Author: LeGrand Baker

Alma 12, LeGrand Baker, the apostasy of the people of Ammonihah

Alma and Amulek’s confrontation with the Zeezrom and the people of Ammonihah present some interesting and perplexing questions for us. We know the Ammonihahites have apostatized, but we are not told the extent or the nature of their apostasy. The reason for the perplexity is that when the prophets challenge them, they use some of the most sacred and profound teachings of the temple drama of the Feast of Tabernacles to do it.

That asks, “How is it, that they knew so much about the most sacred rites of the Law of Moses, and yet were caught up in such abject corruption that they were willing to kill innocent people just to prove that Alma and Amulek didn’t have the power to stop them.” I don’t know the answer, but it may be instructive to take a look at the evolutionary pattern of apostasy, to see that their apostasy was not unique, because the pattern of apostasy is almost always the same. Whenever anyone or any group of people leave the church, they always think their situation is justified because it is remarkable. In fact its justification is not at all remarkable, and the steps of their apostasy are very predictable. It begins with a challenge to priesthood authority. Its script may vary, but not much. It will read something like, “They do not understand as well as I do,” or “ They did something that I know was wrong.” That challenge to priesthood authority almost always an even deeper underlying cause: It is easier to criticize others than to repent of one’s own shortcomings—or else, simply: Repentance is not as attractive as sin. In the Book of Mormon, Korihor’s teachings are an excellent example. He preached,

16   Ye look forward and say that ye see a remission of your sins. But behold, it is the effect of a frenzied mind; and this derangement of your minds comes because of the traditions of your fathers, which lead you away into a belief of things which are not so.
17   And many more such things did he say unto them, telling them that there could be no atonement made for the sins of men, but every man fared in this life according to the management of the creature; therefore every man prospered according to his genius, and that every man conquered according to his strength; and whatsoever a man did was no crime. (Alma 30:16-17)

Or apostasy may stem from a political or economic challenge to priesthood authority. A biblical example is Jeroboam, who split the kingdom of Israel after Solomon died. (1 Kings 12) To insure that his people did not return to Jerusalem to worship, Jeroboam built his own alternative sanctuaries, established the worship of golden calves, and “And Jeroboam ordained a feast in the eighth month, on the fifteenth day of the month, like unto the feast that is in Judah, and he offered upon the altar.” (v 32) Since it was on the 15th of the month—the same as the Feast of Tabernacles—it is reasonable to suppose he changed the temple drama enough to satisfy his own purposes.

It appears that apostate leaders who are found in the Book of Mormon had done essentially the same thing as Jeroboam. For example, since Abinadi’s recorded words are mostly about becoming an adopted child of God, it is reasonable to suppose that in the orchestrated apostasy sponsored by King Noah, the king and his priests had also retained the forms of at least the coronation scene and its promise of sonship in the temple drama. The next steps in an apostasy, after the challenge to priesthood authority, the first thing to go is a correct understanding of the atonement, then the Godhead, then the covenant meaning of the ordinances, and then other doctrines as they become inconvenient. The last things to go are the forms of the ordinances. The reason the meaning of the atonement is first, is because a correct belief in the atonement imposes the need to repent. The correct doctrine is that salvation requires repentance, and that the atonement enables one’s repentance and makes it effectual. The false doctrine that most frequently replaces it is that salvation is free, or else that it requires something less burdensome than repentance. For some, it is simply receiving the sacraments or other ordinances. For others it is having a one-time “saving experience.”

For others it is the notion that if we “do our best” somehow the Saviour will “make up the difference.” Whatever it is, it is something less invasive than repentance. Throughout history, people have shown that they are willing to pay a great deal of money to a preacher who can convincingly teach them that they need not change their lives very much in order to be saved. The following sequence is a close approximation of what happens next. Along with the change in the responsibilities imposed by the atonement and repentance, comes the question of salvation—if it is easy to come by, then what makes it worthwhile? Without the ennobling powers of repentance, salvation must be defined as something less than godhood. So it becomes a state of eternal bliss and happiness with no responsibility—some variety of Nirvana.

With that notion, the understanding of the eternal relationship between Heavenly Father and his children simply dissolves into an undefinable eternal bliss. Now, the nature of the Godhead must also be changed in order to accommodate that new undefinable relationship. Such changes are most apparent when one observes the apostasy of the post-exilic Jews, and the similar apostasy of the Christians after the death of the apostles. The Israelites of the First Temple period worshiped Elohim, the Father of the gods; and Jehovah, the God of Creation and the covenant God of Israel. The also acknowledged (but did not worship) a Heavenly Council of gods. After the Babylonian conquest, the post-exilic Jews abandoned Elohim, rejected the Council, and worshiped an unembodied, undefinable “One God” whom they called Jehovah.

About 800 years later, the Christians did essentially the same sort of thing. They redefined the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; and combined them into an unembodied, undefinable “One God.” Notwithstanding the severity of the apostasy, there is almost always a desire to maintain the form of legitimacy in the changed religion, and that is most easily accomplished by keeping reasonably true to the form of the ordinances and the rituals—by continuing to do things the way they had always been done. Therefore, to some degree or other, the form of the ceremonies remain intact. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the royal coronation ceremonies. The ritualistic washing, clothing, anointing, crowning, and giving a new name, are as ancient as Egypt and Babylon. They are also as recent as the coronations of present Pope and the reigning English queen.

Again, the reason is obvious: legitimacy requires continuity. In each generation, the next king must be crowned the same way as the last king. Otherwise, eyebrows will rise and legitimacy questioned. So the form of the ritual has remained essentially the same from generation to generation for the last 5000 years. Apparently this is the situation among the people of Ammonihah. They had preserved enough of the festival drama that when Amulek spoke to them, he was able to help them relate to his words by referring to the religious festivals that they preserved. The crescendo of the ancient temple drama was when the people entered the temple in the presence of God, showing that the king (and symbolically, all the people) had been proven worthy to be coronated king and priest in his own kingdom in this world. The Book of Mormon authors sum up that entire concept with he word ‘redeem,” which means to enter the presence of God. That concept is the one Alma used to convince Zeezrom that he must repent.

Alma 11:45, LeGrand Baker, ‘they can no more see corruption’

45 Now, behold, I have spoken unto you concerning the death of the mortal body, and also concerning the resurrection of the mortal body. I say unto you that this mortal body is raised to an immortal body, that is from death, even from the first death unto life, that they can die no more; their spirits uniting with their bodies, never to be divided; thus the whole becoming spiritual and immortal, that they can no more see corruption. (Alma 11:45)

Near the end of my comments last week, I wrote, “I believe that truth, light, and love (charity) are equivalents. If one is full of light, then one’s defining quality is love.” To that it is also necessary to add that if one is full of light, he recognizes truth, and will ultimately have access to all truth.

That is very different from this world. In this world one’s life is confined to a short movement within linear time where “truth” is transient and it changes virtually every instant. By “transient” I mean that most things that are considered to be true now, were not, and will not again be true. I can give you two simple examples: “Napoleon is emperor of France.” That was “true” in the past, is not true now, and will not be true in the future. Similarly, a statement like, “His car is the latest model on the market,” was not true in the past because his car did not exist. It will not be “true” in the future because the car will be outdated just as soon a new model comes out next year.

But in the sacred time of the celestial world, transient things are not called “truth.” Rather “truth” is that which consists with eternal reality. The Lord explained,

24 And truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come;
25 And whatsoever is more or less than this is the spirit of that wicked one who was a liar from the beginning.
26 The Spirit of truth is of God. I am the Spirit of truth, and John bore record of me, saying: He received a fulness of truth, yea, even of all truth;
27 And no man receiveth a fulness unless he keepeth his commandments.
28 He that keepeth his commandments receiveth truth and light, until he is glorified in truth and knoweth all things.

He further explained,

6 The angels [resurrected beings] do not reside on a planet like this earth;
7 But they reside in the presence of God, on a globe like a sea of glass and fire, where all things for their glory are manifest, past, present, and future, and are continually before the Lord. (D&C 130:6-7)

This promise is found repeatedly in the scriptures, and is always contingent on one’s righteousness, for example in his discussion of the priesthood, the Lord said,

19 And this greater priesthood administereth the gospel and holdeth the key of the mysteries of the kingdom, even the key of the knowledge of God.
20 Therefore, in the ordinances thereof, the power of godliness is manifest.
21 And without the ordinances thereof, and the authority of the priesthood, the power of godliness is not manifest unto men in the flesh;
22 For without this no man can see the face of God, even the Father, and live. (D&C 84:16-22)

The priesthood ordinances have always been the necessary keys that permits us to be where God is, and righteousness is the criterion that enables one to use those keys. When Alma was discussing the qualifications of those who were with God back in the Council of Heaven, he said.

7 This high priesthood being after the order of his Son, which order was from the foundation of the world; or in other words, being without beginning of days or end of years, being prepared from eternity to all eternity, according to his foreknowledge of all things—
8 Now they were ordained after this manner—being called with a holy calling, and ordained with a holy ordinance, and taking upon them the high priesthood of the holy order, which calling, and ordinance, and high priesthood, is without beginning or end—
9 Thus they become high priests forever, after the order of the Son, the Only Begotten of the Father, who is without beginning of days or end of years, who is full of grace, equity, and truth. And thus it is. Amen. (Alma 13:7-9)

The prophets have never made a distinction between the quality of righteousness requisite to be with our Father in Heaven before we were born, and the quality of righteousness requisite to our being with him after we are resurrected. For example, while speaking at the funeral of his dear friend King Follett, the Prophet Joseph taught,

       Here, then, is eternal life—to know the only wise and true God; and you have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all Gods have done before you, namely, by going from one small degree to another, and from a small capacity to a great one; from grace to grace, from exaltation to exaltation, until you attain to the resurrection of the dead, and are able to dwell in everlasting burnings, and to sit in glory, as do those who sit enthroned in everlasting power. …
When you climb up a ladder, you must begin at the bottom, and ascend step by step, until you arrive at the top; and so it is with the principles of the Gospel—you must begin with the first, and go on until you learn all the principles of exaltation. But it will be a great while after you have passed through the veil before you will have learned them. It is not all to be comprehended in this world; it will be a great work to learn our salvation and exaltation even beyond the grave.” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph, 346 and 348. Italics are in original.)

On another occasion, when George Laub heard the Prophet Joseph speak, he recorded the following in his journal:

… God dwells in flaming flames and he is a consuming fire. He will consume all that is unclean and unholy, and we could not abide his presents unless pure Spirits in us. For the Blood is the corruptible part of the tabernacles. For the resurrection is devised to take away corruption and make Man perfect or in the glory which he was created for.  (Eugene England, ed., “George Laub’s Nauvoo Journal,” BYU Studies, vol. 18 (1977-1978), Number 2 – Winter 1978, 174. Original of George Laub’s Autobiography is in BYU Special Collections.)

Brigham Young was concerned that the Saints understand that principle. He said,

I would like to have all understand that the Lord has sent forth the plan of salvation expressly to enable mankind to overcome the sin sown in the flesh, and exalt themselves with the faithful who have gone before to dwell with angels and Gods. Mankind have the privilege of eternal life—the privilege to prepare themselves to dwell in the presence of the Father and Son—to dwell in eternal burnings, where all is pure and holy. No sin—no corruption can dwell there. (Journal of Discourses, 8: 127 – 128)

“Everlasting burnings,” “consuming fire,” “everlasting power.” Those were the words used to describe the light, love, and truth that is concentrated where God is, and that emanates from there throughout the immensity of space. Not only can I not comprehend, but I can hardly begin to even wonder about the quality of life in the power of that environment— the conditions of life that those in the celestial kingdom will enjoy eternally. The prophets have tried to tell us, but they cannot. The Lord explained to Edward Partridge why that is so. “Behold, ye are little children and ye cannot bear all things now; ye must grow in grace and in the knowledge of the truth.” Then he added this note of encouragement: “Fear not, little children, for you are mine, and I have overcome the world, and you are of them that my Father hath given me.” (D&C 50:40-41) Later, he promised another of the brethren, “Continue in these things even unto the end, and you shall have a crown of eternal life at the right hand of my Father, who is full of grace and truth.” (D&C 66:12)

Just because we have been with God in the pre-mortal world, that is not a guarantee what we will all be with him again. We came to this world of forgetfulness in linear time to discover who we really are— to learn if, in this environment, we can retain the integrity of the law of our eternal being as we projected it then, or if what we were then was only pretense, and our real intent is to find a satisfaction that is different from the charity that is the necessary fruit of knowing in sacred time.

So we are here in this mortal world, confronted on every side by artificial, ephemeral, glittering things: power, prestige, money, fancy toys—confronted also by the need to serve others and to do the things we covenanted in the pre-mortal world to do while we are here. In this world, we can no longer remember those covenants or the glory of the blessings promised (for that information we must rely on the Holy Ghost), but we can see the advantages of acquiring the things that titillate and seem to satisfy. So we are now in a perfect situation to be our own judge about what we truly desire. In his kindness, God put us here so we can make that decision, unencumbered by the overriding influence of the power and glory of his immediate presence, but near enough to him and the Spirit to recall his love if we choose to.

And if we do choose to, we can return to the celestial world where God is. But to do that requires a clearly defined desire on our part, and it takes a great deal of effort. In one of the most profound revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants, the Lord explained those requirements.

18 Therefore, it [the earth] must needs be sanctified from all unrighteousness, that it may be prepared for the celestial glory;
19 For after it hath filled the measure of its creation, it shall be crowned with glory, even with the presence of God the Father;
20 That bodies who are of the celestial kingdom may possess it forever and ever; for, for this intent was it made and created, and for this intent are they sanctified.
21 And they who are not sanctified through the law which I have given unto you, even the law of Christ, must inherit another kingdom, even that of a terrestrial kingdom, or that of a telestial kingdom.
22 For he who is not able to abide the law of a celestial kingdom cannot abide a celestial glory.
23 And he who cannot abide the law of a terrestrial kingdom cannot abide a terrestrial glory.
24 And he who cannot abide the law of a telestial kingdom cannot abide a telestial glory; therefore he is not meet for a kingdom of glory. Therefore he must abide a kingdom which is not a kingdom of glory. (D&C 88:14-24)

So, as far as I can tell, the primary qualities (not the personalities) of all persons who inherit the celestial Kingdom are the same: they love with a radiant love—which is charity: the pure love of Christ. That is a beautiful definition. Especially so, because one cannot tie it down to a single meaning. Does it mean the love that the Saviour has for us – yes. Does it mean the love that we have for him – yes. Does it mean that we love our Father’s children as he loves them and us – yes. It means all of those things because they are all the same. If we love the Lord as he loves, and that love permeates and defines our whole being, then our resurrected bodies will be of the same quality as his— celestial in its attributes and its glory.

Modern prophets have tried to teach us how to achieve that end. Brigham Young was especially concerned that the rigors of turning a mountainous desert into a flowering garden would not divert the Saints from their real and ultimate purpose, which was to create a Zion community comprised of Zion individuals. He urged them to be true to their own identities by living to be worthy of a celestial life.

       This intelligence must endure. We must preserve our identity before the Lord, who has sent his Son and angels, and is sending the Holy Ghost, and his ministers, and revelations, to comfort, cheer, guide, and direct the affairs of his kingdom on the earth. Shall we dwindle out in our faith, and in those blessings God bestows on us at this time? No. Let us live to increase them. Let us so live, that when we receive our bodies in the resurrection, we will be received in the presence of the Father and the Son. (Journal of Discourses, 26 vols. [London: Latter-day Saints’ Book Depot, 1854-1886], 8: 155)

On another occasion he reminded the Saints,

       The Saviour sought continually to impress upon the minds of his disciples that a perfect oneness reigned among all celestial beings—that the Father and the Son and their minister, the Holy Ghost, were one in their administration in heaven and among the people pertaining to this earth….If the heavenly hosts were not one, they would be entirely unfit to dwell in eternal burnings with the Father and Ruler of the universe…. Only the line of truth and righteousness can secure to any kingdom or people, either of earthly or heavenly existence, an eternal continuation of perfect union; for only truth and those who are sanctified by it can dwell in celestial glory. (JD 7: 277-78)

Five years after Brigham Young died, Orson F. Whitney taught that the way to the celestial kingdom was well defined, but that it would take constant devotion to follow it. He described the power of the Saviour’s atonement, then added.

       Thus it is that we are gradually freed from sin, slowly burnished by the friction of experience, and surely and eternally saved in the celestial kingdom of our Father. It is only by gradually approaching that kingdom that we are able to withstand its otherwise intolerable glory. Sin cannot inherit the kingdom of God. It would consume like chaff in a devouring flame. Heaven would be a literal hell to the wicked, and even the most righteous, without a lifetime of preparation, would be utterly unable to endure the presence of the Lord….The opening words of that beautiful and stirring hymn, “The Spirit of God like a fire is burning,” are no idle simile or vain hyperbole. They speak a literal, living fact. And fortunate indeed are we, who have received the imposition of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost, that only a limited portion of it was bestowed, that by degrees we might become familiar with its influence, and in due time be qualified to receive and endure a fulness. Even Christ did not possess a fulness at the first, but by faith and good works gradually became entitled to it, till finally it pleased God that in Him should all fulness dwell. It is in this fulness that He will come to reign as King of kings….Let none deceive themselves, but let the whole world prepare to be tried and proven. For it is written in the archives of heaven, and decreed in the bosom of the Eternal, that none save the meek and righteous shall inherit the earth, and none but the pure in heart can look upon God’s face and live. (Contributor, vol. 3, August, 1882, 336 – 337)

Much more recently, President Marion G. Romney was even more specific.

       Tithing is a part of the celestial law referred to in this revelation. Obedience to it is a prerequisite to being quickened in the resurrection by the fulness of the celestial glory. Without such fulness one coming into the presence of the Lord would be consumed, for God dwells in “everlasting burnings. (Marion G. Romney, Look to God and Live [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book 1971], 153)

The goal—the blessings for steadfastness in keeping our covenants—is described by the Prophet in Section 76, but I frankly admit that I can grasp only part of what it means.

50 And again we bear record—for we saw and heard, and this is the testimony of the gospel of Christ concerning them who shall come forth in the resurrection of the just—
51 They are they who received the testimony of Jesus, and believed on his name and were baptized after the manner of his burial, being buried in the water in his name, and this according to the commandment which he has given—
52 That by keeping the commandments they might be washed and cleansed from all their sins, and receive the Holy Spirit by the laying on of the hands of him who is ordained and sealed unto this power;
53 And who overcome by faith, and are sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, which the Father sheds forth upon all those who are just and true.
54 They are they who are the church of the Firstborn.
55 They are they into whose hands the Father has given all things—
56 They are they who are priests and kings, who have received of his fulness, and of his glory;
57 And are priests of the Most High, after the order of Melchizedek, which was after the order of Enoch, which was after the order of the Only Begotten Son.
58 Wherefore, as it is written, they are gods, even the sons of God—
59 Wherefore, all things are theirs, whether life or death, or things present, or things to come, all are theirs and they are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s.
60 And they shall overcome all things.
61 Wherefore, let no man glory in man, but rather let him glory in God, who shall subdue all enemies under his feet.
62 These shall dwell in the presence of God and his Christ forever and ever.
63 These are they whom he shall bring with him, when he shall come in the clouds of heaven to reign on the earth over his people.

64 These are they who shall have part in the first resurrection.
65 These are they who shall come forth in the resurrection of the just.
66 These are they who are come unto Mount Zion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly place, the holiest of all.
67 These are they who have come to an innumerable company of angels, to the general assembly and church of Enoch, and of the Firstborn.
68 These are they whose names are written in heaven, where God and Christ are the judge of all.
69 These are they who are just men made perfect through Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, who wrought out this perfect atonement through the shedding of his own blood.
70 These are they whose bodies are celestial, whose glory is that of the sun, even the glory of God, the highest of all, whose glory the sun of the firmament is written of as being typical.

92 And thus we saw the glory of the celestial, which excels in all things—where God, even the Father, reigns upon his throne forever and ever;
93 Before whose throne all things bow in humble reverence, and give him glory forever and ever.
94 They who dwell in his presence are the church of the Firstborn; and they see as they are seen, and know as they are known, having received of his fulness and of his grace;
95 And he makes them equal in power, and in might, and in dominion. (D&C 76:50-95)

Given the glorious promises made to us about the opportunities of the celestial world, perhaps Brigham Young’s words are the most appropriate conclusion to the idea that Amulek planted in Zeezrom’s heart.

       Those who acknowledge the hand of God in all things, and abide in his commandments, are the only ones who will sustain the principles of truth and purity. If their influence upon the character is not good and pure, how will they produce that pure feeling, pure faith, and pure godliness which prepare a person to dwell in eternal burnings? Should we not abide in and be influenced by the commandments of God? We should; for, without the spirit of revelation, no man can understand the things of God, nor his dealings and designs in relation to the inhabitants of the earth. (JD 8: 115)

To that celestial environment— where the light is a consuming, everlasting burnings, and the burnings are a flood of truth— to such a place my imagination cannot reach, but the experiences I have had with the power of the Holy Ghost, and the taste of my Savior’s love, teaches me that above all else, I do long to be there.

Alma 11: 41-44, LeGrand Baker, resurrection and judgement

Alma 11: 41-44
41 Therefore the wicked remain as though there had been no redemption made, except it be the loosing of the bands of death; for behold, the day cometh that all shall rise from the dead and stand before God, and be judged according to their works.
42 Now, there is a death which is called a temporal death; and the death of Christ shall loose the bands of this temporal death, that all shall be raised from this temporal death.
43 The spirit and the body shall be reunited again in its perfect form; both limb and joint shall be restored to its proper frame, even as we now are at this time; and we shall be brought to stand before God, knowing even as we know now, and have a bright recollection of all our guilt.
44 Now, this restoration shall come to all, both old and young, both bond and free, both male and female, both the wicked and the righteous; and even there shall not so much as a hair of their heads be lost; but every thing shall be restored to its perfect frame, as it is now, or in the body, and shall be brought and be arraigned before the bar of Christ the Son, and God the Father, and the Holy Spirit, which is one Eternal God, to be judged according to their works, whether they be good or whether they be evil.

In these words we find a fundamental doctrine about the sequence of our eternal progression. It is that the final judgement, when we stand before the Saviour, comes after—not before— the resurrection. That doctrine is also taught elsewhere in the Book of Mormon.

Mormon was very explicit. He wrote that the Saviour brings about “the resurrection of the dead, whereby man must be raised to stand before his judgment-seat.” That statement, in context, reads:

5 Know ye that ye must come to the knowledge of your fathers, and repent of all your sins and iniquities, and believe in Jesus Christ, that he is the Son of God, and that he was slain by the Jews, and by the power of the Father he hath risen again, whereby he hath gained the victory over the grave; and also in him is the sting of death swallowed up.
6 And he bringeth to pass the resurrection of the dead, whereby man must be raised to stand before his judgment-seat.
7 And he hath brought to pass the redemption of the world, whereby he that is found guiltless before him at the judgment day hath it given unto him to dwell in the presence of God in his kingdom, to sing ceaseless praises with the choirs above, unto the Father, and unto the Son, and unto the Holy Ghost, which are one God, in a state of happiness which hath no end. (Mormon 7:5-7)

Moroni explained it even more fully. He wrote, “Christ bringeth to pass the resurrection, which bringeth to pass a redemption from an endless sleep… And then cometh the judgment…” In context, that statement reads:

12 Behold, he created Adam, and by Adam came the fall of man. And because of the fall of man came Jesus Christ, even the Father and the Son; and because of Jesus Christ came the redemption of man.
13 And because of the redemption of man, which came by Jesus Christ, they are brought back into the presence of the Lord; yea, this is wherein all men are redeemed, because the death of Christ bringeth to pass the resurrection, which bringeth to pass a redemption from an endless sleep, from which sleep all men shall be awakened by the power of God when the trump shall sound; and they shall come forth, both small and great, and all shall stand before his bar, being redeemed and loosed from this eternal band of death, which death is a temporal death.
14 And then cometh the judgment of the Holy One upon them; and then cometh the time that he that is filthy shall be filthy still; and he that is righteous shall be righteous still; he that is happy shall be happy still; and he that is unhappy shall be unhappy still. (Mormon 9:11-17)

That presents an interesting question. I can formulate the question and guess about the answer, but can go no further than that.

The question is, “If we already have a resurrected body, what is there left to be judged about?”

Samuel the Lamanite may have given us a clue to the answer. He seems to be saying that when we are judged by the Saviour, it will not be a preliminary judgement, but we will be judged in our entirety.

15 For behold, he surely must die that salvation may come; yea, it behooveth him and becometh expedient that he dieth, to bring to pass the resurrection of the dead, that thereby men may be brought into the presence of the Lord.
16 Yea, behold, this death bringeth to pass the resurrection, and redeemeth all mankind from the first death—that spiritual death; for all mankind, by the fall of Adam being cut off from the presence of the Lord, are considered as dead, both as to things temporal and to things spiritual.
17 But behold, the resurrection of Christ redeemeth mankind, yea, even all mankind, and bringeth them back into the presence of the Lord.
18 Yea, and it bringeth to pass the condition of repentance, that whosoever repenteth the same is not hewn down and cast into the fire; but whosoever repenteth not is hewn down and cast into the fire; and there cometh upon them again a spiritual death, yea, a second death, for they are cut off again as to things pertaining to righteousness.
19 Therefore repent ye, repent ye, lest by knowing these things and not doing them ye shall suffer yourselves to come under condemnation, and ye are brought down unto this second death. (Helaman 14:13-19)

Another important clue was given us by the Prophet Joseph. He taught that there is a “fundamental principle” or “fundamental parts” of our bodies that will be resurrected. Implicitly, those parts that are not “fundamental” will not be a part of our resurrected bodies. { 1 }

There is no fundamental principle belonging to a human system that ever goes into another in this world or in the world to come; I care not what the theories of men are. We have the testimony that God will raise us up, and he has the power to do it. If any one supposes that any part of our bodies, that is, the fundamental parts thereof, ever goes into another body, he is mistaken. { 2 }

Several of the brethren have explained what is, and what is not “fundamental.” For example, Elder Neal A. Maxwell wrote about character traits.

If we ponder just what it is that will rise with us in the resurrection, it seems clear that our intelligence will rise with us, meaning not simply our IQ but also our capacity to receive and apply truth. Our talents, attributes, and skills will rise with us; certainly also our capacity to learn, our degree of self-discipline, and our capacity to work. Our precise form of work here may have no counterpart there, but the capacity to work will never be obsolete. { 3 }

To explain what parts of our bodies are not “fundamental,” President Harold B. Lee quoted an article that had been published in the Improvement Era. The article he quoted read:

We have bodies, fat, blood, lymph, nerves and tissues. In all these tissues there is a building up and breaking down of complex chemical compounds. These substances are made into tissues. They give form and beauty to the body, and also supply energy. They are derived from the elements in food, drink and air. These are not the fundamental parts of the body, however for they are used and then discarded, and new substances come to take their place. This is not true of the fundamental parts. They never change. { 4 }

Another important clue is found in Section 88 of the Doctrine and Covenants. There the Lord tells how we come by our resurrected bodies. In the following quote, it seems to me that the tense of the verbs are the key to understanding the meaning. So I will call attention to the verb tenses.

25 And again, verily I say unto you, the earth abideth the law of a celestial kingdom, for it filleth the measure of its creation, and transgresseth not the law—
26 Wherefore, it [the earth] shall be sanctified; yea, notwithstanding it shall die, it shall be quickened again, and shall abide the power by which it is quickened, and the righteous shall inherit it.
27 For notwithstanding they [the righteous] die, they also shall rise again, a spiritual [resurrected] body.
28 They who are [present tense] of a celestial spirit shall receive [future tense] the same body which was [past tense] a natural body; even ye shall receive [future tense] your bodies, and your glory shall be [future tense] that glory by which your bodies are [present tense] quickened.
29 Ye who are [present tense] quickened by a portion of the celestial glory shall then [future tense] receive of the same, even a fulness.
30 And they who are [present tense] quickened by a portion of the terrestrial glory shall then [futuret tense] receive of the same, even a fulness.
31 And also they who are [present tense] quickened by a portion of the telestial glory shall then [future tense] receive of the same, even a fulness.
32 And they who remain [present tense] shall also be quickened [future tense] ; nevertheless, they shall return [future tense] again to their own place, to enjoy that which they are willing to receive [present tense], because they were not willing [past tense] to enjoy that which they might have received. (Doctrine and Covenants 88:25-34)

As I read that, it says that what we are now is defining the bodies we will receive at the resurrection. To me, this is what verse 28 says:

They who are [now] of a celestial spirit shall [in the resurrection] receive the same body which was [at the present time] a natural body; even ye shall receive [in the resurrection] your bodies, and your glory [in the resurrection] shall be that glory by which your bodies are quickened [during this life].

The best and most succinct way I can explain what I think that means is to quote the Saviour and Mormon. The Saviour said,

21 For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.
22 The light of the body is the eye; if, therefore, thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.
23 But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. If, therefore, the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness! (3 Nephi 13:21-23)

I believe that truth, light, and love are equivalents. If one is full of light, then one’s defining quality is love. If that is true, then Mormon’s statement is essentially and expansion of what the Saviour said.

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

Assuming that all of those ideas are brought together correctly, then what I understand is this: The quality of one’s love determines the purity of the body that one will pick up in the resurrection. Thus it is appropriate that after one’s resurrection, one should stand before the Saviour to be judged as a complete and total person. Lehi explained,

10  And because of the intercession for all, all men come unto God; wherefore, they stand in the presence of him, to be judged of him according to the truth and holiness which is in him. (2 Nephi 2:10)

If the Saviour himself is the criterion by which we will be judged, it seems to me that we will all fall short—except in one aspect of our nature—the quality (not the quantity, but the quality) of our love for him and for his children. That is, if we love as he loves, then we may be with him forever.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
ENDNOTES

{ 1 } See: Harold B. Lee, Decisions for Successful Living (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1973), 182.

{ 2 } Joseph Smith, History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 7 vols., introduction and notes by B. H. Roberts (Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1932-1951), 5: 339.

For the original statement see Joseph Smith’s diary, as recorded by Willard Richards in, Andrew F. Ehat and Lyndon W. Cook, eds., The Words of Joseph Smith: The Contemporary Accounts of the Nauvoo Discourses of the Prophet Joseph, (Provo: BYU Religious Studies Center, 1980), 182.

{ 3 } Neal A. Maxwell, We Will Prove Them Herewith (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book , 1982), 12.

{ 4 } Harold B. Lee, Decisions for Successful Living (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1973), 183. (The quote is from: Dr. Joseph A. Ammussen, “Science and the ‘Mormon’ Doctrine of the Resurrection,” Improvement Era, Vol. 30, No. 8, June 1927, page 701.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For intelligence cleaveth unto intelligence; wisdom receiveth wisdom; truth embraceth truth; virtue loveth virtue; light cleaveth unto light; mercy hath compassion on mercy and claimeth her own; justice continueth its course and claimeth its own; judgment goeth before the face of him who sitteth upon the throne and governeth and executeth all things. (D&C 88:40)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jefferson wrote,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

– – – – – – – – – –

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

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

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

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

Footnotes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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