Blog

Mosiah 27:34-35 — LeGrand Baker — problems of royal succession

Mosiah 27:34-35
34   And four of them were the sons of Mosiah; and their names were Ammon, and Aaron, and Omner, and Himni; these were the names of the sons of Mosiah.
35  And they traveled throughout all the land of Zarahemla, and among all the people who were under the reign of king Mosiah, zealously striving to repair all the injuries which they had done to the church, confessing all their sins, and publishing all the things which they had seen, and explaining the prophecies and the scriptures to all who desired to hear them.

After that, they asked their father for permission to go and preach to the Lamanites.

This is a more remarkable story that our 21^st century culture is apt to see readily. A more typical account of the four sons of any king would conclude with one of them murdering the other three. Here are some examples of what I mean.

When Solomon became king, he promptly killed everyone who might have challenged his right to the throne. (1 Kings 1&2)

Nebuchadnezzar, the crown prince of Babylon, had just defeated the Egyptians at Carchemish when he learned his father had died. Consequently he could not follow up his victory by wiping out the Egyptian army. Rather, he had to return to Babylon, where he spent three years hunting down and killing all of his brothers, then, when his throne was secure, he and his army resumed the war.

One of the consequences of his victories was that he placed Zedekiah on the Jewish throne to rule as his underling. But Zedekiah later made an alliance with Egypt, so Nebuchadnezzar came back again, destroyed Jerusalem, captured Zedekiah, “And they slew the sons of Zedekiah before his eyes, and put out the eyes of Zedekiah, and bound him with fetters of brass, and carried him to Babylon.” (2 Kings 25:7)

One does not kill just the king, but also anyone that might claim his throne. As a footnote to that story as it is told by Josephus, Whiston observed,

Burder remarks, this was done with the intention of rendering the king incapable of ever re-ascending the throne. Thus it was a law in Persia, down to the latest time, that no blind person could mount the throne. Hence the barbarous custom of depriving the sons and the male relatives of a Persian king, who are not to be allowed to attain the government, of their sight. Down to the time of Abbas, in 1642, this was done by only passing a red-hot copper plate before the eyes, by which the power of vision was not entirely destroyed, and person blinded still retained a glimmer of sight.  (William Whiston, trans., The Complete Works of Flavious Josephus [London, The London Pringing and Publishing Company, Limited, 1876], p. 213 footnote. )

The point of those stories is this: A throne was a very dangerous kind of chair to sit on. And the simplest way to make sure one did not fall off of it, was to kill or disable anyone else who might want to be there.

Our Mosiah’s grandfather, Mosiah I, may have been in that same sort of situation. We have no detail except this:

… [Mosiah,] being warned of the Lord that he should flee out of the land of Nephi, and as many as would hearken unto the voice of the Lord should also depart out of the land with him, into the wilderness— And it came to pass that he did according as the Lord had commanded him. And they departed out of the land into the wilderness, as many as would hearken unto the voice of the Lord….(Omni 1: 12b-13a)

We are not told what he was running away from, but there seems to be only two likely possibilities: Either the Lamanites were about to attack, or else he had an elder brother who was out to kill all the other boys in the family. (We know Mosiah was not the legal heir to the throne, because all the kings were named Nephi, and that was not his name.)

Mosiah II was very aware of this traditional way of salving the problems of succession. He later justified his new constitution by warning his people:

“And now if there should be another appointed in his stead, behold I fear there would rise contentions among you. And who knoweth but what my son, to whom the kingdom doth belong, should turn to be angry, and claim his right to the kingdom, and draw away a part of this people after him, which would cause wars and contentions among you, which would be the cause of shedding much blood.” (Mosiah 29, 7&9. I have constructed the statement using words in both verses.)

It is reasonable to believe that while his sons were going about to destroy the Church, they were keeping an eye on each other, knowing that when dad died, at least three of them would not live long, and each probably plotting the deaths of the others.

It that was true, and it is not at all unreasonable to believe it was true, then their conversions, and their desires leave their royal status and to go on missions together, would have been the least likely of all the expected conclusions to their story.

Mosiah 26:1-14 — LeGrand Baker — enforcing goodness

There is an untold story here that I think is very sad. It is a profoundly insightful look into human nature, where the authority of one group to impose “goodness” collides with the desire of another group to be independent.

King Benjamin seems to have foreseen the coming problems, for when he laid out what appears to have been a new economic system for his government, he said,

And now, for the sake of these things which I have spoken unto you—that is, for the sake of retaining a remission of your sins from day to day, that ye may walk guiltless before God—I would that ye should impart of your substance to the poor, every man according to that which he hath, such as feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, visiting the sick and administering to their relief, both spiritually and temporally, according to their wants. (Mosiah 4: 26)

He required that everyone who was old enough that they would covenant to implement these instructions. That suggests to me that he may have been establishing something like the law of consecration. But in doing so he also gave this important charge:

And see that all these things are done in wisdom and order; for it is not requisite that a man should run faster than he has strength. And again, it is expedient that he should be diligent, that thereby he might win the prize; therefore, all things must be done in order. (Mosiah 4: 27)

To ensure that his instructions would be carried out, he also made another innovation in the kingdom’s hierarchy. He made his son king, even before his own death, and also,

…appointed priests to teach the people, that thereby they might hear and know the commandments of God, and to stir them up in remembrance of the oath which they had made… (Mosiah 6: 3)

That is an interesting description of the authority of these new priests. It implies that they had some power to enforce the goodness they had accepted by covenant.
One wonders why Mosiah was made king before his father died. There seem to be two likely reasons: (1) Benjamin was ill and wanted to be relieved of the responsibilities. (2) Benjamin wanted to make sure his son got it right before the old king died. Apparently It worked for a while.

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.
7 And king Mosiah did cause his people that they should till the earth. And he also, himself, did till the earth, that thereby he might not become burdensome to his people, that he might do according to that which his father had done in all things. And there was no contention among all his people for the space of three years.

So his father’s system lasted only three years after the king died. Mormon tells nothing at all about the nature of the contention. All we know is that Benjamin had given the authority to enforce the system to a new group of priests (as in the story of King Noah, the word “priests” probably denotes a the members of the King’s Council. If that is so, then these men would have had the authority to make laws to help “stir them up in remembrance of the oath.” Mosiah may not have been very active in the government, for he “did till the earth, that thereby he might not become burdensome to his people.”

Rather than telling us about the contentions, Mormon tells something else that happened at the same time.

1   And now, it came to pass that after king Mosiah had had continual peace for the space of three years, he was desirous to know concerning the people who went up to dwell in the land of Lehi-Nephi, or in the city of Lehi-Nephi; for his people had heard nothing from them from the time they left the land of Zarahemla; therefore, they wearied him with their teasings.
2   And it came to pass that king Mosiah granted that sixteen of their strong men might go up to the land of Lehi-Nephi, to inquire concerning their brethren. (Mosiah 7:1-2.)

That is the last we hear of Mosiah or the happenings in his kingdom until the people of Limhi arrived, and “ Mosiah received them with joy.” (Mosiah 22:14) After that, still nothing until Alma and his people arrived, “and king Mosiah did also receive them with joy.” (Mosiah 24:25.)

After Alma arrived, “Mosiah did read, and caused to be read, the records of Zeniff …And he also read the account of Alma and his brethren…” (Mosiah 25:5-6)

14     And now it came to pass that when Mosiah had made an end of speaking and reading to the people, he desired that Alma should also speak to the people.
15     And Alma did speak unto them, when they were assembled together in large bodies, and he went from one body to another, preaching unto the people repentance and faith on the Lord.
16     And he did exhort the people of Limhi and his brethren, all those that had been delivered out of bondage, that they should remember that it was the Lord that did deliver them.
17     And it came to pass that after Alma had taught the people many things, and had made an end of speaking to them, that king Limhi was desirous that he might be baptized; and all his people were desirous that they might be baptized also.
18 Therefore, Alma did go forth into the water and did baptize them… (Mosiah 25: 14- 18a)

There is a strange matter of protocol here. In the ancient Near East (and it is evident by what Mosiah does next that it holds true in this American offshoot of that culture) the King is the official mediator between man and God. Yet in this instance a king who is a guest of Mosiah, seeks baptism from someone other than Mosiah. This happens before Mosiah divides his authority between himself and Alma, so at this point Mosiah is still the one who ought to have been acknowledged as the religious leader. After that,

19     And it came to pass that king Mosiah granted unto Alma that he might establish churches throughout all the land of Zarahemla; and gave him power to ordain priests and teachers over every church.
20     Now this was done because there were so many people that they could not all be governed by one teacher; neither could they all hear the word of God in one assembly;
21     Therefore they did assemble themselves together in different bodies, being called churches; every church having their priests and their teachers, and every priest preaching the word according as it was delivered to him by the mouth of Alma.
22     And thus, notwithstanding there being many churches they were all one church, yea, even the church of God; for there was nothing preached in all the churches except it were repentance and faith in God.
23     And now there were seven churches in the land of Zarahemla. And it came to pass that whosoever were desirous to take upon them the name of Christ, or of God, they did join the churches of God;
24     And they were called the people of God. And the Lord did pour out his Spirit upon them, and they were blessed, and prospered in the land. Mosiah 25: 19-24)

Mosiah has by these acts completely departed from the system established by his father. Not only had he given Alma part of his own royal authority, but he had also stripped his father’s priests of their authority by giving Alma “ power to ordain priests and teachers over every church.” The extent of this political revolution is emphisized by the fact that Alma’s followers made a new covenant, and again took “upon them the name of Christ” when they joined Alma’s church.

It is not until we get to chapter 26 that we learn something about what those contentions were, and what had been going on in the kingdom to convince Mosiah that he must literally abandon half of his royal prerogatives as king. For one thing, the children who were subjected to the enforcing authority of Benjamin’s priests rebelled.

Now it came to pass that there were many of the rising generation that could not understand the words of king Benjamin, being little children at the time he spake unto his people; and they did not believe the tradition of their fathers. (Mosiah 26: 1)

By the time our story picks up again, these children were adults, just as Alma was. Not only had they refused to conform to the rules of Benjamin’s covenant, but “they were a separate people as to their faith,” and had organized their own religion in opposition to the king and his priests.

2     They did not believe what had been said concerning the resurrection of the dead, neither did they believe concerning the coming of Christ.
3     And now because of their unbelief they could not understand the word of God; and their hearts were hardened.
4     And they would not be baptized; neither would they join the church. And they were a separate people as to their faith, and remained so ever after, even in their carnal and sinful state; for they would not call upon the Lord their God.
5     And now in the reign of Mosiah they were not half so numerous as the people of God; but because of the dissensions among the brethren they became more numerous.

There is a transition here, so we are now talking about their effect on Alma’s church.

6     For it came to pass that they did deceive many with their flattering words, who were in the church, and did cause them to commit many sins; therefore it became expedient that those who committed sin, that were in the church, should be admonished by the church.
7     And it came to pass that they were brought before the priests, and delivered up unto the priests by the teachers; and the priests brought them before Alma, who was the high priest.

Now we see the final and conclusive transfer of ecclesiastical power from the king to Alma. 8 Now king Mosiah had given Alma the authority over the church.

9     And it came to pass that Alma did not know concerning them; but there were many witnesses against them; yea, the people stood and testified of their iniquity in abundance.
10     Now there had not any such thing happened before in the church; therefore Alma was troubled in his spirit, and he caused that they should be brought before the king.
11     And he said unto the king: Behold, here are many whom we have brought before thee, who are accused of their brethren; yea, and they have been taken in divers iniquities. And they do not repent of their iniquities; therefore we have brought them before thee, that thou mayest judge them according to their crimes.
12     But king Mosiah said unto Alma: Behold, I judge them not; therefore I deliver them into thy hands to be judged. (Mosiah 26: 2-12)

Two things are important there: one is that they are charged with “divers iniquities” but we are not told what those iniquities were. The second is that whatever they had done wrong was contrary to civil law. If their crimes had been something like theft or murder, then the king would have abdicated his throne altogether by turning there judgement over to Alma. But there is no evidence that was the case.

13     And now the spirit of Alma was again troubled; and he went and inquired of the Lord what he should do concerning this matter, for he feared that he should do wrong in the sight of God. (Mosiah 26: 13)

God’s response was that Alma should excommunicate those who did not repent.

From this part of the story, two things appear: First, The civil crimes for which they were accused were in fact religious crimes. That leads to the second, which is that in an attempt “to stir them up in remembrance of the oath” the kings new system of priests had attempted to enforce goodness through legislation. The result was that the children who grew up under the strict regulations of that system, rebelled and altogether turned away from King Benjamin’s covenant.

Apparently, in their zeal to succeed, the king’s new order of priests had overlooked the key to success that King Benjamin had given them:

27     And see that all these things are done in wisdom and order; for it is not requisite that a man should run faster than he has strength. And again, it is expedient that he should be diligent, that thereby he might win the prize; therefore, all things must be done in order. (Mosiah 4: 27)

It seems to be the nature of almost all people who have defined “goodness” for themselves, and who have authority, to codify that goodness into rules that they can impose upon the lives of others. Sometimes that enforcement is attempted by government; sometimes by subculture; sometimesbyfamily. And it seems to be the nature of almost all people,whentheyare confronted with rules of behavior that are too rigid and too restrictive – rules that permit no wiggle room – when the rules of enforced “goodness” violate one’s sense of agency and Self – then it is in the innate inclination of almost everyone is to look for some other way. That seems to be the story of the children who were too young to understand King Benjamin’s covenant.

Civil and criminal law are designed to protect people from other people who would hurt them. That works if the legal system works. Law can force people to ACT honestly, but law can never change people’s hearts and force them to BE good. When one group of people, who define the outward forms of their own goodness as the only acceptable outward forms, try to take away the agency of other people by imposing those forms of goodness upon them, there can be only one consequence: both groups suffer because the people who call themselves good begin to act like tyrants, and the others are not taught what goodness really is. Even if they are compelled to hear the words of the teaching, they are not truly taught because the very nature of goodness is obscured by the reality of its enforcement. When cultural sin takes on an aspect more important than real sin, true doctrines get lost in a power struggle that happens within the souls of people in both groups of people. The enforcers begin to fear they are losing control, and that fear causes them to be more vigorous in their enforcement because the system has become more important to them than the doctrine. Consequently the people on whom goodness is imposed rebel against the system, but because they have not been taught to separate the system from the doctrine, they rebel against the doctrine also. They try to define their own “goodness” outside the rigors of the system – and thus outside the doctrine also. Apostasy overtakes both camps because neither adhere to the truth any more.

There is a universal truth about both ancient and modern systems of religion: No matter how correct its doctrine may have been in its beginning, no structured goodness can be used to take away the agency of its adherents, to the degree it does that, or seeks to do that, the religion of the enforcers ceases to be good.

Perhaps King Mosiah’s greatest contribution was that he recognized that apostasy in his own people, and turned the powers of state religion over to Alma who was more concerned with freeing the people from real sin than from cultural sin.

Mosiah 24:13-23 — LeGrand Baker — covenants and power

Mosiah 24 contains one of my favorite stories about covenants and covenant-keeping in the Book of Mormon.

When, at the Waters of Mormon, the people of Alma were about to be attacked by the army of King Noah, the Lord warned Alma to get out of there, then he prevented the army from pursuing them. But somewhat later, under an almost identical circumstance, the Lord didn’t warn them when the Lamanites, under the command of Amulon, came suddenly upon Alma’s community. Rather, the Lord let his covenant people become enslaved by the Lamanites. He left them in that situation for a while, then provided a way for Alma and his entire community to escape. Given the similarity of the situations, one is left to ask, “Wouldn’t it have been a lot simpler for the Lord just to have warned Alma that the Lamanites were coming and helped them escape before they became slaves?” If one asks that, one misses the most important part of the story. A more relevant question would be, “Why did the Lord permit his faithful saints to be enslaved?” It is the answers to that question that makes the story so beautiful to me. The answers are found in the narrative, but much of their detail in encoded in the temple-language of its sub-text.

As you know, I am convinced that the Book of Mormon was carefully translated so that the words of the King James Bible map one-on-one to the words in the Book of Mormon, and visa versa. If that were not so we could not read the scriptures with understanding, but because it is so, we can go to the Old and New Testaments to know the meaning of words in the Book of Mormon, and we can go to the Book of Mormon to know the meaning of words in the Bible.

I also understand that the Book of Mormon and significant parts of the Bible are written in a double language. There is a very good reason for that. The Book of Mormon is the greatest missionary tool we have. The text of its surface stories and doctrines are about the things seminary students and new converts need to know – the first principles of the gospel, and how to gain a testimony of the Saviour. Those things can, and must be taught to everyone.

However, the sub-text is addressed only to the Lord’s temple covenant people. The sub-text the Book of Mormon is, in fact, a temple text. Those things cannot be taught. The Saints who know, understand because they already know; for those who do not know already, the sub-text is simply not there.

You know that I love to point out the sub-text to my friends – I can do that because I realize that my calling attention to it is all I have to do – because I know that you can supply for yourselves all the background information requisite to your understanding. So the purpose of my writing is simply to engage in my half of a conversation that begins, “Did you notice this?”

In this week’s chapter of Mosiah, the code words that are used so perfectly are “faith” (which is in the New Testament Greek, pistis; It does not mean belief, but the token of a covenant.) and “comfort” (which means empowerment and in the scriptures is related to the coronation ceremony of sacral kingship and priesthood.) My dear sister keeps reminding me that until we all have access to an archive of past comments, I need to do a better job of providing scriptural definitions of code words. So next week I will discuss both pistis and “comfort.”

————–

In Mosiah 24, the people of Alma were threatened with death if they were caught praying to God, and even though the story does not say so, it is apparent that they were also prohibited from talking about God – or maybe even talking with each other at all. In any case, when the Lord made the covenant with them, he did not tell Alma and let Alma tell the rest. He made the covenant with each one individually.

13     And it came to pass that the voice of the Lord came to them in their afflictions, saying: Lift up your heads and be of good comfort,

[“Comfort” may, of course, be read the way we usually read it: to mean something like the Lord said, “don’t be too concerned, because everything will be OK.” But if one reads the word to mean “empower,” and if the empowerment has to do with sacral kingship and priesthood as “comfort” does in Isaiah 61 and Psalm 23, then the words “be of good comfort” in our verse are a covenant. Verse 14 describes how that covenant will be fulfilled.]

….for I know of the covenant which ye have made unto me

[The covenant they made at the Waters of Mormon was that they would give their all in support of each other, the Church, and Kingdom of God. They fulfilled that covenant – or demonstrated that they would fulfill it – when they lived the law of consecration in the wilderness before the Lamanites came and enslaved them.];

….and I will covenant with my people

[those words are a promise that there is another covenant yet to come. We will find that covenant later on in the story.]

….and deliver them out of bondage.

[and that new covenant will come before the people are delivered from bondage. But in the meantime, the Lord describes to each of them individually his covenant of empowerment:

14     And I will also ease the burdens which are put upon your shoulders, that even you cannot feel them upon your backs, even while you are in bondage; and this will I do that ye may stand as witnesses for me hereafter, and that ye may know of a surety that I, the Lord God, do visit my people in their afflictions. [- and there we have the Lord’s reason for letting the Lamanites make them slaves.]

As I understand it, this is the story so far: The Lord let the Lamanites enslave the people of Alma so those saints could testify that the Lord keeps his covenants with his children even when they are under circumstances that would appear to the world as though the Lord had forgotten his people. The Lord said “that ye…” “Ye” is plural. He was using the plural form even though he was revealing his covenant to each person individually. It is significant that he did not say “that ye stand as witnesses of me hereafter” – rather he said, “that ye stand as witnesses for me hereafter.” The only way I can account for that wording is that when they got to Zarahemla their testimony would have a specific purpose. I presume, from the way events turned out, that purpose had something to do with King Mosiah’s surrendering his authority as the spiritual leader of his kingdom, and giving Alma permission to both establish and preside over the Church of Christ.

15     And now it came to pass that the burdens which were laid upon Alma and his brethren were made light; yea, the Lord did strengthen them that they could bear up their burdens with ease, and they did submit cheerfully and with patience to all the will of the Lord.

[Their submitting “cheerfully and with patience to all the will of the Lord” was the pistis – their token of the covenant. They did not “submit cheerfully and with patience to all the will of the” Lamanites, but “to all the will of the Lord.”]

16     And it came to pass that so great was their faith [pistis – the token of the covenant] and their patience that the voice of the Lord came unto them again [again to each individual, and not just to Alma], saying: Be of good comfort [a second promise of empowerment], for on the morrow I will deliver you out of bondage.

[Under the intense pressure of those circumstances, each individual had to know for oneself that the time had come, so that each person could make the necessary preparations to leave quickly. This time the promise of empowerment was not that their burdens would be light, but that they would have the ability to prepare so quickly for their departure.]

17     And he said unto Alma

[It is significant that the Lord gave different instructions to Alma than to the others. The fact that Mormon differentiates between the revelations that were given “to them” and “to Alma” reinforces the idea that in the first two instances the revelation did not come “to them through Alma” but “to them” individually.]:

….Thou shalt go before this people, and I will go with thee and deliver this people out of bondage. [There is the promised covenant that preceded the deliverance: “I will go with thee -Alma – and because they have a prophet to lead them, I will deliver this people…”]

18     Now it came to pass that Alma and his people in the night-time gathered their flocks together, and also of their grain; yea, even all the night-time were they gathering the flocks together.

[Thus, the second covenant of empowerment was fulfilled in a single night. I grew up on a farm, and to me that is an amazing story. Their gathering their flocks and preparing them to move was one thing. Getting all the grain into sacks and then getting it on their pack animals was quite another. It is a wonder that they were able to do all that, and still prepare the necessary meals, pack their belongings, get the children ready – and all that in one night without any previous preparations that would alert the Lamanites.]

19     And in the morning the Lord caused a deep sleep to come upon the Lamanites, yea, and all their task-masters were in a profound sleep.

[Thus the promise that they would be delivered. This time they didn’t have to get their overlords drunk, the Lord himself just kept them sound asleep.]

20     And Alma and his people departed into the wilderness; and when they had traveled all day they pitched their tents in a valley, and they called the valley Alma, because he led their way in the wilderness.
21     Yea, and in the valley of Alma they poured out their thanks to God because he had been merciful unto them, and eased their burdens [He kept the first covenant of empowerment], and had delivered them out of bondage [He kept the second covenant of empowerment]; for they were in bondage, and none could deliver them except it were the Lord their God.
22     And they gave thanks to God, yea, all their men and all their women and all their children that could speak lifted their voices in the praises of their God.

[As I imagine that scene, I am sure they didn’t all sound like a replay of the confounding of tongues in Babylon. Rather, I suspect that this is one of several places in the Book of Mormon where it is intended to be understood that all the people spoke and/or prayed in unison.]

23     And now the Lord said unto Alma: Haste thee and get thou and this people out of this land, for the Lamanites have awakened and do pursue thee; therefore get thee out of this land, and I will stop the Lamanites in this valley that they come no further in pursuit of this people. [That is the way the Lord had saved them before, so his system still worked when he wanted to use it again.]

This conclusion of the story is a further testimony that the Lord had purpose in letting his people be enslaved, just as his strengthening them and then delivering them, testifies that his purpose had nothing whatever to do with punishing them, or making their lives more difficult than they needed to be. This story is also a testimony to us that one’s pain, sorrow, disappointment, and hardship are not the curses of this lonely, dreary world, but they are blessing of empowerment if we will accept them as such and “submit cheerfully and with patience to all the will of the Lord.”

24     And it came to pass that they departed out of the valley, and took their journey into the wilderness.
25     And after they had been in the wilderness twelve days they arrived in the land of Zarahemla; and king Mosiah did also receive them with joy.

——–

It is always important, when one considers the temple/sub-textual meanings of passages in the scriptures, to compare them with other places in the scriptures where the same words and phrases are used.

There is a beautiful example in the New Testament where the Saviour says essentially the same thing to a lone woman that he had said to each of the people in Alma’s covenant community: “Daughter, be of good comfort: thy faith hath made thee whole; go in peace.” We are only told the conclusion of the story, but if the phrase “good comfort” and the word “faith” mean the same thing there as they do in Alma’s story, then we can also know that this dear woman and her Heavenly Father had made a covenant, and that the Saviour recognized that covenant as the source of her empowerment; and that, for her, the token of that covenant was simply to touch the Saviour – even if only the garment he was wearing.

43     And a woman having an issue of blood twelve years, which had spent all her living upon physicians, neither could be healed of any,
44     Came behind him, and touched the border of his garment: and immediately her issue of blood stanched.
45     And Jesus said, Who touched me? When all denied, Peter and they that were with him said, Master, the multitude throng thee and press thee, and sayest thou, Who touched me?
46     And Jesus said, Somebody hath touched me: for I perceive that virtue is gone out of me.
47     And when the woman saw that she was not hid, she came trembling, and falling down before him, she declared unto him before all the people for what cause she had touched him and how she was healed immediately.
48     And he said unto her, Daughter, be of good comfort: thy faith hath made thee whole; go in peace.(Luke 8:43-48, see also (Matthew 9:20-22.)

Mosiah 23:15-20 — LeGrand Baker — ‘Prosperous’ as a codeword

Mosiah 23:15-20
15     Thus did Alma teach his people, that every man should love his neighbor as himself, that there should be no contention among them.
16     And now, Alma was their high priest, he being the founder of their church.

In our Church, the Presiding High Priest and the Prophet are the same man. But in the ancient world that was not necessarily so. A prophet is – has always been—one who communes with God and teaches the people what God instructs him to teach. In ancient Israel, during the time of Solomon’s Temple, that was the king, with the Aaronic Priesthood High Priest being in charge of the temple on a daily basis. At the time of King Hezekiah the king appears to have been presiding high priest and Isaiah was the prophet. After the Babylonian captivity, when the Jews returned to Jerusalem, they had no king, and the Aaronic High Priest assumed the temple prerogatives of the king, which included the authority to function in the Holy of Holies.

The Nephites had no king until they built a temple, then a king became necessary because he was the chief actor in the temple drama. Nephi was king and appointed his brothers Jacob and Joseph to be priests and teachers. At the time of King Benjamin the king was both prophet and presiding high priest.

So Mormon’s statement in verse 16 is precisely correct. Alma who lived away from Zarahemla received authority from God to preside over church in that area and to perform the ordinances. He had organized their church, instituted baptism into that church, and had done whatever else was required. Just what that was, Mormon explains in encoded language. He does not intend to say too much, but wants to say enough to make his point.

17     And it came to pass that none received authority to preach or to teach except it were by him from God. Therefore he consecrated all their priests and all their teachers; and none were consecrated except they were just men.
18     Therefore they did watch over their people, and did nourish them with things pertaining to righteousness. [“Righteousness” is zedek = the correctness of high-priestly / temple things.]
19     And it came to pass that they began to prosper exceedingly in the land; and they called the land Helam.
20     And it came to pass that they did multiply and prosper exceedingly in the land of Helam; and they built a city, which they called the city of Helam (Mosiah 23:15-20).

Here, what appears at first glance to be a redundancy seems to me to be Alma’s carefully worded explanation of what Alma was instructing his people. The code word is “prosper.” To understand that, I use Psalm 45 as background. This Psalm can be read as a three-act play that takes place at the Council in Heaven where Jehovah has just been anointed to be the eternal King of Israel. Now the king is receiving an ordinance and a blessing (see Who Shall Ascend into the Hill of the Lord for a complete analysis of the Psalm). The blessings 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 things.
5     Thine arrows are sharp in the heart of the king’s enemies; whereby the people fall under thee. (Psalms 45: 1- 5.)

Now the examination:

3     Gird thy sword upon thy thigh, O most mighty, with thy glory and thy majesty. [Glory and majesty are names of two separate sets of clothing. One representing priesthood, and the other representing kingship. For example, in Isaiah 61: 10, they are called “garments of salvation” and “robes of righteousness.” In Job 40: 10. They are first called “majesty and excellency,” then “glory and beauty” (in Hebrew poetry the same idea is often repeated in two different ways)]

4     And in thy majesty [royal robes] ride prosperously [that’s the word we are looking for] because of truth [“truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come.” In other words, truth is what one knows in sacred time.]

…. and meekness [In Psalm 25 the meek are described as those to whom the Lord has revealed his “secret” (sode), and those who keep their eternal covenants.]

…. and righteousness [righteousness is zedek, which I understand to be absolute correctness in temple things: having the right authority, wearing the correct clothing, doing and saying what one ought to say and do with the right words, in the right place, and at the right time];

…. and thy right hand [note which hand] shall teach thee terrible [awesome] things. [Now that one has received those blessings, one has come to know the kind of peace that transcends pain and sorrow, and is thereby invulnerable to the evils of this world. In the blessing in Psalm 45, as in most psalms, that strength is described in military symbolism:]

5     Thine arrows are sharp in the heart of the king’s enemies; whereby the people fall under thee.

This blessing bestows: 1) the powers of sacral kingship, 2) priesthood authority, and 3) the absolute assurance of God’s protection. That’s all there is. This blessing incorporates a comprehensive covenant, embracing all of the powers and blessings of sacral kingship and priesthood – and there is nothing left to be added except a promise about his posterity, and that is reserved for the conclusion of the psalm.

The first use of “prosper” in the Book of Mormon is when the Lord promised 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.
22     And inasmuch as thou shalt keep my commandments, thou shalt be made a ruler and a teacher [king and priest] over thy brethren (1 Ne. 2:19-22).

Here, to prosper is not just an economic blessing, but a spiritual one. Being cut off from the presence of the Lord is the opposite of prosper, so one may deduce that prosper means being brought into the Lord’s presence.

1 Nephi 2: 19-24 are some of the most important verses in the Book of Mormon because they authorize Nephi to become the king and priest to his people and to establish a new dynasty. Those verses have the same pivotal importance to the Book of Mormon history as the story as Samuel’s anointing David to be king has to Old Testament history.

As part of that covenant to Nephi, the Lord said, “And inasmuch as ye shall keep my commandments, ye shall prosper, and be led to a land of promise….thou shalt be made a ruler and a teacher over thy brethren.”

When the Lord promised Nephi he would be a ruler and a teacher (king and priest), he used the word translated “prosper” to convey that promise. I presume the reason was because Nephi was familiar with Psalm 45, and the Lord was simply used language Nephi associated with the blessings of kingship and priesthood.

That assertion may not be as reckless as it sounds. One cannot know what Hebrew word was used in the Book of Mormon, but the word used in Psalm 45 is only used three other places in the Psalms and in four places in Isaiah, and all of them have a similar connotation as the promise given to Nephi. The Hebrew word translated ‘prosperously” in Psalm 45 has the connotation of success rather than of wealth. ( In the dictionary at the back of James Strong, ed., The Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, #6734.)

One of the other places where it is used is Psalm 1. There it is in conjunction with a promise that is reminiscent of the blessings associated with the tree of life.

1     Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly,
nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful.
2     But his delight is in the law of the Lord; and in his law doth he meditate day and night.
3     And he shall be like a tree planted by the rivers of water, that bringeth forth his fruit in his season; his leaf also shall not wither; and whatsoever he doeth shall prosper. (Psalm 1:1-3)

In the Book of Mormon, but there the phrase that is used to represent the Lord’s promise to Nephi is “prosper in the land.” The first example of that usage is Lehi’s exhortation,

19 O my sons, that these things might not come upon you, but that ye might be a choice and a favored people of the Lord. But behold, his will be done; for his ways are righteousness forever.
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)

A short time later, Lehi used the phrase again when speaking to his grandchildren:

4     For the Lord God hath said that: Inasmuch as ye shall keep my commandments ye shall prosper in the land; and inasmuch as ye will not keep my commandments ye shall be cut off from my presence. (2 Ne. 4:4)

Alma used it several times. There is also an intriguing statement in Zeniff’s brief autobiography.

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 10:5)

The thing that makes it intriguing is that in almost every other instance that the phrase “prosper in the land” is found in the Book of Mormon it has to do with either literally or symbolically being in the presence of God. Here he says: “that we might clothe our nakedness; and thus we did prosper in the land” That first is almost the same phrase the Lord uses when he instructs Moses about the priests’ ordinance clothing: “And thou shalt make them linen breeches to cover their nakedness.” ( Exodus 28:42) There, the clothing is used to symbolically come into the presence of God.

In both the Old Testament and the Book of Mormon, prosperity is an important part of the kingship covenant between Jehovah and Israel. God promises if they will serve him he will cause their flocks and fields to prosper. And it is also a part of the covenant that if they will serve him he will be their God and always be with them. Thus, if they prosper as a nation, their temporal prosperity may be an outward evidence that God is with them. But it is equally apparent from the way Alma uses the phrase that he understands its meaning quite literally. He began his testimony to his son Helaman,

1     My son, give ear to my words, for I say unto you, even as I said unto Helaman, that inasmuch as ye shall keep the commandments of God ye shall prosper in the land; and inasmuch as ye will not keep the commandments of God ye shall be cut off from his presence. (Alma 38:1)

And he ended his testimony:

17     But behold, my son, this is not all; for ye ought to know as I do know, that inasmuch as ye shall keep the commandments of God ye shall prosper in the land; and ye ought to know also, that inasmuch as ye will not keep the commandments of God ye shall be cut off from his presence. Now this is according to his word.” (Alma 36: 30. see also Alma 9:13 and 50:17)

As I understand it, the 45th psalm the phrase: “And in thy majesty ride prosperously because of truth and meekness and righteousness” literally means something like this: “In thy royal, priestly robes ride in the presence of the Lord, because you know the truth of the Council, you keep the covenants you made in the Council, and you keep those covenants in the correct high-priestly manner,” and thy right hand shall teach thee wonderful things.

Now lets return and look again at Mosiah 23:

17     And it came to pass that none received authority to preach or to teach except it were by him from God. Therefore he consecrated all their priests and all their teachers; and none were consecrated except they were just men.
18     Therefore they did watch over their people, and did nourish them with things pertaining to righteousness. [zedek = temple correctness]
19     And it came to pass that they began to prosper exceedingly in the land [the same phrase that elsewhere connoted coming into the presence of God]; and they called the land Helam.
20     And it came to pass that they did multiply and prosper exceedingly in the land of Helam [Here, “in the land” is modified by the preposition, “of Helam,” So it must be read, “in the land of Helam,” rather than just “in the land.” Their prosperity in Helam has to do with “multiply,” so apparently relates to the increase of their families, cattle, or harvests – but probably all three]; and they built a city, which they called the city of Helam.

It appears to me that there is no redundancy in Mormon’s description. Rather I read it as his very quiet way of saying powerful and beautiful things.