Blog

Mosiah 8:9-10 — LeGrand Baker — rusty swords

Mosiah 8:9-10
10 And behold, also, they have brought breastplates, which are large, and they are of brass and of copper, and are perfectly sound.
11 And again, they have brought swords, the hilts thereof have perished, and the blades thereof were cankered with rust.

“Rust” implies they were made of iron – and this well before the iron age! Hugh Nibley addresses that problem in Lehi in the Desert and the World of the Jarediltes (Salt Lake City, Bookcraft, 1952), p. 210-215. It reads as follows:

A few years ago your loudest objection to the Jaredite history would most certainly have been its careless references to iron and even steel (e.g. 7:9) in an age when iron and steel were supposedly undreamed of. Today the protest must be rather feeble, even in those quarters “still under the influence of a theory of evolutionism which has been dragged so unfortunately into the study of ancient history.” Nothing better illustrates the hopelessness of trying to apply the neat, convenient, mechanical rule of progress to history than the present-day status of the metal ages. Let me refer you to Wainwright’s recent study on “The Coming of Iron.” There you will learn that the use of iron is as “primitive as that of any other metal: In using scraps of meteoric iron while still in the Chalcolithic Age the predynastic Egyptians were in no way unusual. The Eskimos did so, though otherwise only in the Bone Age, as did the neolithic Indians of Ohio. The Sumerians of Ur were at that time in the early Bronze Age though later they relapsed into the Copper Age.”” The possibility of relapse is very significan – there is no reason why other nations cannot go backwards as well as the Sumerians. But scraps of meteoric iron were not the only prehistoric source, for “it now transpires that, though not interested in it, man was able at an extremely early date to smelt his own iron from its ores and manufacture it into weapons.”‘But how can any men have made such a great discovery or perpetuated such a difficult art without being interested in it? We can only believe that there were somewhere people who were interested in it, and such people, as we shall presently see, actually dwelt in the original home of the Jaredites. Certainly there is no longer any reason for denying the Jaredites iron if they wanted it. A Mesopotamian knife blade “not of meteoric origin” and set in a handle has been dated with certainty to the twenty-eighth century B.C., iron from the Great Pyramid goes back to 2900 B.C. and “might perhaps have been smelted from an ore. ~ Yet the Egyptians, far from specializing in iron, never paid much attention to the stuff except in their primitive ritual~the last place we would expect to find it if it were a late invention. While Wainwright himself found iron beads at Gerzah in Egypt that “date to about 3,500 or earlier . . . actually Egypt was the last country of the Near East to enter the Iron Age, and then under an intensification of northern influences.” In fact by 1000 B.C. “Egypt still keeps on in the Bronze Age.”Having proved that the working of iron is as old as civilization, the Egyptians then go on to prove that civilization is perfectly free to ignore it, to the dismay of the evolutionists. It was the Asiatics who really made the most of iron. As early as 1925 B.C. a Hittite king had a throne of iron, and in Hittite temple inventories iron is the common metal, not the bronze to which one is accustomed in other lands of the Near East.”‘ If we move farther east, into the region in which the Jaredites took their rise, we find the manufacture of iron so far advanced by the Amarna period that the local monarch can send to the king of Egypt “two splendid daggers ‘whose blade is of khabalkinu’ . . . the word being usually translated as ‘steel.”‘ Though the translation is not absolutely certain, literary references to steel are very ancient. The Zend Avesta refers constantly to steel, and steel comes before iron in the four ages of Zarathustra, reminding one of the Vedic doctrine that the heaven was created out of steel and that steel was the “sky-blue metal” of the earliest Egyptians and Babylonians.” The legends of the tribes of Asia are full of iron and steel birds, arrows, and other magic articles, and the founder of the Seljuk dynasty of Iran was, as we have noted, called Iron- or Steel-Bow. The working of iron is practised in central Asia even by primitive tribes, and Marco Polo (I, 39) speaks of them as mining “steel,” rather than iron. Where “steel” may be taken to mean any form of very tough iron, the correct chemical formula for it is found in steel objects from Ras Shamra, dating back to the fourteenth century B. C.’- If we would trace the stuff back to its place and time of origin, we should in all probability find ourselves at home with the Jaredites, for theirs was the land of Tubal-cain, “the far northwest corner of Mesopotamia,” which, Wainwright observes in approving the account in Genesis 4:22, is “the oldest land where we know stores of manufactured iron were kept and distributed to the world.” It is to this region and not to Egypt that we must look for the earliest as well as the best types of ancient iron work, even though the Egyptians knew iron by 3,500 B.C. at least.

The example of iron, steel, and bronze is instructive. They are not evolved by imperceptible degrees to conquer the world in steady progressive triumph through the ages, but appear fully developed to be used in one place and forbidden in another, thrive in one age and be given up in the next.The same applies to another product attributed to the Jaredites and believed until recent years to have been a relatively late invention. In Joseph Smith’s day and long after there was not a scholar who did not accept Pliny’s account of the origin of glass without question. I used to be perplexed by the fact that reference in Ether 2:33 to “windows . . . that will be dashed in pieces” can only refer to glass windows, since no other kind would be waterproof and still be windows, and they would have to be brittle to be dashed “in pieces.” Moreover, Moroni in actually referring to “transparent glass” in 3:1, is probably following Ether. This would make the invention of glass far older than anyone dreamed it was until the recent finding of such objects as Egyptian glass beads “from the end of the third millennium B.C.’and “plaques of turquoise blue glass of excellent quality” in the possession of Zer, one of the very earliest queens of Egypt. “Very little is known,” writes Newberry, “about the early history of glass,” though that history “can indeed be traced back to prehistoric times, for glass beads have been found in prehistoric graves.” We need not be surprised if the occurrences of glass objects before the sixteenth century B. C. “are few and far between,” for glass rots, like wood, and it is a wonder that any of it at all survives from remote antiquity. There is all the difference in the world, moreover, between few glass objects and none at all. One clot of ruddy dirt is all we have to show that the Mesopotamians were using iron knives at the very beginning of the third millennium B.C.-but that is all we need. Likewise the earliest dated piece of glass known comes from the time of Amenhotep I; yet under his immediate successors glass vases appear that indicate an advanced technique in glass working: “they reveal their art in a high state of proficiency, that must be the outcome of a long series of experiments,” writes Newberry.

The finding of the oldest glass and ironwork in Egypt is not a tribute to the superior civilization of the Egyptians at all, but rather to the superior preservative qualities of their dry sands. We have seen that the Egyptians cared very little for iron, which was really at home in the land of Tubal-cain. The same would seem to be true of glass. The myths and folklore of the oldest stratum of Asiatic legend (the swan-maiden and arrow-chain cycles, for example) are full of glass mountains, glass palaces, and glass windows. In one extremely archaic and widespread legend the Shamir-bird (it goes by many names), seeking to enter the chamber of the queen of the underworld, breaks his wings on the glass pane of her window when he tries to fly through it. The glass mountain of the northern legends and the glass palace of the immense Sheba cycle I have shown in another study to be variants of this. “Glaze and vitreous paste,” so close to glass that its absence in the same region comes as a surprise, were “known and widely used in Egypt and Mesopotamia from the fourth millennium B. C. onwards.” But such stuff, applied to clay objects, has a far better chance of leaving a trace of itself than does pure glass which simply disintegrates in damp soil-a process which I have often had opportunity to observe in ancient Greek trash heaps. This easily accounts for the scarcity of glass remains outside of Egypt. We now realize that the scholars who categorically deny Marco Polo’s claim to have seen colored glass windows at the court of the Grand Khan spoke too soon. A contemporary of Marco “mentions that the windows of some of the yachts or barges had plate glass,” in China, but the commentator who cites this authority adds that “the manufacure was probably European.”It is interesting that the earliest use of window glass in the Far East was for ship windows, but the fact that glass was scarce in China does not make this European glass, for it was not Europe but central Asia that excelled in glass production. A Chinese observer in central Asia in 1221 was impressed by the great native industry, which produced among other things windows of clear glass.

Mosiah 8:3 — LeGrand Baker — true and living church

Mosiah 8:3
3    And he also rehearsed unto them the last words which king Benjamin had taught them, and explained them to the people of king Limhi, so that they might understand all the words which he spake.

This is important because it suggests to us much about the religious beliefs of the Nephites before Alma organized his church. What it suggests is that the Nephites had an open canon of scripture – strong evidence of a “true and living church.”

The surest evidence of a dead religion is a closed canon. We don’t know what the Nephites used for scripture besides what was contained on the Brass plates, and we are not even sure about that. But there are several suggestions in the Book of Mormon that they added to their scriptures just as one would expect if the church was led by a living prophet. This statement in Mosiah is one of those evidences. Another is the Saviour’s wondering why the words of Samuel the Lamanite had not been recorded. Perhaps the most important evidence is what Mormon wrote just before he died: “… behold I, Mormon, began to be old; and knowing it to be the last struggle of my people, and having been commanded of the Lord that I should not suffer the records which had been handed down by our fathers, which were sacred, to fall into the hands of the Lamanites, (for the Lamanites would destroy them) therefore I made this record out of the plates of Nephi, and hid up in the hill Cumorah all the records which had been entrusted to me by the hand of the Lord, save it were these few plates which I gave unto my son Moroni.” (Mormon 6:6) It is apparent that to Mormon and others, the Nephite ecclesiastical history-sermons, stories, testimonies- were sacred scripture.

One finds the same thing in the New Testament. In 2 Peter 3:15-16, Peter refers to Paul’s writings along with “the other scriptures.” Back in chapter 2, he had already given us some clue about what those other scriptures are. There he reproduces in part the short epistle of Jude, Jesus ‘ younger half brother, quoting it as one would quote scripture. The fact that Matthew and Luke relied so heavily on the Gospel of Mark not only testifies that it was highly regarded in the church, but implies that it may have had the status of scripture even before the other two gospels were written.

A good, but not absolute, indication of what was in the Jewish canon is the Septuagint, a Greek translation made by Jewish scholars in Alexandria, Egypt, about 250 B.C. However, it is instructive to note that the Jewish canon of scripture seems to have remained open until two decades after the fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D, when a council of Jewish scholars met in a town near Joppa to decide what could and could not be considered as scripture. There is much we do not know about the Jewish canon. The five books of Moses, called the “law,” had apparently been the backbone of the canon ever since they were written, but their history is much obscured. All one has to do is compare the Book of Moses in the Pearl of Great Price with the beginning of Genesis to discover that somewhere in the past someone has taken major liberties with what Moses wrote. Most scholars believe that occurred after the Babylonian captivity, when the history books, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles were also written. For that reason, we cannot be at all sure what “the Law of Moses” was on the Brass Plates, since the Nephite scriptures were taken from Jerusalem before the Babylonian captivity.

The histories (except Chronicles), along with the writings of the twelve minor prophets and Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel were referred to in the New Testament as “the Prophets.” Some scholars suggest these became accepted as scripture after the Babylonian captivity, however, it is apparent from the Book of Mormon that Isaiah’s writings, and the writings of Jeremiah (who was a contemporary of Lehi) were considered to be scripture even before the Babylonian captivity.

When the New Testament writers spoke of “the Law and the Prophets” those are the books they were talking about.

The remainder of the Old Testament books (Psalms, Proverbs, Job, etc.) were called the other writings, or simply the “Writings.” Jewish scriptures are still divided into those three groups: Law, Prophets, and Writings.

It is apparent that the Writings were also included in the Jewish canon at the time of the Saviour. One evidence is that fragments or full copies of every book in the Old Testament (except Ruth) have been found among the Dead Sea Scrolls. But the most important evidence is the Saviour’s statement to the Twelve, “These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.” By that we understand that the resurrected Christ accepted at least the Law, Prophets, and Psalms as scripture.

Early Christians, as well as the Jews, also accepted some books as scripture which we do not have in our present canon. At least one evidence of this is Jude’s quoting from the Book of Enoch. (Jude 1:14-15 quotes Ethopic Enoch 1:9 )

Mosiah 7:26-28 — LeGrand Baker — Jesus is God of the Old Testament

Mosiah 7:26-28
26    And a prophet of the Lord have they slain; yea, a chosen man of God, who told them of their wickedness and abominations, and prophesied of many things which are to come, yea, even the coming of Christ.
27    And because he said unto them that Christ was the God, the Father of all things, and said that he should take upon him the image of man, and it should be the image after which man was created in the beginning; or in other words, he said that man was created after the image of God, and that God should come down among the children of men, and take upon him flesh and blood, and go forth upon the face of the earth–
28    And now, because he said this, they did put him to death; and many more things did they do which brought down the wrath of God upon them. Therefore, who wondereth that they are in bondage, and that they are smitten with sore afflictions?

It is interesting to me that King Limhi remembered Abinadi’s speech a little differently from the way Alma remembered it. (Mosiah 15) The doctrine Abinadi taught is one of the most significant in the Book of Mormon. I made passing mention of it once and Dil asked me to explain fuller. I shall do that, but I’ll wait until we get to Mosiah 15.

As I have studied, I have observed how completely the Prophet Joseph’s teachings are being vindicated by Christian scholars—not Christian preachers, that’s a different thing altogether.

I am now reading Henry M. Shires, Finding the Old Testament in the New (Philadelphia, Westminister Press, 1974). This author takes it for granted that in Hebrews, Paul taught that Jesus and Jehovah are the same person, and therefore that Jesus had a pre-mortal existence. (Well that’s not quite true. For one thing, he doesn’ t believe Paul wrote Hebrews, and for another, he probably doesn’t believe the things that “the author of Hebrews” wrote about Jesus’ pre-mortal existence, but at least he sort of understands what was written.)

What follows is a quote from Shires’ book, pages 61-63. Notice how close this is to what Abinadi taught.

Hebrews displays a marked reverence for the words of the O.T. It is the author’s firm belief that Scripture has been written by God and that its words are those which God has spoken in the past and still speaks. In Heb. 1 :6-9 citations of Deut. 32:43 (LXX) and Ps. 104:4; 45:6~ are introduced by a single formula, “God says,” even though the verse from Deuteronomy is in the song of Moses and the verses from Psalms are not ascribed to God. The third-person description in Gen. 2:2 of God’s rest on the seventh day from his work of Creation is in Heb. 4:4 presented as God’s own speech. Because he regards the words of Scripture as the utterance of God, the author of Hebrews can occasionally attribute personal attributes to an O.T. verse. In some cases the Greek can be equally well translated: “it [the scripture] says,” or “he [God] Says.” In Heb. 2:11-13 the words of Ps. 22:22; 2 Sam. 22:3 (LXX); and Is. 8:18 are attributed to Christ. Likewise, in Heb. 10:5-7, Ps. 40:6-8 is repeated as the speech of Christ when he came into the world. In Heb. 3:7-11, also, Ps. 95:7-11 (LXX) is cited as the utterance of the Holy Spirit. And in Heb. 10: 15-17 two verses of Jeremiah (Jer. 31 :3~4) are quoted as the words of the Holy Spirit. Yet these expressions of Christ and the Holy Spirit are also those of God himself. (Cf. Heb. 4:7; 8:8.) In all these cases the present tense is employed because the divine speech is timeless in its relevance. In the introductory formulas that precede O.T. quotations in Hebrews there are two references to Moses and one to David, as God’s servants; but otherwise all Q.T. citations are thought of as God’s words and so make no reference to any Jewish author, contrary to N.T. usage generally. The unity of Scripture is thus maintained. All the O.T. books that are cited in Hebrews are treated as Law and so are viewed as of the same authority and position.

Some sections of Hebrews are mainly a series of O.T. quotations with a minimum of interpretation or discussion. In chapter 1, seven O.T. passages are quoted in order to describe the person of Jesus Christ, God’s Son.

Shires has mentioned that sequence before in his book. In that place he said he doesn’t know why in the world “the author of Hebrews” strung those scriptures together like that. But they are a wonderful sequence of kingship scriptures which Paul used to show that Christ is – and always has been – King of Israel. The other brackets in this quote are inthe original.

In chapter 11, a review of Jewish history is built upon references to about 30 sections of historical narrative from Genesis to 2 Chronicles; and Abraham and Moses emerge as the most important leaders. Altogether, at least 28 O.T. passages are cited, and 21 of these are not quoted elsewhere in the N.T. Dependence on the O.T. is extremely heavy throughout, and its interpretation involves ingenuity and creativity. Even though the O.T. is revered as the continuing word of God, it is nevertheless seen as a record of incomplete revelation. The contrast between the old and the new is presented at the start (Heb. 1:1-2): ‘In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets; but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son.” In fact, the O.T. cannot present the full truth (Heb. 10:1), “since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities.” The function of the O.T., therefore, is to predict and prepare for the coming of Christ, who is seen as in preexistent form active in O.T. history. Moses’ acceptance of his role as leader of the oppressed Jews in Egypt entailed (Heb. 11:26) “abuse suffered for the Christ.” For the author of Hebrews the O.T. is filled with symbols and types of the Son, in whom alone O.T. beginnings reach their successful conclusion.

Mosiah 7:12-18 — LeGrand Baker — meaning of ‘comfort’

As I suggested last week, there must have been something other than Ammon’s claim that he had come out of the land of Zarahemla that inspired the complete confidence of king Limhi. I speculated that it might have been their use of a sacral language. But I wonder if, in place of, or in addition to their conversing in priestly/royal language, some other token of recognition might have been exchanged between Ammon and Limhi.

12   And now, when Ammon saw that he was permitted to speak, he went forth and bowed himself before the king; and rising again he said: O king, I am very thankful before God this day that I am yet alive, and am permitted to speak; and I will endeavor to speak with boldness;
13   For I am assured that if ye had known me ye would not have suffered that I should have worn these bands. For I am Ammon, and am a descendant of Zarahemla, and have come up out of the land of Zarahemla to inquire concerning our brethren, whom Zeniff brought up out of that land.

Ammon approaches king Limhi with courtesy, but not deference. He defines himself as an equal, and king Limhi acknowledges him as such. In fact, turning tables on him, Limhi pays deference to Ammon, suggesting that he, Limhi, should be the slave. Whether he meant that is hard to say, because his statement is typical of the kind of self-depravation one finds in ancient Near Eastern diplomatic correspondence. What is certain is that in this conversation Limhi has defined himself as being subservient to the Nephite king, if not to Ammon himself.

14   And now, it came to pass that after Limhi had heard the words of Ammon, he was exceedingly glad, and said: Now, I know of a surety that my brethren who were in the land of Zarahemla are yet alive. And now, I will rejoice; and on themorrow I will cause that my people shall rejoice also.
15   For behold, we are in bondage to the Lamanites, and are taxed with a tax which is grievous to be borne. And now, behold, our brethren will deliver us out of our bondage, or out of the hands of the Lamanites, and we will be their slaves; for it is better that we be slaves to the Nephites than to pay tribute to the king of the Lamanites.
16   And now, king Limhi commanded his guards that they should no more bind Ammon nor his brethren, but caused that they should go to the hill which was north of Shilom, and bring their brethren into the city, that thereby they might eat, and drink, and rest themselves from the labors of their journey; for they had suffered many things; they had suffered hunger, thirst, and fatigue.
17   And now, it came to pass on the morrow that king Limhi sent a proclamation among all his people, that thereby they might gather themselves together to the temple to hear the words which he should speak unto them.
18   And it came to pass that when they had gathered themselves together that he spake unto them in this wise, saying: O ye, my people, lift up your heads and be comforted; for behold, the time is at hand, or is not far distant, when we shall no longer be in subjection to our enemies, notwithstanding our many strugglings, which have been in vain; yet I trust there remaineth an effectual struggle to be made.

The phrase “lift up your heads and be comforted” needs a closer look.

Our use of the word “comfort” is different from the way the word was used when the King James Bible was translated, and also different from the use of the word in Joseph Smith’s day.

A case in point: The US Constitution defines treason as “giving aid and comfort to the enemy.” That does not mean that treason is giving the enemy as aspirin or patting him on the head and saying “There, there.”

Oxford English Dictionary has two first definitions: COMFORT (verb) “Strengthening; encouragement, incitement; aid, succour, support, countenance.” (substantive) “To strengthen, (morally or spiritually); to encourage.”

So when “the voice of the Lord came to them [Alma and his people in the wilderness] in their afflictions, saying: Lift up your heads and be of good comfort, for I know of the covenant which ye have made unto me; and I will covenant with my people and deliver them out of bondage.” (Mosiah 24:13) the Lord was not just encouraging them, he was promising them strength to overcome.

That sheds an interesting light on “comfort” in Psalm 23, Isaiah 40:1-2, and Isaiah 61:1-3. In the latter case, the phrase “to comfort” is shown to refer to receiving the enthronement rites: wash (remove ashes), anoint, clothe, new name, crown. In all three of those scriptures, to comfort means to give royal/priestly power – to strengthen, to empower.

It also sheds an interesting light on the Holy Ghost’s being called “the comforter,” and on a possible meaning of the phrase, “Second Comforter.”

In our Book of Mormon story, then, the king’s command “lift up your heads and be comforted” apparently means, “Lift up your heads and take strength.” It is apparently a command to get ready.

The kings words are reminiscent (and may have been deliberately so) of the 27th Psalm: “And now shall mine head be lifted up above mine enemies round about me: therefore will I offer in his tabernacle sacrifices of joy; I will sing, yea, I will sing praises unto the Lord.”

The phrase “lift up your heads” is interesting also. Its most famous use is in Psalm 24, in what some people have called a temple recommend. After declaring that those who enter the temple must have clean hands and a pure heart, the psalm commands: “Lift up your heads, O ye gates; and be ye lift up, ye everlasting doors; and the King of glory shall come in.”

Jacob seems to have had the 24th Psalm in mind (His ideas certainly carry the same message) when he told the people: “Behold, my beloved brethren, I speak unto you these things that ye may rejoice, and lift up your heads forever, because of the blessings which the Lord God shall bestow upon your children.” (2 Nephi 9:3) (the similar ideas being Kingship and heirship/kingship)

The phrase is also used by an angel (one who appears to have been Alma’s guardian angel) when he said,

15    Blessed art thou, Alma; therefore, lift up thy head and rejoice, for thou hast great cause to rejoice; for thou hast been faithful in keeping the commandments of God from the time which thou receivedst thy first message from him. Behold, I am he that delivered it unto you. (Alma 8:15)

And the Lord himself said to Nephi,

13    Lift up your head and be of good cheer; for behold, the time is at hand, and on this night shall the sign be given, and on the morrow come I into the world, to show unto the world that I will fulfil all that which I have caused to be spoken by the mouth of my holy prophets. (3 Nephi 1:13)

It is interesting to me that our present notion of “comfort” – that is to make one feel better – is associated with lifting the head in each of these last scriptures, but the word “comfort” is not used in any of them. That suggests to me that when king Limhi said to the people at the temple, “lift up your heads and be comforted,” he was evoking all of his authority as king: that is, he was officially functioning as priest and commander. “Lift up your heads” seems to be a formal sacred promise that they would be blessed; and the “be comforted” seems to be a command to take strength from the encouragement which Ammon brought. It was a command to prepare for battle.

Mosiah 7:8-11 — LeGrand Baker — King Limhi

There are some things about the story of Ammon’s meeting king Limhi that cause me to wonder what is really happening. In fact it is the things that are out of place or odd which tend to re- enforce the historicity of the account. The story sounds very plausible, but only if the king is not telling the truth. What king Limhi said is this:

9   …Behold, I am Limhi, the son of Noah, who was the son of Zeniff, who came up out of the land of Zarahemla to inherit this land, which was the land of their fathers, who was made a king by the voice of the people.
10   And now, I desire to know the cause whereby ye were so bold as to come near the walls of the city, when I, myself, was with my guards without the gate?
11    And now, for this cause have I suffered that ye should be preserved, that I might inquire of you, or else I should have caused that my guards should have put you to death. Ye are permitted to speak. (Mosiah 7:9-11)

There are a number of things out of place with both his speech and his actions. First of all, he introduces himself. He would not have done that unless he knew his prisoners were strangers to his realm.

Second, He says he would have killed them for getting too close to his royal person, but then he treats them like ambassadors, rather than like common criminals. If he took them captive simply because they had broken protocol and “were so bold as to come near the walls of the city, when I, myself, was with my guards without the gate,” it would not follow that they would be treated with dignity when they “were again brought before the king, and their bands were loosed; and they stood before the king, and were permitted, or rather commanded, that they should answer the questions which he should ask them.”

It is apparent that the king is posturing. He is afraid. People who are afraid either act cowed or they act the part of the bully. He is doing the latter. He puts the men in prison for two days, brings them out, unties them, gave them permission to stand, introduces himself – not in terms of his authority, but in terms of the legitimacy of his authority – then “commands” that they answer his questions.

He is sending a double message: One is that he is boss around here, the other is that he is afraid.

So, why should he be afraid? Because he recognized who they were – or at least he recognized they were somebody important – and that they represented either the external help he had been seeking, or else that they represent some new external threat. It would have been easy for him to discover that much. Ammon was a prince, a descendant of that Zarahemla who was king only three generations before, when Mosiah I came into the land. He was a trained warrior, “a strong and mighty man.” No doubt he carried himself like a prince, had the manners of a prince, dressed like a prince, and spoke like a prince. Unless he had taken to wearing the clothes of a commoner, his dress would have given him away, but the thing that would have been most telling would have been his speech. The Lamanites had apparently lost much of their original language. (Mosiah 24:4) But in the land of Nephi, the Lamanites were the dominant culture. After three generations, the transplanted Nephites in Limhi’s kingdom would have adopted some Lamanite words and pronunciations. So even though Ammon spoke the same language as Limhi, the accent was probably different, and Ammon’s diction would have been perfect – that in itself would have been enough to give him away. It would have been easy for Zeniff to know he was dealing with a prince.

What would really be interesting for us to know is in which language Limhi addressed Ammon when he spoke.

The question of language is this: Zeniff, Limhi’s grandfather, began his short autobiography by declaring his royalty: “I, Zeniff, having been taught in all the language of the Nephites…” (Mosiah 9:1 ) Knowing ALL the language of the Nephites was possibly reserved to Nephite royalty. One of the first things we learn about King Benjamin’s family is that “he caused that they should be taught in all the language of his fathers, that thereby they might become men of understanding; and that they might know concerning the prophecies which had been spoken by the mouths of their fathers, which were delivered them by the hand of the Lord.” (Mosiah 1:2) They had to know Egyptian or they could not read the Brass Plates. As far as we know, Egyptian was not spoken as the common language of the Nephites. Their names tend to be Hebrew even though Mormon later calls their language “reformed Egyptian.” In Limhi’s time, more than 400 years after they left Jerusalem, it is likely that they spoke some kind of mixture (like English is a mixture of German, French, Latin and the languages native to the British Isles). It is also likely that classic Egyptian had become the sacral – priestly – royal language – like Latin was the sacral and cultural language of medieval Europe.

Abinadi’s reference to Isaiah suggests that Limhi took copies of the sacred records with him. But given ancient people’s inclination to write sacred things in sacred script or sacred language, it is certainly possible that Limhi’s scriptures were in Egyptian. And it is equally possible that Ammon, the prince, also could read and speak classic Egyptian.

All this round about reasoning is to try to fit some pieces into the picture so it will make sense.

This is what I am guessing: Limhi found these non-local people, threw then in prison while he investigated where they came from, and also so he could impress them that he was king and not to be messed with. While they were in prison, he learned, perhaps from their clothes, but more likely from their accent and the conversations among themselves while they were in prison, that he was dealing with Nephite/Mulikite royalty. He then brought them into the throne room, treated them with dignity, and perhaps confirmed their identity by addressing Ammon in Egyptian – which he knew to be the sacred language of the Nephites and which language he knew the Lamanites could not possibly have known. If Ammon responded in Egyptian, and that was the key Limhi needed to know Ammon really was the person he represented himself as being.

If that is what happened, and Ammon could understand and converse in Egyptian, that would account for Limhi’s sudden change of attitude and total trust in these strangers.

As you know without my telling you, all that stuff came out of my imagination, and I have no evidence that it is true. But if it even approximates what happened, it might account for the otherwise unexplainable actions and words of king Limhi.

Mosiah 6:4 — LeGrand Baker — time in Nephite history

Mosiah 6:4
4    And Mosiah began to reign in his father’s stead. And he began to reign in the thirtieth year of his age, making in the whole, about four hundred and seventy-six years from the time that Lehi left Jerusalem.

It had not occurred to me before how much time had passed between Lehi and Mosiah. I thought backwards and found that 476 years ago from where we are is the year 1524 (This was written in Nov. 2000). So if we made a parallel timeline between the Book of Mormon chronology and our own, and set our present (Nov. 2000) on that timeline as mapping to the “now” mentioned here — – that is in the first year of the reign of Mosiah, then Lehi would have left Jerusalem 476 years ago in the year 1524.

In other words if we were to subtract 476 years from 2000, then on our parallel timeline, to give us a sense of how mych time had passed, their 600 BC would map to our 1524 AD.

Thirty years later, Nephi divided the royal power (as Mosiah would also do), kept the kingship for himself and consecrated his brothers Jacob and Joseph that they should be priests and teachers over the land. (2 Nephi 5:28)

On our timeline that would have been 1564, the year William Shakespeare was born, and six years after the accession of Elizabeth I to the throne of England.

Nephi gave the small plates to Jacob 55 years after they left Jerusalem (Jacob 1:1). On our timeline that would have been 1579. Between 1578-80 Francis Drake was circumnavigating the globe. He was the first Englishman to do so, and his exploits would be one of the causes of the Spanish Armada. Nine years after that would be 588. On the Book of Mormon timeline, if Nephi had lived that long, he would have been about 74 when the Spanish Armada was blown away from English shores.

Jacob’s son Enos calls himself “old” 79 years after they left Jerusalem (Enos 1:25). That would be 1603 on our timeline. Queen Elizabeth died that year. By then the official English translation of the Bible was well on its way. When it was finally published in 1611, it was called the King James Version. Three years after Elizabeth died, 1606, King James awarded the first charter to Englishmen to settle Jamestown, Virginia. The Puritan Pilgrims would not come to Plymouth for nine more years, 1620.

The next sure date we have in the Book of Mormon is this one in Mosiah 6:4 which says the first year of the reign of Mosiah was “about four hundred and seventy-six years from the time that Lehi left Jerusalem.”

On our timeline that first year of the reign of Mosiah is now, 2000 AD. There is a point to all this. So on that timeline, everything that happened between Enos and Mosiah in the Book of Mormon took about the same time as everything that happened in America from the time of the English settlements to the present. We know almost nothing about Book of Mormon history during those years. In terms of our side of the timeline it would be like detailing the stories of King Henry and Queen Elizabeth, mentioning some Englishmen came to America, skipping over the Glorious Revolution in England, the American Revolutionary War, the Civil War, and both world wars with “we had wars and rumors of wars”; then passing over the Restoration of the gospel like “And King Mosiah I discovered the people of Zarahemla”; then beginning mid story with the year 2000.

I thought that was interesting comparing histories and realizing how much time has passed. In the history, we have only glimpsed the 476 years we have sped through in the history of the Book of Mormon peoples. I thought you might find it interesting also.

Mosiah 5:7-15 — LeGrand Baker — royal coronation

[Note:  This paper was written before Stephen Ricks and I wrote Who Shall Ascend into the Hill of the Lord. This paper is a good summary of the coronation, but the book is devoted to the entire Feast of Tabernacles temple drama—both in the Bible and in the Book of Mormon.]

King Benjamin and the royal coronation in the ancient Israelite New Year’s festival.

When I read the scriptures for this week, I just shook my head in wonderment. Here was that part of the ancient Israelite New year’s festival which some non-LDS scholars suspect may have been there, but which has been lost or deleted from the biblical record. That fact makes this passage of the Book of Mormon one of the most significant in the study of the ancient Israelite religion. From biblical and other ancient Near Eastern sources, we know that at the conclusion of the Feast of Tabernacles the king was coronated, but some scholars have suggested his coronation was a symbolic act by which all the congregation were also made sacral kings and priests, queens and priestesses in the kingdom. There is no hard evidence for that, only suggestions here and there in the Psalms and elsewhere. But here in these Book of Mormon verses is the evidence to show that is exactly what is going on.

During the past few weeks, we have been talking about the ancient Israelite New Year festival, Feast of Tabernacles, and coronation ceremony, but there often has not been time to pay much attention to giving scholarly sources for what we are saying. Next week I would like to discuss this week’s scriptures in which the entire congregation participate in the coronation process, but this week I would just like to give you a bunch of information about what non-Mormon scholars say about the king’s coronation during the ancient Israelite New Year festival. I’ll also provide lots of footnotes , so you’ll know where the stuff is coming from. (Italics in the quotes are in the original.)

For clarification, two words need to be defined the way these scholars use them. One of those words is “cult.” It means religious ceremonies, dramatic presentations, and ordinances, and covenants. Using the word in this way makes our detractors correct when they refer to our temple worship as “cultic,” but it also makes the Baptist’s baptism ceremony just as “cultic” as ours is. So when you read the word “cult” in the following quotes, think: ancient temple related ceremonies, dramatic presentation, covenants, and ordinances.

“Myth” is another word whose present-day popular meaning is different from the way it is used by scholars. Our popular culture reads “myth” as meaning a story which is untrue. Scholars use the word very differently. Myth is a truth told by a story. That means the myth is truth because the principles described by story true, even though its details may or may not be fictionalized.

The “cosmic myth” is the story of the cosmology of the universe, including accounts of the Council in Heaven, the war in heaven, the creation of the earth, and the first humans in this new world, and the origins and meanings of good and evil. The first scholar to point out that the same cosmic myth was in virtually every ancient culture was Giorgio De. Santillana, in his book Hamlet’s Mill: an Essay on Myth and the Frame of Time (paperback ed.: Boston, Godine, 1997). De Santillana showed that there is a universal myth which was believed by almost all ancient people. Its details were told differently, but its two major themes were always the same. Those major themes were: First, cosmology – the creation story, and the story of the gods’ relationship with the universe, the earth, and with the first and present humans. The second theme is the story of the primal Man – the first man – the hero/king. It is the story of one who leaves his original home, goes to a new land, struggles with the forces of evil, then returns home triumphant. De Santillana shows that Shakespeare’s Hamlet is a perfect literary example of this universal myth. So is the story of Osiris in Egypt. So is the Genesis creation and Garden of Eden story. So, by the way, is First Nephi, the book of Ether, and the broad sweep of the entire Book of Mormon.

In the simplest of LDS terms, then, the “cosmic myth” is a literary or theatrical depiction of the plan of salvation: it either tells the story of the plan from the point of view of the Saviour himself, or from the point of view of the members of the Council in Heaven (as does the book of Abraham, for example), or from the point of view of every single individual. So when you read the word “myth” in the following quotes, think “temple drama” and you will be pretty close to understanding what the scholar is trying to say – but you will understand more than the scholars understand because you know things which they cannot know.

The modern father of the scholarship of the ancient Israelite temple worship is a personal hero of mine. His name was Sigmund Mowinckel. In his monumental book, The Psalms in Israel’s Worship (translated by D. R. Ap-Thomas: 2 vols, Nashville, Abingdon, 1979, pages 168-169) he notes:

:Of whether the temple rites of Jerusalem included recitations of such poetic and epic festal myths, and what may have been their form and place in the ritual, we know nothing directly. That the laws in the Pentateuch say nothing about it is of no consequence; for neither do they mention the singing of psalms. But analogies from Babylonia and Egypt, as well as all the allusions in the psalms to the festal myths, make it likely that such epic features would have a part in the festal rituals….This applies, for instance, to the creation tales in Gen. 1 and 2 and to the saga about the Exodus in Ex. 1-15. In the form known to us now, they are meant to be part of a saga, not a festal myth or legend. But they are derived from earlier form evidently connected with the festal cult. [that word only means that there were ordinances performed during the religious ceremonies.]

The creation drama seems to have been a part of the cultic worship of all ancient peoples. It was the story that gave their lives meaning and a sense of place. It was about how the gods brought order (cosmos) from chaos and how the gods will ultimately succeed in bring order into the chaos which is individual human life and universal society. [ Mowinckel, Psalms in Israel’s Worship, 1: 146-147.]

Soon after the drama began, it portrayed a war in heaven which resulted in the expulsion of those gods whose purpose is not the betterment of man. These rebellious ones, were cast out of heaven and to the earth where they became “the protector deities of the heathen empires, and those who lured men into sin. [Mowinckel, Psalms in Israel’s Worship, 1: 394.]

After that, there followed an act which depicted the organization of matter, the creation of the earth with its plant and animal inhabitants. Creation is salvation from Chaos. Thus the creation of the earth, of mankind, of the nation of Israel, of the temple, and the life experiences of each individual, are all acts of salvation.

For Israel the acceptance of this mythical for them at that time meant a richer, more concrete understanding of the idea of creation in all its implications, a widening of their understanding of Yahweh’s [Jehovah’s] power and glory. It is significant that we meet it precisely in those prophets who clearly grasp faith in the one true God and make Yahweh’s dominion absolute by combining the idea of creation with the idea of Yahweh as Lord of history. [Sigmund Mowinckel, translated by Reidar B. Bjornard, The Old Testament as Word of God (New York, Abingdon Press, 1959), 104.]

This actualization of the fact of salvation is repeated as often as necessary. There are certain climaxes in life, crisis when such a renewal is specially needed; and the important transitions, birth, maturity, death, spring, autumn, mid-summer, mid-winter, seed-time, and so on….[The recitation of the entire story took place once each fall during the New year festival.] The fact that the cult is a repetition and a renewed creation leads to the view that the salvation which takes place is a repetition of a first salvation which took place in the dawn of time….Creation is salvation. [Mowinckel, Psalms in Israel’s Worship, 1: 146- 147. vol. 1: 18-19. ]

In ancient Israel, the New Year came in the fall (October-November) after the harvest and before the rainy season. Not long ago, at Beck’s request I sent you an outline of the events of that festival. Briefly, those events were these:

Day 1:
New Year Day.

Day 2-9:
time of repentance.

Day 10:
Day of Atonement when the entire nation was ceremonially cleansed in preparation for participation in the events which would follow. [For a discussion of the sacrifices offered on each day of the New Year festival see the book of Leviticus and Alfred Edersheim, The Temple, Its Ministry and Services (Peabody, Massachusetts, Hendrickson Publishers, 1994).]

Days 11-14:
Preparations of the Feast of Tabernacles.

Days 15-20 (days 1-6 of the Feast of Tabernacles):
During that time a drama was presented which depicted the Council; war in Heaven; creation of earth; Garden of Eden story; Adam and Eve; Covenants of Abraham, Joseph, Moses, and David; Battle with earthly evil during which Jerusalem and the temple destroyed, and the young king was killed; Jehovah [Yahweh] asserts his Kingship over Israel, comes to their rescue with storm and earthquake, and defeats their enemies; Jehovah himself descends into the underworld to save the king from death and hell.

Day 21 (Day 7 of Feast of Tabernacles):
Jehovah (represented by the Ark of the Covenant) and the king whom he has saved, come out of the underworld and rejoin their people. They all move in procession around the city, measuring and re-defining it as sacred space; now the city is a new Jerusalem and its temple a heavenly temple; during the procession the king is ceremonially washed. After circling the city, the procession of the congregation entered the gates of the city and approached the temple. The doors of the temple were opened, the doors to the Holy Place were opened, and the veil before the Holy of Holies was pulled back. This did not profane the Holy of Holies, it extend its sacred space to include everyone in the congregation.

The king’s coronation ceremony took place in the Holy of Holies in the Temple. The king was clothed in sacred garments and anointed with sweet smelling olive oil. His anointing was a dual ordinance, making him both adopted son and anointed king. Then, as legitimate heir, he sat upon his Fathers’ throne in the temple and delivered a lecture on the Law which is drawn from the book of Deuteronomy.

All this had already happened in our King Benjamin story before we begin to get any details. I presume Mormon thought we would be familiar with the story, so there was no reason to give any details until he got to the part where the changes occurred. Mormon picks up the story when the angel comes and changes the usual patter. Instead of the lecture from Deuteronomy which everyone is familiar with because it is a part of the ceremony, the king, who has been visited by an angel, is going to tell the people what the angel told him. That’s why his sitting on the throne won’t do. Normally, the people already know in advance what he is going to say because they know the ceremony as well as he does. This time his words will be new, they will actually have to hear what he says in order to participate, and so he has to have a tower built, and he has to have the words published so everyone can learn the new version of the lecture. (They do memorize it. You recall Ammon recites it when he goes back to the land of Nephi.)

The story of King Benjamin’s presiding over his son’s appointment as the new king was important, but not unusual. For example, during the Assyrian New Year festival, the heir apparent took the role of the king in the drama while his father, the old king, took the priestly role of the god.

The divinization from nativity is further confirmed by the enthronement of the crown prince in th bit riduti and the coronation of the king. The former comprises the consultation of the gods, the summoning of the mobles, the proclamation, swearing of oaths, paying of homage, and concluding banquets….Above all he [the crown prince] can therefore, as often actually occurred, officiate instead of the king at the New Year Festival. The definitive divinization takes place with the coronation and enthronement of the king….Especially worth observing are the facts that the king himself officiates as high priest in the ceremony….The ceremonial is indeed preserved only from Assyrian times but can with certainty be antedated. The ritual also includes a more or less symbolical withdrawing from the office. [Ivan Engnell, Studies in Divine Kingship in the Ancient Near East, (Oxford, Basil Blackwell, 1967), 17.]

Whether King Benjamin had himself played the part of the king, or whether his son had, is an important detail, but either way, it does not change the mythological story. When the king is anointed in the NEW Jerusalem, in the NEW Temple, he is a NEW king in a New and Holy Kingdom of God. It symbolizes the beginning of the thousand years of peace, and also the resurrection and eternal peace.

So, at the conclusion of the Feast of Tabernacles, after the king was anointed as the NEW king, he sat on the throne of his Fathers (Adam and God) in the Holy of Holies. The throne in the temple was the throne of God, and the king had just been adopted as the the legitimate heir – the son of God. But the throne was also the throne of the first king, who was also the first son of God – that is, of Adam. For the new king to be a legitimate king, he must be the son of God (as was Adam) and also the legitimate heir of the first earthly king, Adam. One of the purposes of the drama of the New Year festival was to show that the king was a legitimate heir to the ancient priesthood and kingship of Adam. That is, he becomes the Adam to the present generation, or at least Adam’s representative. [See Frederick H. Borsch, The Son of Man in Myth and History (London, SCM Press Ltd., 1967), p. 152]

In ancient Israel, Adam and Eve were not the world’s first sinners as they became in the theology of medieval and modern Christianity. Rather they were considered to be mankind’s first royalty: the king and priest, queen and priestess to all of their descendants. Mowinckel explains,

There Adam is definitely a divine being, who came into existence before creation, as a cosmogonic principle (macrocosm), as the Primordial Soul, as the original type of the godly, righteous fulfiller of the Law. [Sigmund Mowinckel, He that Cometh (New York: Abingdon Press, 1954), 426.]

Representing Adam, the king was anointed twice. The first time was when he was anointed to become king; the second was when he was anointed as king. Weisman describes “two biblical patterns in the employment of the anointing for different purposes.” He likens the early nominating anointings of Saul and David as king-designate to a “betrothal,” and their later anointings as kings as the marriage itself. [Ze’eb Weisman, “Anointing as a Motif in the Making of the Charismatic King,” in Biblica (57 no 3:378-398)]. During the New Year festival, the anointing to become king probably happened during the first two or three days of the drama of the Feast of Tabernacles. The final anointing as king happened on the seventh day of the Feast in the Holy of Holies of the Temple.

The Bible records the anointings of six Israelite kings: Saul: 1 Samuel 10:1, David: 2 Samuel 5:3, Solomon: 1 Kings 1:39, Jehu: 2 Kings 9:6, Josh: 2 Kings 11:12, Jehoahaz: 2 Kings 23:30. Absalom was also anointed to be king: 2 Samuel 19:11. [For a discussion of the king’s anointing, see: Donald W. Parry, “Ritual Anointing with Olive Oil in Ancient Israelite Religion,” in Stephen D. Ricks and John W. Welch, eds., The Allegory of the Olive Tree (Salt Lake City, Deseret Book and F.A.R.M.S, 1994), 266-271, 281-283. For a discussion of the olive tree as the Tree of Life and of the tree and its oil as symbols of kingship see, Stephen D. Ricks, “Olive Culture in the Second Temple Era and Early Rabbinic Period,” in Ibid., 460-476.]

The anointed king is a “son of Man” – the son of thee Man, Adam – the king is an Adam. He is also, by virtue of his anointing, a son of God, but he was not a god in the sense that the Mesopotamian and Egyptian kings were gods. [ See: Sigmund Mowinckel, He that Cometh (New York: Abingdon Press, 1954), 34; Ivan Engnell, Studies in Divine Kingship in the Ancient Near East, (Oxford, Basil Blackwell, 1967, 12-15, 17-18; Henri Frankfort, Kingship and the Gods (Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1948), 299-301.]

The main theme of the festival drama is Jehovah’s dealings with mankind. To demonstrate that, the drama of the New Year festival has focused on two main characters – but both characters are really the same person. The story was about Adam and his legal heirs, specifically the person of the king, and throughout the play the king has had the lead part and played all the lead character. Therefore, in the drama of the Feast of Tabernacles, the king’s personal history is the cosmic myth. On the stage, he played himself in the Council, then played Adam in the Garden. Then Abraham, Joseph, Moses, David, then he plays himself as a young, inexperienced king. The part of himself as the young king is the most difficult.

He loses his immortality, suffers under the sentence of God and is left to wonder homeless on the earth until death. Yet at the resurrection the Messiah will come to awaken Adam first.” [Frederick H. Borsch, The Son of Man in Myth and History, SCM Press Ltd., London, 1967, p. 169.]

Finally, at the conclusion of the drama, the king still plays the role of himself, who has been rescued from death by Jehovah. He leads the procession around the city to redefine it as sacred space, leads the congregation into the temple, and there, as himself, he is dressed and anointed son and king. Thus, still playing himself at his own coronation he emerges as the triumphant hero of the whole symbolic production.

During this cultlic dramatic production, as the king goes through this whole panorama of his existence, the entire story was acted out. The first acts are probably performed on the side of a hill near the city, where the whole congregation could watch and participate.

All of that is in the background of our King Benjamin story. It is apparent that almost all of that has already happened before Mormon introduces us to what he considers the most relevant part of the experience. He picks up on that part of the ceremony when the old king told his heir apparent that the next day he would be proclaimed king. So the stage was set for an important, but otherwise traditional day of the festival. Then things got changed, and that’s where Mormon brings us into the story. The angel appeared to King Benjamin and told him things which he was instructed to tell the people. So the next day turned out not to be as traditional as they expected. King Benjamin had a different lecture to deliver, and the people needed to be able to hear his words in order to respond correctly.

Mowinckel reminds us,

Through the acts and words of the festal cult, laid down in fixed, sacred ritual, the reality which is to be created…is portrayed (‘acted’) in visual and audible form. The actualization takes place through the representation….. “The representation may be either, more or less realistic, or, more or less symbolic–more often the latter, i.e. The rites stand for something; they symbolize and represent that for which they stand. “Their inner meaning is that the powers of death are overcome by the powers of life, by the Life-giver himself, by Yahweh, the living and life-giving God. Thus they symbolize a struggle…. “Hence the festival cult invariably has a more or less dramatic character; it is a sacred drama, representing the salvation which takes place. This dramatic character tallies with the fact that the cult is a mutual act on the part of God and of the congregation, with address and answer, action and reaction.” [Mowinckel, Psalms in Israel’s Worship, 1: 19]

Bentzen tells how, during the drama, the king not only played the part of Adam, but at his coronation is as though he were Adam. This was necessary to the legitimization of the office of the king, for as Adam was the first king, so the new king must be an Adam. Bentzen writes,

The king, then, is Primeval Man. The first man of Genesis 1:26-28 is described as the first ruler of the world. In the first Creation Story, the ‘gospel’ of the New Year, we hear the blessing spoken by God at the enthronement of the first Royal Couple of the world. Man is to ‘rule’ over all living creatures. Man and Woman, like the Babylonian kings, are ‘images of God’, i.e. the Royal Couple is Divine, as in the famous apostrophe to the king in the oracle for the Royal wedding (Psalm 45:7). The same idea is developed in Psalm 8, in the description of the ‘Son of Man’, who is ‘little lower than God’, ‘nearly a God’. This ‘Son of Man’, according to the evident dependence of the psalm on the ideas behind the first chapter of Genesis, is the First Man and the First King…. The enthronement of the king in Primeval Time is also described in the second psalm….” [Aage Bentzen, King and Messiah (London, Lutterworth Press, 1955), 117-18.]

Mosiah 4:5,11 — LeGrand Baker — human ‘nothingness’

At first reading, King Benjamin’s words seem to be an exercise in contradiction, or at least in confusion. This is the way he describes the people:

5    For behold, if the knowledge of the goodness of God at this time has awakened you to a sense of your nothingness, and your worthless and fallen state.
….
11 And again I say unto you as I have said before, that as ye have come to the knowledge of the glory of God, or if ye have known of his goodness and have tasted of his love, and have received a remission of your sins, which causeth such exceedingly great joy in your souls, even so I would that ye should remember, and always retain in remembrance, the greatness of God, and your own nothingness, and his goodness and long-suffering towards you, unworthy creatures (Mosiah 4:4,11).

What a strange dichotomy: Those who are said to have an amazingly powerful testimony “which causeth such exceedingly great joy,” are described with words like, “nothingness,” “worthless,” “fallen state,” and “unworthy creatures.”

One would think that neither the King nor God liked the people at all. Yet he address them as “My friends and my brethren, my kindred and my people.” All apparently terms of endearment.

It is the clash of ideas in this address which makes it one of the most powerful sermons in the Book of Mormon. King Benjamin’s object is not to condemn the people who are to him most beloved. His object is to call attention to the strength of their faith and testimonies, and to point out that even with that, they are wholly dependent on the Saviour’s atonement for redemption. His comments are not about how bad the people are, but how unfathomably wonderful are the Saviour’s atonement and the power of his love.

I can almost understand how he feels. I will write about most things as comments in this Book of Mormon Project. But there are two things I am reluctant to write about. One is the concept of who and what and how big is Christ, the Only Begotten Son, the Creator God. Everything I know about the gospel goes round about those questions about Christ. But a direct approach to the answers is so overwhelming that I lack the language to even begin to write.

The second concept has to do with the question: “What is the atonement, and how, by its power, does one return to the presence of the Father.” And the answer, of course, is: I do not know! It is somewhat like reading the second page of D&C 88 and then asking “what is light.” One reaches one’s mind as far as it will go – to before the beginning, through this world’s experience, the spirit world, and to the celestial world. – then shaking one’s head and replying with the only possible answer: I do not know!

I KNOW that Jesus is God! I KNOW that the atonement is real. But WHAT they are, how big, how expansive, how eternal, the power of love and light – these things my time-bound mind cannot begin to fathom. That I may be embraced by the joy and peace of that love, is something I can experience, but cannot comprehend.

But there are some things I do begin to understand about the atonement. It is the Father’s power of creation, personified in the person and love of Christ. Before the beginning, “All things were made by him, and without him was not anything made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of man.” Thus the first sparks of creation were the products of Christ’s creative power – bringing cosmos out of chaos to produce light and life. I presume that justice required that chaos remain chaos, but mercy liberated chaos to create cosmos. Therefore the very beginnings of life (we ‘re talking cognitive intelligence here) were created and justified by the powers of charity which are expressed in the atonement. By that same charity, matter was organized to become the celestial temple which is Kolob. By virtue of the atonement intelligences were made pure so they could become spirit children of God and participate with him in the Council in Heaven. By virtue of the atonement matter was organized to become the spirit world on which spirit children could live. By virtue of the atonement those spirits where given the option of learning through experience, then having their mistakes wiped away so we could come into this would without bringing any baggage with them – as pure and innocent little babies. By virtue of the atonement, matter was organized to create this world, so we could inhabit with physical bodies, experience both the sorrow and the joy of being here, and then be cleansed so we can return to our Father as pure as we were when we left. By virtue of the atonement those who die without that privilege may receive it in the next world, so every person who is born here may become as pure and as clean as he is willing to be – but not by his own power – but by the power of mercy and justice, which are sustained by the Saviour’s atonement. And when it is all over, nothing will change. “Wherefore, as it is written, they are gods, even the sons of God – 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.” [ Both words are possessive. We will become and remain the children of God because we have first become the children of Christ.] (76:58-59) Whatever we are to become in the eternities will be both realized and sustained by the continued power of the Saviour’s atonement.

Presently, we are in the course of creation. That course is a kind of dual creative and maturation process which moves us from intelligences, spirits, physical people, resurrected people, and beyond. We sometimes put the Saviour’s role as Creator God in the past tense by saying he created us and gave us life. That concept is true, but inadequate. The Saviour did not [past tense] create us, he is creating us and by so doing, is giving us increased light and more life. This world is only a phase, not anything like the conclusion of the creative process. The conclusion will come, if it ever does, after we are again initiated into the Celestial world. But I don’t understand about that either.

Having written that, I must write again that I have no viable concept of who, what, or how big Christ is; or of what his atonement is; or the power of his love. I only have a glimpse of how much he loves us and what his atonement does. In that context I can most easily understand why King Benjamin should put such emphasis on our utter helplessness and unworthiness, and our total dependance on the merits of the Saviour’s love.

Mosiah 5:7-15 — LeGrand Baker — royal coronation

[Note:  This paper was written before Stephen Ricks and I wrote Who Shall Ascend into the Hill of the Lord. This paper is a good summary of the coronation, but the book is devoted to the entire Feast of Tabernacles temple drama—both in the Bible and in the Book of Mormon.]

King Benjamin and the royal coronation in the ancient Israelite New Year’s festival.

When I read the scriptures for this week, I just shook my head in wonderment. Here was that part of the ancient Israelite New year’s festival which some non-LDS scholars suspect may have been there, but which has been lost or deleted from the biblical record. That fact makes this passage of the Book of Mormon one of the most significant in the study of the ancient Israelite religion. From biblical and other ancient Near Eastern sources, we know that at the conclusion of the Feast of Tabernacles the king was coronated, but some scholars have suggested his coronation was a symbolic act by which all the congregation were also made sacral kings and priests, queens and priestesses in the kingdom. There is no hard evidence for that, only suggestions here and there in the Psalms and elsewhere. But here in these Book of Mormon verses is the evidence to show that is exactly what is going on.

During the past few weeks, we have been talking about the ancient Israelite New Year festival, Feast of Tabernacles, and coronation ceremony, but there often has not been time to pay much attention to giving scholarly sources for what we are saying. Next week I would like to discuss this week’s scriptures in which the entire congregation participate in the coronation process, but this week I would just like to give you a bunch of information about what non-Mormon scholars say about the king’s coronation during the ancient Israelite New Year festival. I’ll also provide lots of footnotes , so you’ll know where the stuff is coming from. (Italics in the quotes are in the original.)

For clarification, two words need to be defined the way these scholars use them. One of those words is “cult.” It means religious ceremonies, dramatic presentations, and ordinances, and covenants. Using the word in this way makes our detractors correct when they refer to our temple worship as “cultic,” but it also makes the Baptist’s baptism ceremony just as “cultic” as ours is. So when you read the word “cult” in the following quotes, think: ancient temple related ceremonies, dramatic presentation, covenants, and ordinances.

“Myth” is another word whose present-day popular meaning is different from the way it is used by scholars. Our popular culture reads “myth” as meaning a story which is untrue. Scholars use the word very differently. Myth is a truth told by a story. That means the myth is truth because the principles described by story true, even though its details may or may not be fictionalized.

The “cosmic myth” is the story of the cosmology of the universe, including accounts of the Council in Heaven, the war in heaven, the creation of the earth, and the first humans in this new world, and the origins and meanings of good and evil. The first scholar to point out that the same cosmic myth was in virtually every ancient culture was Giorgio De. Santillana, in his book Hamlet’s Mill: an Essay on Myth and the Frame of Time (paperback ed.: Boston, Godine, 1997). De Santillana showed that there is a universal myth which was believed by almost all ancient people. Its details were told differently, but its two major themes were always the same. Those major themes were: First, cosmology – the creation story, and the story of the gods’ relationship with the universe, the earth, and with the first and present humans. The second theme is the story of the primal Man – the first man – the hero/king. It is the story of one who leaves his original home, goes to a new land, struggles with the forces of evil, then returns home triumphant. De Santillana shows that Shakespeare’s Hamlet is a perfect literary example of this universal myth. So is the story of Osiris in Egypt. So is the Genesis creation and Garden of Eden story. So, by the way, is First Nephi, the book of Ether, and the broad sweep of the entire Book of Mormon.

In the simplest of LDS terms, then, the “cosmic myth” is a literary or theatrical depiction of the plan of salvation: it either tells the story of the plan from the point of view of the Saviour himself, or from the point of view of the members of the Council in Heaven (as does the book of Abraham, for example), or from the point of view of every single individual. So when you read the word “myth” in the following quotes, think “temple drama” and you will be pretty close to understanding what the scholar is trying to say – but you will understand more than the scholars understand because you know things which they cannot know.

The modern father of the scholarship of the ancient Israelite temple worship is a personal hero of mine. His name was Sigmund Mowinckel. In his monumental book, The Psalms in Israel’s Worship (translated by D. R. Ap-Thomas: 2 vols, Nashville, Abingdon, 1979, pages 168-169) he notes:

:Of whether the temple rites of Jerusalem included recitations of such poetic and epic festal myths, and what may have been their form and place in the ritual, we know nothing directly. That the laws in the Pentateuch say nothing about it is of no consequence; for neither do they mention the singing of psalms. But analogies from Babylonia and Egypt, as well as all the allusions in the psalms to the festal myths, make it likely that such epic features would have a part in the festal rituals….This applies, for instance, to the creation tales in Gen. 1 and 2 and to the saga about the Exodus in Ex. 1-15. In the form known to us now, they are meant to be part of a saga, not a festal myth or legend. But they are derived from earlier form evidently connected with the festal cult. [that word only means that there were ordinances performed during the religious ceremonies.]

The creation drama seems to have been a part of the cultic worship of all ancient peoples. It was the story that gave their lives meaning and a sense of place. It was about how the gods brought order (cosmos) from chaos and how the gods will ultimately succeed in bring order into the chaos which is individual human life and universal society. [ Mowinckel, Psalms in Israel’s Worship, 1: 146-147.]

Soon after the drama began, it portrayed a war in heaven which resulted in the expulsion of those gods whose purpose is not the betterment of man. These rebellious ones, were cast out of heaven and to the earth where they became “the protector deities of the heathen empires, and those who lured men into sin. [Mowinckel, Psalms in Israel’s Worship, 1: 394.]

After that, there followed an act which depicted the organization of matter, the creation of the earth with its plant and animal inhabitants. Creation is salvation from Chaos. Thus the creation of the earth, of mankind, of the nation of Israel, of the temple, and the life experiences of each individual, are all acts of salvation.

For Israel the acceptance of this mythical for them at that time meant a richer, more concrete understanding of the idea of creation in all its implications, a widening of their understanding of Yahweh’s [Jehovah’s] power and glory. It is significant that we meet it precisely in those prophets who clearly grasp faith in the one true God and make Yahweh’s dominion absolute by combining the idea of creation with the idea of Yahweh as Lord of history. [Sigmund Mowinckel, translated by Reidar B. Bjornard, The Old Testament as Word of God (New York, Abingdon Press, 1959), 104.]

This actualization of the fact of salvation is repeated as often as necessary. There are certain climaxes in life, crisis when such a renewal is specially needed; and the important transitions, birth, maturity, death, spring, autumn, mid-summer, mid-winter, seed-time, and so on….[The recitation of the entire story took place once each fall during the New year festival.] The fact that the cult is a repetition and a renewed creation leads to the view that the salvation which takes place is a repetition of a first salvation which took place in the dawn of time….Creation is salvation. [Mowinckel, Psalms in Israel’s Worship, 1: 146- 147. vol. 1: 18-19. ]

In ancient Israel, the New Year came in the fall (October-November) after the harvest and before the rainy season. Not long ago, at Beck’s request I sent you an outline of the events of that festival. Briefly, those events were these:

Day 1:
New Year Day.

Day 2-9:
time of repentance.

Day 10:
Day of Atonement when the entire nation was ceremonially cleansed in preparation for participation in the events which would follow. [For a discussion of the sacrifices offered on each day of the New Year festival see the book of Leviticus and Alfred Edersheim, The Temple, Its Ministry and Services (Peabody, Massachusetts, Hendrickson Publishers, 1994).]

Days 11-14:
Preparations of the Feast of Tabernacles.

Days 15-20 (days 1-6 of the Feast of Tabernacles):
During that time a drama was presented which depicted the Council; war in Heaven; creation of earth; Garden of Eden story; Adam and Eve; Covenants of Abraham, Joseph, Moses, and David; Battle with earthly evil during which Jerusalem and the temple destroyed, and the young king was killed; Jehovah [Yahweh] asserts his Kingship over Israel, comes to their rescue with storm and earthquake, and defeats their enemies; Jehovah himself descends into the underworld to save the king from death and hell.

Day 21 (Day 7 of Feast of Tabernacles):
Jehovah (represented by the Ark of the Covenant) and the king whom he has saved, come out of the underworld and rejoin their people. They all move in procession around the city, measuring and re-defining it as sacred space; now the city is a new Jerusalem and its temple a heavenly temple; during the procession the king is ceremonially washed. After circling the city, the procession of the congregation entered the gates of the city and approached the temple. The doors of the temple were opened, the doors to the Holy Place were opened, and the veil before the Holy of Holies was pulled back. This did not profane the Holy of Holies, it extend its sacred space to include everyone in the congregation.

The king’s coronation ceremony took place in the Holy of Holies in the Temple. The king was clothed in sacred garments and anointed with sweet smelling olive oil. His anointing was a dual ordinance, making him both adopted son and anointed king. Then, as legitimate heir, he sat upon his Fathers’ throne in the temple and delivered a lecture on the Law which is drawn from the book of Deuteronomy.

All this had already happened in our King Benjamin story before we begin to get any details. I presume Mormon thought we would be familiar with the story, so there was no reason to give any details until he got to the part where the changes occurred. Mormon picks up the story when the angel comes and changes the usual patter. Instead of the lecture from Deuteronomy which everyone is familiar with because it is a part of the ceremony, the king, who has been visited by an angel, is going to tell the people what the angel told him. That’s why his sitting on the throne won’t do. Normally, the people already know in advance what he is going to say because they know the ceremony as well as he does. This time his words will be new, they will actually have to hear what he says in order to participate, and so he has to have a tower built, and he has to have the words published so everyone can learn the new version of the lecture. (They do memorize it. You recall Ammon recites it when he goes back to the land of Nephi.)

The story of King Benjamin’s presiding over his son’s appointment as the new king was important, but not unusual. For example, during the Assyrian New Year festival, the heir apparent took the role of the king in the drama while his father, the old king, took the priestly role of the god.

The divinization from nativity is further confirmed by the enthronement of the crown prince in th bit riduti and the coronation of the king. The former comprises the consultation of the gods, the summoning of the mobles, the proclamation, swearing of oaths, paying of homage, and concluding banquets….Above all he [the crown prince] can therefore, as often actually occurred, officiate instead of the king at the New Year Festival. The definitive divinization takes place with the coronation and enthronement of the king….Especially worth observing are the facts that the king himself officiates as high priest in the ceremony….The ceremonial is indeed preserved only from Assyrian times but can with certainty be antedated. The ritual also includes a more or less symbolical withdrawing from the office. [Ivan Engnell, Studies in Divine Kingship in the Ancient Near East, (Oxford, Basil Blackwell, 1967), 17.]

Whether King Benjamin had himself played the part of the king, or whether his son had, is an important detail, but either way, it does not change the mythological story. When the king is anointed in the NEW Jerusalem, in the NEW Temple, he is a NEW king in a New and Holy Kingdom of God. It symbolizes the beginning of the thousand years of peace, and also the resurrection and eternal peace.

So, at the conclusion of the Feast of Tabernacles, after the king was anointed as the NEW king, he sat on the throne of his Fathers (Adam and God) in the Holy of Holies. The throne in the temple was the throne of God, and the king had just been adopted as the the legitimate heir – the son of God. But the throne was also the throne of the first king, who was also the first son of God – that is, of Adam. For the new king to be a legitimate king, he must be the son of God (as was Adam) and also the legitimate heir of the first earthly king, Adam. One of the purposes of the drama of the New Year festival was to show that the king was a legitimate heir to the ancient priesthood and kingship of Adam. That is, he becomes the Adam to the present generation, or at least Adam’s representative. [See Frederick H. Borsch, The Son of Man in Myth and History (London, SCM Press Ltd., 1967), p. 152]

In ancient Israel, Adam and Eve were not the world’s first sinners as they became in the theology of medieval and modern Christianity. Rather they were considered to be mankind’s first royalty: the king and priest, queen and priestess to all of their descendants. Mowinckel explains,

There Adam is definitely a divine being, who came into existence before creation, as a cosmogonic principle (macrocosm), as the Primordial Soul, as the original type of the godly, righteous fulfiller of the Law. [Sigmund Mowinckel, He that Cometh (New York: Abingdon Press, 1954), 426.]

Representing Adam, the king was anointed twice. The first time was when he was anointed to become king; the second was when he was anointed as king. Weisman describes “two biblical patterns in the employment of the anointing for different purposes.” He likens the early nominating anointings of Saul and David as king-designate to a “betrothal,” and their later anointings as kings as the marriage itself. [Ze’eb Weisman, “Anointing as a Motif in the Making of the Charismatic King,” in Biblica (57 no 3:378-398)]. During the New Year festival, the anointing to become king probably happened during the first two or three days of the drama of the Feast of Tabernacles. The final anointing as king happened on the seventh day of the Feast in the Holy of Holies of the Temple.

The Bible records the anointings of six Israelite kings: Saul: 1 Samuel 10:1, David: 2 Samuel 5:3, Solomon: 1 Kings 1:39, Jehu: 2 Kings 9:6, Josh: 2 Kings 11:12, Jehoahaz: 2 Kings 23:30. Absalom was also anointed to be king: 2 Samuel 19:11. [For a discussion of the king’s anointing, see: Donald W. Parry, “Ritual Anointing with Olive Oil in Ancient Israelite Religion,” in Stephen D. Ricks and John W. Welch, eds., The Allegory of the Olive Tree (Salt Lake City, Deseret Book and F.A.R.M.S, 1994), 266-271, 281-283. For a discussion of the olive tree as the Tree of Life and of the tree and its oil as symbols of kingship see, Stephen D. Ricks, “Olive Culture in the Second Temple Era and Early Rabbinic Period,” in Ibid., 460-476.]

The anointed king is a “son of Man” – the son of thee Man, Adam – the king is an Adam. He is also, by virtue of his anointing, a son of God, but he was not a god in the sense that the Mesopotamian and Egyptian kings were gods. [ See: Sigmund Mowinckel, He that Cometh (New York: Abingdon Press, 1954), 34; Ivan Engnell, Studies in Divine Kingship in the Ancient Near East, (Oxford, Basil Blackwell, 1967, 12-15, 17-18; Henri Frankfort, Kingship and the Gods (Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1948), 299-301.]

The main theme of the festival drama is Jehovah’s dealings with mankind. To demonstrate that, the drama of the New Year festival has focused on two main characters – but both characters are really the same person. The story was about Adam and his legal heirs, specifically the person of the king, and throughout the play the king has had the lead part and played all the lead character. Therefore, in the drama of the Feast of Tabernacles, the king’s personal history is the cosmic myth. On the stage, he played himself in the Council, then played Adam in the Garden. Then Abraham, Joseph, Moses, David, then he plays himself as a young, inexperienced king. The part of himself as the young king is the most difficult.

He loses his immortality, suffers under the sentence of God and is left to wonder homeless on the earth until death. Yet at the resurrection the Messiah will come to awaken Adam first.” [Frederick H. Borsch, The Son of Man in Myth and History, SCM Press Ltd., London, 1967, p. 169.]

Finally, at the conclusion of the drama, the king still plays the role of himself, who has been rescued from death by Jehovah. He leads the procession around the city to redefine it as sacred space, leads the congregation into the temple, and there, as himself, he is dressed and anointed son and king. Thus, still playing himself at his own coronation he emerges as the triumphant hero of the whole symbolic production.

During this cultlic dramatic production, as the king goes through this whole panorama of his existence, the entire story was acted out. The first acts are probably performed on the side of a hill near the city, where the whole congregation could watch and participate.

All of that is in the background of our King Benjamin story. It is apparent that almost all of that has already happened before Mormon introduces us to what he considers the most relevant part of the experience. He picks up on that part of the ceremony when the old king told his heir apparent that the next day he would be proclaimed king. So the stage was set for an important, but otherwise traditional day of the festival. Then things got changed, and that’s where Mormon brings us into the story. The angel appeared to King Benjamin and told him things which he was instructed to tell the people. So the next day turned out not to be as traditional as they expected. King Benjamin had a different lecture to deliver, and the people needed to be able to hear his words in order to respond correctly.

Mowinckel reminds us,

Through the acts and words of the festal cult, laid down in fixed, sacred ritual, the reality which is to be created…is portrayed (‘acted’) in visual and audible form. The actualization takes place through the representation….. “The representation may be either, more or less realistic, or, more or less symbolic–more often the latter, i.e. The rites stand for something; they symbolize and represent that for which they stand. “Their inner meaning is that the powers of death are overcome by the powers of life, by the Life-giver himself, by Yahweh, the living and life-giving God. Thus they symbolize a struggle…. “Hence the festival cult invariably has a more or less dramatic character; it is a sacred drama, representing the salvation which takes place. This dramatic character tallies with the fact that the cult is a mutual act on the part of God and of the congregation, with address and answer, action and reaction.” [Mowinckel, Psalms in Israel’s Worship, 1: 19]

Bentzen tells how, during the drama, the king not only played the part of Adam, but at his coronation is as though he were Adam. This was necessary to the legitimization of the office of the king, for as Adam was the first king, so the new king must be an Adam. Bentzen writes,

The king, then, is Primeval Man. The first man of Genesis 1:26-28 is described as the first ruler of the world. In the first Creation Story, the ‘gospel’ of the New Year, we hear the blessing spoken by God at the enthronement of the first Royal Couple of the world. Man is to ‘rule’ over all living creatures. Man and Woman, like the Babylonian kings, are ‘images of God’, i.e. the Royal Couple is Divine, as in the famous apostrophe to the king in the oracle for the Royal wedding (Psalm 45:7). The same idea is developed in Psalm 8, in the description of the ‘Son of Man’, who is ‘little lower than God’, ‘nearly a God’. This ‘Son of Man’, according to the evident dependence of the psalm on the ideas behind the first chapter of Genesis, is the First Man and the First King…. The enthronement of the king in Primeval Time is also described in the second psalm….” [Aage Bentzen, King and Messiah (London, Lutterworth Press, 1955), 117-18.]

Mosiah 3:25 — LeGrand Baker — the mirror that reflects the soul

Mosiah 3:25
25    And if they be evil they are consigned to an awful view of their own guilt….”

The context of this scripture has to do with ordinances and covenants, but it is most meaningful to me in quite a different way.

I have seen many productions of Hamlet, but in only two did the actor or director understand the meaning of one critical scene. Hamlet is in his mother’s chamber where they have been discussing the impropriety of her marrying her dead husband’s brother. She has had about enough of her son’s criticism and starts to leave. Hamlet stops her with these words: “You go not till I set you up a glass where you may see the inmost part of you.” She responds, “What wilt thou do, thou wilt not murder me.” In most productions, Hamlet has a knife or a sword in his hand, and he waves it at his mother while he utters his threat. Then her words are a response to his weapon. But twice, I have watched as Hamlet moved to her dressing table and picked up a mirror. Holding the mirror before her face, he says, “You go not till I set you up a glass where you may see the inmost part of you.” She responds to the face in the mirror, “What wilt thou do, thou wilt not murder me.”

A dear friend of mine once described his own encounter with a mirror. He did it in a way so vivid that I’m sure I can repeat some of his words exactly as he spoke them. It was in a testimony meeting in Madison, Wisconsin. (Dil may have been there also, I don’t recall.) Our friend Omar was in his mid-40’s. His oldest children were teenagers, and he and the rest of his family were a relatively new convert to the Church. He was a funny man, with a contagions sense of humor. When he stood to bear his testimony, I suspect everyone in the congregation smiled to themselves, as Im recall I did. We really liked Omar, and we liked that he made us laugh. But he didn’t that day. As well as I can, I am going to write what he said in first person, but I will only put quotes around the words I recall quite clearly. He said:

This morning while I was shaving I looked into the mirror and saw an amazing face. I said, O, Omar, you have come a long way.” You don’t smoke any more, or drink, or shout or swear at the kids, and you even give the Church more money than it asks for. “Omar, you’ve come a long, long way.” I looked down, swished the razor in the running water, then looked back into the mirror again.”O, Omar, I said, You sure have a long, long way to go!

He then bore his testimony about how grateful he was for repentance, and for the Saviour’s atonement which made repentance possible.

I once had a somewhat similar, but not nearly as dramatic, an experience. It was probably about 15 years ago, or so. I had never done anything really bad, but I didn’t seem to be being very perfect either. So one day I prayed and asked the Lord to teach me what I needed to repent of. I was surprised at the impression I felt. If I were to quote it, it would say, “You need to repent of the ‘good’ you do.” I thought that was an extraordinary idea, and quite unlike anything I had expected. So, partly as an exercise in self-justification, I began to notice the good I was doing. I corrected my children so they could do things just my way. I was critical when other people didn’t do what or how they should. I “preached” too much. I was spending a good deal of my energy trying to help other people repent from sins that were not sinful. When I actually did do something worthwhile, I canceled it out by patting myself on the back for having done it. As I became more conscious of my motives, when I was about to insert myself into someone else’s life, I could feel the resentment they would feel if I did so. Then I began to change. In my private conversations, including reading the scriptures, I asked people what they thought, rather than just tell them what I thought. In time, this having to repent of doing “good” caused me to wonder about judgement day. Is it true one has to stand before the Saviour and give a listing of the good one has done? I don’t think so, not quite like that anyway. But if it were true, what would I put on my list? At the rate I was going, now that I not only had to repent of bad things, but of “good” also, I wasn’t accumulating much of a list of accomplishment. Then one day it occurred to me. I didn’t have anything at all I could put on a list of accomplishments which I could present to the Saviour as justification for my even being on this earth — but there was something — not accomplishments — but something very important. If the Saviour were to ask me to give an account of myself, the best I could do would be to tell him about the people — including my family — whom I love — who are my friends. Only in friendship can I find justification for being – and what a blessing – that the thing of greatest worth is the most pleasurable of all.