the Son reigneth, and hath power over the dead; therefore, he bringeth to pass the resurrection of the dead (Mosiah 15:14-20).

——————
ENDNOTES

———————————-
Footnotes within the footnote

{A} 25 With the merciful [hesed – adj, Strong # 2623 ] thou wilt shew thyself merciful [hesed – verb, Strong # 2616]; with an upright man thou wilt shew thyself upright (Psalms 18:25). {A}

{A} Katherine Doob Sakenfeld of Princeton University Seminary wrote a dissertation on “hesed” in which she argued that it meant “to do what is expected of one.” With regard to the covenant, God does what is expected (keep his covenant promises); man should also maintain “hesed” (keep his covenant promises).
Katherine Doob Sakenfeld, The Meaning of Hesed in the Hebrew Bible: A New Inquiry (Missoula, Montana; Scholars Press for the Harvard Semitic Museum, 1978).

{B} G. Johannes Botterweck and Helmer Ringgren, eds., trans. Davod E. Green, Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, 15 vols. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1986), article about hesed, 5:45-48). The Greek equivalent is Philadelphia, fraternal love, as explained in fn 905, p. 680.

{C} John R. Kohlenberger III and James A. Swanson, The Strongest Strong’s, Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001), Hebrew dictionary # 2617.

{1} Shakespeare, Hamlet: Act 3, Scene 1.
For a discussion of the meanings of faith, hope, and charity see Who Shall Ascend into the Hill of the Lord, first edition 1005-1043 , second edition 696-722.

{2} Who Shall Ascend into the Hill of the Lord, first edition 1005-1043 , second edition 696-722 is a discussion of Moroni 7, including “faith” as pistis.

{3} You know I don’t read either Greek or Hebrew so there isn’t much point in my trying to impress you by writing Greed words. But there is a point. “Faith” in our everyday language means something believing without evidence, or just wishing hard. Pistis, the Greek word that is translated “faith” in the New Testament, is about making a firm contract or covenant. Pistos is about keeping the terms of that contract or covenant. The words are so different from what our culture understands by “faith” that I put in the Greek words just to remind you I’m not talking about wishing hard or believing without any evidence to substantiate that belief.

{4} Actually “believe” is correct rather than “faith.” That was before Baptism, so no covenant had been made yet. Therefore, “believe” rather than pistis.

{5} See Who Shall Ascend into the Hill of the Lord, first edition 499-517, second edition 360-73.

{6} Other places where Isaiah 52:5-10 is either quoted or paraphrased are: Nahum 1:15, Romans 10:15, Mosiah 12:21-24, 3 Nephi 20:39-41, D&C 128:19.

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