Blog

Alma 9:13-24 — LeGrand Baker — ‘hand’ as a codeword

Alma 9:23
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.

Alma’s admonition in Alma 9:13-24 to the people of Ammonihah appears to be a restatement of a warning Lehi made in 2 Nephi 1:9-10. In each, the word “hand” is key to understanding the importance of what the prophets are saying. Lehi said to his sons:

10 But behold, when the time cometh that they shall dwindle in unbelief, after they have received so great blessings from the hand of the Lord—having a knowledge of the creation of the earth, and all men, knowing the great and marvelous works of the Lord from the creation of the world; having power given them to do all things by faith; having all the commandments from the beginning, and having been brought by his infinite goodness into this precious land of promise—behold, I say, if the day shall come that they will reject the Holy One of Israel, the true Messiah, their Redeemer and their God, behold, the judgments of him that is just shall rest upon them. (2 Nephi 1:10)

Because hands are such an integral part of both civil and religious ceremonies, it is not surprising that the word “hand” is often used in double entente. It can function as a code word where the subtext is making reference to an ordinances where the use of the hand is an important part of the ordinance or of covenant making

The surface text may have one or more of a number of obvious meanings: the exercise of power, strength, or authority (as in phrases like “the hands of the law,” and “the hand of justice”). Or it may be used in the affirmation of the truth of a statement, as when one takes an oath in court. The hand is an important part of the validation an oath. One makes the oath itself by simply speaking its words, but the oath is validated by what one does with one’s hands. Two examples are in court, when one swears to tell the truth, and during the inauguration of the President of the United States. The person repeats the words of the oath with the right hand raised, and the left hand on the Bible. It is the positions of the hands, not the speaking of the words, that demonstrates the truthfulness of the oath.

One gets the notion of that same sort of thing in the first chapter of First Nephi where the prophet bares his testimony and asserts, “And I know that the record which I make is true; and I make it with mine own hand; and I make it according to my knowledge.” The structure of the sentence is such that Nephi leaves open the question of whether he is saying that he is physically writing the record with his hand, or whether he is symbolically bearing testimony with his hand and therefore validating his words—thus the double entente. In other places, the hand appears even more clearly to represent ordinances, priesthood covenants, or blessings.

In ancient Israel, one would pray with hands lifted in the air. The psalms contain references to such prayer within the Temple: “Lift up your hands in the sanctuary, and bless the Lord.” (Psalms 134:2) And also outside, looking toward the Temple: “Hear the voice of my supplications, when I cry unto thee, when I lift up my hands toward thy holy oracle.” (Psalms 28:2) Sometimes, a reference to lifting one’s hands, is simply a reference to prayer, as in Psalm 63.

3 Because thy lovingkindness is better than life, my lips shall praise thee.
4 Thus will I bless thee while I live: I will lift up my hands in thy name. (Psalms 63:3-4) [“Lovingkindness” is translated from a Hebrew word, hased, that has the same meaning as philadelphia and grace in the New Testament.]

1 On occasion the same sort of symbolism is used to suggest especially meaningful prayer: “Unto thee, O Lord, do I lift up my soul.” (Psalm 25:1)

Use of the hand is also symbolic of exercising the priesthood, as in these instructions of the Lord to Moses: “But lift thou up thy rod, and stretch out thine hand over the sea, and divide it: and the children of Israel shall go on dry ground through the midst of the sea.” (Exodus 14:16) On the Day of Atonement, when Aaron and his sons transferred the sins of Israel to the scapegoat, they did so by putting “their hands upon the head of the ram.” (Exodus 29:15-22) Similarly, as the resurrected Jesus left his apostles, “ he lifted up his hands, and blessed them.” (Luke 24:50)

22 When Abraham described a covenant he had made with God, he said, “I have lift up mine hand unto the Lord, the most high God, the possessor of heaven and earth.” (Genesis 14:22)

The right hand has special significance in both blessings and covenants, as is shown by the blessing Israel gave to Joseph’s sons:

14 And Israel stretched out his right hand, and laid it upon Ephraim’s head, who was the younger, and his left hand upon Manasseh’s head, guiding his hands wittingly; for Manasseh was the firstborn.(Genesis 48:14)

8 And in the covenant described by Isaiah: “The Lord hath sworn by his right hand, and by the arm of his strength. . . .” (Isaiah 62:8)

The Lord’s hand is also a symbol of the characteristics of his eternal Kingship, also as an example of sacral kingship generally.

13 Thou hast a mighty arm: strong is thy hand, and high is thy right hand.
14 Justice and judgment are the habitation of thy throne: mercy and truth shall go before thy face.
15 Blessed is the people that know the joyful sound: they shall walk, O Lord, in the light of thy countenance.
16 In thy name shall they rejoice all the day: and in thy righteousness shall they be exalted.(Psalms 89:11-16)

That kingship, though it extends to the whole earth, always radiates from the Temple.

9 We have thought of thy lovingkindness, O God, in the midst of thy temple.
10 According to thy name, O God, so is thy praise unto the ends of the earth: thy right hand is full of righteousness.
11 Let mount Zion rejoice, let the daughters of Judah be glad, because of thy judgments. (Psalms 48:9-11)

Jehovah’s hand in the story of the brother of Jared is the classic example of God’s using his hand to fulfill a covenant, but there are also other examples, though some are carefully veiled. The criterion for man’s participation is clearly described in the psalms.

3 Who shall ascend into the hill of the Lord? or who shall stand in his holy place?
4 He that hath clean hands, and a pure heart; who hath not lifted up his soul unto vanity, nor sworn deceitfully.
5 He shall receive the blessing from the Lord, and righteousness from the God of his salvation. (Psalms 24:3-5)

When that criterion is met, the Lord extends his hand as well.

6 I have called upon thee, for thou wilt hear me, O God: incline thine ear unto me, and hear my speech.
7 Shew thy marvellous lovingkindness, O thou that savest by thy right hand them which put their trust in thee from those that rise up against them.
8 Keep me as the apple of the eye, hide me under the shadow of thy wings, (Psalms 17:6-8)

Another example is Isaiah 40:1-3, where Isaiah used some of the same code words and phrases he later used in chapter 61.

1 Comfort ye, comfort ye my people, saith your God.
2 Speak ye comfortably to Jerusalem, and cry unto her, that her warfare is accomplished, that her iniquity is pardoned: for she hath received of the LORD’s hand double for all her sins. (Isaiah 40:1-2)

These are the beginning words of Isaiah’s commentary on the temple drama which continues from chapter 40 through the end of the book. It begins with the deliberations of the Council in Heaven. We can know that because the word “ye” is plural. Frank M. Cross has shown that the persons whom God is addressing are the members of the Council.{1} In this verse, “God” is translated from the word Elohim. Cross observes that whenever Elohim is represented as speaking to a group of people in the Old Testament, that group is always to the Council in Heaven, just as it is in this instance. {2} His instructions are “Comfort ye my people.” “Comfort” is the same as in chapter 61, where Isaiah follows “comfort” with instructions to wash (one removes ashes by washing), anoint, clothe, crown and give a new name – the entire ancient coronation ceremony is there – so it appears that his instructions to the Council in Heaven are to make his people kings and priests, queens and priestesses. That meaning is made clear in the next verse.

2 Speak ye comfortably to Jerusalem, and cry unto her, that her warfare is accomplished, that her iniquity is pardoned: for she hath received of the Lord’s hand double for all her sins.

The codeword “double” is used twice in Isaiah 61 the same way it is used here. It is a reference to birthright blessings. In ancient Israel a double portion was given to the heir who had the birthright. For example, if one had four children, he would divide his property into five parts, giving the birthright son the double. That is why there is no tribe of Joseph. He had the birthright and received a double portion, so he is represented by two tribes, Ephraim and Manasseh. In terms of the priesthood, the “double” is the birthright blessings of Abraham which one receives in conjunction with other priesthood blessings. Here, in Isaiah 40, as in Isaiah 61, “double” is the double portion given to the birthright “son” (the name-title of the anointed king in Psalm 2). So in this instance it would be the priesthood birthright blessings of Abraham, which one receives from “the Lord’s hand.” If one reads that phrase to be a precise description of how one receives the “double” – the birthright blessings of Abraham – then the meaning of the instruction to “comfort” the people takes on great significance . That description could not be more explicit – but then, if one does not know how to read the code – neither could it be much more obscure.

In my opinion, the most powerful of all the ordination prayers found in the scriptures is in three short verses in a psalm that depicts the king’s foreordination at the Council in Heaven. (Here, as elsewhere in the scriptures, glory and majesty are name-designations of sacred clothing. Majesty representing the kingly garment; “glory,” his priesthood authority)

3 Gird thy sword upon thy thigh, O most mighty, with thy glory and thy majesty.
4 And in thy majesty ride prosperously because of truth and meekness and righteousness; and thy right hand shall teach thee terrible [awesome] things.
5 Thine arrows are sharp in the heart of the king’s enemies; whereby the people fall under thee. (Psalms 45:3-5)

Job’s is similar, but in his account, the words appear as instructions prerequisite to seeing God:

6 Then answered the Lord unto Job out of the whirlwind, and said, . . .
9 Hast thou an arm like God? or canst thou thunder with a voice like him?
10 Deck thyself now with majesty and excellency; and array thyself with glory and beauty. . . .
14 Then will I also confess unto thee that thine own right hand can save thee. (Job 40:6-14)

After the Lord gave Job the instructions he sought, Job spoke in amazement:

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)

Job’s response is like that of the psalmist:

17 Until I went into the sanctuary of God; then understood I their end. . . .
23 Nevertheless I am continually with thee: thou hast holden me by my right hand.
24 Thou shalt guide me with thy counsel, and afterward receive me to glory.
25 Whom have I in heaven but thee? and there is none upon earth that I desire beside thee.
26 My flesh and my heart faileth: but God is the strength of my heart, and my portion for ever. (Psalms 73:17-26)

The 21st Psalm also suggests one must be dressed properly before approaching the Lord.

1 The king shall joy in thy strength, O LORD; and in thy salvation how greatly shall he rejoice! . . . .
4 He asked life of thee, and thou gavest it him, even length of days for ever and ever.
5 His glory is great in thy salvation: honour and majesty hast thou laid upon him.
6 For thou hast made him most blessed for ever: thou hast made him exceeding glad with thy countenance. (Psalms 21:1-6)

When one uses the meaning of those psalms as a gage by with to measure the meaning of others, their intent also comes into sharper focus. Here are some examples:

35 Thou hast also given me the shield of thy salvation: and thy right hand hath holden me up, and thy gentleness hath made me great.
36 Thou hast enlarged my steps under me, that my feet did not slip. (Psalms 18:35-36)

And

10 Fear thou not; for I am with thee: be not dismayed; for I am thy God: I will strengthen thee; yea, I will help thee; yea, I will uphold thee with the right hand of my righteousness. . . .
13 For I the Lord thy God will hold thy right hand, saying unto thee, Fear not; I will help thee. (Isaiah 41:10-13)

As in the blessing in Psalm 45, many of the psalms conclude with a promise of physical protection and priesthood invulnerability. The entire 139th Psalm is an acknowledgment of that blessing, with several references to God’s hand.

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. (Psalms 139:1-12)

Elsewhere the psalmist wrote,

6 Now know I that the Lord saveth his anointed; he will hear him from his holy heaven with the saving strength of his right hand. (Psalms 20:6)

Sometimes the hand is referred to in a very powerful way, even though it is not actually mentioned: Here are a few examples:

11 But thou, O man of God, flee these things; and follow after righteousness, godliness, faith, love, patience, meekness.
12 Fight the good fight of faith, lay hold on eternal life [if one is to physically lay hold of something, it requires the use of one’s hand], whereunto thou art also called, and hast professed a good profession before many witnesses. (1 Timothy 6:12-15)

That same concept is found in Moroni’s testimony on the last page of the Book of Mormon:

28 I declare these things unto the fulfilling of the prophecies. And behold, they shall proceed forth out of the mouth of the everlasting God; and his word shall hiss forth from generation to generation.
29 And God shall show unto you, that that which I have written is true.
30 And again I would exhort you that ye would come unto Christ, and lay hold upon every good gift, and touch not the evil gift, nor the unclean thing.
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)

One of the most explicit (yet obscured) references to one’s hand is found in Mormon’s masterful sermon on faith, hope, and charity. If one takes faith to mean pistis, the tokens of the covenants, and hope to mean living as though those covenants were already fulfilled, and charity to mean the ultimate sealing power, then these words have great meaning:

18 And now, my brethren, seeing that ye know the light by which ye may judge, which light is the light of Christ, see that ye do not judge wrongfully; for with that same judgment which ye judge ye shall also be judged.
19 Wherefore, I beseech of you, brethren, that ye should search diligently in the light of Christ that ye may know good from evil; and if ye will lay hold upon every good thing, and condemn it not, ye certainly will be a child of Christ.
20 And now, my brethren, how is it possible that ye can lay hold upon every good thing?
21 And now I come to that faith [pistis = the tokens of the covenants], of which I said I would speak; and I will tell you the way whereby ye may lay hold on every good thing.
22 For behold, God knowing all things, being from everlasting to everlasting, behold, he sent angels to minister unto the children of men, to make manifest concerning the coming of Christ; and in Christ there should come every good thing.
23 And God also declared unto prophets, by his own mouth, that Christ should come.
24 And behold, there were divers ways that he did manifest things unto the children of men, which were good; and all things which are good cometh of Christ; otherwise men were fallen, and there could no good thing come unto them.
25 Wherefore, by the ministering of angels, and by every word which proceeded forth out of the mouth of God, men began to exercise faith in Christ {3}; and thus by faith, they did lay hold upon every good thing; and thus it was until the coming of Christ.
26 And after that he came men also were saved by faith in his name; and by faith, they become the sons of God. And as surely as Christ liveth he spake these words unto our fathers, saying: Whatsoever thing ye shall ask the Father in my name, which is good, in faith believing that ye shall receive, behold, it shall be done unto you. (Moroni 7:18-26)

– – – – – – – – – – – –

As far as I can tell, the “hand” in Isaiah and the Psalms (and therefore in the other scriptures as well) represents three main ceremonial functions. We have already discussed the first two:

The first is the one that is most obvious in the surface text. That is that God will demonstrate his strength and exercise his power to be hurtful. That is not what it means in the subtext however. As in the blessing to the king in Psalm 45:

3 Gird thy sword upon thy thigh, O most mighty, with thy glory and thy majesty.
4 And in thy majesty ride prosperously because of truth and meekness and righteousness; and thy right hand shall teach thee terrible [awesome] things.
5 Thine arrows are sharp in the heart of the king’s enemies; whereby the people fall under thee. (Psalms 45:3-5)

In the subtext, even though the strength of God’s hand is often expressed as military aggression, it is actually a promise of protection: Many of the psalms end with a promise of spiritual and personal invulnerability, just as they are supposed to do. Examples are the conclusion of Psalm 21, which takes place at the veil; and the last verses of Psalms 25 and 27.

The second ceremonial use of the hand is to issue or to accept an invitation—either an invitation to enter the presence of God, or to learn from him. Or both. Psalm 45 is also an example of that: “and thy right hand shall teach thee terrible [awesome] things”; as is Job 40:14. “Then will I also confess unto thee that thine own right hand can save thee.” So is Isaiah 40: 1-2.

1 Comfort ye, comfort ye my people, saith your God.
2 Speak ye comfortably to Jerusalem, and cry unto her, that her warfare is accomplished, that her iniquity is pardoned: for she hath received of the LORD’s hand double for all her sins.

The third ceremonial use of the hand is to create sacred space by measurement. Such measurement is, of necessity always associated by a confirming prayer. This example is going to take a little explanation, but it is important that the following background be a part of the discussion.

– – – – – – – – – –

It is my opinion that one of the most significant passages that described the ceremonial use of God’s hand is in the 1 Nephi 20 rendition of Isaiah 48:12-14. In the Bible, that chapter is the conclusion of the Cyrus passages, asserting that Cyrus will have his way with the Babylonians. But in the Book of Mormon, this chapter is the introduction to the promise that the Prophet Joseph will restore the gospel, the temple, and the preserved of Israel. One of the most striking differences between the chapters is that the editors of the Bible version removed evidence of a conference held in the pre-mortal spirit world, at which Jehovah presided and the Prophet Joseph delivered the major address.

Because I feel that scripture is so important, I wish so take a short detour and show that “the heavens” are the members of the Council in Heaven, then I will return to 1 Nephi 20 and conclude this discussion.

– – – – – – – – – –

The plural “heavens” is used three different ways in the scriptures. One simply refers to the sky and the stars as we see them. The second is a reference to the place (Kolob) nearest to where God dwells.

26 And may the grace of God the Father, whose throne is high in the heavens, and our Lord Jesus Christ, who sitteth on the right hand of his power, until all things shall become subject unto him, be, and abide with you forever. Amen. (Moroni 9:26)

And

19 And the Lord said unto me: These two facts do exist, that there are two spirits, one being more intelligent than the other; there shall be another more intelligent than they; I am the Lord thy God, I am more intelligent than they all. . . . .
21 I dwell in the midst of them all; I now, therefore, have come down unto thee to declare unto thee the works which my hands have made, wherein my wisdom excelleth them all, for I rule in the heavens above, and in the earth beneath, in all wisdom and prudence, over all the intelligences thine eyes have seen from the beginning; I came down in the beginning in the midst of all the intelligences thou hast seen. (Abraham 3:19-21)

Here the Lord is said to have made the heavens and those who dwell there.

6 By the word of the Lord were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth. (Psalms 33:6)

The third use of “heaven” is to refer to the members of the council who reside there, as in this Psalm where it is used to designate both the people and the place:

5 And the heavens [members of the Council]shall praise thy wonders, O Lord: thy faithfulness also in the congregation of the saints.
6 For who in the heaven can be compared unto the Lord? who among the sons of the mighty can be likened unto the Lord? (Psalms 89:5-6)

One of the more interesting references to the singing voices of the heavens is found in both Isaiah 49 and 1 Nephi 21. It is interesting because it is another instance where the Bible editors of the post-exilic period removed references to the Council in Heaven and to the temple. The Bible’s Isaiah reads:

13 Sing, O heavens; and be joyful, O earth; and break forth into singing, O mountains: for the LORD hath comforted his people, and will have mercy upon his afflicted. (Isaiah 49:13)

However, on the brass plates, it read differently:

a. To establish one’s feet is to place them on the footstool as one sits on the thrown, as in “How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good tidings.

b. Those in the east are those who live in the direction of the rising sun. That is the home of the gods. (The Hymn of the Pearl uses the same imagery.)

c. Mountains are symbols of temples, and if they are to be smitten no more, that means there will be no more apostasy.

The editors took out both the Council and the promise. The Book of Mormon reads:

13  Sing, O heavens; and be joyful, O earth; for the feet of those who are in the east shall be established; and break forth into singing, O mountains; for they shall be smitten no more; for the Lord hath comforted his people, and will have mercy upon his afflicted.. (1 Nephi 21:13)

The members of the Council are often depicted as singing, as when Nephi described his father’s sode experience: “. . . 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) Thus, when the Lord asked, Job was expected to know the answer:

4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? . . .
7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? (Job 38:4, 7)

The Prophet Joseph echoed that poetry in a letter he wrote to the Saints:

Let the mountains shout for joy, and all ye valleys cry aloud; and all ye seas and dry lands tell the wonders of your Eternal King! And ye rivers, and brooks, and rills, flow down with gladness. Let the woods and all the trees of the field praise the Lord; and ye solid rocks weep for joy! And let the sun, moon, and the morning stars sing together, and let all the sons of God shout for joy! And let the eternal creations declare his name forever and ever! And again I say, how glorious is the voice we hear from heaven, proclaiming in our ears, glory, and salvation, and honor, and immortality, and eternal life; kingdoms, principalities, and powers! (D&C 128:23)

– – – – – – – – – – – –

That quick diversion was to show that “heavens” and “stars” are often a reference to the members of the Council. I find the same kinds of references in 1 Nephi 20:9-17. It is another part of Isaiah that the post-exilic editors monkeyed around with and left wanting. Isaiah 49, in the Bible, is the conclusion of the Cyrus chapters, but in the Book of Mormon it is the introduction to the promise that the Prophet Joseph will restore the gospel, the temples, and then scattered Israel.

I begin with Jehovah’s words in verse 9:

9 Nevertheless, for my name’s sake [for the sake of the covenant and its associated name] will I defer mine anger, and for my praise will I refrain from thee, that I cut thee not off.
10 For, behold, I have refined thee, I have chosen thee in the furnace of affliction. [His affliction is the act of the atonement]

[Bible version reads:

10 Behold, I have refined thee, but not with silver; I have chosen thee in the furnace of affliction. [replacing the idea of the atonement with the visualization of metallurgy.]
11 For mine own sake, yea, for mine own sake will I do this, for I will not suffer my name to be polluted, and I will not give my glory unto another. [The Bible version reads: “for how should my name be polluted?” On the brass plates, it appears to be a clear reference to the struggle described in Moses:

1 And I, the Lord God, spake unto Moses, saying: That Satan, whom thou hast commanded in the name of mine Only Begotten, is the same which was from the beginning, and he came before me, saying—Behold, here am I, send me, I will be thy son, and I will redeem all mankind, that one soul shall not be lost, and surely I will do it; wherefore give me thine honor.(Moses 4:1) ]

12 Hearken unto me, O Jacob, and Israel my called [named, ie. One who has accepted a covenant] for I am he; I am the first, and I am also the last.
13 Mine hand hath also laid the foundation of the earth [a reference to the creation motif], and my right hand hath spanned the heavens. [that’s the phrase I wish to discuss below] I call unto them and they stand up together .[they stand to make covenant, as in 2 Kings 23:1-3]

14 All ye, assemble yourselves, and hear; who among them hath declared these things unto them? The Lord hath loved him; yea, and he will fulfil his word which he hath declared by them; and he will do his pleasure on Babylon, and his arm shall come upon the Chaldeans.

[Bible version removes the words, “yea, and he will fulfil his word which he hath declared by them. It reads. “All ye, assemble yourselves, and hear; which among them hath declared these things? The LORD hath loved him: he will do his pleasure on Babylon, and his arm shall be on the Chaldeans.” During Isaiah’s day, Assyria was the threat, not Babylon. But Babylon represented, as it always has, the wickedness of this world. The Prophet’s will would be to destroy those kingdoms as the little rock that rolled forth until it filled the earth. Cyrus, on the other hand, took Babylon by military conquest, so if the editors simply removed the reference to the speech, the passage could sound like a prophecy of Cyrus.]

15 Also, saith the Lord; I the Lord, yea, I have spoken; yea, I have called him to declare, I have brought him, and he shall make his way prosperous.

[Bible version reads: “I have called him,” rather than, “I have called him to declare.” Again removing the reference to the speech.

16 Come ye near unto me; I have not spoken in secret; from the beginning, from the time that it was declared have I spoken; and the Lord God, and his Spirit, hath sent me.

[Bible version reads very differently, again with the intent of removing the reference to the speech. “Come ye near unto me, hear ye this; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, there am I: and now the Lord God, and his Spirit, hath sent me.”

17 And thus saith the Lord, thy Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel; I have sent him, the Lord thy God who teacheth thee to profit, who leadeth thee by the way thou shouldst go, hath done it.

[Bible version removes the words, “I sent him,” leaving the speaker altogether out of the story.]

17 Thus saith the LORD, thy Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel; I am the LORD thy God which teacheth thee to profit, which leadeth thee by the way that thou shouldest go. (1 Nephi 20:9-17)

The reason that I paid such close attention to those verses is because the use of the Lord’s hand here is so significant, but its significance has to be understood within the context of the pre-mortal conference and those who attended it. Verse 13 reads: “Mine hand hath also laid the foundation of the earth, and my right hand hath spanned the heavens. I call unto them and they stand up together.” The word “spanned” means to measure. A span is the distance between the end of one’s little finger and thumb when the thumb is extended, “The hand with the thumb and fingers extended, especially as a means of measuring,” reads The Oxford English Dictionary. Then it references our verse in Isaiah as an example of this usage.

The first steps in creating sacred space is always to receive the measurements from God, then to measure and define the space so that it can be designated as separate from profane space. For example, the Lord gave Moses the measurements of the Tabernacle and the Ark of the Covenant; he gave Solomon the measurements of the Temple; and he gave the Prophet Joseph the measurements of the Kirtland Temple. (see also: Revelation 11:1-2)

Thus, in 1 Nephi 20, the words, “my right hand hath spanned the heavens.” are referring to the members of the Council who on whose heads the Lord places his right hand—to measure them–-to define them as sacred space—literally as temples. Thereafter, he says, “I call unto them and they stand up together.” So the sequence is: they ordained, they make a covenant, and then they assemble together to attend the meeting where Jehovah himself presides.

Apparently Isaiah chapter 40 also speaks of the Lord’s hand measuring the members of the Council in Heaven:

12 Who hath measured the waters in the hollow of his hand, and meted out heaven with the span, and comprehended the dust of the earth in a measure, and weighed the mountains in scales, and the hills in a balance? (Isaiah 40:12)

If my appraisal here is correct, then it is likely that in this world, when one who holds the Melchizedek priesthood places his hands upon the head of another, to ordain, bless, or set apart, that priesthood ordinance is in fact setting them apart—defining them as sacred space—confirming them as temples.

– – – – – – – – – – –

It seems to me that we are so far removed from the origin of our discussion that we ought to return again to our starting place.

Alma’s warning to the people of Ammonihan:

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. (Alma 9:23)

This seems to be a reaffirmation of a warning Lehi made in 2 Nephi 1:9-10. In each, the word “hand” is key to understanding the importance of what the prophets are saying. Lehi said to his sons:

10 But behold, when the time cometh that they shall dwindle in unbelief, after they have received so great blessings from the hand of the Lord—having a knowledge of the creation of the earth, and all men, knowing the great and marvelous works of the Lord from the creation of the world; having power given them to do all things by faith; having all the commandments from the beginning, and having been brought by his infinite goodness into this precious land of promise—behold, I say, if the day shall come that they will reject the Holy One of Israel, the true Messiah, their Redeemer and their God, behold, the judgments of him that is just shall rest upon them. (2 Nephi 1:10)

– – – – – – – – – – – – –

ENDNOTES

{1} Frank M. Cross, Jr., “The Council of Yahweh in Second Isaiah,” Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Jan.-Oct.1953, 12:274-277. See also Christopher R. Seitz, “The Divine Council: Temporal Transition and New Prophecy in the Book of Isaiah,” Journal of Biblical Literature, Summer 1990, vol. 109, no. 2, 229-247.

{2} See: Stephen A. Geller, “A Poetic Analysis of Isaiah 40:1-2,” Harvard Theological Review, v. 77, n. 3-4, 1984, p. 413-420.

Hanson, Paul D., Isaiah 40-66, Interpretation, A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching (Louisville, John Knox Press, 1995), p. 223 – 226.

Seitz, Christopher R., “The Divine Council: Temporal Transition and New Prophecy in the Book of Isaiah,” Journal of Biblical Literature, v. 109, n. 2, 1990, p. 229 – 247.

Westermann, Claus, Isaiah 40-66, Commentary (Philadelphia, Westminister Press, 1969) 364 – 367.

{3} “exercise tokens”

If God’s house is “a house of order,” then everything must be done correctly. That means according to prior covenant (have we read the first 14 verses of 132?) If everything conforms to prior covenant, then one must evoke the tokens of the covenants to activate the purposes of the covenant. The Ether 12:30 is a good example. We are told the brother of Jared exercised faith, and are left to understand that the way he is holding his arm and the words his is authorized to speak are the pistis.

After Moroni leads us through the temple, he tells us what comes next.

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 [the Father’s] 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)

The phrase that is relevant to our discussion is “which is in the covenant of the Father.” The covenant he has just described is the great and eternal covenant. The Saviour is the personification of that covenant. That is, the covenant is not about him, rather, He is the covenant. The Saviour is also the fulfillment of the covenant. And his name is the only token of that covenant that acknowledged as valid by the Father. So when one prays in the name of Christ, one is evoking the token of the Father’s covanant. When one follows the directions of the Spirit, and prays as the Spirit says to pray, and in the name of Christ, then one is exercising that token (exercising faith) and the covenant will be fulfilled according to the promise of the Spirit. I think that’s what the scriptures mean when they say one must exercise faith.

Alma 9:13, LeGrand Baker, ‘prosper’ as a codeword

Alma 9:13
Behold, do ye not remember the words which he spake unto Lehi, saying that: Inasmuch as ye shall keep my commandments, ye shall prosper in the land? And again it is said that: Inasmuch as ye will not keep my commandments ye shall be cut off from the presence of the Lord.

This is one of those fun scriptures for which we have no referent. The Book of Mormon does not give us an account of the Lord’s speaking those to Lehi, though Nephi quoted them twice, once when the Lord spoke them to him, and the second time when he recited them in his psalm in 2 Nephi 4:4. In our account, what Lehi says is this:

9 Wherefore, I, Lehi, have obtained a promise, that inasmuch as those whom the Lord God shall bring out of the land of Jerusalem shall keep his commandments, they shall prosper upon the face of this land; and they shall be kept from all other nations, that they may possess this land unto themselves. And if it so be that they shall keep his commandments they shall be blessed upon the face of this land, and there shall be none to molest them, nor to take away the land of their inheritance; and they shall dwell safely forever. (2 Nephi 1:9)

The Book of Mormon is essentially the story of one family—the descendants of Nephi who were the kings and the priests throughout the book. Nephi was beginning a new dynasty, and the whole legitimacy of his dynasty is founded of the Lord’s statement in 1Nephi 2:20-22. In the ancient world, any man who claimed a crown, who had not been foreordained to that authority by God, was a usurper. The doctrine was true for the Israelites, but even among the apostate religions all the ancient kings (whether in Egypt, Babylon, or Assyria) claimed to have been chosen by their god to be king. So both in terms of his cultural correctness, and the eternal reality, Nephi had to show that he was chosen by God or he could claim that nothing he was doing was legitimate. No doubt, it was partly for that reason that Nephi begins his account by telling us:

20 And inasmuch as ye shall keep my commandments, ye shall prosper, and shall be led to a land of promise; yea, even a land which I have prepared for you; yea, a land which is choice above all other lands.
21 And inasmuch as thy brethren shall rebel against thee, they shall be cut off from the presence of the Lord.
22 And inasmuch as thou shalt keep my commandments, thou shalt be made a ruler and a teacher over thy brethren. (1 Nephi 2:20-22)

“Prosper in the land” is one of those key phrases in the Book of Mormon that was frequently employed by its authors to convey a sacred message without actually saying it. The meaning of the phrase is clarified here, where it is first used, by showing that the opposite of prospering has nothing to do with a rich harvest. Rather the opposite of “prosper” is to be cut off from the presence of the Lord. Therefore, as a code phrase, “prosper in the land”is the opposite of that, and means to be brought into the presence of the Lord. “Land” also has two meanings, one is the land of promise (America) to which the Nephites have been brought. The encoded meaning is the same as “earth” in the promise, “The meek shall inherit the earth.” That is clarified in section 88 which says that to inherit the earth means to “be crowned with glory, even with the presence of God the Father.”

17 And the redemption of the soul is through him that quickeneth all things, in whose bosom it is decreed that the poor and the meek of the earth shall inherit it.
18 Therefore, it [the earth] must needs be sanctified from all unrighteousness, that it may be prepared for the celestial glory;
19 For after it hath filled the measure of its creation, it shall be crowned with glory, even with the presence of God the Father;
20 That bodies who are of the celestial kingdom may possess it forever and ever; for, for this intent was it [the earth] made and created, and for this intent are they [the meek and the poor] sanctified. (D&C 88:17-20)

The importance of the Lord’s promise to Nephi is emphasized by its frequent use by other prophets who employed the phrase the same way. {1}

Lehi told his sons:

20 And he hath said that: Inasmuch as ye shall keep my commandments ye shall prosper in the land; but inasmuch as ye will not keep my commandments ye shall be cut off from my presence. (2 Nephi 1:20)

Alma told his son:

13 O remember, remember, my son Helaman, how strict are the commandments of God. And he said: If ye will keep my commandments ye shall prosper in the land—but if ye keep not his commandments ye shall be cut off from his presence. (Alma 37:13)

One of the most interesting uses of that phrase is in Zeniff’s short autobiography.

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

Its wording is remarkably like the Lord’s instructions to Moses about making the sacred temple clothing:

40 And for Aaron’s sons thou shalt make coats, and thou shalt make for them girdles, and bonnets shalt thou make for them, for glory and for beauty.
41 And thou shalt put them upon Aaron thy brother, and his sons with him; and shalt anoint them, and consecrate them, and sanctify them, that they may minister unto me in the priest’s office.
42 And thou shalt make them linen breeches to cover their nakedness; (Exodus 28:40-42)

One cannot help but contrast Zeniff’s words with the account in Ether, when the people who were engaged in civil war, each trying to get the better of the other. Moroni observed:

24 And they did have silks, and fine-twined linen; and they did work all manner of cloth, that they might clothe themselves from their nakedness. (Ether 10:24)

The difference is subtle but very real. The two closely similar statements read: “that we might clothe our nakedness” and “clothe themselves from their nakedness.” The difference is reminiscent of the story in the Garden of Eden. At first “they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons,” but later, God himself did “make coats of skins, and clothed them.” The clothing with which the Lord clothes us, is different from the clothing with which we seek to hide ourselves. Moroni quietly observed that difference. Rather that using the familiar phrase, “to cover their nakedness,” which acknowledges that the nakedness is there, notwithstanding the clothing, Moroni wrote this commentary: “ that they might clothe themselves from their nakedness,” suggesting that this clothing, like Adam and Eve’s aprons, was an attempt to disguise the fact that they were naked at all.

Thus, Zeniff’s seeming casual, “ that we might clothe our nakedness,” teaches us a great deal about the religious faith and practices of this Nephite colony.

I suspect that one of the reasons the dichotomy of”prosper in the land” and being “cut off from the presence of the Lord,” was so frequently used by the Book of Mormon prophets, was because it, and others like it, were familiar to them in the psalms they sang. {2} It seems to me that it is also an important key to our understanding the faith and practices of the Nephite people.

That phrase introduces into our discussion one the major premises upon which I personally base my understanding of the Book of Mormon. Gunkel, Mowickel, Johnson, {3} and many other great biblical scholars of the last century spent much, if not most, all of their academic lives showing that the Psalms were the liturgy of the ancient Israelite temple ceremony of the New Year festival. {4} If they were correct, and I believe they were, then one should expect to find a strong representation of the words and ideas of the Psalm’s in the Book of Mormon, especially in conjunction with its discussions of priesthood and sacral kingship. In fact, one does find that, and it begins near the beginning of First Nephi with the word “prosper.”

The psalms still show that the ancient Israelite temple ceremony included an enactment like a play, probably on a stage or in an amphitheater type setting in one of the valleys that surrounded Jerusalem. The drama showed the whole scope of human existence. It was a portrayal of a sode experience in the form of the cosmic myth. It showed events in the Council of heaven, the creation and Garden of Eden story, both good and bad experiences in this life, and ultimately being brought into the presence of God again.

Hooke has pointed out another area where the pattern of the drama of the New Year festival is evident. He has observed that apocalyptic works such as the Enoch (and he includes Revelation) reveal the same pattern as the Festival. {5} Similarly, James has found the same pattern in the story of Jesus and the Easter Drama. {6 } We can add Nephi’s vision of the Tree of Life to the list. This is to be expected, because many of those works tell of the pre-mortal existence, then talk about the events of this world, and conclude with the triumphal second coming of the Saviour, and the eternal life of those who have endured to the end. The pattern is already there, it is not surprising that it is seen in those great visions that include the full sweep of human existence, just as it is not surprising that the ancient Jewish New Year festival retold in song and drama that same story, or that it should found repeatedly in the Book of Mormon.

At least two Psalms deal directly with events in the Council in Heaven: Psalm 82 contains Elohim’s instructions to the members of the Council; and Psalm 45 is a re-enactment of the foreordination of the king and queen. It is in Elohim’s blessing to the king, in Psalm 45, that the word “prosperously” contains the promise of the earthly and eternal successes of the king’s reign. It was probably no coincidence that the Lord chose to use the word “prosper” when he spoke the blessing that promised Npehi’s eternal kingship. The 45th psalm tells the story all of the king’s foreordination at the Council in heaven. There, Elohim is represented as giving a the king a blessing.

The blessing begins with the command that the king should put on his sword and dress himself in glory and majesty. As elsewhere, these are names of clothing: “glory” representing the garment of his priesthood; and “majesty” representing his robes of kingship. {7}

The words of the prayer are these:

3 Gird thy sword upon thy thigh, O most mighty, with thy glory and thy majesty.
4 And in thy majesty ride prosperously because of truth and meekness and righteousness; and thy right hand shall teach thee terrible things.
5 Thine arrows are sharp in the heart of the king’s enemies; whereby the people fall under thee. (Psalm 45:3-5)

That is an extraordinary blessing with sums up in only a few words all of the criteria for sacral kingship. It says “in thy majesty ride prosperously because of truth and meekness and righteousness.” That is, because he has met the qualifications of “truth and meekness and righteousness” the king will “ride prosperously.” Truth is knowledge of things in sacred time: “as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come. (D&C 93:24) The meek are those who keep their eternal covenants. Meekness is shown to mean knowing and keeping the covenants one made Council, as is shown in the prayer that is Psalm 25.

Unto thee, O Lord, do I lift up my soul….
Lead me in thy truth, and teach me….
The meek will he guide in judgment:
and the meek will he teach his way….
All the paths of the Lord are mercy [hased] and truth
unto such as keep his covenant and his testimonies….
His soul shall dwell at ease;
and his seed shall inherit the earth.
The secret [sode] of the Lord is with them that fear him;
and he will shew them his covenant. (Psalm 25: 1, 5, 9-10,13-14)

Righteousness is zedek, which means rectitude and correctness in Temple things. That is, that the ordinances are performed the right way, using the right words with the right authority, in the right place, and dressed the right way.

In Elohim’s blessing to the king in Psalm 45, there are two promises, besides prosperity, that are associated with the king’s meeting that criteria: one is “thy right hand shall teach the terrible [awesome] things.” The other is a promise of success and invulnerability.

It is one of the most amazing blessings ever recorded. It is only three short verses, the blessing incorporates into its few words every important concept of sacral kingship and priesthood—except one—the promise of a righteous posterity. That blessing is reserved until the end of the psalm when it is given by Elohim to the king and his bride.

As this psalm was an enactment of the king’s foreordination and represented the legitimacy of his reign on earth, one may assume the that (along with every other Israelite) Nephi was familiar with the Psalm and the coronation ceremony that was enacted in conjunction with it. That being so, when the Lord conferred upon Nephi the rights of kingship and priesthood, his using the phrase “prosper in the land” would have been meaningful to the boy prophet and king.

ENDNOTES

{1} As Dil observed, “It is repeated by Lehi (2 Nephi 1:9) and by Nephi (2 Nephi 4:4). Subsequently it is quoted or stated by Enos (Enos 10), Jarom (Jarom 9-10), Amaron (Omni 6), Alma (Alma 9:13; 36:1; 37:13; 48:25; 50:20), Mormon (3 Nephi 5:22; 4 Nephi 18), and Moroni (Ether 2:7-10).

{2} Another example is Psalm 122.

{3} Hermann Gunkel, “Psalm 24: an Interpretation,” The Biblical World, new series, vol 21, Jan-June 1903, p. 366-370; The Influence of the Holy Spirit, translated by Harrisville and Quanbeck (Philadelphia, Fortress Press, 1979); The Folktale in the Old Testament, translated by Rutter (Sheffield, Almond Press, 1987); What Remains of the Old Testament, translated by Dallas (New York, Macmillan Company, 1928).

Sigmund Mowickel, The Old Testament as the Word of God, translated by Bjornard (New York, Abingdon Press, 1959);, The Psalms in Israel’s Worship, 2 Vols. translated Thomas (Nashville, Abingdon, 1962); He that Cometh (New York: Abingdon Press, 1954).

Aubrey R. Johnson, Vitality of the Individual in the Thought of Ancient Israel (Cardiff, University of Wales Press, 1964); Sacral Kingship in Ancient Israel (Cardiff, University of Wales Press, 1967); The Cultic Prophet and Israel’s Psalmody (Cardiff, University of Wales Press, 1979).

{4} See, for example, S. H. Hooke, ed., The Labyrinth, Further Studies in the Relation between Myth and Ritual in the Ancient World (London, Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1935)

{5} S. H. Hooke, “The Myth and Ritual Pattern in Jewish and Christian Apocalyptic,” in S. H. Hooke, ed., The Labyrinth, Further Studies in the Relation between Myth and Ritual in the Ancient World (London, Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1935) 213-233.

{6} E. O. James, “The Sources of Christian Ritual and Its Relation to the Culture Pattern of the Ancient East,” in S. H. Hooke, ed., The Labyrinth, Further Studies in the Relation between Myth and Ritual in the Ancient World (London, Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1935) 213-233

{7} There are always two articles of clothing, an inner one and an outer one. In the Captain Moroni story, his is called a “coat” at first, then a “garment” after that. So it was probably the outer of the two.

In Exodus, Moses is instructed to make an embroider the coat of fine linen with linen breeches “to cover their nakedness.” Above that was worn a blue robe with small golden bells and pomegranates along its hem. (Exodus 28:31-42)

In Isaiah, they are called “ the garments of salvation” and “the robe of righteousness.” (Isaiah 61:10)

In Job they are given two sets of names. The Lord instructs Job: “Deck thyself now with majesty and excellency; and array thyself with glory and beauty.” (Job 40:10)

In the “Hymn of the Pearl” they are called a coat and a toga. The poem contains a lavish description of the former. In part it reads:

82 My splendid robe adorned
Gleaming in glorious colours, …
86 And the likeness of the king of kings
Was completely embroidered all over it…
97 And my toga of brilliant colours
I drew completely over myself.
(Hdgar Hennecki (Edited by Wilhelm Schneemelcher, English translation edited by R. McL. Wilson), New Testament Apocrypha, Writings Relating to the Apostles; Apocalypses and Related Subjects, Vol. 2, (Westminster Press, Philadelphia), p. 498-504.)

Alma 8: 29 — LeGrand Baker — the Lord’s anger

Alma 8: 29
30 And the word came to Alma, saying: Go; and also say unto my servant Amulek, go forth and prophesy unto this people, saying—Repent ye, for thus saith the Lord, except ye repent I will visit this people in mine anger; yea, and I will not turn my fierce anger away.

It is very easy to misunderstand some of the words that are attributed to God in the Scriptures, especially when those words suggest anger, violence, or retaliation. We are accustomed to overlook or discount some such statements in the Old Testament because they do not reflect the attributes off the Saviour in the New Testament. Yet, we find some of those same kinds of statements in the Book of Mormon, and the Doctrine and Covenants also.

It seems to me that they can best understood if one puts them into separate categories. The first category is those statements that are editorial comments by Old Testament authors and editors. Such statements as “the Lord in his anger brought the Egyptians to do his vengeance on the king,” are entirely editorial, and may or may not reflect the attitude of the Lord. I did not use an actual quote there, but rather an example that characterizes many places in the Old Testament. My own feeling is that they are only as true as the author was inspired.

In my view the greatest difference between the Book of Mormon and the Old Testament, in that regard, is that there is no question about whether it the author of the Book of Mormon was inspired. For example, Mormon’s frequent “and thus we see,” are editorial comments to which I give absolute credence.

The other groups are either direct quotes from God, or present themselves as being such. Of those that represent themselves as being quotes from God, those found throughout the Psalms are among the very best examples. The Psalms’ frequent statements that seem to reflect the vengeful character of God, are a form of blessing.

One of the best examples of the seeming belligerence spoken by God is in the 45th Psalm, which contains a blessing from Elohim to the king. It reads:

3   Gird thy sword upon thy thigh, O most mighty, with thy glory and thy majesty.
4   And in thy majesty ride prosperously because of truth and meekness and righteousness; and thy right hand shall teach thee terrible [awesome] things.
5   Thine arrows are sharp in the heart of the king’s enemies; whereby the people fall under thee.

This is typical of many statements in the Psalms. If one reads it, and the others, carefully, one discovers a consistency is what is said and under what circumstances. The pattern is this: at the end of a covenant or a blessing, the Lord promises a kind of invincibility to the recipient. When the Psalms were written, the primary motive for local wars was to acquire loot—but the most important loot was the people themselves—to become slaves. Similarly, a man going from city to city, who was carrying property of any value, had better take an armed escort with him or he could expect to be robbed. In those times when the Lord promised someone spiritual or eternal invincibility, he expressed it in the language of the times. That is, in military terms. Thus at the end of Psalm 21, which is spoken as one approaches God, his plea is couched in martial terms. At the end of Psalm 25, which has the same tone as Nephi’s Psalm in 2 Nephi 4, the Lord promises invincibility in military terms. In Psalm 2, where God affirms that he has chosen the king, and the king tells his new covenant name, the chorus warns foreign kings of the danger of their not giving obeisance to God’s chosen king.

In each of these instances, the statement that sounds like belligerence is in fact a promise from God that he will support and protect the one with whom he has made the covenant. That is, that one will have sufficient strength and power to overcome whatever obstacle might be put in the way.

The other category of statements from God – those quoted by the prophet – carry the same overtone. Three examples are found in the Lord’s words to Nephi:

19   And it came to pass that the Lord spake unto me, saying: Blessed art thou, Nephi, because of thy faith, for thou hast sought me diligently, with lowliness of heart.
20   And inasmuch as ye shall keep my commandments, ye shall prosper, and shall be led to a land of promise; yea, even a land which I have prepared for you; yea, a land which is choice above all other lands.
21   And inasmuch as thy brethren shall rebel against thee, they shall be cut off from the presence of the Lord. [Those who rebel against God cannot be in his presence.]
22   And inasmuch as thou shalt keep my commandments, thou shalt be made a ruler [king] and a teacher [priest] over thy brethren.
23   For behold, in that day that they shall rebel against me, I will curse them even with a sore curse, and they shall have no power over thy seed [God will protect the righteous] except they shall rebel against me also.
24   And if it so be that they rebel against me, they shall be a scourge unto thy seed [The Lord cannot protect the Nephites if they are not righteous], to stir them up in the ways of remembrance. [Sometimes when people realize they are in physical trouble, they will repent so God can bless them again.] (1 Nephi 2:19-24)

The Lord explained that principle to the Prophet Joseph:

1   Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you whom I love, and whom I love I also chasten that their sins may be forgiven, for with the chastisement I prepare a way for their deliverance in all things out of temptation, and I have loved you—
2   Wherefore, ye must needs be chastened and stand rebuked before my face;

So Alma’s words, “Repent ye, for thus saith the Lord, except ye repent I will visit this people in mine anger; yea, and I will not turn my fierce anger away,” do not reflect God’s anger, but rather his concern. He was aware, as they were not, of the Lamanite’s plan to attack. Implicit in his words is the promise that if they will repent, he will either warn them, assist them, or otherwise protect them from their enemies. But if they do not repent he can not help the because they will neither listen to him, nor accept his help. He says that in terms that express their own attitudes and their own language. One cannot help, as one reads Alma’s words, to remember the Lord’s tears when he showed Enoch the destruction of his people.

We are not substantially different from that sometimes, President Hinckley does not always relay the Lord’s instructions to us in words that only evoke promises of blessings. Sometimes we, like the ancients, need to hear about the consequence of disobedience rather than the blessings that would accompany obedience.

So whenever I read a statement couched in words of anger or retribution, that are attributed to the Lord, I consider the audience to whom that those words are addressed, and conclude that the words are in their language—expressed in terms that they can understand—and not really an expression of God’s anger at all.

I believe the best statement ever made about the personality of God comes from a sermon by Heber C. Kimball, delivered in the Tabernacle, February 8, 1857. He said,

     I am perfectly satisfied that my God is a cheerful, pleasant, lively, and good-natured Being. Why? Because I am cheerful, pleasant, lively, and good-natured when I have His Spirit. That is one reason why I know; and another is— the Lord said, through Joseph Smith, “I delight in a glad heart and a cheerful countenance. That arises from the perfection of His attributes; He is a jovial, lively person, and a beautiful man. (Journal of Discourses, 4: 222.)

Alma 8:18-20 — LeGrand Baker — Alma at the Gate

Alma 8:18-20
18  Now it came to pass that after Alma had received his message from the angel of the Lord he returned speedily to the land of Ammonihah. And he entered the city by another way, yea, by the way which is on the south of the city of Ammonihah.
19  And as he entered the city he was an hungered, and he said to a man: Will ye give to an humble servant of God something to eat?
20  And the man said unto him: I am a Nephite, and I know that thou art a holy prophet of God, for thou art the man whom an angel said in a vision: Thou shalt receive. Therefore, go with me into my house and I will impart unto thee of my food; and I know that thou wilt be a blessing unto me and my house.

This story contains an important principle that teaches how the Lord deals with his children. The lesson is repeated many times in the scriptures, but usually not as dramatically as it is here.

Alma has been driven from town, and was told never to come back. After he leaves, the angel comes to him, compliments him on how he has lived his life since the last time they met, and tells him to go back to Ammonihah again.

Alma obeyed, but he did not walk belligerently up to the gate from which he had been expelled. Instead, he went through another gate. Prophets are rarely belligerent, unless that is also part of their instructions: “Be as wise as serpents [i.e. don’t let somebody step on your head], and harmless as doves,” the Lord had instructed his Twelve at Jerusalem.

So Alma returned, as instructed, and found Amulek waiting for him. An angel had told Amulek to care for Alma. Amulek also obeyed, explaining to Alma, “I know that thou art a holy prophet of God, for thou art the man whom an angel said in a vision: Thou shalt receive. Therefore, go with me into my house and I will impart unto thee of my food; and I know that thou wilt be a blessing unto me and my house.”

Alma accepted Amulek’s hospitality and they became life-long friends.

The principle is this: The angel who spoke to Alma didn’t tell him Amulek would be there to help. He didn’t make any promises at all. He only told Alma to return. Alma obeyed and the Lord made the necessary arrangements so that Alma would get something to eat and would have help in fulfilling his assignment.

That is probably the most important principle by which we can guide our lives: It is our responsibilities to keep our covenants, and if we live worthily, the Lord will teach us what we must do so we can keep those covenants. A covenant and a promise are not the same thing. A promise is something just one person does. A covenant is something that two people do together. When we made covenants, he made covenants with us also. He promised that he would arrange that we could keep our parts. (Ephesians ch. 1) So now, as we struggle in the darkness of this world, it is his responsibility to make sure nothing gets in the way that is so heavy that it precludes our keeping our covenants. He does that. If we do our part, there will be no power in earth or in hell that can prevent us from doing what we promised Him we would to do. But it requires that we quietly obey the instructions of the Spirit, and when necessary, unobtrusively find another way, rather than going belligerently through the unfriendly gate.

Alma 8:17 — LeGrand Baker — American Constitutional principles as a key to understand Alma chapters 9 to 14

Alma 8:17
14  And it came to pass that while he was journeying thither, being weighed down with sorrow, wading through much tribulation and anguish of soul, because of the wickedness of the people who were in the city of Ammonihah, it came to pass while Alma was thus weighed down with sorrow, behold an angel of the Lord appeared unto him, saying:
15  Blessed art thou, Alma; therefore, lift up thy head and rejoice, for thou hast great cause to rejoice; for thou hast been faithful in keeping the commandments of God from the time which thou receivedst thy first message from him. Behold, I am he that delivered it unto you.
16  And behold, I am sent to command thee that thou return to the city of Ammonihah, and preach again unto the people of the city; yea, preach unto them. Yea, say unto them, except they repent the Lord God will destroy them.
17  For behold, they do study at this time that they may destroy the liberty of thy people, (for thus saith the Lord) which is contrary to the statutes, and judgments, and commandments which he has given unto his people. (Alma 8:14-17)

Alma 8:17 is one of those frequently overlooked keys that gives us insight into our understanding other important parts of the Book of Mormon. In chapters 9 through 14, we have a some of the most profound explanations of religious and political doctrines found anywhere in the Book of Mormon. Often, a readers inclination is to divide long sections and isolate their parts as though they were individual entity.(Their division into chapters and verses help us do that.) But they are often better understood when seen as an interconnected part of the whole. In selecting this conversation between Amulek, Alma, and Zeezrom, Mormon has chosen to focus our attention on one of the most important aspects of the ancient Israelite temple ceremony of the New Year festival. It has to do with the eternal relationship between the one’s foreordination at the Council in Heaven, and one’s priesthood and sacral kingship responsibilities in this world. I hope to discuss all of that in some detail as we work our way through those six chapters, but as an introduction, I think it is important to note that the conversations quoted in those chapters all focus on the Lord’s instructions to Alma that he is to return because “they do study at this time that they may destroy the liberty of thy people.” Consequently, the most accurate way to describe these chapters seems to me to be that they are an explanation to Zeezrom (and therefore to us) that God could not support his political coup because Zeezrom had not been chosen at the Council to be a Nephite king. Another way of saying that is that these six chapters are primarily about the legitimacy of priesthood and sacral kingship.

I intended to write that note and let it go at that. But then I asked the scripture this question, What IS God’s role in civil government. As I pondered, I thought you might ask that same question, so I set out to try to answer it. The following is the result:

The beginning of the answer may be found in this statement by Wilford Woodruff. It is his explanation about why he did vicarious temple work for the Founding Fathers.

Wilford Woodruff, September 16, 1877, Journal of Discourses, 19:229

I will here say, before closing, that two weeks before I left St. George, the spirits of the dead gath­ered around me, wanting to know why we did not redeem them. Said they, “You have had tile use of the Endowment House for a num­ber of years, and yet nothing has ever done for us. We laid the foundation of the government you now enjoy, and we never apostatized from it, ­but we remained true to it and were faithful to God.” These were the signers of the Declaration of Independence, and they waited on me for two days and two nights. I thought it very singular, that notwithstanding so much work had been done, and yet nothing had been done for them. The thought never entered my heart, form the fact, I suppose, that heretofore our minds were reaching after our more immediate friends and relatives. I straightway went into the baptismal font and called upon brother McCallister to baptize me for the signers of the Declaration of Independence, and fifty other eminent men, making one hundred in all, including John Wesley, Columbus, and others; I then baptized him for every President of the United States, except three; and when their cause is just, somebody will do the work for them.

I have felt to rejoice exceedingly in this work of redeeming the dead. I do not wonder at President Young saying he felt moved upon to call upon the Latter-day Saints to hurry up the building of these Temples. (Wilford Woodruff, September 16, 1877, Journal of Discourses, 19:229)

The part of that statement that seems most relevant to our discussion is his quote from those who came to him: “We laid the foundation of the government you now enjoy, and we never apostatized from it, ­but we remained true to it and were faithful to God.” Apparently they did not actually ask him to do their temple work. Rather, they demanded it on the grounds that they had never “apostatized” from the principles of freedom.

One of those men—my hero of them all—was George Washington. As I have studied his life, I have become convinced that he knew his foreordained mission, long before he sorted out all its details. I am aware of no place where he actually wrote that he had learned it by revelation. This statement, made two years before the Declaration of Independence , in a private letter to a personal friend, is about as close as one can get.

      … I am sure I have no new lights to throw upon the Subject, or any arguments to offer in support of my own doctrine than what you have seen; and could only in general add, that an Innate Spirit of freedom first told me, that the Measures which Administration hath for sometime been, and now are, most violently pursuing, are repugnant to every principle of natural justice; whilst much abler heads than my own, hath fully convinced me that it is not only repugnant to natural Right, but Subversive of the Laws & Constitution of Great Britain itself; (Papers of George Washington, Washington to Bryan Fairfax, 24 August 1774)

Washington had not been convinced by the arguments of his friends, until after “an Innate Spirit of freedom first told” him that the principles were true.

While it is true that the validity of participatory government rests on the general conscience of the people, it is also true that, at lest to some degree, conscience is a product of culture. For that reason we must be very wary of political issues that are founded on prejudice and intolerance

The challenge to the framers of the Constitution was to create a govern­ment that was so strong that it could protect its citizens, and yet so very weak that it could impose itself upon their private lives.

The object was to prevent the minority from dictating to the majority, however to some degree, they over-corrected. Since then, enough egalitarianism has been introduced into the system that the majority cannot harm the minority. In a free society political issues move like a pendulum, ever seeking stability in the upright position. It seems to me that we are about to the place where the pendulum will begin to swing back the other way again.

Actually, Deism is the answer to the question. Deism has had a bad press for years. That is because the only book that tried to define it was written by Tom Paine who was mad at Jefferson and tried to get even by writing a book saying that Jefferson was a Deist and that all deists were atheists. What Paine wrote was simply not true.

The best way to understand Deism is to look at the lives of the men and women who called themselves Deists—Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and most of the Founding Fathers. Deism insisted there is a God (“Providence” they often called him), who cared about people because he had created them to be the best that they could possibly be. That could only be realized if they were individually free to become fully themselves. That could not happen under an oppressive government. Therefore, the Deists reasoned, God did not want people to live under an oppressive government, and it was his desire and intension that they should live under a system that gave them maximum freedom to be the best they could be. A practical example of what that meant is this: I have never seen any evidence that George Washington prayed for the Lord to look after Mt. Vernon. Mt. Vernon, was, after all, Washington’s responsibility. However, there were many times when Washington urged the Continental Congress to declare special days for fasting and prayer that the Lord would sustain the army in their fight for freedom. And after a successful military engagement, Washington usually issued a general order to his men to setting aside a day for prayers of thanksgiving to the Lord—because, after all, the survival of the fledgling nation, its army—and ultimately of their freedom—were God’s responsibility.

They called what they were doing “the glorious experiment.” No one before had ever tried to create a government whose object was to make people free enough that they could secure their own individual success and happiness.

There are only three fundamental forms of government. 1) that described in Machiavelli, The Prince where the most powerful people assume the authorities of government. 2) That described by Rousseau, where a self-defined moral elite assume the authorities of government. 3) and that 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 power of The Prince is the same whether the control is exercised by tribal chiefs, medieval landowners, or military dictators. 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 both politics and the economy. They control politics because the law is what they say the law is. They control the economy because they own all the real property, and often also the serfs or slaves who work the land. In most instances (Medieval Europe; ancient Rome, Egypt, Greece; apostate times in ancient Israel, Ancient China and Japan where the emperor was a god, or Communism where the state was god), religion is a major means of keeping the masses in check, because the major gods support the king and validate his actions. Civil and criminal laws are established to reinforce and legalize the power of the king.

2) Rousseau said people are intelligent animals whose primary motivation is avarice: greed, self preservation, and self aggrandizement. He said because this is so, all governments tend to be tools by which the powerful control and take advantage of the weak. He used the dark ages in Europe as a primary example. He said, however, 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, if they have the power to do it. He said it is the responsibility of this self-defined, self-appointed moral elite to obtain political power by whatever revolutionary means are necessary, and 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 they didn’t have to worry about ways to get more). He organized the Fabian Society of England, which is still the thinktank of the British Labor Party. (When the Labor Party got power in England they nationalized railroads, coal mines, and other theretofore private businesses.) His program was that he would establish discussion groups in universities among students who were going into teaching, writing (plays, fiction, etc.), broadcasting, and other fields 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, married FDR, and became very involved in the United Nations.

Rousseau-inspired governmental systems vary markedly in their applications of his principles. In America they are largely espoused by “liberals,” but countered by “conservatives,” so American movement toward implementing his philosophy has been slow. In Europe it has been faster. In Russia, China, and a few other places it has been quick and complete. The theory looks good, but the practice is, by its nature, severely flawed. Its premise is that people, because of their selfish nature, are not able to make decisions that are in their own collective best interest, so participatory government cannot be good government. Therefore only a self-appointed moral elite is capable of making correct governmental decisions for the masses. That necessarily creates a two-cast social, political, and economic system. That it creates a two cast social and political system is obvious, but so is it obvious that its political system must create a two cast economic system.

There is no such thing as wealth in the abstract. Wealth consists of a successful sequence – of first production and then distribution. One can own a mountain full of gold, and it means nothing unless he can refine the gold and get it on the market. The same is true of a field of wheat. Unless it is harvested and marketed, it is not much different from a field of weeds. In Rousseau’s egalitarian system, the same people who make political decisions also make decisions about what should be produced and how it should be marketed. 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. Civil and criminal law are established to ensure the continuance of the system and the power of the individuals who control the state. The opportunities for corruption are enormous, and, as happened in the case of Russia, it is destined to implode.

3) The system based on the notions of Deism was begun as the English Common Law and Parliamentary system. It matured in the American colonies, and was best described in the Declaration of Independence. The best discussion of the Declaration’s philosophy is Gary Wills’ Inventing America. In it he 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.” Jefferson and his contemporaries did not believe equality meant sameness, as is implied in Rousseau’s egalitarian ideals. Jefferson compared human society to a bucket of fresh milk. As time passes the cream in the milk will rise to the top of the bucket, and the ordinary milk will settle to the bottom. He said people are like that: those with natural talents will rise to the top, while those with less ability will move toward the bottom. He believed government ought not to be used to artificially raise untalented people, or to artificially keep afloat the untalented children of talented people. But that government should get out of the way and let people seek their own levels – according to their ability or their inclination. In his use of the word “created” one also finds a fundamental difference between the two philosophies. Both use the word “freedom,” but with different meanings. In Rousseau’ philosophy, the fundamental purpose of the government is to grant freedom to the people. That means freedom is a gift from the government, and the extent of the freedom is as it is defined by the government.

In Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence, God made men free, and the fundamental purpose of government is to keep them free. That gives government a four-fold responsibility: to protect the people from international aggression (military and diplomatic power), to protect them from their neighbors (police and some regulatory powers), to give them freedoms they would not otherwise have (freedom of communication by providing post office and roads are examples), and to leave them alone and let them be the best they can be. In a word: to prevent external restraints on their freedom and to otherwise keep out of the way.

Gary Wills’s Inventing America convincingly shows that what Jefferson meant by “all men are created equal,” is that all people have an innate and equal sense of right and wrong – they all have the same built-in conscience that gives everyone the same universal standard of moral excellence – and on that idea he rested the whole legal justification for the American political and economic system, and for participatory government.

In Rousseau’s thinking, there is not 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 will naturally 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 would share the common values of the overwhelming majority of the citizens. If the people discover their leaders do not share their values, they replace them with others who will enact and enforce laws that are consistent with the common sense of right and wrong. Criminal law is necessary, but it only applies to those who act contrary to the laws of nature.

In drafting our Constitution and Bill of Rights, the Founding Fathers demonstrated unparalleled wisdom in defining the principles of free government and the delicate balance of powers needed to achieve them.

For the members of the Second Con­tinental Congress, The Declaration of In­dependence was not so much a state­ment of what they were doing as it was a justification of what they had already done. More than three months before, on April 6. 1776, they had removed themselves from the British Empire by severing the economic ties that had bound them to England. The next steps were to define that economic severance as a political departure, and then to exert sufficient military prowess to consum­mate that definition. After that, the great­est challenge would be, in the words of the Declaration of Independence, “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.”

The initial step, though traumatic, was relatively easy. The British Empire was theoretically an economic, rather than a military empire. In April they withdrew from the Empire by closing American ports to all British shipping, and then de­clared dared those same ports open to trade with all other nations. The question of whether Congress had the authority to do that was answered by the outcome to the Revolutionary War. The questions of why they chose to do it, and the legality of their actions were addressed by the Dec­laration of Independence.

The legal premises on which they acted were “the laws of nature and nature’s God.” For Jefferson and his contem­poraries, a simple reference in the Decla­ration to those political doctrines was suf­ficient to establish the point, but for people of the 21st century, the ideas expressed by that phrase are indistinct, obscured by time and disuse. Yet, those two ideas, originating with European thinkers but matured to fruition in the minds of Jefferson, Washington, Adams, Madison, and other Americans, are the theoretical bases for the legitimacy of a free government

The “laws of nature” referred to the concept of government by covenant, and was based on this scenario: In the beginning, before man had established a polit­ical structure for his society, there were essentially two sorts of people: those whose lives and pocketbooks were en­riched by what they produced or created, and those who exercised themselves only enough to steal or extort the fruits of other men’s labors. The former, finding they were expending too much of their other­wise productive energies defending themselves and their property from the latter, contrived a system whereby they could delegate to “government” the police and military responsibilities of de­fence. This would free the citizens at large to pursue their private affairs in peace and security.

They designated one among them to be king, covenanting with him that they would provide him sufficient income and adequate power to secure “their safety and happiness” but not enough to re­structure their private affairs. In return he covenanted with them that he would never abuse his authority by turning that power against them. The object of the covenant was to establish a system whereby the people could be protected but not dominated. Given the nature of the covenant, it followed that if the king violated his office by usurping additional powers and using it to oppress the people, his tyranny would automatically release them from further moral or legal obliga­tions to keep their half of the bargain. Calling upon this rationale, the Declara­tion of Independence asserts that the En­glish King had “abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his protection, and waging war against us.”

The “laws of… Nature’s God” is the claim of the supremacy of higher law. There are some things, such as rape and theft, that are wrong by their own na­ture, and no act of a legislature or edict of a king can make them not wrong. The purpose of participatory government is so that civil and criminal law will ­consist with natural law—so that which is inherently wrong will be legally wrong also.

With “the Laws of Nature and of Na­ture’s God” as their premises, the Found­ing Fathers believed that all governments had four legitimate functions: First, to protect its citizens (i.e., military and police power); Second, to provide equality be­fore the law while protecting the innocent from its misapplication; Third, to enhance freedom by helping individuals function more easily and equitably within society (i.e., postal and highway systems to en­hance communication, even-handed tariffs and sanctity of contract); Fourth, to leave individuals alone, so, through the exercise of their freedoms, they might be­come the best they are capable of being. To discover one’s potential, and mature it to fruition, Jefferson reasoned, is the purpose of life (if it is not, there is no over-riding purpose), so it is a necessary function of legitimate government to stand aside and let people be their best In this, government functions as an um­brella, protecting each from unaccept­able external disquietudes, while leaving him free to walk where he will.

Madison, perhaps more than Jefferson, understood it was easier to use those ideas for the rationale of revolution than it was to incorporate them into a working government But, as Washington had so eloquently pointed out at Newburg, if these were the principles for which Amer­icans had been willing to sacrifice their lives, they must also be the undergirding of any government founded upon that sacrifice.

To appreciate the complexity of the problem as the Framers appreciated it, we must understand that there is no such tangible thing as “government” What we call “government” is the interaction of select individuals and their uses of coer­cive power. Since the single characteristic which makes these individuals different from other citizens is their access to such power, it is not simplistic to define govern­ment as the power to coerce. That defini­tion holds true whether one is speaking of a dictatorship or the home of doting grandparents, whether the power is threat of violence or threat of disapproval. The fact remains, if there is no power to coerce, there is no government A free society is not anarchy. The exercise of those four legitimate functions of govern­ment are necessary to the preservation and enhancement of freedom. Therefore, the coercive powers that constitute a polit­ical structure must be legitimized so they may be brought to bear – but in a way to minimize their propensity to be abused.

One way that suggested itself by their experience was to give people access to the power through representative govern­ment, but even that was fraught with danger. The scenario of the covenant did not lend itself so readily to representative government, for the idea of representa­tion seemed to preclude the need for the covenant Yet, as Madison pointed out in the Tenth Federalist, corrupt and power-hungry men will gravitate to government because it is the seat of power, and such men would, by their nature, seek to ob­viate or circumvent the objects of the cov­enant

The problem for the authors of the Constitution was how to retain the framework of the covenant within the structure of representative government without abandoning the powers to smiling demigods who could convince the people to vote away their own freedom. Again the answer is alluded to in the Declaration of Indepen­dence. The key is found in the organiza­tional relationships of the powers. They must be balanced so delicately that the energy that may be used by govern­ment to protect its citizens is rendered inoperative when employed to violate the sanctity of individual incentive.

That the Founding Fathers were able to take that key, and create a workable answer to their dilemma is, one of the greatest miracles of human history.

Their solution was “dual sovereignty” that incorporated separate layers of government, and recognized the people as citizens of each layer. In this two-tiered sys­tem, the weaker level—the state and local govern­ments—had the authority to deal with the personal lives of their citizens and suffi­cient police power to be effectual. It was to the stronger—the federal government—that they assigned the ultimately coercive powers of the military—but limited its jurisdiction to providing for “the common defense,” and promoting “the general welfare.” (They read that “general wel­fare,” not “general welfare.” In both in­stances where this phrase is used in the Constitution its intent is to define, and thereby limit, federal jurisdiction to mat­ters that concerned the whole of the American nation.) In this balanced, stratified system, the Founding Fathers achieved the seemingly impossible by separating the potentially dangerous military powers from the authority to deal with individual citizens.

The first principle of freedom is that people govern themselves. This does not only mean that they are governed by representatives of their own choosing, but it also means that in almost everything they do, they actually make the decisions that govern and regulate their own lives. Even though there was much dissension about many things, among the delegates at the Constitutional Convention there was no disagreement about that. Indeed it is probably true that it was the dele­gates’ mutual belief in that principle that kept them together and caused them to be wiling to compromise on other questions where there was not so much unanimity.

The challenge to the framers of the Con­stitution was to create a government that was strong enough to protect its citizens, and yet too weak to impose itself upon their private lives. They achieved this by separating the govern­ment into two major jurisdictions. The federal government was given authority over matters of a “general” or national concern, and the state and local govern­ments, but more especially the individual citizens, retained authority over every­thing else. When the final draft of the Con­stitution was presented to the states for ratification, it presumed that separation, but did not actually say it. Many Amer­icans felt ill at ease about the omission and wanted their own powers spelled out in the document itself. Consequently, when the Bill of Rights was added, two of those amendments, the 9th and 10th, focused on that idea. They read:

IX. The enumeration in the Con­stitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or dis­parage others retained by the people.

X The powers not delegated to The United States by the Constitu­tion; nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Under this system the jurisdiction of the federal government included such matters as national defense, international and interstate commerce, and diplomatic dealings with other nations. It had nothing whatever to do with private citizens in mat­ters such as how they use their property, parental responsibility, or the myriads of other cultural and legal relationships that are a part of living in a community. All such matters were left to state and local governments, or left alone entirely to be regulated on an individual basis.

The real power that sustains such a government can only be the individual goodness of the people—their willing and wilful adherence to what the Romans called “natural law” and Jefferson called “the laws of nature.” The Roman orator, Scipio, defined natural law in a speech before the Roman Senate. He explained that there are some things which are wrong by their very nature. He used burglary and adultery as examples, saying that such things are wrong whether the Senate defined them as legally wrong or not. No government, no matter how powerful, he asserted, can alter the rightness or wrongness of certain human acts. It is the first function of government to recognize natural law and make actions that are in­nately wrong, legally wrong as well. Under such a legal system the victim of a moral wrong can have a legal recourse.

That argument was accepted as an eternal principle by most of the members of the Constitutional Convention. It is the undergirding of the system they created. It is also the rationale on which the legiti­macy of representative government is based. Jefferson and many of his contemporaries believed that a representative government, whether national or local, can succeed because the overwhelming majority of people are “equal” in that they have an equal innate sense of what is right and wrong. When a gov­ernment truly represents the will and thinking of the people, that government will be the functional expression of the people’s innate moral sense. As such, its primary objective will be to guarantee its people that they may live their lives in a society that recognizes rightness and wrongness the same as they do. The Con­stitution’s leaving so much power to state and local governments and to the people was intended to expedite that guarantee.

The Constitution pre­sumes that most people are bright enough and wise enough to govern their own actions and that they are honest enough and have enough integrity to re­frain from imposing themselves on their neighbors. Because of that presumption, the document leaves the great bulk of the powers to govern with the individual citi­zens themselves. Americans like that. For the most part we get on quite nicely with­out government telling us what and when to do. Except for paying taxes, obeying traffic regulations, and the like, most Americans live their day-to-day lives as though there were no government at all to get in the way of their being themselves. That, after all, is what freedom is all about Without that, freedom has neither reason, nor purpose, nor attendant blessing.

Freedom is that one may be one’s Self. That notion presupposes every person’s innate ability to recognize right and wrong, and the ability of the enormous majority of the people to conduct their lives according to their best feelings. It assumes that only a small minority, those who cannot or do not choose to live according to the dic­tates of their own conscience, need ever become subject to the coercive powers of law and government. The entire notion and structure of American individual free­dom is based on the belief that individual citizens will recognize, and will have the integrity to obey “the Laws of Nature and of Na­ture’s God.”

The system was never designed to work in a society where people permitted themselves to rationalize away their sense of right and wrong.

In a system where the people are not free, the will of the ruling minority holds the government and its culture together. But in a free society, the cohesive power that makes it all work is the integrity and rectitude of its individual citizens. But there is the rub. Even though honesty and integrity are necessary to the survival of a free government, that government, by its very nature, lacks the power to im­pose either honesty or integrity upon its citizens, unless they breach the legal code.. Consequently, if the people choose to violate their own sense of what is right and wrong and “call evil good, and good evil,” the system will self-destruct. In its place must necessarily come one of only two possible options: 1) anarchy and chaos, or 2) some variety of dictatorship in which government is not only strong enough to protect its citi­zens, but also strong enough to impose its own standards of excellence and mor­ality upon their private lives.

The people of the city of Ammonihah had abandoned “the laws of nature and of nature’s God” and were contriving to destroy the freedoms of the Nephite people. So Alma, like Washington so many years later, was called upon to intervene. In that, God is entirely justified, because if the people seek to live by the “laws of nature and of nature’s God,” he will help them establish a government based on covenant. Then, if they continue to be righteous, the ultimate protection of their political freedom is, after all, God’s responsibility.

Alma 8: 14-17 — LeGrand Baker — guardian angels

Alma 8: 14-17
14  And it came to pass that while he was journeying thither, being weighed down with sorrow, wading through much tribulation and anguish of soul, because of the wickedness of the people who were in the city of Ammonihah, it came to pass while Alma was thus weighed down with sorrow, behold an angel of the Lord appeared unto him, saying:
15  Blessed art thou, Alma; therefore, lift up thy head and rejoice, for thou hast great cause to rejoice; for thou hast been faithful in keeping the commandments of God from the time which thou receivedst thy first message from him. Behold, I am he that delivered it unto you.
16  And behold, I am sent to command thee that thou return to the city of Ammonihah, and preach again unto the people of the city; yea, preach unto them. Yea, say unto them, except they repent the Lord God will destroy them.
17  For behold, they do study at this time that they may destroy the liberty of thy people, (for thus saith the Lord) which is contrary to the statutes, and judgments, and commandments which he has given unto his people.

When Hugh Nibley taught about this verse he said

Obviously this angel was assigned to Alma. He said, I’m the same one who visited you before, and now here I am again. He was watching over Alma. We used to say much more about guardian angels in the Church. We used to teach much more of that doctrine, always taught it to our kids. We don’t do it anymore. I don’t know why not, because it’s a very real thing, the presence of another world. (Hugh Nibley, Teachings of the Book of Mormon–Semester 1: Transcripts of Lectures Presented to an Honors Book of Mormon Class at Brigham Young University, 1988–1990 [Provo: Foundation for Ancient Re 303)

The idea that there are guardian angels was very prevalent among the early leaders of the church, and still is today. Last night in Priesthood Conference, President James E. Faust said (as nearly as I could recall it as I wrote it down), “We do not constantly recognize how much these divine messengers influence our lives.” Then he quoted one of the brethren saying those messengers are often deceased family members who care a great deal for our welfare.

Mine personal belief about that is rather simplistic. It seems to me to be reasonable to suppose that we all had lots of good friends with whom we associated, and whom we loved, when we were in the spirit world before we came here. It seems to me to be equally reasonable to suppose that I would not have been brave enough to believe I would not need a great deal of help after I left that world, and tried to muddle through this world’s experiences. So with those notions as a premises, I have concluded that many of the family associations and friendships I have in this world are covenant based. That is, I believe that while we were in the spirit world we made covenants with each other that we would support each other as family and friends—to help each other throughout all or part (perhaps only just a specific, but short segment, like through high school, or while we were living in such and such a ward) of our experiences, and trials, and triumphs, as we work our way through our earthly lives. So, I believe, when, by happenstance, we meet someone who becomes a dear friend, that it was not by happenstance at all. Rather, it happened to facilitate our keeping the covenants we made with each other. Now the question is: if that is true, who caused it to happen? The answer is that either God himself must do it all, or he is following the same pattern in those relationships as he has established on the earth now. We call that pattern home teaching, but I suspect it is much more efficient and caring than ours could ever be.

It also seems reasonable to me that not all of our dearest friends were assigned to come into this world at the same time and place that we were. (With members of our extended family, that is obviously so.) Those differences in our assignments would not have changed our concern for each other’s well being. Since I can’t believe I thought I could get through this life without a great deal of help from those friends also, I suppose the help we receive from such family members and friends is also covenant based.

So my conclusion is this: because we need help from people we love, and because we need to help people we love, covenantal arrangements were made to assure us that we would get all the help we were willing to accept. The object of our lives here-even though we have lost most of our memory and are pretty much trying to find our way in the dark-is to learn to be charity, and to learn how to express that charity by living the law of consecration. That law, as I understand it, is this: that we bless the lives of others as their needs and our circumstances allow, and that we accept blessings from others on those same principles. There is appreciation felt by both, but no sense of indebtedness on the part of either the one who gives or the one who receives. So we rejoice in giving, and we rejoice in receiving from family and friends. I understand that as this law is eternal, so its application is eternal also. When I consider the intricate precision of the timing of events that caused me to just happened to meet some of my dearest friends, I conclude that there must be a magnificent home teaching program coordinating the activities of a whole cadre of guardian angels in order to bring our lives together so we could meet at the right moment in the right place. That is one very important way that I believe our lives are blessed by the people who care about us, but whom we cannot see.

What follows are some quotes about guardian angels from some of the brethren. All, except the first one by President McKay, are in roughly chronological order.

This story was told by President McKay about an experience he had when he was a young missionary in Scotland.

       I remember as if it were but yesterday, the intensity of the inspiration of that occasion. Everybody felt the rich outpouring of the Spirit of the Lord. All present were truly of one heart and one mind. Never before had I experienced such an emotion. It was a manifestation for which as a doubting youth I had secretly prayed most earnestly on hillside and in meadow. It was an assurance to me that sincere prayer is answered “sometime, somewhere.”
During the progress of the meeting, an elder on his own initiative arose and said, Brethren, there are angels in this room.” Strange as it may seem, the announcement was not startling; indeed, it seemed wholly proper; though it had not occurred to me there were divine beings present. I only knew that I was overflowing with gratitude for the presence of the Holy Spirit. I was profoundly impressed, however, when President James L. McMurrin [President McKay’s mission president] arose and confirmed that statement by pointing to one brother sitting just in front of me and saying, “Yes, brethren, there are angels in this room, and one of them is the guardian angel of that young man sitting there,” and he designated one who today is a patriarch of the Church.
Pointing to another elder, he said, “And one is the guardian angel of that young man there,” and he singled out one whom I had known from childhood. Tears were rolling down the cheeks of both of these missionaries, not in sorrow or grief, but as an expression of the overflowing Spirit; indeed, we were all weeping” ( David O. McKay, Cherished Experiences from the Writings of President David O. McKay, rev. and enl., compiled by Clare Middlemiss [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1955], 13.)

In another place he added this personal detail:

       Designating two of the brethren, he said their guardian angels were present, then turning to me he continued, “\’Let me say to you, Brother David, Satan has desired you that he may sift you as wheat, but God is mindful of you, and if you will keep the faith, you will yet sit in the leading councils of the Church.’” (Jeanette McKay Morrell, Highlights in the Life of President David O. McKay [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1966], 37 – 38.)

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

In November 17, 1844, in Nauvoo, Zina Jacobs who later married Brigham Young, recorded this in her journal:

       I went to hear Orson Hyde. He spoke concerning our guardian Angels that attended each Saint, and would until the Spirit became grieved. Then they take there departure and the person is left to hardness of hart and blindness of mind.” (Nauvoo diary of Zina Jacobs (Young), published under the title “‘All Things Move in Order in the City’: The Nauvoo Diary of Zina Diantha Jacobs,” ed. Maureen Ursenbach Beecher, in BYU Studies 19 [Spring 1979]: 298)

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

Orson Hyde continued to teach that same principle after the Saints came to Utah. In an 1854 conference, he said:

       Have angels anything to do with what will take place in the last days? He makes His angels ministering spirits, and they are sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation. The Lord is everywhere present by His ministering angels, just like any other ruler, monarch or king, who has ministers everywhere throughout His dominions; and God’s ministers are everywhere. (Journal of Discourses, 2: 64 – 65.)

Again in 1860, when the missionaries were called home because of trouble with the federal government:

       To you, my faithful brethren abroad, the Spirit of Christ has often whispered, during the last six months, “Go home—go home.” Your guardian angels have said it to you in dreams and in visions, and we expect to see you come. Scores have already arrived. God bless them and you too, if you listen to the whisperings of that voice that speaks truth to the heart.  (Journal of Discourses, 6: 16.)

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

Orson Pratt, during a conference in 1855, expressed this opinion:

       We heard a most excellent discourse last Sunday about the angels being sent to the various nations of the earth, to superintend the affairs and destinies thereof; also about each person upon the face of the whole earth having his guardian angel from the time that he comes into the world. The Holy Spirit acts in conjunction with those angels, and in places where they cannot be, for there are a great many places where those angels cannot be present, and the Holy Spirit being omnipresent is in every place at the same moment of time, regulating the seasons, and governing the planets in their courses. There would have to be a vast number of angels to be present in every place at the same instant of time, directing the movements of each particle of matter throughout the vast extent of space; consequently this is attended to by that All-powerful Spirit that exists in inexhaustible quantities throughout the universe.” (Journal of Discourses, 2: 344.)

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

Heber C. Kimball frequently described the help he and others received from the angels during their mission in England. Here is one example:

       You have frequently heard of brother Hyde, brother Russell, and myself being afflicted with devils in England. There were legions of them came upon us and sought to destroy us: but we were not alone; our guardian angels were there to assist us, and they delivered us out of the danger, and out of the power of our enemies.  (Journal of Discourses, 8: 258.)

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

Brigham Young said:

       Shall we be in the presence of God, as brother Spencer is? Yes, if we are faithful, for we have the privilege of being crowned with immortality and eternal lives. All people have their guardian angels. Whether our departed dead guard us is not for me to say. I can say we have our guardian angels. (Journal of Discourses, 13: 76.)

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

George Q. Cannon, in a conference in1890, described the angels this way:

       The agencies which our Father in heaven has at His control are utterly beyond our conception. Every department of His heavenly and illimitable Kingdom is under the immediate supervision of His agents. . . . Lord Jesus plainly informs us concerning certain agencies which the Father uses to watch over his little ones—guardian angels, who always behold His face in heaven. They watch over those who are put in their charge, and no one can offend or despise them with impunity.” [George Q. Cannon, Gospel Truth: Discourses and Writings of President George Q. Cannon, Jerreld L. Newquist, ed., (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1987), 65.]

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

Joseph F. Smith wrote to his son that he believed guardian angels:

       In reply to your question: “Do we all have guardian angels, and is the Key to Theology authentic on this subject, pages 117 to 119?”
“To both of these propositions, I can answer yes, so far as I have been taught and am able to learn. Jesus said (“Matt. 18:10Matthew 18:10): “Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you that in Heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in Heaven.” This is no exception to the rule. The rule applies to all of God’s children or little ones. But, the guardian angels of the pure, the innocent “which believe in me,” as Jesus said, verse 6, are they which “do always behold the face of my Father.” While those guardian angels of the disobedient, and etc., I would infer, cannot always bring up in remembrance before the Father such as are disobedient, and believe not in Christ.  [Joseph F. Smith, From Prophet to Son: Advice of Joseph F. Smith to His Missionary Sons, compiled by Hyrum M. Smith III and Scott G. Kenney (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1981), 39 – 40.]

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

President Heber J. Grant and his counselors, J. Reuben Clark, Jr. and David O. McKay, wrote a broadside in October, 1941. Its final paragraph read:

The Lord loves you. His angels are always near to help you. Your guardian angels stand by you to see that no harm shall touch you, no evil thought disturb you.

[signed] HEBER J. GRANT, October, 1941 J. REUBEN CLARK, JR., DAVID O. MCKAY, First Presidency. [James R. Clark, comp., Messages of the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 6 vols. (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1965-75), 6: 134. Original in J. Reuben Clark, Jr., papers, Harold B. Lee Library, Brigham Young University.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

President Spencer W. Kimball warned:

The car can transport its occupants to home, school or temple. It can also take them to remote places, to moral dangers where consciences are silenced, righteous inhibitions deadened and guardian angels anesthetized. In short order, the car can transport a couple, youthful or otherwise, great distances from safe harbors. It can impart dangerous privacy and stimulate temptation.  [Spencer W. Kimball, The Miracle of Forgiveness (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1969.]

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

Elder Carlos E. Asay wrote this about prayer:

       I regard sincere prayer as a protective covering, especially to those who pray that they will “not be tempted above that which (they) can bear” (Alma 13:28). It is also a spiritual shield to those who pray that they will be led by the Holy Spirit, watched over by guardian angels, or borne “up as on eagles’ wings” (D&C 124:18D&C 124:18). [Carlos E. Asay, Family Pecan Trees: Planting a Legacy of Faith at Home (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1992), 12.]

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

President Harold B. Lee said,

       I heard this little flaxen-haired girl sing “I Am a Child of God.” “Lead me, guide me, walk beside me, help me find the way.” The first time I heard it, this little girl sang it to her mother’s accompaniment. Now (her) mother is gone. But the mother came to this little girl in such a vivid dream that she said the next morning, “Oh, Mother was with us. We saw her in the family room, and I said, ‘Oh, Mother, you’re not dead.’ And she said, ‘No, my dear, I am not dead. I am very much alive. You won’t be able to see me all the time, but I won’t be far away from you, my dear.’ ” And with that childish assurance, the little girl is now growing to womanhood. Lead me, guide me, walk beside me, help me find the way. Guardian angels? Don’t you mistake it. It isn’t your father and mother who will be far away from you, children; it will be you who keep them far away.
“Those in the spirit world may be guardian angels to those in mortality. Who are guardian angels? Well, it would appear that someone who is quickened by some influence, not yet celestialized, is permitted to come back as a messenger for the purpose of working with and trying to aid those who are left behind. [ Harold B. Lee, The Teachings of Harold B. Lee, edited by Clyde J. Williams (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1996), 58-59.]

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

Elder Dallin H. Oaks was quoted in a 1998 issue of LDS Church News,

Elder Oaks of the Quorum of the Twelve commented: “Bible stories such as these do not mean that the servants of God are delivered from all hardship or that they are always saved from death. Some believers lose their lives in persecutions, and some suffer great hardships as a result of their faith. But the protection promised to the faithful servants of God is a reality today as it was in Bible times.
All over the world, faithful Latter-day Saints are protected from the powers of the evil one and his servants until they have finished their missions in mortality. For some the mortal mission is brief, as with some valiant young men who have lost their lives in missionary service. But for most of us the mortal journey is long, and we continue our course with the protection of guardian angels.” [Faithful LDS Protected from Power of Evil One”, LDS Church News, 1998, 07/04/98.]

Alma 8:8-13 — LeGrand Baker — prayer in behalf of others

Alma 8:8-13
8   And it came to pass that when Alma had come to the city of Ammonihah he began to preach the word of God unto them.
9  Now Satan had gotten great hold upon the hearts of the people of the city of Ammonihah; therefore they would not hearken unto the words of Alma.
10  Nevertheless Alma labored much in the spirit, wrestling with God in mighty prayer, that he would pour out his Spirit upon the people who were in the city; that he would also grant that he might baptize them unto repentance.
11  Nevertheless, they hardened their hearts, saying unto him: Behold, we know that thou art Alma; and we know that thou art high priest over the church which thou hast established in many parts of the land, according to your tradition; and we are not of thy church, and we do not believe in such foolish traditions.
12  And now we know that because we are not of thy church we know that thou hast no power over us; and thou hast delivered up the judgment-seat unto Nephihah; therefore thou art not the chief judge over us.
13  Now when the people had said this, and withstood all his words, and reviled him, and spit upon him, and caused that he should be cast out of their city, he departed thence and took his journey towards the city which was called Aaron.

This is a story that I suspect every missionary has experienced first hand. Let me tell you mine. The British Mission then had its own 16 lesson mission plan. It took about four months to complete, and the people who joined the Church in those days were so thoroughly converted that very few ever became inactive. My companion and I had tracted out a fine family. The father was an intelligent young man who loved what we taught him, and we became close friends. He was the scout master for his local church. The week he and his wife were to be baptized his minister gathered up all the boys and took them to his house. They begged him to not join the Mormon Church until after they had completed the scouting program. He agreed to wait. He told us that he felt he was making a great personal sacrifice for the sake of those boys. The next time we visited him he asked us to not come back until he contacted us, because his decision was causing tension between him and his wife. We prayed fervently that he would have the strength to do what was right. A few weeks later we saw him on a train. He greeted us with a forced smile. He told us that he had quit his scouts, and that he and his wife were now doing very well——but we should wait a while longer—— then he would invite us to come back to visit them again. His face was haggard and his words were full of hurt. The tension he did not express belied his words he spoke. I never heard from him after that.

There is an eternal principle here: Neither we nor God can force anyone to embrace and live the joy that is the gospel. With that eternal principle comes a question that echoes throughout the scriptures and often torments our personal lives. Mormon tells the story well, and in doing so, pulls the question into the very core of the issue:

10 Nevertheless Alma labored much in the spirit, wrestling with God in mighty prayer, that he would pour out his Spirit upon the people who were in the city; that he would also grant that he might baptize them unto repentance.

Alma was President of the Church. He “labored much in the spirit”, and wrestled with God in “mighty prayer.” There was nothing casual about his prayers, nor about his intent. So the question is: If he were a prophet, and if he were praying according to the instructions he received from the Spirit, why didn’’t God answer his prayers and “pour out his Spirit upon the people who where in the city.” The answer is: there is no evidence that God did not do precisely what Alma prayed that he would do. The only evidence is that the people did not hear because they refused to listen.

In this life, our spirits are caged within our physical bodies and within the body’’s physical environment——and, apart from death, there is only one way that one’’s soul can reach out beyond the limits of that cage. Within its confines, each of us is entirely alone. In that aloneness, there is no criteria but one’’s Self by which one can judge right from wrong. Using that criterion, one hears what one’’s culture teaches and weighs it against one’’s own perception of one’’s own self interest. That lack of vision makes the cage an incredibly lonely, sterile place. But even though its bars appear strong and impenetrable, they are as thin as paper and can be as transparent as glass. All one has to do to expand one’’s soul far beyond the limits imposed by this physical world is to love the Lord and to love his children. The love is the seed that is planted in one’’s heart that grows to become a tree of life. But because it must flow from deep within one’’s soul, no external pressure——neither by prayer nor by angels——can force its blessings upon another human being.

Consequently, people like Alma must endure an unique kind of sorrow that springs from a different kind of loneliness. Righteous love never imposes itself upon another, yet no righteous soul can be full except within an eternal embrace. When that embrace is rejected, a part of one’’s Self goes missing and cannot be retrieved by force or imposition. I suppose that was true of God, when Enoch asked, “How is it that thou canst weep?”

Alma 8:7 – LeGrand Baker — Cosmic Myth as a Chaismas

I had one of those “ah-ha — why didn’t think of that before” moments not long ago. It was this: The cosmic myth is always in the pattern of a chaismas. In its simplest form it looks like this from the Hymn of the Pearl

The hero prepares to leave home.
        he takes off his coat and toga
                he receives his blessing and assignment
                        he locates the pearl
                                he struggles under great difficulty
                                        he recognizes who he really is
                                 he receives a renewal of the blessing
                        he takes the pearl
                learns he has fulfilled assignment
        he regains his sacred clothing
he returns home.

That version looks better because by making the struggle and the renewal of the blessing concurrent, it is a more accurate representation of reality. But it still has the success happening someplace other than at the focal point. I was thinking of that when I went to church today. Travis Martin was teaching the Gospel Doctrine class. While making a not-too-labored allusion to the cosmic myth he observed that the time in the wilderness was the most important part of the story because that was the time when the Children of Israel had to sort out who they were and what their relationship was with God. His comments helped me realize that the pattern was correct after all.

Modern scholars who recognized in this pattern in ancient literature envisioned the form as an open triangle However it seems to me that it would more accurately depict the ancient’s sense of sacral geometry if we pulled the two ends together so that rather than being a bottomless triangle it became a circle – the eternal round. That appeals to me because then both the cosmic myth and the chaismas could be seen as the triumph of the human soul in an expression of geometric perfection.

Alma 7:22 – LeGrand Baker – awake, arise, and walk, as covenant words

I went home teaching yesterday to a man and his wife who have been my neighbors and friends for more than 20 years. Her 90-year-old father died last week. She told us the circumstances of his death, and made an observation that I have been thinking about ever since. I would like to share it with you.

She said she had been with her father most of the day, and when he was resting well, she slipped out to get a little rest and something to eat. She returned in about an hour to find that he had died. She said, “When I looked at him I hardly recognized him. He didn’t even look like himself.” Then she made this observation that I cannot stop thinking about: “I hardly recognized him because his spirit had left his body. Isn’t it interesting? We look at each other and think we see only the physical person, but we also see the spirit within that body. Isn’t it amazing how much of the spirit we can see, and how unlike that person the body appears to be when the spirit is no longer there.”

It’s like President McKay said, “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.” (David O. McKay,“Radiation of the Individual,” The Instructor, October, 1964, p. 373-374)

When the spirit is gone, the body is not what it was before.

**************

Alma 7:22 – LeGrand Baker – awake, arise, and walk, as covenant words

Alma 7:22
And now my beloved brethren, I have said these things unto you that I might awaken you to a sense of your duty to God, that ye may walk blameless before him, that ye may walk after the holy order of God, after which ye have been received.(Alma 7:22)

Verse 22 shows that not only Alma, but also the people in his audience are very sophisticated in their understanding of the temple rites and the temple language. Here he unites three concepts in a way that they are not often used together elsewhere in the scriptures. The words are awake and walk.

Once again, please remember that there is no dictionary of sacral code words, so everything I write here is only my personal opinion. I am arriving at my definitions based on a combination of what the Hebrew or Greek words mean and also on the way the English translation of those wards is used in the scriptures.

I would like to examine the uses of awake, arise, and walk, and then return to our verse and observe how Alma uses awake and walk.

Paul uses the words the same way: “arise” brings one to a newness of life; “awake” suggests becoming mentally or spiritually alert after sleep—aware of the light.

14 Wherefore he saith, Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light. (Ephesians 5:14. Scriptures that use “arise” to represent the resurrection are Malachi 4:2 & D&C 43:18) The word awake is often associated with the word arise. In some scriptures:

“Awake” suggests an invigoration, an alertness, an aliveness of spirit.

“Arise” suggests an the animation of the physical body—of becoming a new person.

It is sometimes associated with the resurrection. But more frequently in the scriptures word arise was used in conjunction with covenant making, and is used to suggest that one becomes a new person after one has made a new covenant.

Walk suggests ascending the mountain i.e. the temple (receiving the ordinances and making the covenants.) It also suggests living one’s life in accordance with the covenants, laws, and statutes of God.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

One stands to make a covenant, so the word “arise” often denotes making a covenant and later keeping that covenant.

Speaking of the Prophet Joseph, Isaiah said

7 Thus saith the Lord, the Redeemer of Israel, his Holy One, to him whom man despiseth, to him whom the nations abhorreth, to servant of rulers: Kings shall see and arise, princes also shall worship, because of the Lord that is faithful [in keeping his covenants]. (1 Nephi 21:7, see Isaiah 49:7)

While it is possible this is a reference to earthly kings, it is far more likely that it is a reference to sacral kings who rise to make and keep their covenants.

One of the best examples of standing to make a covenant is found in a story told in both Kings and Chronicles. King Josiah had ordered a remodeling of the temple. Those working on the project discovered a scroll, and took it to the king.

1 And the king sent, and they gathered unto him all the elders of Judah and of Jerusalem.
2 And the king went up into the house of the Lord, and all the men of Judah and all the inhabitants of Jerusalem with him, and the priests, and the prophets, and all the people, both small and great: and he read in their ears all the words of the book of the covenant which was found in the house of the Lord.
3 And the king stood by a pillar, and made a covenant before the Lord, to walk after the Lord, and to keep his commandments and his testimonies and his statutes with all their heart and all their soul, to perform the words of this covenant that were written in this book. And all the people stood to the covenant.(2 Kings 23:1-3, see 2 Chronicles 34:29-33)

At first glance, Alma’s encounter with the angel does not remind one of a covenant, yet, it follows the covenant formula: Alma was commanded to rise, and the conditions of the covenant were given: If he continues to act that way, he will go to hell.

8 But behold, the voice said unto me: Arise. And I arose and stood up, and beheld the angel.
9 And he said unto me: If thou wilt of thyself be destroyed, seek no more to destroy the church of God. (Alma 36:8-9)

The Saviour at the temple at Bountiful used the same formula:

14 Arise and come forth unto me, that ye may thrust your hands into my side, and also that ye may feel the prints of the nails in my hands and in my feet, that ye may know that I am the God of Israel, and the God of the whole earth, and have been slain for the sins of the world. (3 Nephi 11:14)

He used the same covenant formula when he discussed baptism in this dispensation:

10  But, behold, the days of thy deliverance are come, if thou wilt hearken to my voice, which saith unto thee: Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on my name, and you shall receive my Spirit, and a blessing so great as you never have known. (D&C 39:10)

The Saviour used the same formula when he instituted the sacrament among the Nephites.

1 And it came to pass that he commanded the multitude that they should cease to pray, and also his disciples. And he commanded them that they should not cease to pray in their hearts.
2 And he commanded them that they should arise and stand up upon their feet. And they arose up and stood upon their feet.
3 And it came to pass that he brake bread again and blessed it, and gave to the disciples to eat.
4 And when they had eaten he commanded them that they should break bread, and give unto the multitude.
5 And when they had given unto the multitude he also gave them wine to drink, and commanded them that they should give unto the multitude.
6 Now, there had been no bread, neither wine, brought by the disciples, neither by the multitude;
7 But he truly gave unto them bread to eat, and also wine to drink.
8 And he said unto them: He that eateth this bread eateth of my body to his soul; and he that drinketh of this wine drinketh of my blood to his soul; and his soul shall never hunger nor thirst, but shall be filled.(3 Nephi 20:1-8)

The covenant is in the last verse.

In a revelation given through Joseph Smith at Kirtland, Ohio, in December, 1835, the Lord tied the word “arise” directly to keeping one’s covenants.

3 And arise up and be more careful henceforth in observing your vows, which you have made and do make, and you shall be blessed with exceeding great blessings. (D&C 108:3)

In a revelation given in Far West, Missouri, the Lord employed the full range of the words:

2 Let them awake, and arise, and come forth, and not tarry, for I, the Lord, command it.(D&C 117:2)

Later, he used the a similar sequence of ideas in the covenant formula:

103 And again, verily I say unto you, if my servant Sidney will serve me and be counselor unto my servant Joseph, let him arise and come up and stand in the office of his calling, and humble himself before me. (D&C 124:103)

In another revelation given through Joseph Smith at Far West, the Lord uses “arise” but in place of “awake” he says, “and shine forth”

5 Verily I say unto you all: Arise and shine forth, that thy light may be a standard for the nations (D&C115:5)

To “shine forth” is not substantially different from Isaiah’s to “sing” in the following early example of the use of the combination of “awake” and “arise.” Taken out of context it is about the resurrection, but in context it is part of the words of a song that declares, “Lord, thou wilt ordain peace for us” (v. 12) Everything in the song it speaks of a spiritual awakening, so one is left unsure whether this is a prophecy of the resurrection or a symbolic representation of the newness of life one experiences after one repents. In either case, “arise” represents a newness of life, and “awake” is the quickening of the soul. In the phrase “awake and sing, “sing” is the defining word.

19 Thy dead men shall live, together with my dead body shall they arise. Awake and sing, ye that dwell in dust: for thy dew is as the dew of herbs, and the earth shall cast out the dead. (Isaiah 26:19)

Lehi uses these representations of spiritual invigoration and physical resurrection to invite his sons to come out of their state of apostate darkness.

14 Awake! and arise from the dust [as in receiving a newness of life], and hear the words of a trembling parent, whose limbs ye must soon lay down in the cold and silent grave, from whence no traveler can return; a few more days and I go the way of all the earth. (2 Nephi 1:14)

Moroni uses Lehi’s words in somewhat the same way. This verse is found in a series of verses designed to evoke one’s recollection of the drama associated with the cosmic myth.

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 10:31)

Both of the above are drawn from Isaiah 51 & 52 where Isaiah contrasts “thou hast laid thy body as the ground” with “awake…aries…put on thy beautiful garments.”

Isaiah’s words are:

23 But I will put it into the hand of them that afflict thee; which have said to thy soul, Bow down, that we may go over: and thou hast laid thy body as the ground, and as the street, to them that went over. (Isaiah 51;23)

1 Awake, awake; put on thy strength, O Zion; put on thy beautiful garments, O Jerusalem, the holy city: for henceforth there shall no more come into thee the uncircumcised and the unclean.
2 Shake thyself from the dust; arise, and sit down, O Jerusalem: loose thyself from the bands of thy neck, O captive daughter of Zion.(Isaiah 52:1-2, see 2 Nephi 8:23-25)

When the Lord quoted those same words in the Doctrine and Covenants he tied them to covenant making and covenant keeping.

14 For Zion must increase in beauty, and in holiness; her borders must be enlarged; her stakes must be strengthened; yea, verily I say unto you, Zion must arise and put on her beautiful garments.
15 Therefore, I give unto you this commandment, that ye bind yourselves by this covenant, and it shall be done according to the laws of the Lord. (D&C 82:14-15)

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

“Walk” is often used to denote keeping one’s covenants.

There are two Hebrew words (Strong 1980, 3212) that are translated “walk” in the Old Testament scriptures I have quoted below, but they both have the same meaning: to go, walk, come, leave, die, live, manner of life (fig). In all of these instances the meaning suggested by their contexts is also the same: “manner of life.” In these contexts, “walk” means to receive the ordinances and covenants, or to live according to the ordinances and covenants one has received.

Here are some examples:

15 And he [Jacob] blessed Joseph, and said, God, before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac did walk, the God which fed me all my life long unto this day.
16 The Angel which redeemed me from all evil, bless the lads; and let my name be named on them, and the name of my fathers Abraham and Isaac; and let them grow into a multitude in the midst of the earth. (Genesis 48:13-16)

Then said the Lord unto Moses, Behold, I will rain bread from heaven for you; and the people shall go out and gather a certain rate every day, that I may prove them, whether they will walk in my law, or no. (Exodus 16:4)

17 And Moses’ father in law said unto him,…
20 And thou shalt teach them ordinances and laws, and shalt shew them the way wherein they must walk, and the work that they must do.(Exodus 18:17, 20)

In Leviticus, which is the handbook for the Aaronic Priesthood, to “walk” means to live according to one’s covenants.

1 And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying,
2 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, I am the Lord your God.
3 After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do: and after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring you, shall ye not do: neither shall ye walk in their ordinances.
4 Ye shall do my judgments, and keep mine ordinances, to walk therein: I am the Lord your God.
5 Ye shall therefore keep my statutes, and my judgments: which if a man do, he shall live in them: I am the Lord. (Leviticus 18:1-5)

and

2 Ye shall keep my sabbaths, and reverence my sanctuary: I am the Lord.
3 If ye walk in my statutes, and keep my commandments, and do them;
4 Then I will give you rain in due season, and the land shall yield her increase, and the trees of the field shall yield their fruit. (Leviticus 26:1-4)

In his great farewell speech to the Israelites, Moses reviewed the Ten Commandments, then concluded with this covenant.

32 Ye shall observe to do therefore as the Lord your God hath commanded you: ye shall not turn aside to the right hand or to the left.
33 Ye shall walk in all the ways which the Lord your God hath commanded you, that ye may live, and that it may be well with you, and that ye may prolong your days in the land which ye shall possess. (Deuteronomy 5:4-33)

Throughout this great sermon, Moses reiterates the covenant. He uses “walk in his ways” to indicates one must keep one’s covenants.

6 Therefore thou shalt keep the commandments of the Lord thy God, to walk in his ways, and to fear him.
7 For the Lord thy God bringeth thee into a good land, a land of brooks of water, of fountains and depths that spring out of valleys and hills; (Deuteronomy 8:4-7)

Moses taught the Israelites what it meant to “walk in all his ways.” The Saviour later paraphrased this, and called it the first and great commandment.

12 And now, Israel, what doth the Lord thy God require of thee, but to fear the Lord thy God, to walk in all his ways, and to love him, and to serve the Lord thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul,
13 To keep the commandments of the Lord, and his statutes, which I command thee this day for thy good? (Deuteronomy 10:12-13)

There is no instance in the five books of Moses where the word “walk” is used with any meaning other than to perform the ordinances of the temple, to keep God’s commandments, or to keep one’s covenants. But in Joshua, the word “walk” has a new connotation. The first thing one does to create sacred space is to measure and define its boundaries. “Walk” is sometimes used to denote measuring by stepping off, or pacing. An example is in the beginning of the story of Job, where Satan tries to claim this earth as his own by “going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.” (Job 1:7-8) Similarly, before Joshua brought the children of Israel into the promised land, he first sent in spies with these instructions:

And the men arose, and went away: and Joshua charged them that went to describe the land, saying, Go and walk through the land, and describe it, and come again to me, that I may here cast lots for you before the Lord in Shiloh. (Joshua 18:8. Also in Psalms 48 to walk is to designate sacred space.)

The notion of covenant making and covenant keeping is not lost in this use of “walk,” for when one designates sacred space (in this instance Joshua is going to divide it among the tribes by casting lots), there is an implicit covenant that one will keep God’s commands so the space will remain sacred. Joshua made that covenant explicit when he later instructed three of the tribes:

But take diligent heed to do the commandment and the law, which Moses the servant of the Lord charged you, to love the Lord your God, and to walk in all his ways, and to keep his commandments, and to cleave unto him, and to serve him with all your heart and with all your soul. (Joshua 22:5)

Near the end of king David’s reign, he made his son Solomon his successor to the throne.

1 Now the days of David drew nigh that he should die; and he charged Solomon his son, saying,
2 I go the way of all the earth: be thou strong therefore, and shew thyself a man;
3 And keep the charge of the Lord thy God, to walk in his ways, to keep his statutes, and his commandments, and his judgments, and his testimonies, as it is written in the law of Moses, that thou mayest prosper in all that thou doest, and whithersoever thou turnest thyself:
4 That the Lord may continue his word which he spake concerning me, saying, If thy children take heed to their way, to walk before me in truth with all their heart and with all their soul, there shall not fail thee (said he) a man on the throne of Israel. (1 Kings 2:1-4)

God appeared to Solomon at the beginning of his reign and promised him both wealth and wisdom. This is part of that account:

5 In Gibeon the Lord appeared to Solomon in a dream by night: and God said, Ask what I shall give thee.
6 And Solomon said, Thou hast shewed unto thy servant David my father great mercy, according as he walked before thee in truth, and in righteousness, and in uprightness of heart with thee; and thou hast kept for him this great kindness, that thou hast given him a son to sit on his throne, as it is this day…
13 And I have also given thee that which thou hast not asked, both riches, and honour: so that there shall not be any among the kings like unto thee all thy days.
14 And if thou wilt walk in my ways, to keep my statutes and my commandments, as thy father David did walk, then I will lengthen thy days.
15 And Solomon awoke; and, behold, it was a dream. And he came to Jerusalem, and stood before the ark of the covenant of the Lord, and offered up burnt offerings, and offered peace offerings, and made a feast to all his servants. (1 Kings 3:5-15)

Solomon’s building the Temple was the necessary to his keeping that covenant:

9 So he built the house, and finished it; and covered the house with beams and boards of cedar.
10 And then he built chambers against all the house, five cubits high: and they rested on the house with timber of cedar.
11 And the word of the Lord came to Solomon, saying,
12 Concerning this house which thou art in building, if thou wilt walk in my statutes, and execute my judgments, and keep all my commandments to walk in them; then will I perform my word with thee, which I spake unto David thy father:
13 And I will dwell among the children of Israel, and will not forsake my people Israel.
14 So Solomon built the house, and finished it.(1 Kings 6:9-14)

Before delivering the dedicatory prayer of the Temple, Solomon thanked the Lord for keeping his covenants with David:

22 And Solomon stood before the altar of the Lord in the presence of all the congregation of Israel, and spread forth his hands toward heaven:
23 And he said, Lord God of Israel, there is no God like thee, in heaven above, or on earth beneath, who keepest covenant and mercy with thy servants that walk before thee with all their heart:
24 Who hast kept with thy servant David my father that thou promisedst him: thou spakest also with thy mouth, and hast fulfilled it with thine hand, as it is this day.
25 Therefore now, Lord God of Israel, keep with thy servant David my father that thou promisedst him, saying, There shall not fail thee a man in my sight to sit on the throne of Israel; so that thy children take heed to their way, that they walk before me as thou hast walked before me.
26 And now, O God of Israel, let thy word, I pray thee, be verified, which thou spakest unto thy servant David my father. (1 Kings 8:22-26)

Then Solomon dedicated the Temple:

54 And it was so, that when Solomon had made an end of praying all this prayer and supplication unto the Lord, he arose from before the altar of the Lord, from kneeling on his knees with his hands spread up to heaven.
55 And he stood, and blessed all the congregation of Israel with a loud voice, saying,
56 Blessed be the Lord, that hath given rest unto his people Israel, according to all that he promised: there hath not failed one word of all his good promise, which he promised by the hand of Moses his servant.
57 The Lord our God be with us, as he was with our fathers: let him not leave us, nor forsake us:
58 That he may incline our hearts unto him, to walk in all his ways, and to keep his commandments, and his statutes, and his judgments, which he commanded our fathers.
59 And let these my words, wherewith I have made supplication before the Lord, be nigh unto the Lord our God day and night, that he maintain the cause of his servant, and the cause of his people Israel at all times, as the matter shall require:
60 That all the people of the earth may know that the Lord is God, and that there is none else.
61 Let your heart therefore be perfect with the Lord our God, to walk in his statutes, and to keep his commandments, as at this day. (1 Kings 8: 54-61)

The Psalms where the words of the ancient Israelite temple ceremony. One of the most beautiful, and certainly the most famous, is the 23rd Psalm, which reviews the entire ceremony. If one reads the word “walk” to mean keeping one’s covenants notwithstanding the pressures of this world, the entire psalm takes on a new level of meaning. This psalm, like other examples of the cosmic myth, is divided like a three act play.

The Lord is my shepherd;
I shall not want.
He maketh me to lie down in green pastures:
he leadeth me beside the still waters.
He restoreth my soul:
he leadeth me in the paths of righteousness for his name’s sake.
[Then comes act 2—the lonely, dreary part]
Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death,
I will fear no evil: for thou art with me;
thy rod and thy staff they comfort me.
Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies:
thou anointest my head with oil;
my cup runneth over.
Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life:
and [act 3] I will dwell in the house of the Lord for ever. (Psalms 23:1-6)

Another of my favorites is Psalm 82. This is the charge given to the members of the Council in Heaven by Elohim. The Hebrew word translated “judgeth” means the same as the English “judge.” It means to condemn, exonerate, or to choose—as in judging an apple pie contest. The phrase that they “walk in darkness” means the people know neither the ordinances nor the covenants. There are three voices in this psalm. the first is that of the narrator or chorus (as in a Greek play), the second is Elohim who gives instructions to the members of the Council, and the third is that of the members of the Council who make a covenant that they will follow God’s instructions. Here also, standing is an important part of their covenant making.

[The narrator says]

God standeth in the congregation of the mighty;
he judgeth [chooses] among the gods.

[Elohim, the Father of the Gods, then gives these instructions to the members of the Council in Heaven who are preparing to come to the earth. The word “persons” in verse 2 means faces, as in appearances, or facade. God is telling the members of the Council that when they go to their second estate, they must not judge people by their appearances.]

How long will ye judge unjustly,
and accept the persons [faces] of the wicked?
Defend the poor and fatherless:
do justice to the afflicted and needy.
Deliver the poor and needy:
rid them out of the hand of the wicked.
They know not, neither will they understand;
they walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course.
I have said, Ye are gods;
and all of you are children of the most High.
But ye shall die like men,
and fall like one of the princes. [that is, fall in battle, like Abinadi]
[The Council then covenants that they will do their part so God can accomplish his purposes.]
Arise, O God [the word is elohim, meaning the gods], judge the earth:
for thou shalt inherit all nations. (Psalms 82:1-8)

One can insert Psalm 82 into Abraham 3: 23 without breaking the cadence of the story:

And God saw these souls that they were good, and he stood in the midst of them, and he said: These I will make my rulers; for he stood among those that were spirits, God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth [chooses] among the gods…… [He gives instructions, then the members of the Council covenant that they will do their part so God can accomplish his purposes. They say:] Arise, O God, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations. And God saw that they were good; and he said unto me: Abraham, thou art one of them; thou wast chosen before thou wast born.

Here are a few lines from other psalms.

Teach me thy way, O Lord; I will walk in thy truth:
unite my heart to fear thy name. (Psalms 86:11)

Blessed is the people that know the joyful sound: they shall walk,
O Lord, in the light of thy countenance. (Psalms 89:15)

I will sing of mercy and judgment:
unto thee, O Lord, will I sing.
I will behave myself wisely in a perfect way.
O when wilt thou come unto me?
I will walk within my house with a perfect heart. (Psalms 101:1-2)

In the Holy of Holies of Solomon’s Temple, there stood the great throne of God. One either side were two cherubim whose eagle wings overarched the throne. At the end of the coronation ceremony, after he was anointed, the king sat upon this throne to show that he was a legitimate son and heir of God and could serve as God’s representative on the earth. Isaiah refers to those ordinances when he writes:

31 But they that wait upon the Lord shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings as eagles; they shall run, and not be weary; and they shall walk, and not faint. (Isaiah 40:31)

The Lord placed those words in a covenant setting when he said to the Prophet Joseph:

18 And all saints who remember to keep and do these sayings, walking in obedience to the commandments, shall receive health in their navel and marrow to their bones;
19 And shall find wisdom and great treasures of knowledge, even hidden treasures;
20 And shall run and not be weary, and shall walk and not faint.
21 And I, the Lord, give unto them a promise, that the destroying angel shall pass by them, as the children of Israel, and not slay them. Amen. (D&C 89:18-21)

Nephi used the symbolism of “walk” and “path” to mean keeping one’s covenants. Here is just one example.

8 I have charity for the Jew—I say Jew, because I mean them from whence I came.
9 I also have charity for the Gentiles. But behold, for none of these can I hope except they shall be reconciled unto Christ, and enter into the narrow gate, and walk in the strait path which leads to life, and continue in the path until the end of the day of probation. (2 Nephi 33:8-9)

Mormon used “walk” in the same way it is used in the Old Testament.

5 And king Benjamin lived three years and he died.
6 And it came to pass that king Mosiah did walk in the ways of the Lord, and did observe his judgments and his statutes, and did keep his commandments in all things whatsoever he commanded him. (Mosiah 6:5-6)

Here is Mormon’s description of king Noah’s apostasy:

1 And now it came to pass that Zeniff conferred the kingdom upon Noah, one of his sons; therefore Noah began to reign in his stead; and he did not walk in the ways of his father.
2 For behold, he did not keep the commandments of God, but he did walk after the desires of his own heart. And he had many wives and concubines. And he did cause his people to commit sin, and do that which was abominable in the sight of the Lord. Yea, and they did commit whoredoms and all manner of wickedness. (Mosiah 11:1-2)

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

Returning to Alma 7:22

“Awake” is a command to be spiritually animated, to be alert and aware, to sing.

“Arise” suggests a newness of life. As when one makes a new covenant, one receives a new name, and thereby becomes a new person. ,

“Walk” suggests the same idea as path and way. It is the steps (ordinances and covenants by which one climbs the “mountain” (temple). Then, after one comes out of the temple, “walk” is the word that connotes one’s living according to those ordinances and covenants. “Walk” may also denote measuring in order to define sacred space.

And that brings us full circle to the words of Alma to the people of Gideon:

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…..
19 For I perceive that ye are in the paths of righteousness; I perceive that ye are in the path which leads to the kingdom of God; yea, I perceive that ye are making his paths straight.
20 I perceive that it has been made known unto you, by the testimony of his word, that he cannot walk in crooked paths; neither doth he vary from that which he hath said; neither hath he a shadow of turning from the right to the left, or from that which is right to that which is wrong; therefore, his course is one eternal round.
21 And he doth not dwell in unholy temples; neither can filthiness or anything which is unclean be received into the kingdom of God; therefore I say unto you the time shall come, yea, and it shall be at the last day, that he who is filthy shall remain in his filthiness.
22 And now my beloved brethren, I have said these things unto you that I might awaken you to a sense of your duty to God, that ye may walk blameless before him, that ye may walk after the holy order of God, after which ye have been received. (Alma 7:9, 19-22)

To emphasize the significance of Alma’s words, let me structure verse 22 a little differently:

And now my beloved brethren, I have said these things unto you
that I might awaken you to a sense of your duty to God,
that ye may walk blameless before him,
that ye may walk after the holy order of God, after which ye have been received. (Alma 7:9, 22)

In verse 22, where Alma combined the meanings of the words “awaken,” “walk,” and “walk” he was calling on a remarkable precedent. It seems to me that the phrase, “that ye may walk blameless before him,” is a reference to keeping their covenants. The Lord gave a similar commandment to Zion’s Camp:

And this shall be our covenant—that we will walk in all the ordinances of the Lord. (D&C 136:1-6)

I suspect that in the next phrase, “that ye may walk after the holy order of God, after which ye have been received”, “walk” has a somewhat different meaning: it is about ongoing priesthood responsibility. The precedent for this use of walk is found when the Lord gave the Holy Land to Abraham for a home for his family—forever. Within the promise is the instruction that Abraham should “walk through the land” to designate it as sacred space. It is a key to the meaning of the Abrahamic Covenant.

14 And the Lord said unto Abram, after that Lot was separated from him, Lift up now thine eyes [i.e. become alert, as in awake], and look from the place where thou art northward, and southward, and eastward, and westward:
15 For all the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed for ever.
16 And I will make thy seed as the dust of the earth: so that if a man can number the dust of the earth, then shall thy seed also be numbered.
17 Arise, walk through the land in the length of it and in the breadth of it; for I will give it unto thee.
18 Then Abram removed his tent, and came and dwelt in the plain of Mamre, which is in Hebron, and built there an altar unto the Lord.(Genesis 13:14-18)

Alma’s words, “that I might awaken you to a sense of your duty to God … that ye may walk after the holy order of God, after which ye have been received,” suggests to me that he was calling their attention to the same charge that the Lord had given to Abraham: “ Lift up now thine eyes… Arise, walk through the land in the length of it and in the breadth of it” to make it sacred space.

If Alma were calling on the Lord’s words to Abraham as the precedent for his appeal to the people of Gideon, the command would have been this: “that ye may walk after the holy order of God, after which ye have been received”—that you may make your homes and your community sacred space.

Alma 7:14-16 — LeGrand Baker — the many uses of re-baptism

Alma 7:14-16
14      Now I say unto you that ye must repent, and be born again; for the Spirit saith if ye are not born again ye cannot inherit the kingdom of heaven; therefore come and be baptized unto repentance, that ye may be washed from your sins, that ye may have faith on the Lamb of God, who taketh away the sins of the world, who is mighty to save and to cleanse from all unrighteousness.
15      Yea, I say unto you come and fear not, and lay aside every sin, which easily doth beset you, which doth bind you down to destruction, yea, come and go forth, and show unto your God that ye are willing to repent of your sins and enter into a covenant with him to keep his commandments, and witness it unto him this day by going into the waters of baptism.
16      And whosoever doeth this, and keepeth the commandments of God from thenceforth, the same will remember that I say unto him, yea, he will remember that I have said unto him, he shall have eternal life, according to the testimony of the Holy Spirit, which testifieth in me.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

This is one of the most powerful statements in the scriptures about the necessity and efficacy of baptism, yet it presents some intriguing questions. In addressing those questions it testifies of the consistency of the Lord’s methods of repairing a wayward church and, more especially, of the need for a living prophet and of the continual necessity that the Saints always follow that living prophet. The reason is that circumstances change, and while the principles of the gospel are an eternal constant, the cultures in which the gospel is taught and practiced are not the same. Consequently, in our living Church, practices have changed as the needs of the Saints and the external cultural norms have changed. This is not only true in this dispensation, but it was also true in earlier dispensations. Our passage in Alma 7 seems to be an evidence of that.

Everything about Alma’s sermon connotes that he was speaking to a temple-worshiping, temple-worthy group of priesthood holders. His repeatedly calling them “my beloved brethren” insists upon that, as does his appraisal of their spirituality in verses 8-19.

For as I said unto you from the beginning, that I had much desire that ye were not in the state of dilemma like your brethren, even so I have found that my desires have been gratified. For I perceive that ye are in the paths of righteousness; I perceive that ye are in the path which leads to the kingdom of God; yea, I perceive that ye are making his paths straight. (Alma 7:18-19)

Those are words one would speak to a congregation of people who have made and are keeping temple covenants. Yet it is in that context that he urges them to be baptized.

The story is that Alma had laid aside his political duties in order to focus his attention on the affairs of the church. What we are seeing here is a reformation within the church, led by its prophet, where people were asked to use the ordinance of baptism as a token of a covenant that they now assert their renewed commitment to living the gospel. Now, to avoid being called a heretic for writing this, I wish to do the following:

A. To show examples of re-baptism as an evidence of re-commitment in this dispensation, and then to show when and why the practice of re-baptism was discontinued in this dispensation.

B. To show other evidences of the practice of re-baptism in the Book of Mormon .

C. To conclude by observing that without a living prophet to direct the affairs of the church, even people who have an understanding of the gospel would have neither the wisdom nor the authority to pass their understanding on to their next generation.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

A. To show examples of re-baptism as an evidence of re-commitment in this dispensation, and then show when and why the practice of re-baptism was discontinued in this dispensation. To do that, I think it is best to simply allow others who have more authority to speak for me.

The first example of re-baptism in this dispensation was on April 6, 1830, the day the Church was organized. The Prophet Joseph and others who had already been baptized for the remission of sins were baptized as members of the church. Since that time, both necessary purposes of baptism are accomplished by a single ordinance, just as confirmation as members of the church and giving the gift of the Holy Ghost are also done in the same ordinance.

Names of the six members of the Church as they were organized April 6, 1830— Oliver Cowdery, Joseph Smith, Jun., Hyrum Smith, Peter Whitmer, Jun., Samuel H. Smith, David Whitmer. Some of these had been previously baptized; but were all baptized on the day of organization. { 1 }

President Joseph Fielding Smith wrote:

After the arrival of the Pioneers in the Salt Lake Valley, and subsequently for a considerable period, all those who entered the valley were baptized anew at the request of President Brigham Young who, with the Council of the Twelve, set the example to the people who were gathering from all parts of the world. { 2 }

The Encyclopedia of Mormonism gives a succinct explanation of re-baptism in this dispensation.

Re-baptism is rare among Latter-day Saints in modern times. Historically, however, many members were rebaptized as an act of rededication. This was first practiced in Nauvoo and was continued in the Utah Territory. Re-baptism served as a ritual of recommitment but was not viewed as essential to salvation. Members often sought re-baptism when called to assist in colonization or to participate in one of the united orders. On some occasions, the Saints were rebaptized as they prepared for marriage or entrance into the temple. Early members also rebaptized some of the sick among them as an act of healing. Because of misuse by some Church members, all such practices of re-baptism were discontinued in 1897. {3}

Elder James E. Talmage explained why the practice was discontinued.

Repeated baptisms of the same person are not sanctioned in the Church. It is an error to assume that baptism offers a means of gaining forgiveness of sins however oft repeated. Such a belief tends rather to excuse than to prevent sin, inasmuch as the hurtful effects may seem to be easily averted. { 4 }

Elder Melvin J. Ballard explained why it is no longer necessary

If there is a feeling in our hearts that we are sorry for what we have done; if there is a feeling in our souls that we would like to be forgiven, then the method to obtain forgiveness is not through re-baptism, it is not to make confession to man, but it is to repent of our sins, to go to those against whom we have sinned or transgressed and obtain their forgiveness, and then repair to the sacrament table where, if we have sincerely repented and put ourselves in proper condition, we shall be forgiven, and spiritual healing will come to our souls. It will really enter into our being. You have felt it. I am a witness that there is a spirit attending the administration of the sacrament that warms the soul from head to foot; you feel the wounds of the spirit being healed, and the load is lifted. Comfort and happiness come to the soul that is worthy and truly desirous of partaking of this spiritual food. Why do we not all come? Why do we not come regularly to the sacrament service and partake of these emblems and perform this highest worship we can give to our Father in the name of his beloved Son? It is because we do not appreciate it. It is because we do not feel the necessity for this blessing. Or it is because, perhaps, we feel ourselves unworthy to partake of these emblems. { 5 }

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

B. To show other evidences in the Book of Mormon of the practice of re-baptism.

In the above instances of re-baptism in our present dispensation, the re-baptism was not for the remission of sins—only the person’s initial baptism was for that. Their subsequent baptisms were tokens of their re-commitment to live the principles and covenants of the gospel, and to support the Saints and the Kingdom of God. There are several evidences of re-baptism in the Book of Mormon and some are much stronger than the one in Alma 7. One is in Third Nephi. Rodney Turner observed:

Following their rebaptism in water, the Nephite twelve were, in like manner, “filled with the Holy Ghost and with fire. { 6 }

This is the rationale that supports his conclusion:

Baptism appears to have been a common practice among the Nephites before the Saviour came. An example is that those who were converted by Samuel the Lamanite were baptized by Nephi Heleman’s son. (Helaman 163-4) Later, Nephi’s son, Nephi, also baptized persons who had repented for the remission of their sins. (3 Nephi 7: 24-26) However, when the Saviour came, he called that same Nephi from the congregation, “and the Lord said unto him: I give unto you power that ye shall baptize this people when I am again ascended into heaven. (see 3 Nephi 1:18-28) Still later, we learn “that Nephi went down into the water and was baptized. And he came up out of the water and began to baptize. And he baptized all those whom Jesus had chosen.” (see 3 Nephi 19: 9-13)

One cannot tell whether this re-baptism was a reaffirmation that those baptized would keep their covenants, or if it was an act of joining the new church the Saviour had established with the twelve disciples at its head, just as those who had already been baptized were rebaptized on April 6, 1830. My opinion is that it was the latter.

Four hundred years later, Moroni was clearly describing a re-baptism. The telling thing about this passage is its second sentence: he wrote: “Behold, elders, priests, and teachers were baptized; and they were not baptized save they brought forth fruit meet that they were worthy of it.” There, the people who are being baptized are”elders, priests, and teachers.” That is, they are people who had already received the priesthood. Since persons who have not been baptized cannot be ordained to the priesthood, it is understood that these priesthood holders must already have been baptized once before, and that the baptism Moroni was writing about was a token of re-commitment.

1   And now I speak concerning baptism. Behold, elders, priests, and teachers were baptized; and they were not baptized save they brought forth fruit meet that they were worthy of it.
2   Neither did they receive any unto baptism save they came forth with a broken heart and a contrite spirit, and witnessed unto the church that they truly repented of all their sins.
3   And none were received unto baptism save they took upon them the name of Christ, having a determination to serve him to the end.
4   And after they had been received unto baptism, and were wrought upon and cleansed by the power of the Holy Ghost, they were numbered among the people of the church of Christ; and their names were taken, that they might be remembered and nourished by the good word of God, to keep them in the right way, to keep them continually watchful unto prayer, relying alone upon the merits of Christ, who was the author and the finisher of their faith. (Moroni 6:1-4)

It appears to me that the baptism at the Waters of Mormon was the same sort of thing. King Noah’s apostasy had not been around long enough corrupt everybody. It was still in its first generation when Abinadi taught Alma. It seems likely that many of their contemporaries would have been baptized by proper authority for the remission of sins, before Noah tried to enforce his own new standards and rules. After escaping an attempted assassination, Alma had been given authority to organize a new church, had taught others what Abinadi had taught, and those who were ready to become members of Alma’s church were gathered at the Waters of Mormon to be baptized into that church.

What Alma was doing was not just extraordinary, it was downright revolutionary. We know virtually nothing about the organization of the Church in Old Testament times. The only reference to a church in pre-exilic Israel is where Nephi says of Zoram, “And he, supposing that I spake of the brethren of the church, and that I was truly that Laban whom I had slain, wherefore he did follow me.” The writers of Kings and Chronicles tell us almost nothing about the organization of the people whom they call “the prophets,” though it is apparent from the stories of Elijah and Elisha that there was some sort of organization. Jewish synagogues did not come into existence until during or soon after the Babylon captivity. Most scholars believe that before the Babylonian captivity, the formal organization of religion was under the direction of the king. That is, that the ruler held the joint office of king and priest—he was the person responsible for both the physical and spiritual well-being of his people. But during king Noah’s reign, this new ruler who was supposed to be the spiritual leader of his community had become blatantly and brazenly apostate.

If treason is, by definition, actively defying one’s king, and trying to set up an opposing kingdom in his place, then every true prophet might be called treasonous, because every true prophet represents a challenge to the kingdoms of this world. Noah did not send an army to the Waters of Mormon because he didn’t agree with Alma’s preaching. He sent them because Alma asserted that Noah had abdicated his royal religious prerogatives by his own apostasy. That, in the eyes of Noah, was treason, and the penalty for treason is death. As Benjamin Franklin observed to those who voted for independence: “Gentlemen, if we do not hang together, we shall surely hang separately.” That was equally true of Alma and those who were gathered with him at the Waters of Mormon.

Noah’s apostasy was of his own making. That is, it was still in its first generation when Abinadi challenged the king’s authority. So it is likely that many people in the kingdom (perhaps even young Alma himself) had already been baptized for the remission of their sins by someone with proper authority. Alma was youthful prince (Mormon makes a point of that when he introduced him by telling us that he was royalty: “he also being a descendant of Nephi.”) What the young man did was assert his own rights to the royal religious leadership; and, under authority given him by God, organize a church that was independent from the control of the apostate king. It appears to me (still my opinion) that the account of the events at the Waters of Mormon is about the formal organization of Alma’s church, and (as in the story of the organization of the church in 1830) that the baptisms performed there were a token of covenants that related to membership in that church. This seems all the more likely since the doctrine of remission of sins was neither a part of Alma’s sermon, nor was it mentioned in the unique and explicit words of the baptismal prayer. Alma asked his friends:

8   Behold, here are the waters of Mormon (for thus were they called) and now, as ye are desirous to come into the fold of God, and to be called his people, and are willing to bear one another’s burdens, that they may be light;
9   Yea, and are willing to mourn with those that mourn; yea, and comfort those that stand in need of comfort, and to stand as witnesses of God at all times and in all things, and in all places that ye may be in, even until death, that ye may be redeemed of God, and be numbered with those of the first resurrection, that ye may have eternal life. (Mosiah 18: 8-9)

He then explained the covenant associated with the baptism:

10   Now I say unto you, if this be the desire of your hearts, what have you against being baptized in the name of the Lord, as a witness before him that ye have entered into a covenant with him, that ye will serve him and keep his commandments, that he may pour out his Spirit more abundantly upon you? (v. 10)

The words of the baptismal prayer were:

13  Helam, I baptize thee, having authority from the Almighty God, as a testimony that ye have entered into a covenant to serve him until you are dead as to the mortal body; and may the Spirit of the Lord be poured out upon you; and may he grant unto you eternal life, through the redemption of Christ, whom he has prepared from the foundation of the world. (v. 13)

It is my opinion that these baptisms at the Waters of Mormon were also re-baptisms, not for the remission of sins, but for entrance into the Church of Christ that Alma had been authorized to establish.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

C. To conclude by observing that without a living prophet to direct the affairs of the church, even people who have a knowledge of the gospel would have neither the wisdom nor the authority to pass it on to the next generation.

If my analysis of the accounts of re-baptisms in the Book of Mormon is correct, then it seems to me that it invites two conclusions: first, the prophets in the Book of Mormon understood that baptism was necessary to salvation, and second, that they also understood that authorized baptism could be used to represent a number of different covenants—and that leads to a third, and very important conclusion: that even an ordinance as fundamental as baptism can be confusing. It has much symbolism (new birth, death, burial, resurrection, adoption, cleansing, remission of sins, to fulfill all righteousness), can also have many purposes (the remission of sins and formal acceptance of the blessings of the atonement, taking upon ourselves the name of the Saviour, entrance into the church, and the variety of other uses we have discussed here). Thus, precedent alone cannot teach one the meaning of baptism: therefore (and this is the whole point), although baptism for any purpose may be an essential part of the framework for salvation, it must be performed under the direction of one who holds the keys, by one who has the proper authority, and in the proper covenantal context. Given the complexity of its great spectrum of meanings and purposes, one must conclude that without the guiding hand of a living prophet, even the best intentioned people could make a muck of the whole concept of baptism without the controlling hand of a living prophet. The first of the Beatitudes in the Book of Mormon reads:

1  Blessed are ye if ye shall give heed unto the words of these twelve whom I have chosen from among you to minister unto you, and to be your servants; and unto them I have given power that they may baptize you with water; and after that ye are baptized with water, behold, I will baptize you with fire and with the Holy Ghost; therefore blessed are ye if ye shall believe in me and be baptized, after that ye have seen me and know that I am. (3 Nephi 1:1)

Baptism and every other principle and ordinance of the gospel moves on that single hinge: “Blessed are ye if ye shall give heed to the brethren.” Take that away and there is nothing left at all.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

ENDNOTES

{ 1 } Joseph Smith, History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 7 vols., introduction and notes by B. H. Roberts (Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1951), 1:76 footnote.

{ 2 } (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 3 vols., edited by Bruce R. McConkie (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1954-1956), 2: 333.

{ 3 } (Encyclopedia of Mormonism, 1-4 vols., edited by Daniel H. Ludlow (New York: Macmillan, 1992, p. 1194.)

{ 4 } (James E. Talmage, Articles of Faith (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1981), 130.

{ 5 } Melvin J. Ballard, Improvement Era, 1919, Vol. Xxii. October, 1919 No. 12.

{ 6 } Rodney Turner, “The Three Nephite Churches of Christ” in Paul R. Cheesman, ed., The Book of Mormon: The Keystone Scripture (Provo: BYU Religious Studies Center, 1988. “Rebaptism” is italicized in the original.), 114.