LeGrand L. Baker

Blog

  • 3 Nephi 1:14 — LeGrand Baker — The Father and The Son

    3 Nephi 1:14 — LeGrand Baker — The Father and The Son

    3 Nephi 1:14
    14 …and to do the will, both of the Father and of the Son—of the Father because of me, and of the Son because of my flesh.

    This may seem strange, but it is not. He is making a distinction between “because of me” and “because of my flesh.” Remember, this was spoken by Jehovah—the premortal Savior. He would not have a physical body until the next day. Therefore, “me” is Jehovah, and “of the Father because of me” is a reference to Jehovah, the Creator God, ‘the Father of Heaven and Earth’ (those last words are from Abinadi as quoted below).

    Many, perhaps most of you are as familiar with these ideas as I am, so I ask your indulgence in this repetition. I am sending this for the sake of my friends who are not familiar with it. To me, this doctrine that is taught frequently in the Book of Mormon is one of the most beautiful and most significant. It is found many times in the Scriptures, but never explained better than by Abinadi to Alma.

    The following is an examination of Abinadi’s explanation to Alma. It is a quote from Who Shall Ascend into the Hill of the Lord, 500-02.

    – – – – – – – – – – – – –

    The first eight verses of Mosiah 15 are considered by many to be some of the most difficult to understand in the Book of Mormon, but they become easy to follow when one realizes that Abinadi was talking about Jehovah and Jesus and the tensions they had to overcome so that Jesus could accomplish the Atonement and keep the covenants made by Jehovah—for they are the same God:

    1 And now Abinadi said unto them: I would that ye should understand that God himself [Jehovah] shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people. [“Redeem” in this context means to bring his people back into the presence of God—that is, to completely undo the effects of the Fall of Adam, so that we can return to the presence of God. (See Mormon 9:13; Ether3:13; 2 Nephi 1:15, 2:1-4; Alma 58:41).]
    2 And because he [Jehovah] dwelleth in flesh [Jesus] he [Jesus] shall be called the Son of God [the Son of Elohim], and having subjected the flesh [Jesus] to the will of the Father [Jehovah], being the Father [Jehovah] and the Son [Jesus]—
    3 The Father [Jehovah], because he [first as Jehovah and then again as Jesus] was conceived by the power of God [Elohim]; and the Son [Jesus], because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father [Jehovah] and Son [Jesus]—
    4 And they [Jehovah-Jesus] are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth.
    5 And thus the flesh [Jesus] becoming subject to the Spirit [Jehovah], or the Son [Jesus] to the Father [Jehovah], being one God [Jehovah-Jesus], suffereth temptation, and yieldeth not to the temptation, but suffereth himself [Jesus] to be mocked, and scourged, and cast out, and disowned by his people.
    6 And after all this, after working many mighty miracles among the children of men, he [Jesus] shall be led, yea, even as Isaiah said, as a sheep before the shearer is dumb, so he [Jesus] opened not his mouth.
    7 Yea, even so he [Jesus] shall be led, crucified, and slain, the flesh [Jesus] becoming subject even unto death, the will of the Son [Jesus] being swallowed up in the will of the Father [Jehovah] (Mosiah 15:1-7).

    There are few scriptures which touch the soul more deeply than that last verse. It exposes all the tensions: Jesus the man—with his natural aversion to physical pain and his desire to remain with the people he loved. Jehovah the God—whose covenantal love for his friends was even more powerful—informed and inspired Jesus’s determination to perform the Atonement. They are, as Abinadi said, one God, but it was Jesus—not just Jehovah—who had to decide.

    One of the reasons that scripture is so important to us—and the reason the words were so important to Alma—is that it throws a burning light on each one of us—but a light that only we ourselves can see. Perhaps the easiest way to describe that light is to try to conceptualize its effect on Alma. It was bringing into focus and personalizing the chiastic balance of the cosmic myth.

    Before he left his Heavenly Father’s presence, the premortal had made Alma covenants regarding his own mission here and what he would do to fulfill his mission. What Paul wrote to the Thessalonians was true of Alma and all of Heavenly Father’s other children also: “But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth” (2 Thessalonians 2:13). But now on this earth as a young, wealthy, demonstrably popular prince, Alma could no longer remember who he really was. His memory was darkened by the light his physical eyes could see. On earth, the expanse of his mind was limited by earthly things and his body limited through its knowledge of how to feel happiness, hunger, passion, weariness, pain, and exhilaration.

    There was a time, before his memory fogged and his eyes and ears were closed, that Alma could look forward to this life and see his own purpose—when he could clearly understand his own desires. It was then, when he was fully cognizant, that he had made covenants about what he would do here. Then he was in the company of the premortal Jehovah. But now he could not remember that any more, and had come on this occasion to King Noah’s court to sit in judgment against the prophet. Abinadi, for his part, had come to answer questions that young Alma may not yet have asked, and to give credence to the things the Spirit would teach him about himself. It was Abinadi’s task to help the physical and cultural Alma, who sat in King Noah’s council, to understand that he must seek to become subjugated to the Alma who once sat in the Council of the gods. Abinadi understood that if Alma could achieve that quality of understanding and freedom, then with the tutelage of the Holy Ghost he could acquire the power to fulfill the covenants he had made. In short, the will of Alma’s present Self must be swallowed up in the will of his premortal, fully cognizant Self.

    The author of the Hymn of the Pearl described that principle. In the poem this passage is about the boy’s recalling his eternal covenants:

    And even as it [the covenant] was engraven in my heart
    Were the words of my letter written.
    I remembered that I was a son of kings
    And my noble birth asserted itself. {1}.

    That is what Abinadi was explaining about Jesus: “the will of the Son [Jesus] being swallowed up in the will of the Father [Jehovah].” Alma heard. His premortal “noble birth asserted itself”; he listened to the prophet and put his own life on the line when he spoke out to defend the good old man. In doing so, Alma began to sever the ties that bound his eternal Self to his earthly environment, and he began to become the prophet he had covenanted to become. The next question Abinadi addressed was, “How is it to be done?”

    ENDNOTE

    {1}  For a discussion of the Hymn of the Pearl, see that chapter in Who Shall Ascend into the Hill of the Lord.

  • Alma 36:5 — LeGrand Baker — ‘Born of God’

    Alma 36:5 — LeGrand Baker  ‘Born of God’  

    Alma 36:5
    5     Now, behold, I say unto you, if I had not been born of God I should not have known these things; but God has, by the mouth of his holy angel, made these things known unto me, not of any worthiness of myself;

    This is an attempt to expand Alma’s statement in 36: 5 that says, “if I had not been born of God I should not have known these things.” We Latter-day Saints tend to overlook the importance of the concept of being “born of God,” or “born again.” The words have been taken over by the Protestants, so we don’t use them. Yet, the concept is one of the most important in the plan of salvation. The attachment is mostly a series of scriptures with very little commentary from me. The sequence of the scriptures tells a most extraordinary story. If you have time to read it carefully, I think it will be of some value to you.

     To be “born of God” is about ordinances and covenants—some performed by humans in this world, some not. In both cases its meaning is very different from the Protestant use of the phrase “born again.”

    The phrase, “born again” Is found in only two places in the New Testament. the first is in the Nicodemus story (John 3:3-7) which is usually understood to be talking about baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost. The other is 1 Peter 1:21-23, which is in the context of faith, hope, and charity. Peter wrote:

    21   Who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God.
    22   Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently:
    23   Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

    This concept seems to be more in line with what Alma said than the usual interpretation of John 3.

    For Paul, the idea of sonship had a legal connotation. That is, we are adopted and are therefore legal heirs. He wrote:

    14   For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.
    15   For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.
    16   The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
    17   And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together (Romans 8:14-17).

    To the Ephesians, Paul wrote that the adoption he spoke of was part of our foreordination “before the foundation of the world.” Therefore it was a part of the covenant we made that would enable us to return to our Father after we have completed what we came to this world to do. He wrote:

    3    Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:
    4   According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
    5   [the Father] Having predestinated [foreordained] us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,
    6   To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved (Ephesians 1:3-6).

    The Savior explained that principle to the brother of Jared:

    11   And the Lord said unto him: Believest thou the words which I shall speak?
    12   And he answered: Yea, Lord, I know that thou speakest the truth, for thou art a God of truth, and canst not lie.
    13   And when he had said these words, behold, the Lord showed himself unto him, and said: Because thou knowest these things ye are redeemed from the fall; therefore ye are brought back into my presence; therefore I show myself unto you.
    14   Behold, I am he who was prepared from the foundation of the world to redeem my people. Behold, I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father and the Son. In me shall all mankind have life, and that eternally, even they who shall believe on my name; and they shall become my sons and my daughters (Ether 3:11-14).

    That adoption, to be a child of Jehovah, was the crowning ceremony of the ancient Israelite temple service. At the king was anointed, he spoke these words:

    7   I will declare the decree: the Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee (Psalms 2:7).

    The king’s anointing was a two-part ceremony. He was anointed king and adopted as son. In this case “son” of God is the royal new name (For a discussion of Psalm 2 and the new name see Who Shall Ascend into the Hill of the Lord, 499-516.)

    The Savior explained this principle even further. In the Beatitudes he said:

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

    John, the Beloved Apostle, taught the early Saints that same principle. He wrote:

    1   Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.
    2   Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is (1 John 3:1-2).

    In that same letter John tied adopted sonship to charity, as they are each necessary to the other:

    7   Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God.
    8   He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.
    9   In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him.(1 John 4:7-9)

    That same doctrine was taught by Mormon in his great sermon. While most of the Beatitudes are short synopsis of sections of Isaiah or the Psalms, verse 9, which concludes with “they shall be called the children of God” seems not to be. However, we can find a complete discussion of its meaning in Moroni 7.

    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; 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. …

    46   Wherefore, my beloved brethren, if ye have not charity, ye are nothing, for charity never faileth. Wherefore, cleave unto charity, which is the greatest of all, for all things must fail—
    47  But charity is the pure love of Christ, and it endureth forever; and whoso is found possessed of it at the last day, it shall be well with him.
    48  Wherefore, my beloved brethren, pray unto the Father with all the energy of heart, that ye may be filled with this love, which he hath bestowed upon all who are true followers of his Son, Jesus Christ; that ye may become the sons of God; that when he shall appear we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is; that we may have this hope; that we may be purified even as he is pure. Amen.(Moroni 7:25-26, 46-48.)

    The conclusion of all this is that becoming—actually becoming—a child of God is a gift from the Father through his Only Begotten Son. But like all gifts, it is one for which we must be fully worthy. The Savior explained:

    8  I came unto mine own, and mine own received me not; but unto as many as received me gave I power to do many miracles, and to become the sons of God; and even unto them that believed on my name gave I power to obtain eternal life (D&C 45:8).

    The Lord himself put the capstone on this principle when he described those who will inherit the Celestial Kingdom. I have italicized some of the words that are very important.

    50  And again we bear record—for we saw and heard, and this is the testimony of the gospel of Christ concerning them who shall come forth in the resurrection of the just—
    51  They are they who received the testimony of Jesus, and believed on his name and were baptized after the manner of his burial, being buried in the water in his name, and this according to the commandment which he has given—
    52  That by keeping the commandments they might be washed and cleansed from all their sins, and receive the Holy Spirit by the laying on of the hands of him who is ordained and sealed unto this power;
    53  And who overcome by faith [pistis], and are sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, which the Father sheds forth upon all those who are just and true.
    54  They are they who are the church of the Firstborn.
    55  They are they into whose hands the Father has given all things—
    56  They are they who are priests and kings, who have received of his fulness, and of his glory;
    57  And are priests of the Most High, after the order of Melchizedek, which was after the order of Enoch, which was after the order of the Only Begotten Son.
    58  Wherefore, as it is written, they are gods, even the sons of God—
    59  Wherefore, all things are theirs, whether life or death, or things present, or things to come, all are theirs and they are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s.
    60  And they shall overcome all things.
    61  Wherefore, let no man glory in man, but rather let him glory in God, who shall subdue all enemies under his feet.
    62  These shall dwell in the presence of God and his Christ forever and ever.
    63  These are they whom he shall bring with him, when he shall come in the clouds of heaven to reign on the earth over his people.
    64  These are they who shall have part in the first resurrection.
    65  These are they who shall come forth in the resurrection of the just.
    66  These are they who are come unto Mount Zion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly place, the holiest of all.
    67  These are they who have come to an innumerable company of angels, to the general assembly and church of Enoch, and of the Firstborn.
    68  These are they whose names are written in heaven, where God and Christ are the judge of all.
    69  These are they who are just men made perfect through Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, who wrought out this perfect atonement through the shedding of his own blood.
    70  These are they whose bodies are celestial, whose glory is that of the sun, even the glory of God, the highest of all, whose glory the sun of the firmament is written of as being typical (D&C 76:50-70).

    So, when Alma declared, “ if I had not been born of God I should not have known these things,” he was telling us more than he used words to say.

  • John 15:9-15 — LeGrand Baker — lay down his life

    John 15:13 — LeGrand Baker — ‘lay down his life’ 

    John 15:13
    13  Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for hisfriends.

    Nov 1998
    This morning my daughter Dawn was considering the woes of motherhood and the cost in time, patience, and effort in rearing her four young children. She graduated from BYU with a double major in economics and philosophy and was wondering what was becoming of her life.

    This scripture was called to her mind – but not just the scripture but also the understanding that she needed to check Strong to see what it really says. What it says did not surprise her, but it did surprise me when she told me.

    “Lay” is Strong # 5087, “theh’-o (which is used only as alt. in cert. tenses); to place (in the widest application, lit. and fig.; prop. in a passive or horizontal posture, and thus different from 2476, which prop. denotes an upright and active position, while 2749 is prop. reflexive and utterly prostrate): – + advise, appoint, bow, commit, conceive, give, kneel down, lay (aside, down, up), make ordain, purpose, put, set (forth), settle, sink down.”

    It isn’t about why one dies, but it is about why one lives. It is about dedication and constancy. Knowing what it is about gives this whole passage a new meaning.

    9    As the Father hath loved me, so have I loved you: continue ye in my love.
    10   If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father’s commandments, and abide in his love
    11   These things have I spoken unto you, that my joy might remain in you, and that your joy might be full.
    12   This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you
    13   Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life [dedication and constancy ] for his friends.
    14   Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you.
    15   Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you (John 15:9-15).

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

    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 21st 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.

  • D&C 132:15-30 — LeGrand Baker — marriage covenant

    D&C 132:15-30 — LeGrand Baker — marriage covenant 

    December 14, 2006

    My friend Kevin wrote:

    1) How or what is the best way for us to learn what our pre-earth covenants are or do we ever learn of them before they are fulfilled. Also, is there any way to differentiate between fulfilling a pre-earth covenant and simply achieving an important milestone in our personal development.

    2) Could you explain D&C 132. Especially vs. 17-29. I think it is. There is much debate about that here and I was wondering your perspective / the perspective of other prophets & apostles since you can look that up while I can’t.

    3) Is there a way to help others feel sacred time (this is really the equivalent to feeling the Spirit in many ways from my understanding which is THE key to missionary work)

    4) referring to Jeremiah’s standard that prophets must have had a sode experience. Does that mean that those who have that type of experience ( seeing the grand council in heaven, seeing Christ or God the Father —because I think they require the same level of significance) are or will be called as prophets and apostles.

    5) What is (in your opinion) the best way to become better at recognizing and understanding the Spirit/ what is the best way to increase faith.

    My response:

    Those are some wonderful questions. Let me take them one at a time.

    1) How or what is the best way for us to learn what our pre-earth covenants are or do we ever learn of them before they are fulfilled. Also, is there any way to differentiate between fulfilling a pre-earth covenant and simply achieving an important milestone in our personal development.

    I think the first answer to that is to learn to be patient. The reason we come here without a memory is so we can discover is our integrity is strong enough that we will do what we know we should just because we feel that’s what we should do. The second answer is just be happy. It makes no sense to me that the Lord would assign us a task that was contrary to our individual personalities. So the key to fulfilling the covenants is to keep the commandments so we can be guided by the Spirit, and do the things that make us feel most fulfilled. Then, if we get to a juncture where we are about to make an incorrect decision, the Spirit will give us instructions, or else he will give someone else instructions to help us re-direct our paths (as in a church calling, for example). Otherwise, he will pretty much let us live our lives our way. After all, that’s what we came here to do.

    2) Could you explain D&C 132. Especially vs. 17-29. I think it is. There is much debate about that here and I was wondering your perspective / the perspective of the prophets & apostles since you can look that up while I can’t.

    Kevin, these verses must be understood in light of the first 14 verses. I think I sent that to you already. If you don’t still have it, let me know and I’ll send it again.

    Those verses define the new and everlasting covenant as the covenants we made in the pre-mortal existence, and that we keep in this life (thus, everlasting and new). I will be happy to tell you what I think the next verses say, but please remember that what I am about to write is only my opinion, and is not to be taken for Church doctrine. I don’t have anything that the modern brethren have written about that, but here is my take on the matter.

    The first word of verse 15 is “therefore,” so the first 14 verses are the introduction to the discussion, and after verse 15 we have the conclusion.

    15    Therefore, if a man marry him a wife in the world, and he marry her not by me nor by my word, and he covenant with her so long as he is in the world and she with him, their covenant and marriage are not of force when they are dead, and when they are out of the world; therefore, they are not bound by any law when they are out of the world.
    16     Therefore, when they are out of the world they neither marry nor are given in marriage; but are appointed angels in heaven, which angels are ministering servants, to minister for those who are worthy of a far more, and an exceeding, and an eternal weight of glory.

    Remember this was not a revelation that was written for the general Church membership, or for the world at large, but it was specifically for Emma. So here the Lord is only talking about people who have had the opportunity to make and keep temple covenants. He is not talking about people who may embrace those covenants after they are dead and hear about them in the spirit world.

    17   For these angels did not abide my law [that can only have meaning if they had the opportunity and chose not to do so]; therefore, they cannot be enlarged, but remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity; and from henceforth are not gods, but are angels of God forever and ever.

    I think that means that if they choose to not make and keep those covenants while they were on the earth, they probably won’t change much when they get dead. So they will not qualify themselves to enjoy celestial blessings.

    18   And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife, and make a covenant with her for time and for all eternity, if that covenant is not by me or by my word, which is my law, and is not sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, through him whom I have anointed and appointed unto this power, then it is not valid neither of force when they are out of the world, because they are not joined by me, saith the Lord, neither by my word; when they are out of the world it cannot be received there, because the angels and the gods are appointed there, by whom they cannot pass; they cannot, therefore, inherit my glory; for my house is a house of order, saith the Lord God.

    I understand there is a Protestant preacher in SLC who has taken it upon himself to marry people for time and eternity. What this says is that because he doesn’t have the proper authority, his marriages will have no eternal effect.

    19  And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife by my word, which is my law, and by the new and everlasting covenant, and it is sealed unto them by the Holy Spirit of promise, by him who is anointed, unto whom I have appointed this power and the keys of this priesthood; and it shall be said unto them—Ye shall come forth in the first resurrection; and if it be after the first resurrection, in the next resurrection; and shall inherit thrones, kingdoms, principalities, and powers, dominions, all heights and depths—then shall it be written in the Lamb’s Book of Life, that he shall commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, and if ye abide in my covenant, and commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, it shall be done unto them in all things whatsoever my servant hath put upon them, in time, and through all eternity; and shall be of full force when they are out of the world; and they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their exaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever.

    If God promises someone their marriage is for eternity, he will keep that promise. They may sin, but if they repent and do not become sons or daughters of perdition, then they may reclaim those blessings. That, of course, is conditional on whether or not they choose to repent. God is not going to drag anyone kicking and screaming into the Celestial Kingdom.

    20     Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them.

    That is simply a re-statement of what D&C 76 says about those in the Celestial kingdom.

    21  Verily, verily, I say unto you, except ye abide my law ye cannot attain to this glory.
    22   For strait is the gate, and narrow the way that leadeth unto the exaltation and continuation of the lives, and few there be that find it, because ye receive me not in the world neither do ye know me.

    Those two verses clarify the question about whether God will drag them into the Celestial kingdom just because he made a covenants that they have chosen to forsake. Covenants are made by two parties, and both have to keep their part, or the covenant becomes void.

    23  But if ye receive me in the world, then shall ye know me, and shall receive your exaltation; that where I am ye shall be also.
    24  This is eternal lives [ that is plural. Its about families] —to know the only wise and true God, and Jesus Christ, whom he hath sent. I am he. Receive ye, therefore, my law.
    25  Broad is the gate, and wide the way that leadeth to the deaths; and many there are that go in thereat, because they receive me not, neither do they abide in my law.

    This is the same principle. God can’t keep a covenant if the other party rejects the conditions and the blessings of that covenant.

    26  Verily, verily, I say unto you, if a man marry a wife according to my word, and they are sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, according to mine appointment, and he or she shall commit any sin or transgression of the new and everlasting covenant whatever, and all manner of blasphemies, and if they commit no murder wherein they shed innocent blood, yet they shall come forth in the first resurrection, and enter into their exaltation; but they shall be destroyed in the flesh, and shall be delivered unto the buffetings of Satan unto the day of redemption, saith the Lord God.

    This is still the same principle, except that he is pointing out that they will have to suffer for their own sins, because they have rejected the blessings of the atonement. If they are willing to do that, then the conditions of the covenant are still in force. The principle is very simple. God will do all in his power to save his children—the only thing that will prevent him from doing that is if they choose not to be saved.

    27  The blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, which shall not be forgiven in the world nor out of the world, is in that ye commit murder wherein ye shed innocent blood, and assent unto my death, after ye have received my new and everlasting covenant, saith the Lord God; and he that abideth not this law can in nowise enter into my glory, but shall be damned, saith the Lord.

    It isn’t that God won’t save those people, it’s that he can’t, because they have ceased to be the kind of people who will permit God to save them.

    28  I am the Lord thy God, and will give unto thee the law of my Holy Priesthood, as was ordained by me and my Father before the world was.
    29  Abraham received all things, whatsoever he received, by revelation and commandment, by my word, saith the Lord, and hath entered into his exaltation and sitteth upon his throne.

    Now we are back to the original question: How does God justify those men for having more than one wife. The answer is that they received instructions “by revelation and commandment” according to covenants made before the world was. “Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you my servant Joseph, that inasmuch as you have inquired of my hand to know and understand wherein I, the Lord, justified my servants Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as also Moses, David and Solomon, my servants, as touching the principle and doctrine of their having many wives and concubines” (D&C132:1) The issue is not polygamy, it is the justification of polygamy. The answer is in the pre-mortal covenants.

    30  Abraham received promises concerning his seed, and of the fruit of his loins—from whose loins ye are, namely, my servant Joseph—which were to continue so long as they were in the world; and as touching Abraham and his seed, out of the world they should continue; both in the world and out of the world should they continue as innumerable as the stars; or, if ye were to count the sand upon the seashore ye could not number them.

    That’s the covenant the Lord made with Abraham, and his multiple wives were the mechanism by which that covenant was fulfilled.

    Kevin, that’s the way I understand that part of the revelation. Please let me remind you once more, what I have written is only my opinion, and is not to be taken for doctrine. So please don’t share it with anyone who will take what I have written to be the doctrines of the Church.

    3) Is there a way to help others feel sacred time (this is really the equivalent to feeling the Spirit in many ways, from my understanding, which is THE key to missionary work)

    I think there is. As far as I can tell, the most universal experience with sacred time is the feeling people have when they love another person for what they are inside, without reference to what they appear to be or not to be. As a missionary, if you wish to experience another person in sacred time, all you have to do is love them. And if you want them to experience you and the gospel you represent in sacred time, all you have to do is love them. You see, if you really do love them, and they are receptive to the Spirit that teaches one to love and to be loved, then they will know that you love them, and respond the same way. It is nothing you can force, and it is nothing you can fake, and it is nothing you can teach — it is only something that you must BE. But really caring about someone else takes energy, and like everything else, one must develop the stamina to do it, until doing it is just what one IS.

    4) referring to Jeremiah’s standard that prophets must have had a sode experience. Does that mean that those who have that type of experience ( seeing the grand council in heaven, seeing Christ or God the Father —because I think they require the same level of significance) are or will be called as prophets and apostles.

    The answer to that question is something you and I will never know. People who have such experiences just don’t talk about them unless the Spirit insists that they must. They never use their telling about spiritual experiences as currency with which to try to purchase honor or respect or a reputation. I can find no evidence that one must be an apostle to see the Saviour, or, conversely, that everyone who sees the Saviour will be an apostle. The key to your question is these words by Alma.

    9  And now Alma began to expound these things unto him, saying: It is given unto many to know the mysteries [sode – including those parts of a sode experience that are taught in the temple.] of God; nevertheless they are laid under a strict command that they shall not impart only according to the portion of his word which he doth grant unto the children of men, according to the heed and diligence which they give unto him.

    So it is the listener, not the speaker, who controls what is said in the conversation. The speaker should not say what the listener cannot understand.

    10  And therefore, he that will harden his heart, the same receiveth the lesser portion of the word; [the heart is the center of one’s being. It is both the intellect and the emotions. If one hardens one’s heart, one chooses to neither academically know, nor spiritually feel, the truth.] and he that will not harden his heart, to him is given the greater portion of the word, until it is given unto him to know the mysteries of God until he know them in full.

    “In full” means in full. I see no restrictions on what one can learn except one’s desire to know and ability to keep his mouth shut. Lots of people would like to know, but don’t know enough to not talk about it.

    11  And they that will harden their hearts, to them is given the lesser portion of the word until they know nothing concerning his mysteries [They will simply forget even those parts of the sode that are taught in the temple]; and then they are taken captive by the devil, and led by his will down to destruction. Now this [not knowing the mysteries of Godliness] is what is meant by the chains of hell. (Alma 12:9-11)

    The statement in the D&C is also relevant here.

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

    He is not talking about bits of textbook information. He is talking about a principle of intelligence. The only kind of intelligence that we can take with us into the celestial realms of sacred time is that which is worthy of being in the reality of sacred time. That is our love for the Saviour and our love for his children.

    5) What is (in your opinion) the best way to become better at recognizing and understanding the Spirit/ what is the best way to increase faith.

    I’ve already answered that question the best way I know how. Spirituality is not getting revelation in a vacuum. It is loving the Lord and speaking with him as your dearest friend. When one does that, one doesn’t talk about it much, one just IS that. When you talk with a friend, he talks back to you. I think that’s all there is to it. There is a condition though: It has to be real: The Saviour said, “If you love me, keep my commandments.”

    I hope you have a wonderful Christmas. Ours will be rather quiet. We will spend Christmas Eve and Christmas day with our children and grandchildren. Other than that, nothing very exciting. I know members of the Church are very kind to missionaries on Christmas, and that nothing is quite like being with your family. But I hope you can also feel their love.

  • Psalms 34:2-22 — LeGrand Baker — the psalm teaches Atonement

    Psalms 34:2-22 — LeGrand Baker — the psalm teaches Atonement

    Many ideas associated with coronation are scattered throughout the psalm. I can most easily point them out by rearranging them and pulling them together into separate categories. My artificial grouping of the following verses is only to point out similarities of ideas, and I apologize for the injustice it does to the poetry.

    For example, there are some lines that speak of the physical senses of both God and man.

    The eyes of the Lord are upon the righteous,
    and his ears are open unto their cry. (V. 15)

    I will bless the Lord at all times:
    his praise shall continually be in my mouth. (V. 1)

    Keep thy tongue from evil,
    and thy lips from speaking guile. (V. 13)

    This psalm contains many of the same ideas that are found in the Beatitudes and other scriptures.

    This poor man cried, and the Lord heard him,
    and saved him out of all his troubles.
    The Lord is nigh unto them that are of a broken heart;
    and saveth such as be of a contrite spirit (V. 16-17)

    The Beatitude reads, “Yea, blessed are the poor in spirit who come unto me, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” (3 Nephi 12:3)

    As I understand it, the “poor in spirit” are those who have made the sacrifice of a broken heart and contrite spirit. {1}  “Who come unto me” is a reference to one’s being in the place where Christ is. “Theirs is the kingdom of heaven,” I take it that means the kingdom belongs to them – they are sacral kings and queens.

    O taste and see that the Lord is good:
    blessed is the man that trusteth in him. (V. 8)

    The Beatitude reads, “And blessed are all they who do hunger and thirst after righteousness, for they shall be filled with the Holy Ghost.” (3 Nephi 12:6) This seems to be about the fruit of the tree of life, and the waters of life, and the blessings to those to receive them. One wonders if Alma had his psalm in mind when he said, “…after ye have tasted this light is your knowledge perfect? …. And thus, if ye will not nourish the word, looking forward with an eye of faith to the fruit thereof, ye can never pluck of the fruit of the tree of life.” (Alma 32: 35, 40)

    The Lord redeemeth the soul of his servants:
    and none of them that trust in him shall be desolate. (V. 22)

    In the Book of Mormon, in Job, and in this psalm, the word “redeem” means to be brought into the presence of the Lord (Ether 3: 13-17; Helaman 14:17; 2 Ne. 1:15, 2:2-4; Job 19: 25-26)

    In the Beatitudes the ultimate power and responsibility of kingship is represented in the words, “And blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy.” In the sequences which assumes one has learned how to do that, the next words are, “And blessed are all the pure in heart, for they shall see God.” and “blessed are all the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God.” (3 Nephi 12:7-9) Being called “the children of God,” corresponds with the royal new name given to the king in Psalm 2 (discussed below). The clearest tie between verses 8 and 9 in the Beatitudes is Ether 3:13-14.

    And when he had said these words, behold, the Lord showed himself unto him, and said: Because thou knowest these things ye are redeemed from the fall; therefore ye are brought back into my presence; therefore I show myself unto you. Behold, I am he who was prepared from the foundation of the world to redeem my people. Behold, I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father and the Son. In me shall all mankind have life, and that eternally, even they who shall believe on my name; and they shall become my sons and my daughters.”

    Our psalm reads:

    Depart from evil, and do good;
    seek peace, and pursue it. (V. 11)

    The other Beatitude most prominently represented in this psalm is the one that depicts one’s adoption as a child of God, and final coronation to be sacral king or queen. “And blessed are all the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God. And blessed are all they who are persecuted for my name’s sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” (3 Nephi 12:9-10)

    In Moroni 7, Mormon bridges the gap between a peacemaker and being one of whom it can be said with finality: “theirs is the kingdom of heaven.”

    Mormon addresses those who “are the peaceable followers of Christ, and that have obtained a sufficient hope by which ye can enter into the rest of the Lord, from this time henceforth until ye shall rest with him in heaven.” I presume that means they have, and can again see their Saviour. He knows this “because of your peaceable walk with the children of men.” He explains that their next steps are to perfect faith (“Now faith is the substance [tangible reality = “assurance”] of things hoped for [the promises the covenant], the evidence of things not seen [the covenant” Hebrews 11:1.]); hope (living as though the covenant were already fulfilled); and charity (the ultimate power that seals the covenant). Then he concludes: “But charity is the pure love of Christ, and it endureth forever; and whoso is found possessed of it at the last day, it shall be well with him. Wherefore, my beloved brethren, pray unto the Father with all the energy of heart, that ye may be filled with this love, which he hath bestowed upon all who are true followers of his Son, Jesus Christ; that ye may become the sons of God; that when he shall appear we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is; that we may have this hope; that we may be purified even as he is pure.”

    ENDNOTE

    {1}   I reach that conclusion by combining two other statements by the Saviour:

    19 And behold, I have given you the law and the commandments of my Father, that ye shall believe in me, and that ye shall repent of your sins, and come unto me with a broken heart and a contrite spirit. Behold, ye have the commandments before you, and the law is fulfilled. (3 Nephi 12:19)

    20 And ye shall offer for a sacrifice unto me a broken heart and a contrite spirit. And whoso cometh unto me with a broken heart and a contrite spirit, him will I baptize with fire and with the Holy Ghost, even as the Lamanites, because of their faith in me at the time of their conversion, were baptized with fire and with the Holy Ghost, and they knew it not. (3 Nephi 9:20)

  • 3 Nephi 14:1-12 — LeGrand Baker — How to Teach the Gospel

    3 Nephi 14:1-12 — LeGrand Baker — How to Teach the Gospel

    This is a discussion of how one should teach the gospel.

    1   And now it came to pass that when Jesus had spoken these words he turned again to the multitude, and did open his mouth unto them again, saying: Verily, verily, I say unto you, Judge not, that ye be not judged.

    The first key to missionary work: You don’t judge potential converts by the standards of the world.

    2   For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged; and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

    “Mete” is measure —-the quantity that is measured. If you don’t teach those whom the Spirit tells you to teach, then you won’t learn any more good things.

    3   And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

    A mote is a speck of dust. A beam is not a log. A log is a fallen tree, or part of one. A beam is a log that is part of the superstructure of a building. It isn’t the log he is talking about it is the superstructure —- the ideas that President McKay called “gospel hobbies.”

    4   Or how wilt thou say to thy brother: Let me pull the mote out of thine eye—and behold, a beam is in thine own eye? [Learn what is important. You can’t teach truth if your own understanding of what is true is clouded by a false superstructure of ideas.]

    5   Thou hypocrite, first cast the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast the mote out of thy brother’s eye.

    Even though the ideas might be true, the emphasis you place on them may be entirely out of balance with the rest of the other principles of the gospel. You can’t teach truth until you have the correct perspective of what truth is. For example, if you are so hung up on the idea that caffeine is against the Word of Wisdom (which the new handbook says it is not so, by the way), and anti-coke is the gospel you insist on teaching, then you cannot teach and you will not learn.

    6  Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.

    Not only is it vital that you teach those who are worthy to learn, it is equally important that you do not teach those whose life or values make them unable to learn. Alma 12:9-11

    9   And now Alma began to expound these things unto him, saying: It is given unto many to know the mysteries of God; nevertheless they are laid under a strict command that they shall not impart only according to the portion of his word which he doth grant unto the children of men, according to the heed and diligence which they give unto him.
    10  And therefore, he that will harden his heart, the same receiveth the lesser portion of the word; and he that will not harden his heart, to him is given the greater portion of the word, until it is given unto him to know the mysteries of God until he know them in full.
    11   And they that will harden their hearts, to them is given the lesser portion of the word until they know nothing concerning his mysteries; and then they are taken captive by the devil, and led by his will down to destruction. Now this is what is meant by the chains of hell.]

    7  Ask, and it shall be given unto you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you.
    8  For every one that asketh, receiveth; and he that seeketh, findeth; and to him that knocketh, it shall be opened.

    This is an encoded key. It is a reflection on the ancient veil ceremony. The implication is: this is the way you learned. and is the key to how all may learn.

    9   Or what man is there of you, who, if his son ask bread, will give him a stone?
    10  Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent?
    11  If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father who is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?

    This is a restatement of the original premise: “ Judge not, that ye be not judged.”

    Conclusion: Therefore, if you wish to find exaltation through learning the principles of the of the gospel, you must teach as you would be taught, and always follow the promptings of the Spirit as you do teach or as you refrain from teaching]

    12  Therefore, all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them, for this is the law and the prophets.

    I think that is what it means.

  • 2 Nephi 1:15 — LeGrand Baker — Lehi’s embrace

    2 Nephi 1:15 — LeGrand Baker — Lehi’s embrace

    2 Nephi 1:15
    15 The Lord hath redeemed my soul from hell; I have beheld his glory, and I am encircled about eternally in the arms of his love.

    Nibley ties the meaning of Lehi’s testimony to the power of the Saviour’s Atonement. He writes:

    This is the imagery of the Atonement, the embrace: “The Lord hath redeemed my soul from hell; I have beheld his glory, and I am encircled about eternally in the arms of his love” (“2 Ne. 1:152 Nephi 1:15). “O Lord, wilt thou encircle me around in the robe of thy righteousness! O Lord, wilt thou make a way for mine escape before mine enemies!” (“2 Ne. 4:33). “Behold, he sendeth an invitation unto all men, for the arms of mercy are extended towards them, and he saith: Repent, and I will receive you” (“Alma 5:33).

    This is the hpet, the ritual embrace that consummates the final escape from death in the Egyptian funerary texts and reliefs, where the son Horus is received into the arms of his father Osiris. {1}

    Earlier, Nibley had quoted Mayassis that “The ritual embrace is ‘the culminating rite of the initiation”; it is “an initiatory gesture weighted with meaning … the goal of all consecration.” {2}

    Todd M. Compton explains further:

    The relevance of this sort of adoptive ritual —— defined by the specific act of embracing —— to recognition drama should be clear. In recognition drama, the embrace is the immediate seal of recognition and love when the identity of the tested party has been proved. This is not exactly the same as adoption; it is more a re-adoption.

    The embrace is the renewed outward token reflecting the renewed inward token of knowledge and love. {3}

    In a footnote he adds:

    In Egypt the embrace was closely tied to kingship succession: it was a paternal, father/son interchange, and also a means of transferring divine power. {4}

    Sonship, coronation, consecration, and “transfer of divine power” are all tied so closely in meaning that it is difficult to make a hard distinction between them. Again it is Nibley who explains the ultimate meaning of the sacral embrace.

    One of the most puzzling episodes in the Bible has always been the story of Jacob’s wrestling with the Lord. When one considers that the word conventionally translated by “wrestled” (yeaveq) can just as well mean “embrace,” and that it was in this ritual embrace that Jacob received a new name and the bestowal of priestly and kingly power at sunrise (Gen. 32:24ff), the parallel to the Egyptian coronation embrace becomes at once apparent.

    One retained his identity after the ritual embrace, yet that embrace was nothing less than a “Wesensverschmelzung,” a fusing of identities, of mortal with immortal, of father with son, and as such marked “the highpoint of the whole mystery-drama” (Spiegel, An. Serv., 53:392). {5}

    In another place, Nibley adds this significant bit of information, “This same gesture of the upraised arms, the Ka symbol, also represents the sacred embrace.” {6}

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

    ENDNOTES

    1   Hugh Nibley, Approaching Zion, edited by Don E. Norton [Salt Lake City and Provo: Deseret Book Co., Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1989], 559-60.)

    2   Hugh Nibley, The Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri: An Egyptian Endowment [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1975], 241.

    3   Todd M. Compton, “The Handclasp and Embrace as Tokens of Recognition,” in John M. Lundquist and Stephen D. Ricks, eds., By Study and Also by Faith: Essays in Honor of Hugh W. Nibley on the Occasion of His Eightieth Birthday, 27 March 1990, 2 vols. [Salt Lake City and Provo: Deseret Book Co., Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1990], 1: 611 – 631.

    Quote is on page 1: 627 – 628.)

    4   Todd M. Compton, “The Handclasp and Embrace as Tokens of Recognition,” 1:630-31.

    5   Hugh Nibley, The Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri, 243-244.

    6   Hugh Nibley, The Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri, 240.

  • 1 Nephi 1:0 — LeGrand Baker — How Joseph translated the Book of Mormon

    1 Nephi 1:0 — LeGrand Baker — How Joseph translated the Book of Mormon

    [I wrote this for our ward newsletter, June 2004,and  supposed some of you might find it interesting. The ideas are more fully discussed in my book, Joseph and Moroni.]

    “The most perfect Book,” How Joseph translated the Book of Mormon – LeGrand Baker

    At the time Nephi (she said it was Nephi) showed Mrs. Whitmer the Gold Plates,{1} the angel suggested she hire someone to help her around the house while Joseph and Oliver were staying there working on the translation of the Book of Mormon. She hired her niece, a girl named Sarah Conrad, to live at the house and help with the chores. She did not tell Sarah what Joseph and Oliver were doing, but it did not take long for Sarah to discover something unusual was going on. Sarah noticed that the Prophet and his friend “would go up into the attic, and they would stay all day. When they came down, they looked more like heavenly beings than they did just ordinary men.”{2} At first Sarah was curious, but in time their appearance actually frightened her. She went to her aunt and threatened to leave if she was not told what made those men “so exceedingly white.”{3}

    When Mrs. Whitmer “told her what the men were doing in the room above and that the power of God was so great in the room that they could hardly endure it. At times angels were in the room in their glory which nearly consumed them.”{4} The light with which Joseph shown came from his having been with the angels. This explanation was reasonable enough, and satisfied Sarah. She not only stayed with the Whitmers, but also became one of Joseph’s good friends, was baptized, and much later, after the Church was driven from Kirtland, Missouri, and Nauvoo, she settled with the Saints in Provo, Utah. {5}

    Sarah’s is the earliest of a number of accounts which testify that at times, when the Prophet was receiving revelation or was in the presence of heavenly beings, he, like Moses, actually glowed. Wilford Woodruff used the words, “His face was clear as amber,” when he tried to describe the Prophet’s appearance on one of those occasions.{6} Philo Dibble, who was present when the Prophet received the revelation which is now the 76th section of the Doctrine and Covenants, reported, “Joseph wore black clothes, but at this time seemed to be dressed in an element of glorious white.”{7}

    Sarah’s testimony that the men who were working on the translation of the Book of Mormon “looked so exceedingly white,” combined with Mrs. Whitmer’s explanation, “angels were in the room in their glory which nearly consumed them,” gives us a valuable key to understanding the Book of Mormon, by having a better insight to how it was translated. One may assume that if there were angels in the room they had some purpose for being there other than just to pass the time of day. It is reasonable to believe that their presence in the translating room implies that they were somehow involved int the actual work of translation.

    Neither Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, the Whitmers, nor Sarah Conrad left any record identifying who the angels were; but others also knew; and we have some information from them.

    Parley P. Pratt, did not identify the angels by name, but he testified that through Joseph Smith “and the ministration of holy angels to him, that book came forth to the world.”{8} His brother, Orson, added that during those years Joseph “was often ministered to by the angels of God, and received instruction” from them. {9}

    President John Taylor, who was a dear friend and confidant of the Prophet Joseph mentioned some of the angels by name. He said,

    Again, who more likely than Mormon and Nephi, and some of those prophets who had ministered to the people upon this continent, under the influence of the same Gospel, to operate again as its [the gospel’s] representatives? Well, now, do I believe that Joseph Smith saw the several angels alleged to have been seen by him as described one after another: Yes, I do.{10}

    On another occasion, when President Taylor was discussing the restoration of the Gospel, he said, “I can tell you what he [Joseph] told me about it.” Then told this story:

    Afterward the Angel Moroni came to him and revealed to him the Book of Mormon, with the history of which you are generally familiar, and also with the statements that I am now making pertaining to these things. And then came Nephi, one of the ancient prophets, that had lived upon this continent, who had an interest in the welfare of the people that he had lived amongst in those days.{11}

    On yet another occasion, President Taylor was even more explicit.

    And when Joseph Smith was raised up as a Prophet of God, Mormon, Moroni, Nephi and others of the ancient Prophets who formerly lived on this continent, and Peter and John and others who lived on the Asiatic Continent, came to him and communicated to him certain principles pertaining to the Gospel of the Son of God…. He was indebted to God; and we are indebted to God and to him for all the intelligence that we have on these subjects.{12}

    Similarly, George Q. Cannon once assured his listeners,

    [The Prophet Joseph] had doubtless, also, visits from Nephi and it may be from Alma and others. He was visited constantly by angels;… Moroni, in the beginning as you know, to prepare him for his mission came and ministered and talked to him from time to time, and he had vision after vision in order that his mind might be fully saturated with a knowledge of the things of God. {13}

    Joseph said very little about his work with Book of Mormon prophets other than Moroni. However, in the famous letter to John Wentworth, the one in which he also wrote the Articles of Faith, the Prophet explained that the Book of Mormon came forth only “after having received many visits from the angels of God unfolding the majesty and glory of the events that should transpire in the last days.”{14} The “many visits” could, of course, have all been from Moroni. But Moroni is only one angel and Joseph wrote that he had received “many visits from the angels.” That statement by the Prophet, coupled with those of his friends, leads one to conclude that the prophets who wrote the Book of Mormon either helped Joseph understand what he was reading, or actually participated in the translation of the Book of Mormon. It seems reasonable to me to suppose that the translation process was something of a joint effort between Moroni,

    Joseph Smith who used the Urim and Thummim, Nephi (perhaps more than one Nephi), Alma, Mormon “and others” of th e book’s original authors. Let me explain why I believe that is so.

    One cannot read the Book of Mormon without being aware that its original authors were very concerned that their message be accurately conveyed to the people of our day.{15} It would be consistent with the desires they expressed in their own lifetimes, and equally consistent with the covenants the Lord made with them about the preservation and coming forth of the Book of Mormon,{16} that those same prophets who originally wrote the words should be permitted to be present when Joseph Smith was working on the translation of their own writings. But It is my personal opinion that they were more involved than just acting as advisors.

    I once heard Nibley say that a translation, no matter how good, is, in fact, only a commentary – because at best, it is only the translator’s best guess about what the author intended to say. (The variety and number of translations of the Bible are sufficient evidence of how true that is.) However if the person who wrote the text in the first language, also wrote it in the second language, then the result would not be a “translation” at all. It would be a primary text written by the original author. Similarly, if the original authors translated their own portions of the Book, then when we read the Book, we are reading the actual words as they were written by Nephi, Alma, Mormon and the other great prophets. That would mean that the Book of Mormon in English is not a translation of a primary source, but is itself a “primary source” because it is the actual words of the original authors, and the ideas expressed by them there are as near to what they intended to say as the English language is able to convey. I believe that, and that is the way I read the Book of Mormon.

    It is my personal opinion that the original authors did participate in the translation of the Book of Mormon, and that the precision of their language – as they expressed it in English – imposes upon their readers the obligation to study with great care, not just the meaning of the words, but also the structure of the sentences, and the relationship of the ideas, in order to discover the full intent of the writings of those ancient American prophets.

    ———— END NOTES

    1. {1}  Andrew Jensen, Biographical Encyclopedia, 1:267.
    2. {2}  Richard L. Anderson, “The House Where the Church Was Organized,”Improvement Era,April, 1970, p. 21.
    3. {3}  Oliver B. Huntington, “Diary,” typescript copy at BYU Library. Vol. 2, p. 415-6.Huntington heard this story from Sarah, herself, when she was 88 years old.
    4. {4}  Huntington, “Diary,” 2:415-6.
    5. {5}  Huntington, “Diary,” 2:415-16. See also Anderson, “The House…”, Improvement Era,April, 1970, p. 21. I have also spoken with her descendants who confirmed the story.
    6. {6}  Wilford Woodruff, Conference Report, April, 1898, p. 89.
    7. {7}  Juvenile Instructor, 27:303-4.
    8. {8}  Journal of Discourses, 9:212. (Hereafter, JD)
    9. {9}  JD 15:185. See similar testimonies in JD 13:66 and 14:140.

    {10} JD 21:164.{11} JD 21:161.

    1. {12}  JD 27:374.
    2. {13}  JD 13:47; and JD 23:363.
    3. {14}  Documentary History of the Church, 4:537.
    4. {15}  For examples see: II Nephi 33:3-4; III Nephi 5:18; Mormon 8:12, 9:30-31; Enos 1:15-16;Ether 12:25-29. See also, II Nephi 3:19-21, 26:16, chapter 27; Mormon 5:12-13; Mosiah1:7; Doctrine and Covenants 17:6.
    5. {16}  Doctrine and Covenants 10:46-53.

    (End of this week’ comments)

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

    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.