Blog

Alma 10:25 – LeGrand Baker – perceiving truth and light.

But Amulek stretched forth his hand, and cried the mightier unto them, saying: O ye wicked and perverse generation, why hath Satan got such great hold upon your hearts? Why will ye yield yourselves unto him that he may have power over you, to blind your eyes, that ye will not understand the words which are spoken, according to their truth?

One might read this verse as something like a series of mixed metaphors, then just try to get the gist of its message, and read on. However an approach like that takes all the fun out of it. Besides that, it is completely out of character for Amulek to be that casual with words, and it is entirely inconsistent with Mormon’s style for him to include something of low quality on his laboriously prepared Gold Plates. Consequently, the characters of both the author and the compiler impose upon us the need to look at the statement more closely, and try to discover the depth of Amulek’s intent. I tried it, and this is what I came up with:

I began with the last phrase: It doesn’t say “according to truth.” It says, “according to their [the word’s] truth.” That seemed to be the key to the rest of what he had just said.

I read the scriptures with the belief that one can move throughout almost any of the scriptures to learn the meaning of words used in any of the other scriptures. Applying that principle, the best definition I know of truth is that it “is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come.” (D&C 93:24) I understand that definition to mean that truth is a knowledge of reality — as God perceives reality as it is in sacred time. Amulek conveys the same idea by his asserting that his words are truth, meaning that the message they carry consists with eternal reality.

Truth is not an abstract, neither does its factualness vary from individual to individual. However, truth is knowledge, therefore truth exists only when and where it is known. That is, in the perception of each individual a truth does not exist until that person has knowledge of it. A simple example is that a computer is a meaningless box containing no information unless one has knowledge of how to turn it on and make it work. Even then, the abilities of the most powerful computers are actualized only according to knowledge of the user.

In our world, ephemeral reality is also called “true,” but under the Saviour’s definition it is not real truth. Let me give you an example. It is historically true that in the military of Victorian England, only officers could wear a moustache. An enlisted man would get into serious trouble if he did not shave his upper lip. That is historically true, but rules about moustaches have nothing whatever to do with eternal reality, so under the D&C definition, moustache propriety is not “truth.”

The Saviour’s atonement is truth. Our own eternal nature is truth—and the quality of that nature is a product of one’s willingness and ability to assimilate additional eternal truth. Like the computer in the hands of a learner has increasing abilities as its user’s abilities increase; so also, the saving power of the atonement toward an individual is expanded according to one’s repentance, knowledge of the Saviour, and charity—but, on the other hand, the saving powers of the atonement are limited according to one’s refusal to repent, indifference to knowledge of the Saviour, and a cantankerous nature.

In the final analysis, one’s eternal glory is a product of one’s repentance, knowledge of the Saviour, and charity. That is true because repentance brings one to the knowledge of the truth of the laws of one’s own being; knowing the Saviour gives one access to all truth; and charity is one’s being in tune with the truths that define all persons and other living beings. Consequently:

18  Whatever principle of intelligence we attain unto in this life, it will rise with us in the resurrection.
19  And if a person gains more knowledge and intelligence in this life through his diligence and obedience than another, he will have so much the advantage in the world to come. (D&C 130:18-19)

What I understand Amulek to have been saying was that his words had the capacity to introduce one to the knowledge of eternal reality.

In D&C 93, there is an addendum to the definition of truth:

24  And truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come;
25  And whatsoever is more or less than this is the spirit of that wicked one who was a liar from the beginning. (D&D 93:24-25)

An example of a doctrine that is less than truth is Satan’s declaration, “I am no devil, for there is none.” (2 Nephi 28:22) An example of a doctrine that is more than truth is the notion that the Saviour will save everyone, and that he can do so because their actual conformance to celestial law is not really a requirement. That doctrine distorts both justice and mercy, and reaches far beyond the limits of truth.

The heart, in the thinking of those in the ancient world, was the cosmic center of a person, and as such, it was the seat of one’s emotions as well as of one’s intellect. If one loves God with all of his heart, the love is both emotionally supreme and academically secure. The powers, limitations, and agency of one’s heart are completely within the domain of one’s Self. It is an eternal truth that Satan has no ability to take our agency from us—but we, on the other hand, have absolute ability to give it to him. If we do so, we become his subjects and his slaves. If, as Amulek said, Satan had a great hold upon their hearts, then they were emotionally and academically shackled by his influence and refusal to understand.

In contrast, truth—when truth is assimilated by an intelligent being—empowers one’s freedom. An Intelligence (the fundamental part of each of us), when it assimilates truth, emits light—radiates an aura. The aura communicates.

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. (D&C 88:40)

Even in this world, the light of one person is recognizable to the perceptive eyes of another. Few have the ability to see the aura, but most have the ability to recognize the “light” that shines from honest eyes. Light does communicate with light. It is one’s eye that first perceives the truth that shines from another person. After that, it is one’s heart that assimilates that truth, making their truth a part of one’s Self. Trust and enduring friendships are the product of that kind of mutual perception. If the people of Ammonihah had been capable— even willing— to see Amulek’s light, they would have perceived the truth in this words.

So, as I understand it, Amulek was not using mixed metaphors at all. Rather he was speaking with almost absolute precision when he said,

O ye wicked and perverse generation, why hath Satan got such great hold upon your hearts? Why will ye yield yourselves unto him that he may have power over you, to blind your eyes, that ye will not understand the words which are spoken, according to their truth?

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

Alma 10:17; 12:3,7, 14. LeGrand Baker, “he perceived their thoughts”

Now they knew not that Amulek could know of their designs. But it came to pass as they began to question him, he perceived their thoughts, and he said unto them: O ye wicked and perverse generation, ye lawyers and hypocrites, for ye are laying the foundations of the devil; for ye are laying traps and snares to catch the holy ones of God. (Alma 10:17)

3  Now Zeezrom, seeing that thou hast been taken in thy lying and craftiness, for thou hast not lied unto men only but thou hast lied unto God; for behold, he knows all thy thoughts, and thou seest that thy thoughts are made known unto us by his Spirit;….
7  Now when Alma had spoken these words, Zeezrom began to tremble more exceedingly, for he was convinced more and more of the power of God; and he was also convinced that Alma and Amulek had a knowledge of him, for he was convinced that they knew the thoughts and intents of his heart; for power was given unto them that they might know of these things according to the spirit of prophecy….
14  For our words will condemn us, yea, all our works will condemn us; we shall not be found spotless; and our thoughts will also condemn us; and in this awful state we shall not dare to look up to our God; and we would fain be glad if we could command the rocks and the mountains to fall upon us to hide us from his presence. (Alma 12:3,7,141-15)

There are many evidences in the scriptures that God knows the thoughts of everybody, and that his prophets can know, but this story is different from that. It is not only about people knowing each other’s thought, it is one of the few places in the scriptures that apparently reports a conversation that included no audible words. I would like to briefly explore the question of communicating without words, then return to this story.

There are ways that people can perceive other people’s attitudes and intentions. One is through the other’s body language (unless the other person also knows how to read body language and can use body language as well as spoken language to convey whatever he wishes to say.)

Another is more difficult to fake. We communicate with others by the light—or the darkness—that radiates from our person. Sensitive people can feel the essence of what another person is—we can feel another’s love or antagonism. However the art of the shyster is to use words, smiles, and a velvet voice to disguise what he truly is inside. So while that system of knowing another often works, sometimes it does not.

In this comment, I’m not talking about body language, or about light that can be counterfeited. I’m talking about one’s actually knowing what the other person is thinking. Job said to God, “I know that thou canst do every thing, and that no thought can be withholden from thee.” (Job 42:2) The gospels are replete with stories of Jesus knowing the thoughts of the people he spoke with. (Matthew 9:4, 12:25; Luke 5:22, 6:8, 9:47, 11:17; 3 Nephi 28:4-6.) This is a power that only God has, so when humans experience it, it must be by the gift of God. The Lord assured Oliver Cowdery, “…there is none else save God that knowest thy thoughts and the intents of thy heart.” (D&C 6:16. See also Psalms 94:11, Isaiah 66:18, 1 Corinthians 3:20, Hebrews 4:12, D&C 33:1)

When John wrote the story of Nicodemus, he introduced it by explaining,

24  But Jesus did not commit [entrust] himself unto them, because he knew all men,
25  And needed not that any should testify of man: for he knew what was in man.(John 2:24-25)

The principle is very simple: as God knows all things, even our thoughts, it is certainly within his power to teach others what we are thinking. It is also within his power to teach us what others are feeling. When the Spirit conveys that information, one can feel the love or antagonism of another, and know, unerringly what it means—the problem for must of us is how to know unerringly that it is the Holy Ghost who is the source of our information.

The Holy Ghost is the great communicator. He causes people to let missionaries who are strangers come into their homes. He lets missionaries sense their investigator’s questions and teaches the missionaries the correct answer. He teaches each of us that the testimonies of others are true. He warns us when we hear something that is false. He assists friends to talk about the gospel in the sacred language of the scriptures, so that without violating any sacred trust, each can speak and each can understand the intent of what the other says. He teaches us how to read the scriptures so the ancient prophets can communicate with us that same way. He teaches bishops, Relief Society presidents and scout masters how to solve problems they didn’t even know were there. (see D&C 100:5)

Both faith and the priesthood powers are exercised through words—but the words need not always be spoken. Thought can be as powerful as spoken words. That is certainly true with God. Isaiah wrote,

24     The LORD of hosts hath sworn, saying, Surely as I have thought, so shall it come to pass; and as I have purposed, so shall it stand: (Isaiah 14:24)

For Nephi, the word “thought” (the past tense of to think, i.e. to understand) conveyed the whole depth and range of this father’s understanding:

8  And being thus overcome with the Spirit, he was carried away in a vision, even that he saw the heavens open, and he thought he saw God sitting upon his throne, surrounded with numberless concourses of angels in the attitude of singing and praising their God. (1 Nephi 1:8)

For the newly ordained apostle Spencer W. Kimball “thoughts” may have embodied the whole foundation of his apostleship. His son records,

     At home the new apostle underlined three sentences in his written copy of the blessing President Grant had given him: ;Therefore, we admonish you to look upon this calling and this Apostleship which we are now giving unto you as paramount to everything else upon the earth. Therefore, set your heart upon the service of the Lord thy God. From this very moment resolve to make this cause and this labor first and foremost in all your thoughts.’ (Edward L. Kimball and Andrew E. Kimball, Jr., Spencer W. Kimball: Twelfth President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints [Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1977], 205.)

One’s thoughts are the most intimate expression of one’s Self. That is no more true of the apostles and prophets than it is of each of us. It is not uncommon for the Lord to tell his servants what other people are thinking, or how they are feeling, but the story of Alma and Zeezrom is unique. In this story the principals seem to be carrying on a dual conversation: they speak audibly and everyone else can hear, but there seems to be another spoken conversation happening that only they are privy. Our thoughts are the window to our soul. When Zeezrom realized that Alma and Amulek had access to his most confidential and personal Self, it startled, then frightened him.

Zeezrom tried to bribe Amulek, and Amulek accused him of never intending to pay. That seems to me to be a reasonable deduction on Amulek’s part, so why was Zeezrom so taken aback by Amulek’s insight. It seems that the only answer (except that Zeezrom was not very bright, and that is disallowed by what else we know about him) is that Zeezrom had more evidence than just guessing that Amulek had guessed correctly. Alma then picked up the conversation and said,

3  Now Zeezrom, seeing that thou hast been taken in thy lying and craftiness, for thou hast not lied unto men only but thou hast lied unto God; for behold, he knows all thy thoughts, and thou seest that thy thoughts are made known unto us by his Spirit;

Something is going on here we can not read and the others could not hear. It caused Zeezrom to tremble? That is an amazing reaction for one who had a great deal of political experience and was accustomed to hard legal debate, as we are led to believe Zeezrom was.

7  Now when Alma had spoken these words, Zeezrom began to tremble more exceedingly, for he was convinced more and more of the power of God; and he was also convinced that Alma and Amulek had a knowledge of him, for he was convinced that they knew the thoughts and intents of his heart; for power was given unto them that they might know of these things according to the spirit of prophecy. (Alma 12:3,7)

Why? The only answer that satisfies me is that by that same spirit of prophecy, Zeezrom knew what Alma and Amulek were thinking. That is, they actually exchanged ideas—spoke together—without saying the words. I believe it was the power of this unspoken conversation that caused Zeezrom to tremble exceedingly. One can’t cite Zeezrom’s worthiness in this life as a reason for the Lord to teach him in that way, any more than one can cite Alma’s worthiness in this world for his seeing the angel. But missions and responsibilities were made by covenant long before we came here, and the Lord keeps his part of the covenant so we can keep ours. Sometimes that requires what we perceive as rather dramatic action on the Lord’s part to pull us back on course. I believe that when the Lord finds it expedient or necessary, people can communicate with each other by unspoken words, and that people can both speak and hear by the power of the Spirit. That is why this is one of the most interesting stories in the Book of Mormon to me.

The ultimate example, of course is the power of inspired thought, and the way our thoughts bring us into one-on-one contact with the divine. It is beautifully expressed in the 139th Psalm. The psalm is spoken by one who is awed by God, but who is comfortable in knowing that God knows him more intimately than he knows himself. It is a beautiful expression of the power of thought, and therefore of the power of prayer:

1 O LORD, thou hast searched me,
and known me.
2 Thou knowest my downsitting and mine uprising,
thou understandest my thought afar off.
3 Thou compassest my path and my lying down,
and art acquainted with all my ways.
4 For there is not a word in my tongue,
but, lo, O LORD, thou knowest it altogether.
5 Thou hast beset me behind and before,
and laid thine hand upon me.
6 Such knowledge is too wonderful for me;
it is high, I cannot attain unto it.
7 Whither shall I go from thy spirit?
or whither shall I flee from thy presence?
8 If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there:
if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there.
9 If I take the wings of the morning,
and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea;
10 Even there shall thy hand lead me,
and thy right hand shall hold me.
11 If I say, Surely the darkness shall cover me;
even the night shall be light about me.
12 Yea, the darkness hideth not from thee;
but the night shineth as the day:
the darkness and the light are both alike to thee.
13 For thou hast possessed my reins:
thou hast covered me in my mother’s womb.
14 I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made:
marvellous are thy works;
and that my soul knoweth right well.
15 My substance was not hid from thee,
when I was made in secret,
and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.
16 Thine eyes did see my substance,
yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written,
which in continuance were fashioned,
when as yet there was none of them.
17 How precious also are thy thoughts unto me, O God!
how great is the sum of them!
18 If I should count them,
they are more in number than the sand:
when I awake, I am still with thee.
19 Surely thou wilt slay the wicked,
O God: depart from me therefore, ye bloody men.
20 For they speak against thee wickedly,
and thine enemies take thy name in vain.
21 Do not I hate them, O LORD, that hate thee?
and am not I grieved with those that rise up against thee?
22 I hate them with perfect hatred:
I count them mine enemies.
23 Search me, O God, and know my heart: try me,
and know my thoughts:
24 And see if there be any wicked way in me,
and lead me in the way everlasting. (Psalms 139:1-24)

Alma 18:16-21, 32 — LeGrand Baker — communication by the thoughts of the heart

To the ancients, the heart was the cosmic center of the individual (they had no idea what the brain was for). The heart was the academic and emotional center of the person. One thought with the heart. How they came to that conclusion is easy to understand. When we get a really good idea we don’t feel it in our head, but we feel a kind of excitement in our chest— in our heart. The heart was credited with evert thought and every emotion: one loved, hated, contrived, learned, rejoiced, and sorrowed in the heart. It was understood that was also true with God. The psalmist explained, “The counsel of the Lord standeth for ever, the thoughts of his heart to all generations (Psalms 33:11).”

God can communicate with people through the thoughts of their hearts because he knows what we are thinking.

The prophets understood that and it was comforting. The psalmist was secure in the knowledge that because God knows his heart God can judge him in righteousness. In humility, the psalmist asks,

1 O Lord, thou hast searched me, and known me.
2 Thou knowest my downsitting and mine uprising, thou understandest my thought afar off.
3 Thou compassest my path and my lying down, and art acquainted with all my ways…..
23 Search me, O God, and know my heart: try me, and know my thoughts:
24 And see if there be any wicked way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting (Psalms 139:1-24).

Job also understood that principle. As he approaches the veil, he acknowledges God’s power to judge.

1 Then Job answered the Lord, and said,
2 I know that thou canst do every thing, and that no thought can be withholden from thee.
3 Who is he that hideth counsel without knowledge? therefore have I uttered that I understood not; things too wonderful for me, which I knew not.
4 Hear, I beseech thee, and I will speak: I will demand of thee, and declare thou unto me.
5 I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear: but now mine eye seeth thee (Job 42:1-5).

The Lord explained to Oliver Cowdery “that there is none else save God that knowest thy thoughts and the intents of thy heart (D&C 6:16).” Jesus never lost that power. John tells us that the Saviour simply knew what people were thinking. He wrote,

24 But Jesus did not commit himself unto them, because he knew all men,
25 And needed not that any should testify of man: for he knew what was in man.(John 2:24-25)

Sometimes the Saviour responded to what people were thinking rather than to what they said. Luke 5:16-22, 9:46-48, 24:36-39 are examples.

Paul explained this by saying that God “… is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do. (Hebrews 4:12b-13) That principle was emphasized in an 1830 revelation given through the Prophet Joseph where God quoted the statement by Paul. (D&C 33:1)

Therefore, when a prophet or other righteous person can perceive the thoughts of others, that perception is through the gift of the Spirit. God gives some people that temporary ability as it is necessary for them to fulfill their own eternal covenants. He gives others that ability on a more on-going basis so that they can be a righteous judge. The story told in Helaman 9:39-41is a rather dramatic example.

The Spirit of Discernment is a powerful tool by which the Lord gives his servants understanding beyond their natural abilities— the wisdom to govern and conduct the affairs of his kingdom as he would have it done. The Spirit of Discernment is manifest in several ways. Perhaps the simplest is the ability to perceive the light or the darkness in another person’s countenance. But it is often much more explicit than that. I suspect there is hardly a bishop or stake president in the church who has not had multiple experiences in knowing the intent of another person’s attitudes and desires, or even though he may not know the precise words as the other person thought them. But it can be more than that. For those who have the right, the Spirit can give them power to conduct conversations it the privacy of their hearts without physically hearing the words spoken.

It is in the quietude of our hearts that we speak to God, and it is through our hearts that he speaks to us, as in this remarkable story of Alma and his friends in the wilderness.

11 And Amulon commanded them that they should stop their cries [vocal prayers to God]; and he put guards over them to watch them, that whosoever should be found calling upon God should be put to death.
12 And Alma and his people did not raise their voices to the Lord their God, but did pour out their hearts to him; and he did know the thoughts of their hearts.
13 And it came to pass that the voice of the Lord came to them in their afflictions, saying: Lift up your heads and be of good comfort, for I know of the covenant which ye have made unto me; and I will covenant with my people and deliver them out of bondage…….
16 And it came to pass that so great was their faith and their patience that the voice of the Lord came unto them again, saying: Be of good comfort, for on the morrow I will deliver you out of bondage. (Mosiah 24:11-13, 16)

Thus the Lord spoke to each separately, and they understood and acted in unison. Similar experiences— receiving instructions through the Spirit and acting accordingly— are not at all uncommon in the Church, but we rarely talk about them. The unison with which missionaries sometimes act and teach is an “ordinary” example. Knowing how to respond to unspoken questions is part of a missionary’s calling, as the Lord promised earlier missionaries,

5 Therefore, verily I say unto you, lift up your voices unto this people; speak the thoughts that I shall put into your hearts, and you shall not be confounded before men;
6 For it shall be given you in the very hour, yea, in the very moment, what ye shall say.
7 But a commandment I give unto you, that ye shall declare whatsoever thing ye declare in my name, in solemnity of heart, in the spirit of meekness, in all things. (D&C 100:5-7)

We recently watched a conversation between the Alma and Zeezrom where they conversed without words (Alma 12:1-8). Now, in Alma 18, we see another such conversation between Ammon and king Lamoni. We are told only the spoken words the king’s servants might have heard. What we are not told is the very private conversation that only the king and the prophet spoke to each other in the silence of their hearts.

16 And it came to pass that Ammon, being filled with the Spirit of God, therefore he perceived the thoughts of the king. And he said unto him: Is it because thou hast heard that I defended thy servants and thy flocks, and slew seven of their brethren with the sling and with the sword, and smote off the arms of others, in order to defend thy flocks and thy servants; behold, is it this that causeth thy marvelings?
17 I say unto you, what is it, that thy marvelings are so great? Behold, I am a man, and am thy servant; therefore, whatsoever thou desirest which is right, that will I do
18 Now when the king had heard these words, he marveled again, for he beheld that Ammon could discern his thoughts; but notwithstanding this, king Lamoni did open his mouth, and said unto him: Who art thou? Art thou that Great Spirit, who knows all things?
19 Ammon answered and said unto him: I am not.
20 And the king said: How knowest thou the thoughts of my heart? Thou mayest speak boldly, and tell me concerning these things; and also tell me by what power ye slew and smote off the arms of my brethren that scattered my flocks—
21 And now, if thou wilt tell me concerning these things, whatsoever thou desirest I will give unto thee; and if it were needed, I would guard thee with my armies; but I know that thou art more powerful than all they; nevertheless, whatsoever thou desirest of me I will grant it unto thee…..
32 And Ammon said: Yea, and he looketh down upon all the children of men; and he knows all the thoughts and intents of the heart; for by his hand were they all created from the beginning. (Alma 18:16-21, 32)

Alma 9:30-32 – LeGrand Baker, God and government

Alma 9:30-32 –
17 Now they knew not that Amulek could know of their designs. But it came to pass as they began to question him, he perceived their thoughts, and he said unto them: O ye wicked and perverse generation, ye lawyers and hypocrites, for ye are laying the foundations of the devil; for ye are laying traps and snares to catch the holy ones of God.
18 Ye are laying plans to pervert the ways of the righteous, and to bring down the wrath of God upon your heads, even to the utter destruction of this people.
19 Yea, well did Mosiah say, who was our last king, when he was about to deliver up the kingdom, having no one to confer it upon, causing that this people should be governed by their own voices—yea, well did he say that if the time should come that the voice of this people should choose iniquity, that is, if the time should come that this people should fall into transgression, they would be ripe for destruction.
20 And now I say unto you that well doth the Lord judge of your iniquities; well doth he cry unto this people, by the voice of his angels: Repent ye, repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.
21 Yea, well doth he cry, by the voice of his angels that: I will come down among my people, with equity and justice in my hands.
22 Yea, and I say unto you that if it were not for the prayers of the righteous, who are now in the land, that ye would even now be visited with utter destruction; yet it would not be by flood, as were the people in the days of Noah, but it would be by famine, and by pestilence, and the sword.
23 But it is by the prayers of the righteous that ye are spared; now therefore, if ye will cast out the righteous from among you then will not the Lord stay his hand; but in his fierce anger he will come out against you; then ye shall be smitten by famine, and by pestilence, and by the sword; and the time is soon at hand except ye repent.

Alma’s warning to the Nephites about the need for good government rings as true to us today as it did to the people to whom Alma was talking.

There are only three fundamental forms of governmental systems. 1) Those that are described in Machiavelli’s The Prince, where the most powerful people assume the authorities of government and use power to retain power. 2) Those that are described by Rousseau, where a self-identified moral elite assume the authorities of government. 3) And those that are based on the principles of Deism, described in theory in the Declaration of Independence, and in function in the American Constitution. Let me point out the differences.

1) The coercive powers described in The Prince are the same whether the control is exercised by a king, tribal chiefs, medieval landowners, military dictators, or department chairmen. This is a very simple form of government. It rests on the theory that there are casts of people, and their status can easily be defined by whether they are or are not a part of the dominant aristocracy. Those who are, control politics, religion, and economy. They control politics because the law is what they say the law is. They control the economy because they own the real property, and often also the serfs or slaves who work the land. They control religion because religious doctrines, rituals, and festivals are a major means of keeping the masses in check. In these cultures the major gods support the king and validate his actions. Criminal law is established to reinforce and legalize both the religion and the power of the king. In ancient Rome, Persia, China and Japan the king or emperor was a god. In ancient Egypt, Greece, medieval Europe, and apostate Israel, the king was the ultimate representative of the god.

2) Rousseau rejected the idea of class based on land ownership, and devised a method of creating a different, but equally ridged class system. He argued that people are intelligent animals whose primary instincts, and motivations are avarice, greed, self preservation, and self aggrandizement. He said that because this is so, all governments tend to be tools by which the powerful can control and take advantage of the weak. He used the European dark ages as an primary example. He said, however, that not all people are like that. There is a small minority—a moral elite—who are capable of understanding and therefore of dispensing equanimity in society—that is, they would be if they had the powers of government at their disposal. He reasoned that it is the responsibility of this self-defined, self-appointed, elite to obtain political power by whatever revolutionary means are necessary, and then to use government to impose equity upon society. Marks’s Communism picks up on that idea and assumes the working class would constitute that moral elite. George Bernard Shaw saw it differently. He believed the moral elite would be the well educated property class of Britain (people who already had enough money and education that they didn’t have to worry about ways to get more). He organized the Fabian Society which is still the think tank of the British Labor Party. (When the Labor Party got power in England they nationalized railroads, coal mines, and other theretofore private businesses.) He implemented his program by establishing discussion groups at universities among students who were going to become teachers, writers of plays and novels, newspaper reporters, broadcasting, and other professions that had the power to change public opinion. Shaw also started private schools in England. One young woman who attended one of his schools was Eleanor Roosevelt. She returned to America, helped establish Fabian discussion groups at universities here, and married FDR who implemented many of Shaw’s ideas in the United States. Mrs Roosevelt also became very involved in the United Nations.

Rousseau-inspired governmental systems vary markedly in their applications of his principles. In Russia, China, and a few other places it has been rather complete. After World War II, European nations like France and Italy adopted it within their established political systems. In America, Shaw’s version of Rousseau’s philosophy was espoused by the Roosevelt’s Democratic party, but countered by the Republicans, so American movement toward implementing this philosophy has been slowed by political compromise.

In practice the philosophy is called Communism, Socialism, and several other names. In theory it looks good, but it is severely flawed. Its flaws cause it to evolve into Machiavelli-like system where the philosophy itself takes the role of religion. Its premise is that because people are corrupt and selfish by nature, they are not capable of making decisions that are not in their own self interest, so participatory government, where the masses make political decisions, must be as corrupt as the masses who participate in those decisions. Rousseau asserts that since neither an aristocracy nor a democracy can govern equitably, a self-identified and self-appointed moral elite must displace the old system and make governmental decisions for the masses. The flaw is that even though it pretends to establish a single cast economic system, it cannot do so. Rather, it creates a two-cast social, political, and economic system that is as oppressive as Machiavellian dictatorships. The underlying problem is that there is no such thing as wealth in the abstract. Wealth consists of a sequence of events—the first involves production, then distribution, then accessibility. For example, one can own a mountain full of gold ore, but it means nothing unless he can refine the gold, influence its value, and get it on the market. The same is true of a field of wheat. Unless it is harvested and marketed, it is no greater source of wealth than a field of weeds. In Rousseau’s egalitarian system, the same people who make political decisions also make decisions about what should be produced, how it should be marketed, and who has access to it. If their decisions are not correct, the wheat does not get planted; or if planted, not harvested; or if harvested, not marketed; or if marketed, to the wrong people for the wrong price. Criminal law is established to ensure the continuance of the system and to sustain the power of the individuals who control the state. The opportunities for corruption are enormous, and, as happened in the USSR, when it is pushed to its logical conclusion, the government that implements it is destined to implode.

3) The system based on the notions of Deism has its origins back as far as the Protestant Reformation with the ideas of John Calvin. Calvin’s rationale went like this: God is perfect; what he does is perfect; and God created men and women, some of whom will go to heaven but others will go to hell. That presents a logical dilemma: if some go to hell that means either God’s creation is not perfect or else that he created them to go to hell. Calvin’s conclusion was that God created some to go to heaven and others to go to hell. That philosophy is called predestination. His followers accepted it as truth but were frustrated by it. They asked, “If I live a good life and am destined to go to heaven, well and good; however, if I live the good life but am destined to go to hell, then I will miss out on all the fun things and my life will have been wasted. They wanted Calvin to tell them how they could tell if they were destined to go to heaven. He responded with this argument: If one is honest, industrious, lives frugally, teaches others his trade, and is generous to the poor, then one is the kind of person who will go to heaven. That is, if one wishes to be in good with God, one must be productive. I submit that if that doctrine were taught in any culture, at any time, and in any religion, there would only be one consequence: the people would get rich. And that is what happened. Calvin’s philosophy became the foundation of our free enterprise economic system. It was transported to England where it merged with British Common Law and the Parliamentary system.

That fusion of philosophies migrated to America with the British colonists. It matured in the colonies, until it became the established fact of American political and economic reality. The Americans were comfortable with it until after the French and Indian war, when the British Parliament began to pass laws that imposed political and economic change upon their American colonies. The Americans rebelled, but the rebels were not revolutionaries. They were constitutional conservatives who were determined to retain their rights as Englishmen even if they had to get out on the Empire to do it.

The colonists were Christians: the most widely read book in America was the Bible, and their formal and informal education included a study of both the old and New Testaments. Along with the evolution of their political and economic philosophy, there had also been an evolution in their religion—not in their organized religion, that remained the same—but in their fundamental thinking about the nature and personality of God. Their new religious philosophy was called Deism. Because Deism was not a formalized religion it never had a published creed. (The only nearly contemporary analysis of its principles was written by Tom Paine as a seething attack against Thomas Jefferson. Paine had a caustic personality and mis-defined Deism as atheism, then used his definition to try to show that Jefferson was an atheist.) The best way to discover what Deism really meant is to ignore Paine and read the papers of the Founding Fathers to see how they understood God and religion, and to observe their actions to learn the impact the philosophy had upon their lives. The fundamental premises of Deism are these: 1) There is a God in Heaven who is capable of thought and feeling. His existence and his personality are evinced by the nature of his creations, and the greatest all of those creations are men and women. The fact that people think and feel is sufficient evidence that God also can think and feel. God loves his creations and desires them to be the very best that they are capable of being. People are innately capable of being their best, but only when they lived in a society with a government that encourages individual human success. Since God wants people to have the advantages afforded by a free government, he also wants them to have a government under which they can be free. Therefore it is in God’s self interest to help humans create governments that will augment their individual success and happiness. Perhaps the very best living exponent of this philosophy was the greatest man of them all, George Washington.{1}

Washington once confided to a friend that “an innate spirit of freedom” first taught him to recognize the principles and value of liberty. {2}

Washington was a devout Christian. That is evinced by his frequent letters to the Continental Congress requesting that they declare national fast and prayer days in behalf of his military success. When the army was approaching a battle, Washington would give general orders that his men pray for divine sustenance. At the conclusion of a successful battle Washington issued general orders that the men fast and pray in thanks to God. Consistent with his Deistic philosophy, Washington believed that because it was in God’s best interest to provide his children with a government in which they could be free to be the best they could possibly be, God would hold himself responsible for the Army’s military success. However, also consistent with Washington’s Deistic philosophy, he believed that it was he, not God, who was responsible for his own personal success and for the care of Mt. Vernon. Consequently, even though there is much evidence that Washington prayed for his country, there is little or no evidence that he prayed for Mt. Vernon.

In short, Deism was a Christian-based belief that God cares about the freedom of his children, and that for that reason he takes an active part in their political, and if necessary military, welfare.

In America, the generation of the Revolutionary War and the creation of the Constitution saw the birth of an entirely new political philosophy. It was founded on the economic principles of the Protestant work ethic, mingled with the system of British parliamentary system and common-law, sustained by the Christian belief that people have individual worth, and empowered by the Deistic understanding that God will intervene to make his children politically free. All of these ideas matured together, and flowered in the words of Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence.

The best discussion of the Declaration’s philosophy is Garry Wills’ Inventing America. {3}

In his book, Wills carefully examines the philosophical background of Jefferson’s “all men are created equal.” He shows that Jefferson’s “equality” was fundamentally different from Rousseau’s egalitarian “equality,” and also different from John Locke’s “life, liberty, and property.” In the first place Jefferson and his contemporaries did not believe equality meant sameness, as is implied in Rousseau’s egalitarian ideals, and they did not believe that inherited property conveyed inherited rights to political power.

In his personal writings, Jefferson compared human society to a bucket of fresh milk. He observed that as time passes the cream in the milk will separate and rise to the top of the bucket, while the ordinary milk will settle to the bottom. Jefferson believed people are like that: those with natural talents will rise to the top, others will not. He believed government ought not to be used to artificially raise untalented people, or to artificially keep afloat the untalented children of talented people. He wrote that government should get out of the way, but let people seek their own levels—according to their individual abilities and inclinations—and according to their own definitions of “the pursuit of happiness.”

Jefferson wrote,

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

With those words he lay the entire legal foundation for the legitimacy of participatory government.

Machiavelli’s system is based on the notion that people are not equal, Therefore, any rights the masses have are given to them by their government.

Rousseau’s system assumed people are, and should be required to remain, equal—and that equality means sameness. Also under that system, any rights the masses have are given them by their government.

Jefferson’s “equality” is nothing like either of those. Wills has shown that Jefferson ’s meaning of equality was the same as that taught by Scottish philosophers who believed that human equality is about our universal sense of right and wrong. The rationale for participatory government is this: If we share a sense of right and wrong, and if we are governed by people elected by the masses, then the representatives in government will have the same sense of right and wrong as the people who elected them. Such a government would make laws that are consistent with the universal conscience. That is, the government would make things that are morally wrong illegal, and use the laws to support things that are good. Under this system, any rights the masses have are given by to them God, and the function of government is to preserve those inalienable rights.

In Jefferson’s system, God made men free, and therefore there are only four fundamental purposes of government. They are: 1) to protect the people from international aggression (military and diplomatic power), 2) to protect them from their neighbors (police and some regulatory powers), 3) to make them freer than they would be if there were no government (good roads and an efficient political system), and 4) to leave the people alone and let them be the best they can be. In a word: to prevent external restraints on individual freedom and otherwise to keep out of the way.

In the context of his “all men are created equal,” Jefferson was not talking about “equality under the law,” neither was he talking about “equality of opportunity” (that’s a 20^th century phrase that suggests egalitarianism. It is a handy political phrase—and like the very best of political catch-phrases it has no concrete meaning because the opportunity humans want are as variant as human interests.). and as such was not a part of Jefferson’s thinking. Wills convincingly shows that what Jefferson meant is that all people have an innate and equal sense of right and wrong – they all have the same built-in conscience—a universal standard of moral excellence—and on that idea rests the whole legal justification for the American political and economic system.

In contrast, in Rousseau’s thinking, there is no standard of right and wrong, therefore any government that might be elected by the masses would share their inability to distinguish the common good from the common evil—therefore the need of a dictatorship of the moral elite. However, in Jefferson’s system, because there is a universal conscience, the people in a government elected by the masses would share their innate sense of personal (therefore universal) right and wrong. In Rousseau’s system, participatory government must necessarily be corrupt because people are selfish; but in Jefferson’s system participatory government must necessarily be in the best interest of everyone, because the people who run the government share the common values of the overwhelming majority of the citizens. Criminal law is necessary, but it only applies to those who act contrary to those commonly held values.

There are also other fundamental differences between the two philosophies. Both use the word “freedom,” but with entirely different meanings. In Rousseau’ philosophy, the purpose of the government is to grant freedom to the people. That is, freedom is a gift of government, and the extent of the freedom is as it is defined by the government.

In Jefferson’s system, freedom means one can do whatever he wishes as long as he does not impinge on the freedom of other people. A free enterprise economic system is the necessary consequence of a free political system—or else, a free political system is the necessary consequence of a free enterprise economic system – it’s a chicken or egg kind of proposition. In this system wealth is still defined by production and distribution, but people are free to invent better products and create more efficient ways of distribution, and as long as they are free to do that, they and the consumers are in a mutual win-win situation.

Enter modern capitalism: The Founding Fathers left matters of personal affairs to state and local governments, but did not envision the time when businesses would actually get bigger than the states. The railroad was the first to do that, so the federal government invented a bureaucracy to cope with interstate transportation. Eventually egalitarians used similar bureaucracies to further invade state and local governments’ prerogatives, like the environmental protection agency for example. All one has to do is define a problem as being bigger than any state government and one has also created the rationale for creating a federal bureaucracy to handle the problem.

Now there are businesses that are bigger and richer than states and nations, like Standard Oil, and Microsoft, so the UN and other ultra-governmental organizations are using the same rationale to establish extra-governmental world wide bureaucracies to control them.

Consequently, there is now developing a 4^th political philosophy competing with the three I have just described. In theory, it looks like a kind of combination of all the other three, and its object is the establishment of a one-world government with a one-world economy. In the meantime, Jefferson’s system has not been doing badly: free and democratic governments are being established all over the world at an amazing rate – more than 100 in the last 100 years, and seems to be winning over the old Rousseau-like egalitarian systems like in Russia and China. But now there has entered a new self-defined moral elite competing with both the ideas of Jeffersonian participatory government, and the old Rousseauian egalitarianism. This is the power of the people who control the international conglomerates. Their object is to establish world peace—not a millennial reign, but a modern version of a militarily enforced Pax Romana.

– – – – – – – – – –

In the Book of Mormon, the Nephites also lived under a participatory government. It’s form was different from ours, but it also was a reflection of the moral standards of the people. It is apparent that the founders of their government believe, as did the founders of ours, that God would defend them in their liberty as long as they exercised their freedom in righteousness. The principal is universal. God wishes his children to be free to be the very best that they can possibly be.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

God will sustain a government for as long as it permits the righteous to worship under the umbrella of the freedom it provides. But when the majority of people turn from God, and use the powers of government to persecute the righteous—to limit freedom rather than augment it—the government and its people are in bad trouble. God cannot continue to support such a government, just as he cannot support individuals unless they obeyed the laws upon which blessings are predicated.

That was Alma’s warning to his people, and it is equally applicable to the nations of our world today.

Footnotes:

{1} I’ve published a couple of articles about Washington with co-authors. They are: Frank W. Fox and LeGrand L. Baker,”Wise Men Raised Up,” Ensign. June 1976, 27-32. And: Matthew F. Hilton and LeGrand Baker, “George Washington, a Man of Unfailing Personal Integrity,” Sons of the American Revolution Magazine, Winter, 1987, 16-18.

{2} Washington to Bryan Fairfax, 24 August 1774, in G. W. Fitzpatrick, ed., The Writings of George Washington (printed by the U.S. Government from 1931-1944 in commemoration of Washington’s 200th birthday), 3: 240.

{3} Garry Wills, Inventing America, Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence (New York, Vintage Books, 1979).

Alma 10:1-11, LeGrand Baker, Amulek’s autobiographical testimony

Amulek’s autobiographical testimony asks many more questions than it answers. The first question is “Who was Amulek?”

Another is: “Was Zeezrom and his group trying to overthrow the government at Zarahemla, or was their first intent to overthrow the local ruling class, of which Amulek was a part?”

The answers begin, as Amulek would have it begin, with his genealogy. He was at least a distant cousin of Alma and a member of the royal family, but he lived in an area geographically remote from Zarahemla. (The way I envision that is something like the Duke of York living a long way from London.) My evidence for making that assertion is the phrase, “descendant of Nephi.” The phrase has a very specific meaning for Mormon

The entire Book of Mormon is the story of a single family. There are only two gaps in the single genealogical thread. One is the connection of Alma with the royal family and the other is the connection of Mormon with the line of Nephis that precede and follow the Saviour’s ministry. Mormon closes both of those gaps with the phrase “descendant of Nephi.” Mormon identifies himself this way:

5  I, Mormon, being a descendant of Nephi. . . .I am the son of Mormon, and my father was a descendant of Nephi. (Mormon 1:5, 8:13)

When he introduced Alma for the first time, he did so by establishing Alma’s ultimate right to rule both the church and the state by writing, “Alma, he also being a descendant of Nephi.” (Mosiah 17:2) “Also” is the operative word. It suggests to me that Alma had the same rights to the throne as Noah had—That would mean that Alma was Noah’s younger brother.

Mormon reiterated that when he introduced the book of Third Nephi with a statement of Nephi’s royal ancestry:

1  The book of Nephi the son of Nephi, who was the son of Helaman. And Helaman was the son of Helaman, who was the son of Alma, who was the son of Alma, being a descendant of Nephi who was the son of Lehi, who came out of Jerusalem in the first year of the reign of Zedekiah, the king of Judah. (3 Nephi 1)

It is apparent that his phrase “a descendant of Nephi” did not simply mean that the person could trace his genealogy back to Nephi. That is made clear by his differentiating the “descendants of Nephi” from the “people of Nephi.” Here he clarifies his meaning when he puts the people in four groups: the two royal families and the two groups of commoners:

1  And now king Mosiah caused that all the people should be gathered together.
2  Now there were not so many of the children of Nephi, or so many of those who were descendants of Nephi, as there were of the people of Zarahemla, who was a descendant of Mulek, and those who came with him into the wilderness.
3  And there were not so many of the people of Nephi and of the people of Zarahemla as there were of the Lamanites; yea, they were not half so numerous. (Mosiah 25:1-3)

When Amulek identifies himself as “a descendant of Nephi” and traces his ancestry to Manasseh and Joseph, he is asserting an authority that his listeners could not match (If it were common to everyone there would have been no point in his saying it). For example, virtually everyone who can trace their genealogy back to Europe in the 15 or 1600’s, finds that we are all descended from the royal families. That royal ancestry doesn’t give any of us Americans much status, but those who remain in Europe, who can trace their genealogy through the birthright children to those same royal families still have the titles of nobles and kings. I assume that Amulek is asserting a dignity that everyone recognizes is his right by birth.

The fact that Amulek has to introduce himself does not diminish that argument. We live in a world where pictures, even instantaneous moving pictures, are a common place. So we recognize the faces of the President of the United States, the queen of England, and the Prophet. But in a world where photographs simply did not exist, such recognition by anyone who was not intimate with the leaders would have been impossible. The most usual way the people had of recognizing such people was by their clothing. Kings wore rich clothing with special insignia so they would be recognized as kings.

Judging from the way Mormon uses the phrase “descendant of Nephi,” and from his including it in this abridged version of Amulek’s speech, I would suppose that his intent is to let us understand that Amulek is more powerful than his words suggest. He said simply, “ I am also a man of no small reputation among all those who know me; yea, and behold, I have many kindreds and friends, and I have also acquired much riches by the hand of my industry.”

Is there significance in that? Yes, because he knowingly threw it all away when he said,

9   And the angel said unto me he is a holy man; wherefore I know he is a holy man because it was said by an angel of God.
10  And again, I know that the things whereof he hath testified are true; for behold I say unto you, that as the Lord liveth, even so has he sent his angel to make these things manifest unto me; and this he has done while this Alma hath dwelt at my house.
11  For behold, he hath blessed mine house, he hath blessed me, and my women, and my children, and my father and my kinsfolk; yea, even all my kindred hath he blessed, and the blessing of the Lord hath rested upon us according to the words which he spake.

That doesn’t do much to answer the question about the object of the Zeezrom’s intended coup d’etat, but I suspect it sheds a great deal of light on Mormon’s motive. I suspect the reason Mormon quoted Amulek’s introductory autobiography was to help us know how great was the social and (probably) political cost to Amulek when he defended Alma— and therefore, that Mormon intended us to understand the integrity of Amulek’s testimony.

Alma 9:30-32 — LeGrand Baker — pattern of apostasy

Alma 9:30-32
30  And now, my beloved brethren, for ye are my brethren, and ye ought to be beloved, and ye ought to bring forth works which are meet for repentance, seeing that your hearts have been grossly hardened against the word of God, and seeing that ye are a lost and a fallen people.
31  Now it came to pass that when I, Alma, had spoken these words, behold, the people were wroth with me because I said unto them that they were a hard-hearted and a stiffnecked people.
32  And also because I said unto them that they were a lost and a fallen people they were angry with me, and sought to lay their hands upon me, that they might cast me into prison.

This story is so typical of the actions of apostates of every age.

To one who knows the truth, but is not living the truth he knows, true prophets can be very obnoxious, and even their presence can be extremely disconcerting. True prophets do not speak in neutral, wishy-washy terms like false prophets do. Many people are willing to pay a lot of money to be able to believe an eloquent, smiling preacher who can speak convincingly to the subject: “The mercy of God will enable you get into heaven if you do your best, so you don’t actually need to repent.”

The people who pay those salaries, and the people who receive them, don’t like true prophets who teach: “You actually need to repent and love your neighbor as your self, or you won’t qualify to be where God is.”

Paying a preacher to say what one wants to hear is a whole lot easier and often much cheaper than repenting, but that doesn’t make a true prophets any the less obnoxious to an apostate. For some reason, one who has known the truth and apostatized cannot simply ignore the prophet and get on with life. Such a person is in a tight bind. Ether he has to repent or else he must prove the prophet isn’t telling the truth after all. The easiest way to prove a true prophet is really a false prophet is to show that he does not have the physical power to defend himself. Consequently, such people make it a point to persecute, imprison, or kill the prophets. It is as though such people see defeating—even killing—the prophet is the most efficient way for one to be assured of getting into heaven. The Saviour understood that, and warned the Twelve,

1  These things have I spoken unto you, that ye should not be offended.
2  They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service.
3  And these things will they do unto you, because they have not known the Father, nor me. (John 16:1-3)

So what Alma writes about his antagonists is entirely consistent with apostates’s attitudes and actions in every age.

Alma 9:30-32 — LeGrand Baker — persecuting a prophet seems easier than repenting

Alma 9:30-32
30  And now, my beloved brethren, for ye are my brethren, and ye ought to be beloved, and ye ought to bring forth works which are meet for repentance, seeing that your hearts have been grossly hardened against the word of God, and seeing that ye are a lost and a fallen people.
31  Now it came to pass that when I, Alma, had spoken these words, behold, the people were wroth with me because I said unto them that they were a hard-hearted and a stiffnecked people.
32  And also because I said unto them that they were a lost and a fallen people they were angry with me, and sought to lay their hands upon me, that they might cast me into prison.

This story is so typical of the actions of apostates of every age.

To one who knows the truth, but is not living the truth he knows, true prophets can be very obnoxious, and even their presence can be extremely disconcerting. True prophets do not speak in neutral, wishy-washy terms like false prophets do. Many people are willing to pay a lot of money to be able to believe an eloquent, smiling preacher who can speak convincingly to the subject: “The mercy of God will enable you get into heaven if you do your best, so you don’t actually need to repent.”

The people who pay those salaries, and the people who receive them, don’t like true prophets who teach: “You actually need to repent and love your neighbor as your self, or you won’t qualify to be where God is.”

Paying a preacher to say what one wants to hear is a whole lot easier and often much cheaper than repenting, but that doesn’t make a true prophets any the less obnoxious to an apostate. For some reason, one who has known the truth and apostatized cannot simply ignore the prophet and get on with life. Such a person is in a tight bind. Ether he has to repent or else he must prove the prophet isn’t telling the truth after all. The easiest way to prove a true prophet is really a false prophet is to show that he does not have the physical power to defend himself. Consequently, such people make it a point to persecute, imprison, or kill the prophets. It is as though such people see defeating—even killing—the prophet is the most efficient way for one to be assured of getting into heaven. The Saviour understood that, and warned the Twelve,

1  These things have I spoken unto you, that ye should not be offended.
2  They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service.
3  And these things will they do unto you, because they have not known the Father, nor me. (John 16:1-3)

So what Alma writes about his antagonists is entirely consistent with apostates’s attitudes and actions in every age.

Alma 9:25-28 — LeGrand Baker — kingdom of heaven is nigh at hand

And now for this cause, that ye may not be destroyed, the Lord has sent his angel to visit many of his people, declaring unto them that they must go forth and cry mightily unto this people, saying: Repent ye, for the kingdom of heaven is nigh at hand; And not many days hence the Son of God shall come in his glory . . . . Therefore, prepare ye the way of the Lord, for the time is at hand that all men shall reap a reward of their works, according to that which they have been—if they have been righteous they shall reap the salvation of their souls, according to the power and deliverance of Jesus Christ; and if they have been evil they shall reap the damnation of their souls, according to the power and captivation of the devil.

The phrases that caught my attention in these verses were: “the kingdom of heaven is at hand,” and “for the time is at hand .” The latter may be read as simply a restatement of the former, or it may be read quite differently. It was the different reading that caught my attention.

The phrase (but not always in these exact words), “the kingdom of heaven is at hand,” seems to have three separate meanings. All of them carry the same sense of urgency, but the urgency is not related to linear time.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – –

The first meaning projects the Kingdom of God deep into our future.

Beginning with Isaiah the prophets tell us that the kingdom of heaven is at hand and then describe the events that will occur immediately before the second coming of the Saviour. They predict the collapse of governments and cultures, and say that not only will conditions on the earth be in turmoil, but the very heavens will seem to be dislodged: the stars will fall from heaven; the sun will be darkened; and the moon will be turned to a blood. It is apparent that when Isaiah predicted that such a time was near at hand, he was describing nearness from God’s perspective of time, rather than from our own.

6   Howl ye; for the day of the Lord is at hand; it shall come as a destruction from the Almighty….
10   For the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof shall not give their light: the sun shall be darkened in his going forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to shine. (Isaiah 13:6-10 and 2 Nephi 23: 6-10; see Joel 3:15)

In a revelation given to Oliver Cowdery, also about the millennium, the Lord said that the time was “nigh at hand,” but then he also said that he thinks about time very differently from the way we do.

51   Wherefore, children shall grow up until they become old; old men shall die; but they shall not sleep in the dust, but they shall be changed in the twinkling of an eye.
52   Wherefore, for this cause preached the apostles unto the world the resurrection of the dead.
53   These things are the things that ye must look for; and, speaking after the manner of the Lord, they are now nigh at hand, and in a time to come, even in the day of the coming of the Son of Man.(D&C 63:51-53)

The Saviour gave the parable of the fig tree to suggest that even though no one—not even the angels—knows when the time is coming, the righteous will be able to recognize its approach by the conditions of the earth and among the people. He said,

36  And, as I said before, after the tribulation of those days, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken, then shall appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven, and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn; and they shall see the Son of Man coming in the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory;
37   And whoso treasureth up my word, shall not be deceived, for the Son of Man shall come, and he shall send his angels before him with the great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together the remainder of his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.
38   Now learn a parable of the fig-tree—When its branches are yet tender, and it begins to put forth leaves, you know that summer is nigh at hand;
39   So likewise, mine elect, when they shall see all these things, they shall know that he is near, even at the doors;
40   But of that day, and hour, no one knoweth; no, not the angels of God in heaven, but my Father only….
48   Therefore be ye also ready, for in such an hour as ye think not, the Son of Man cometh. (Joseph Smith-Matthew 1:36-38. see: Luke 21:25-38; D&C 45:1-75, 49:5-10)

In his introduction to the Doctrine and Covenants, the Lord assured the Saints, “the hour is not yet, but is nigh at hand,” (D&C 1:35) Later, using the same code he used in the Beatitudes and in section 88: 17-18, the Saviour explained who these people are who will understand the unspoken signs.

15   And the poor and the meek shall have the gospel preached unto them, and they shall be looking forth for the time of my coming, for it is nigh at hand—
16   And they shall learn the parable of the fig-tree, for even now already summer is nigh. (D&C 35:15-16)

Even though none but God knows the precise day and time, yet the prophets alert us to the signs is so we can anticipate it when it comes. The righteous will not know just which day it is going to be, but neither will they be surprised when it happens. (D&C 45:37-44) The irrelevance of linear time in the Lord’s strategy for success is emphasized in John’s Revelation. It begins and ends with the phrase, “the time is at hand.” In the first chapter the time referred to is the present—not only the then-present, but also the now-present for anyone who reads with understanding:

3   Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand. ( Revelation 1:3) . . . .

Then, in the last chapter, the angel projects the message of the Revelation to the very ending of the earth:

10   And he [the angel] saith unto me, Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book: for the time is at hand.
11   He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still.
12   And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.
13   I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.
14   Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city. (Revelation 22:10-14)

In Revelation, the words “the time is at hand” represents a continuum that extends from the day John received the revelation until the end of time when the Saints live in the holy city and, by right, may feast upon the fruit of the tree of life.

Notwithstanding the fact that the prophecies are indistinct as to our measurement of time, they still carry a strong sense of urgency—even in these long-term prophecies. For that reason, the phrase “soon at hand” remains relevant as an immediate warning.

9    For the hour is nigh and the day soon at hand when the earth is ripe; and all the proud and they that do wickedly shall be as stubble; and I will burn them up, saith the Lord of Hosts, that wickedness shall not be upon the earth;
10   For the hour is nigh, and that which was spoken by mine apostles must be fulfilled; for as they spoke so shall it come to pass;
11   For I will reveal myself from heaven with power and great glory, with all the hosts thereof, and dwell in righteousness with men on earth a thousand years, and the wicked shall not stand. (D&C 29:9-11)

This sense of urgency reminds one of Paul’s statement in the first chapter of Ephesians. There he tells the Saints of his day that their keeping their covenants would eventually have an impact on the ultimate fulfillment of God’s purposes, 2000 years later, to restore the gospel, the Temple, and gather Israel: “That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him.” (Ephesians 1:10)

In much the same way, the prophets and the Savior have taught that people must live their lives as though those future events were imminent. The application of that principle to Saints in past dispensations is difficult for us to see because our history’s are poorly written and our information is inadequate. For example, we can only guess how individual martyrs of first and second century Christianity influenced the events of the restoration. But it does not take very much imagination for us to realize that if it were not for those great men and women who sacrificed their all for the gospel, we would have neither the Scriptures nor even the tradition of ancient Christianity.

I suppose that in a similar way it will be true in the winding up of all of human experience on this beautiful earth – that what we do here during our dispensation will have a greater effect on the final winding up of human history than any of us can foresee or even imagine.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

The second use of the phrase, “the kingdom of God is at head” means precisely what it says. These were the declarations made by the Book of Mormon prophets immediately preceded the coming of the Savior.

7    For behold, I say unto you there be many things to come; and behold, there is one thing which is of more importance than they all—for behold, the time is not far distant that the Redeemer liveth and cometh among his people….
9    But behold, the Spirit hath said this much unto me, saying: Cry unto this people, saying—Repent ye, and prepare the way of the Lord, and walk in his paths, which are straight; for behold, the kingdom of heaven is at hand, and the Son of God cometh upon the face of the earth. (Alma 7:7-9)

Later, Alma added that his testimony was based on the sure knowledge that the event was pending, but not upon his knowledge of when it would happen..

24   For behold, angels are declaring it unto many at this time in our land; and this is for the purpose of preparing the hearts of the children of men to receive his word at the time of his coming in his glory.
25   And now we only wait to hear the joyful news declared unto us by the mouth of angels, of his coming; for the time cometh, we know not how soon. Would to God that it might be in my day; but let it be sooner or later, in it I will rejoice. (Alma 13:23-26)

Another example is far more dramatic than Alma giving a speech, and much closer to the time when the Saviour actually came. It shows that not only does the Lord warn people about things to come, but he has his own way of preparing us for them. In this instance he called 300 prominent Lamanites to preach to their own people. Like Paul, the 300 were not expecting the call,

26   And it came to pass that Nephi and Lehi did stand forth and began to speak unto them, saying: Fear not, for behold, it is God that has shown unto you this marvelous thing. . . . they heard this voice . . . . saying: Repent ye, repent ye, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand; and seek no more to destroy my servants. And it came to pass that the earth shook again, and the walls trembled. (Helaman 5:26-33)

After the Saviour’s birth, John the Baptist bore testimony with that same message: “Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” (Matthew 3:2) Jesus taught the same thing in the same words: “Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.”(Mark 1:14-15)

That same message was delivered by the Saviour to the early Saints through the Prophet Joseph: “Yea, open your mouths and they shall be filled, saying: Repent, repent, and prepare ye the way of the Lord, and make his paths straight; for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (D&C 33:10) “Wherefore, go forth, crying with a loud voice, saying: The kingdom of heaven is at hand; crying: Hosanna! blessed be the name of the Most High God.(D&C 39:19)

6   And ye shall go forth in the power of my Spirit, preaching my gospel, two by two, in my name, lifting up your voices as with the sound of a trump, declaring my word like unto angels of God.
7   And ye shall go forth baptizing with water, saying: Repent ye, repent ye, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” (D&C 42:6-7)

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

The third use of the prophetic phrase, “the Kingdom of God is at head” is the one that is most relevant to each of us, just as it was most relevant to all the Saints in past dispensations. It is the Lord’s promise to individuals who understand that they are teetering on the edge of their own future eternity. For us, the decisions we are making in this life literally do introduce us into the Kingdom of God, or else they preclude our entering there altogether. For us it is true: the Kingdom of God is at hand—in the immediacy of our own present, as well as in the future fulfillment of our hope for eternal life. In God’s understanding, the only difference between our linear time and his eternity is that we can’t see as far in either direction as he can. Other than that, there is no difference. The scriptures call the bridge that spans that gap for us “hope.” Hope is that

59   …. ye must be born again into the kingdom of heaven, of water, and of the Spirit, and be cleansed by blood, even the blood of mine Only Begotten; that ye might be sanctified from all sin, and enjoy the words of eternal life in this world, and eternal life in the world to come, even immortal glory; (Moses 6:59)

25   My son…. may Christ lift thee up, and may his sufferings and death, and the showing his body unto our fathers, and his mercy and long-suffering, and the hope of his glory and of eternal life, rest in your mind forever. (Moroni 9:25)

This is the meaning of “hope”: to live and understand as though the covenants of the Father were already fulfilled.

When Alma was in Zarahemla, speaking to both members and non-members of the Church, he urged them to reflect on the impermanence of everything in this life except the promises of eternal love that we receive from God. Without using the word “charity,” Alma taught that charity is the criteria by which we may be included in—or be excluded from—the Kingdom of Heaven.

Have ye walked, keeping yourselves blameless before God? . . . sufficiently humble? . . . garments have been cleansed and made white through the blood of Christ. . . . stripped of pride? I say unto you, if ye are not ye are not prepared to meet God. Behold ye must prepare quickly; for the kingdom of heaven is soon at hand. . . ., stripped of envy? . . . should prepare quickly, for the hour is close at hand. . . . make a mock of his brother, or that heapeth upon him persecutions? Wo unto such an one, for he is not prepared, and the time is at hand that he must repent or he cannot be saved!. . . . repent, for the Lord God hath spoken it! Behold, he sendeth an invitation unto all men, for the arms of mercy are extended towards them, and he saith: Repent, and I will receive you.Yea, he saith: Come unto me and ye shall partake of the fruit of the tree of life . . . the time is at hand that whosoever bringeth forth not good fruit, or whosoever doeth not the works of righteousness, the same have cause to wail and mourn. . . . Repent, all ye ends of the earth, for the kingdom of heaven is soon at hand; yea, the Son of God cometh in his glory, in his might, majesty, power, and dominion. (Alma 5:27-34, 50)

Here, as in the scripture in chapter 9 that we are considering, Alma was speaking of two different things which are, if fact, the same. The first is one’s personal preparedness to be in the presence of the Saviour. The second was that the Saviour would soon visit the people of Nephi. The standards are constant: the qualities of those who saw the Saviour when he visited America were not different from the qualities of those who see him under other circumstances. The ultimate fulfillment of these promises to those who have charity is what Alma calls “the Kingdom of Heaven.”

This meaning is not unique with Alma. It is taught throughout the scriptures. For example, speaking of the last days, the Lord explained to Moroni,

16   And then shall my revelations which I have caused to be written by my servant John be unfolded in the eyes of all the people. Remember, when ye see these things, ye shall know that the time is at hand that they shall be made manifest in very deed.
17   Therefore, when ye shall receive this record ye may know that the work of the Father has commenced upon all the face of the land.
18   Therefore, repent all ye ends of the earth, and come unto me, and believe in my gospel, and be baptized in my name; for he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned; and signs shall follow them that believe in my name.
19   And blessed is he that is found faithful unto my name at the last day, for he shall be lifted up to dwell in the kingdom prepared for him from the foundation of the world. And behold it is I that hath spoken it. Amen. (Ether 4:1-19)

Here again, the Lord speaks in an enormous sweep of time, ranging through covenants made “from the foundation of the world,” to the supreme fulfilment of John’s prophecy: “for he shall be lifted up to dwell in the kingdom.” In God’s eyes, these covenants and their fulfillment are as a single event. We would do well if we could understand them that way too. For us, an evidence that God sees them as a single event is the promise he reiterates in section 34 when he instructs the Saints:

6   To lift up your voice as with the sound of a trump, both long and loud, and cry repentance unto a crooked and perverse generation, preparing the way of the Lord for his second coming.
7   For behold, verily, verily, I say unto you, the time is soon at hand that I shall come in a cloud with power and great glory.
8   And it shall be a great day at the time of my coming, for all nations shall tremble.
9   But before that great day shall come, the sun shall be darkened, and the moon be turned into blood; and the stars shall refuse their shining, and some shall fall, and great destructions await the wicked.
10   Wherefore, lift up your voice and spare not, for the Lord God hath spoken; therefore prophesy, and it shall be given by the power of the Holy Ghost.
11   And if you are faithful, behold, I am with you until I come—
12   And verily, verily, I say unto you, I come quickly. I am your Lord and your Redeemer. Even so. Amen.(D&C 34:6-12)

The promise, “And if you are faithful, behold, I am with you until I come,” is a fulfilment of the covenants in sacred time.

Alma 9:23-25 — LeGrand Baker — the most dangerous apostasy

Alma 9:23-25
23  And now behold I say unto you, that if this people, who have received so many blessings from the hand of the Lord, should transgress contrary to the light and knowledge which they do have, I say unto you that if this be the case, that if they should fall into transgression, it would be far more tolerable for the Lamanites than for them.
24  For behold, the promises of the Lord are extended to the Lamanites, but they are not unto you if ye transgress; for has not the Lord expressly promised and firmly decreed, that if ye will rebel against him that ye shall utterly be destroyed from off the face of the earth?
25  And now for this cause, that ye may not be destroyed, the Lord has sent his angel to visit many of his people, declaring unto them that they must go forth and cry mightily unto this people, saying: Repent ye, for the kingdom of heaven is nigh at hand; (Alma 9:23-25)

It has always struck me as a bit strange that the Lord would give different promises to different people who were all descended from Lehi. But I think these sermons of Alma have helped me sort that question out. In the first place, it probably isn’t so clear-cut that all the descendants of Nephi, Sam, and Zoram would be wiped out, but all of the Lamanites would survive. The reason was that through their 1,000 year history, there were many intermarriages between the descendants of Laman and Lemuel and those of their other brothers, That would have been especially true from the time of the Lamanite conversion until about the year 230. At that time the people divided themselves into tribes again. However, it appears from the text that even though the new tribes had the names of Lehi’s sons, the division was made according to their religious beliefs rather than by tribes according to rigid genealogical family ties: the true believers in Christ were called Nephites, and those who rejected the gospel were called Lamanites. (4 Nephi 1:32-40.) Nevertheless, we are also told that about 200 years later, about 420, with the deaths of Mormon and Moroni, the Nephi’s royal birthright family were either wiped out or had apostatized. So as far as Nephi personally was concerned, the prophecy was literally fulfilled.

But the fulfillment of the prophecy doesn’t answer the question of why the Lord promised that the Lamanites would survive and the Nephites would not. The explanation of how the 230 AD division into tribes took place, probably gives us the key to the answer we are looking for. Twenty years before the division into tribes, in 210 (significantly, that’s just one generation), a religions division had preceded the tribal divisions. That religions division was based on the most severe kind of apostasy.

27  And it came to pass that when two hundred and ten years had passed away there were many churches in the land; yea, there were many churches which professed to know the Christ, and yet they did deny the more parts of his gospel, insomuch that they did receive all manner of wickedness, and did administer that which was sacred unto him to whom it had been forbidden because of unworthiness.
28  And this church did multiply exceedingly because of iniquity, and because of the power of Satan who did get hold upon their hearts.(4 Nephi 1:27-28)

There, the nature of the apostasy was not an abandonment of the ordinances and covenants, but rather a pretending to keep them, while warping them to fit their own purposes.

When one reads Alma chapters 7 through 13 as a single cohesive unit, it becomes apparent that Alma and Amulek were not trying to teach the people of Ammonihah anything new, but they were simply reminding them of the things they already know—and of the covenants that they have already made. Even the profound ideas in chapters 12-13, where Alma reminds Zeezrom that those covenants are eternal, Alma is not so much instructing Zeezrom as he is challenging him with ideas he already understands. That’s why Zeezrom is so taken aback by Alma’s pointed (but only implied) accusations.

It is apparent to me, that the same thing has happened with people of Ammonihah as would happen 300 years later with the people in Fourth Nephi. That is, those who once had the proper authority to administer the ordinances began to “administer that which was sacred unto him to whom it had been forbidden because of unworthiness.” In that case, one who lived then might not be able to tell the wicked from the righteous by what they knew or by what ordinances they had received. God alone could distinguish them by the quality of their souls. As will be shown in the story, the prime external characteristic of those differences will be that the righteous will be able to recognize the authority by which Alma speaks. That is, the Spirit will teach them to follow their prophet. Alma had come to be the catalyst that would physically separate the wicked from the righteous.

There is a sobering message here. It is that there seems to be two different kinds of apostasy. The one we usually think of is when people simply turn their backs on the Lord and his Gospel and begin living a lifestyle that is not compatible with the teachings of the prophets. But the other kind of apostasy, is the one we are seeing in this story and the one that seems to merit destruction. That is, when an individual or a group of people pretend to keep the ordinances and covenants, but pervert them to satisfy their own purposes. That kind appears in these scriptures to be the more dangerous to a group of people, and the most devastating to an individual.