Category: 2 Nephi

3 Nephi 12:21-24 & 2 Nephi 9:41-42

21 Ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, and it is also written before you, that thou shalt not kill, and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment of God;
22 But I say unto you, that whosoever is angry with his brother shall be in danger of his judgment. And whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council; and whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
23 Therefore, if ye shall come unto me, or shall desire to come unto me, and rememberest that thy brother hath aught against thee—
24 Go thy way unto thy brother, and first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come unto me with full purpose of heart, and I will receive you.

At least three times, perhaps more, I have heard Hugh Nibley say that the Law of the Gospel is “to forgive and repent.” But I never heard him gave a source for that definition. Then one day when I read these verses spoken by the Savior, I understood. I cannot be sure that these verses where what Nibley was referring to, but I believe Nibley’s words are an adequate summation of what the Savior said.

The rules of behavior with which Moses governed the Israelites whom he led out of Egypt were just that—rules about how one should act. Neither his government nor ours has the power to legislate goodness. But inappropriate behavior is only half the sin, and not always the worst half. There is no sin committed by our hands that is not first committed by our minds. If I hurt you accidently it may be the result of something very foolish, but that is very different from a hurt that I first contrived in my mind then executed with my hand, or by my unbridled tongue. Premeditated bad behavior—no matter how vile—is a secondary sin. The primary sin happened in the mind.

Hamlet’s words (though quoted out of context) make the point very nicely: “there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.” (Hamlet, Act 2, Scene 2) .

Anger, hatred, the need for revenge, and the inability to forgive are corrosive forces that eat at the soul and form a callous that first rejects then excludes real love. As charity is the healing, sealing, and purifying power that prepares us to be with God, so anger and its attendant feelings disables us from being persons who can enjoy the eternal togetherness which is eternal life. Hatred precludes charity. Hatred destroys.

On the surface it looks to be very ironic. People who hate or feel contempt for others consider that attitude to be their strength. They are like a black hole that seeks to satisfy itself by sucking everything to itself, while in fact it lets nothing out, including its own light. Such a person is his own prison. He cannot reach out to love others because the only “love” he can experience is self-indulgence and self-aggrandizement.

In contrast, one who loves is like the sun who exudes light and warms those around him. When we love as the Savior loves, we become vulnerable. For such a one hides behind no masks, no facades, and has no hidden agenda.

After the Nephites built a temple like the one Solomon had built in Jerusalem (2 Nephi 5:16), Nephi’s brother Jacob delivered his sermon there. He reminded his hearers about who and what they must be as they were to approach the great veil of the temple that led to the Holy of Holies. He said:

41 O then, my beloved brethren, come unto the Lord, the Holy One. Remember that his paths are righteous. Behold, the way for man is narrow, but it lieth in a straight course before him, and the keeper of the gate is the Holy One of Israel; and he employeth no servant there; and there is none other way save it be by the gate; for he cannot be deceived, for the Lord God is his name.
42 And whoso knocketh, to him will he open; and the wise, and the learned, and they that are rich, who are puffed up because of their learning, and their wisdom, and their riches—yea, they are they whom he despiseth; and save they shall cast these things away, and consider themselves fools before God, and come down in the depths of humility, he will not open unto them (2 Nephi 9:41-42).

It seems to me that what the Savior said to the Nephites is that if they wish to “come unto him” then they must approach other people in the same way they approach him.

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

3 Nephi 12:21-24 & 2 Nephi 9:41-42

21 Ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, and it is also written before you, that thou shalt not kill, and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment of God;
22 But I say unto you, that whosoever is angry with his brother shall be in danger of his judgment. And whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council; and whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
23 Therefore, if ye shall come unto me, or shall desire to come unto me, and rememberest that thy brother hath aught against thee—
24 Go thy way unto thy brother, and first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come unto me with full purpose of heart, and I will receive you.

At least three times, perhaps more, I have heard Hugh Nibley say that the Law of the Gospel is “to forgive and repent.” But I never heard him gave a source for that definition. Then one day when I read these verses spoken by the Savior, I understood. I cannot be sure that these verses where what Nibley was referring to, but I believe Nibley’s words are an adequate summation of what the Savior said.

The rules of behavior with which Moses governed the Israelites whom he led out of Egypt were just that—rules about how one should act. Neither his government nor ours has the power to legislate goodness. But inappropriate behavior is only half the sin, and not always the worst half. There is no sin committed by our hands that is not first committed by our minds. If I hurt you accidently it may be the result of something very foolish, but that is very different from a hurt that I first contrived in my mind then executed with my hand, or by my unbridled tongue. Premeditated bad behavior—no matter how vile—is a secondary sin. The primary sin happened in the mind.

Hamlet’s words (though quoted out of context) make the point very nicely: “there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.” (Hamlet, Act 2, Scene 2) .

Anger, hatred, the need for revenge, and the inability to forgive are corrosive forces that eat at the soul and form a callous that first rejects then excludes real love. As charity is the healing, sealing, and purifying power that prepares us to be with God, so anger and its attendant feelings disables us from being persons who can enjoy the eternal togetherness which is eternal life. Hatred precludes charity. Hatred destroys.

On the surface it looks to be very ironic. People who hate or feel contempt for others consider that attitude to be their strength. They are like a black hole that seeks to satisfy itself by sucking everything to itself, while in fact it lets nothing out, including its own light. Such a person is his own prison. He cannot reach out to love others because the only “love” he can experience is self-indulgence and self-aggrandizement.

In contrast, one who loves is like the sun who exudes light and warms those around him. When we love as the Savior loves, we become vulnerable. For such a one hides behind no masks, no facades, and has no hidden agenda.

After the Nephites built a temple like the one Solomon had built in Jerusalem (2 Nephi 5:16), Nephi’s brother Jacob delivered his sermon there. He reminded his hearers about who and what they must be as they were to approach the great veil of the temple that led to the Holy of Holies. He said:

41 O then, my beloved brethren, come unto the Lord, the Holy One. Remember that his paths are righteous. Behold, the way for man is narrow, but it lieth in a straight course before him, and the keeper of the gate is the Holy One of Israel; and he employeth no servant there; and there is none other way save it be by the gate; for he cannot be deceived, for the Lord God is his name.
42 And whoso knocketh, to him will he open; and the wise, and the learned, and they that are rich, who are puffed up because of their learning, and their wisdom, and their riches—yea, they are they whom he despiseth; and save they shall cast these things away, and consider themselves fools before God, and come down in the depths of humility, he will not open unto them (2 Nephi 9:41-42).

It seems to me that what the Savior said to the Nephites is that if they wish to “come unto him” then they must approach other people in the same way they approach him.

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

3 Nephi 6:12-15 — LeGrand Baker — ‘a great inequality’

The inequality was not a result of the differences in wealth and education. Those differences were already in place. The inequality appeared as a result of the erosion of mutual esteem.

12 And the people began to be distinguished by ranks, according to their riches and their chances for learning; yea, some were ignorant because of their poverty, and others did receive great learning because of their riches.
13 Some were lifted up in pride, and others were exceedingly humble; some did return railing for railing, while others would receive railing and persecution and all manner of afflictions, and would not turn and revile again, but were humble and penitent before God.
14 And thus there became a great inequality in all the land, insomuch that the church began to be broken up; yea, insomuch that in the thirtieth year the church was broken up in all the land save it were among a few of the Lamanites who were converted unto the true faith; and they would not depart from it, for they were firm, and steadfast, and immovable, willing with all diligence to keep the commandments of the Lord.
15 Now the cause of this iniquity of the people was this—Satan had great power, unto the stirring up of the people to do all manner of iniquity, and to the puffing them up with pride, tempting them to seek for power, and authority, and riches, and the vain things of the world.

These verses, in the first chapter of Alma, contain another of those amazingly profound statements that Mormon passes over as though there was nothing extraordinary about it. This time it is his definition of equality.

The notion that somehow all people are equal comes from very deep roots within our western culture. But it always sits in juxtaposition to the cold reality that people are not really equal at all. Let me give you a quick review of the ideas of equality that are a part of our western heritage. George Orwell’ phrase in Animal Farm, may not be an eternal truth, but it is certainly an accurate appraisal of this world’s reality: “All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.

From our present Jewish version of the Law of Moses, we are taught that Jehovah is the God of everybody, but that he loves some much more than he loves others. That was not only true between Israelites and Gentiles, but between Israelites as well. For example, the Law, as we have it, provided that in ancient Israel, if a man were unable to pay his debts, he and his family could be enslaved by his creditor.

From the ancient Greeks we have inherited the tradition of participatory government. But the ancient Greek democracy was limited to the elite.

From the Romans we inherited our notion of equality before the law, but that was also a selective equality, based on wealth and political status.

The New Testament teaches us that we should love one another and submit to authority, and those doctrines were soon turned into a rationale for oppression.

Observing the almost universal use of religion to oppress the masses, the philosopher/historian, Will Durant, believed that religion was an invention of the aristocracy to control and weigh down the masses. He used the Christianity of the Dark Ages to make his point. He wrote that the poor were taught that if they would endure their poverty and be subservient in this world, then they would have glorious mansions in the next world. He believed that this tactic had been used by the elite of every ancient culture, and noted that the upper classes were always eager to guarantee to the lower classes every wealth and pleasure they could hope for in the next world – in exchange for their willingness to tolerate poverty in this world.

Modern egalitarianism is based on that same assumption. Rousseau taught that equality was impossible because the natural human motivation is avarice and self-aggrandizement. He insisted that the best that could be hoped for was an imposed equanimity, with a self-defined and self-appointed moral elite controlling government, and the powers of both production and distribution. Communism and socialism are variations of his thinking. The problem is that when the same group controls government, production, and distribution, a two-cast system is established that belies the whole notion of a self-appointed moral elite.

As I observed two weeks ago, Jefferson believed equality meant that all people had the same innate sense of right and wrong, and upon that principle he justified a government created and elected by the people – believing that a government elected by the masses would have the same sense of right and wrong as the masses who created and elected it. There was nothing in Jefferson’s beliefs that suggested that all people had the same aptitudes or abilities. (See: Gary Wills, Inventing America, Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence). He left it to American rugged individualism to sort out the practical implications of that equality.

Since Jefferson’s time, our society has invented several new slogan-like definitions of equality. They sound good, but have little practical meaning. “Equal opportunity,” and “equal rights” are concepts written into our laws, but not clearly defined; fought over in the courts, but never resolved; and thus they have become great political footballs.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

Into that maze of conflict between philosophy and reality, Mormon quietly introduces the only fully rational definition of equality I have ever found.

26 And when the priests left their labor to impart the word of God unto the people, the people also left their labors to hear the word of God. And when the priest had imparted unto them the word of God they all returned again diligently unto their labors; and the priest, not esteeming himself above his hearers, for the preacher was no better than the hearer, neither was the teacher any better than the learner; and thus they were all equal, and they did all labor, every man according to his strength.
27 And they did impart of their substance, every man according to that which he had, to the poor, and the needy, and the sick, and the afflicted; and they did not wear costly apparel, yet they were neat and comely.
28 And thus they did establish the affairs of the church; and thus they began to have continual peace again, notwithstanding all their persecutions.
29 And now, because of the steadiness of the church they began to be exceedingly rich, having abundance of all things whatsoever they stood in need—an abundance of flocks and herds, and fatlings of every kind, and also abundance of grain, and of gold, and of silver, and of precious things, and abundance of silk and fine-twined linen, and all manner of good homely cloth.
30 And thus, in their prosperous circumstances, they did not send away any who were naked, or that were hungry, or that were athirst, or that were sick, or that had not been nourished; and they did not set their hearts upon riches; therefore they were liberal to all, both old and young, both bond and free, both male and female, whether out of the church or in the church, having no respect to persons as to those who stood in need.
31 And thus they did prosper and become far more wealthy than those who did not belong to their church. (Alma 1:20-33.)

The key words are these: “and the priest, not esteeming himself above his hearers, for the preacher was no better than the hearer, neither was the teacher any better than the learner; and thus they were all equal, ”

“And thus they were all equal!” The “equality” they experienced was the product of their esteem for each other.

The only true equality between two humans is their mutual esteem. No social, economic, or political situation can alter that reality. For example, a Greek scholar might be captured and made that slave of a wealthy Roman. If the slave is contemptuous of the master’s harshness, the master, in the slave’s estimation, is lesser than the slave, and can never be the slave’s equal. It would make no difference how much authority the master exercised over the slave, in the eyes of the slave, the master can never be the slave’s equal until the slave esteems him as such. The college professor can never be the equal of the wise old farmer, until the farmer esteems him as such. Conversely, the farmer can never be equal to a professor until the professor appreciates the goodness and wisdom of the fine old man. And the cost of a lack of such esteem is subtracted from the richness of the life of the one who withholds it.

Our human condition being what it is, governments are necessary to enforce some sort of equanimity in our legal and economic systems, but “charitable” condescension or patronization are poor substitutes for esteem. Neither the powers of government, its laws, nor the courts can impose an equality of esteem upon any society. It is a product of the individual soul.

Similarly, it is impossible to create a Zion society, by proclaiming it “zion” and inviting people to come in. Rather “Zion is the pure in heart,” which I understand to mean people who esteem others as themselves, and who conduct their lives in accordance to that mutual esteem. A collection of that kind of people becomes a Zion society. But the individuals must be Zion, before a Zion society can become a reality. I can discover no difference between that concept of mutual esteem, and the law of consecration. And I can discover no difference between the law of consecration and love that is called charity. Obedience to the law of consecration is what one does – but only when charity is what one is.

The natural consequence is, “And they did impart of their substance, every man according to that which he had, to the poor, and the needy, and the sick, and the afflicted….And now, because of the steadiness of the church they began to be exceedingly rich, having abundance of all things whatsoever they stood in need….”

Thus these people had established and maintained Zion as a subculture withing a culture that was not Zion at all. And their Zion remained viable until the mutual esteem began to disintegrate:

12 Yea, he [Alma] saw great inequality among the people, some lifting themselves up with their pride, despising others, turning their backs upon the needy and the naked and those who were hungry, and those who were athirst, and those who were sick and afflicted. (Alma 4:12.)

– – – – – – – – – – – – — – – – – – – – – – – – — – – – – – – – – – – – –
I wrote this with the help of with Tyson Hill.

Now the question is: “How do I esteem others as myself?”

One tends to define one’s Self in terms of one’s wants and needs. And therefore defines one’s esteem for others in terms of acknowledging that they have similar wants and needs. But what if one defined one’s Self in terms different from that. What if one believed this: “I am a person whom the Saviour loves, and the best evidence that I have that I exist is that I know he loves me and that I love him in return.” I love and accept love – therefore I am.

To the degree that one can identify and define one’s Self in terms of the Saviour’s love, to that degree one runs out of other alternative ways for identifying and defining other people

One can neither love others nor one’s Self unless one is comfortable with one’s Self. That requires faith, which leads to repentance, which leads to an even increasing sensitivity to the voice of the Spirit, which promotes a self-honesty. It is, a never-ending spiral, whose object is to lead one so discovering who and what he is, that he may again, in this world, be true to the law of his own being.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Todd M. Compton explains further:

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

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

In a footnote he adds:

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

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

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

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

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

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

ENDNOTES

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

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

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

Quote is on page 1: 627 – 628.)

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

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

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

2 Nephi 32:1-9 — LeGrand Baker — to ponder is to listen

1   And now, behold, my beloved brethren, I suppose that ye ponder somewhat in your hearts concerning that which ye should do after ye have entered in by the way. But, behold, why do ye ponder these things in your hearts?
2   Do ye not remember that I said unto you that after ye had received the Holy Ghost ye could speak with the tongue of angels? And now, how could ye speak with the tongue of angels save it were by the Holy Ghost?

A reasonable interpretation of that passage would be that those who have the Holy Ghost can speak under its inspiration. And those who hear by the Holy Ghost, hear the inspiration spoken. One of the reasons that explanation is so reasonable is because it is so consistent with a multiplicity of experiences every faithful member of the church can relate to.

However, that may not be what Nephi has in mind. Every other place I checked in the scriptures where the word “tongues” is used is talking about language. The gift of tongues is a language gift. Unless this passage is an exception to that rule, “the tongue of angels” is also about language. Nephi’s statement seems to be less about the Holy Ghost teaching one what to say, and more about the Holy Ghost teaching one about what to hear.

His initial question in verse one was: “I suppose that ye ponder somewhat in your hearts concerning that which ye should do…” His answer in verse 3 is: “the words of Christ will tell you all things what ye should do.” The idea sandwiched between those, it seems to me, is that one must learn to understand the language of the angels in order to understand the language of the “words of Christ.” He says,

3   Angels speak by the power of the Holy Ghost; wherefore, they speak the words of Christ. Wherefore, I said unto you, feast upon the words of Christ; for behold, the words of Christ will tell you all things what ye should do.

One cannot help but notice the similarity between Nephi’s teachings and Alma’s. Alma is talking about the fruit of the tree of life. He equates the fruit of that tree with the “word” just as Nephi does. He says one should taste the light, then feast upon the word. The next paragraph is a few lines lifted from one of Alma’s great sermons.

32   And now, behold, because ye have tried the experiment, and planted the seed, and it swelleth and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow, ye must needs know that the seed is good.
….
35   O then, is not this real? I say unto you, Yea, because it is light; and whatsoever is light, is good, because it is discernible, therefore ye must know that it is good; and now behold, after ye have tasted this light is your knowledge perfect?
….
41   But if ye will nourish the word, yea, nourish the tree as it beginneth to grow, by your faith with great diligence, and with patience, looking forward to the fruit thereof, it shall take root; and behold it shall be a tree springing up unto everlasting life.
42   And because of your diligence and your faith and your patience with the word in nourishing it, that it may take root in you, behold, by and by ye shall pluck the fruit thereof, [the fruit of the tree of life.(v.40)] which is most precious, which is sweet above all that is sweet, and which is white above all that is white, yea, and pure above all that is pure; and ye shall feast upon this fruit even until ye are filled, that ye hunger not, neither shall ye thirst (Alma 32:33-42).

Nephi continues, almost as though he were commenting on Alma:

4   Wherefore, now after I have spoken these words, if ye cannot understand them it will be because ye ask not, neither do ye knock; wherefore, ye are not brought into the light, but must perish in the dark.

To be brought into the light may mean several things One of the things it means is to be brought within the brilliant beauty of the tree of life. That is clearly the light Alma was talking about, and that is the light which Lehi and Nephi “tasted” also. Lehi described the tree of life in
terms similar to those Alma used:

10   And it came to pass that I beheld a tree, whose fruit was desirable to make one happy.
11   And it came to pass that I did go forth and partake of the fruit thereof; and I beheld that it was most sweet, above all that I ever before tasted. Yea, and I beheld that the fruit thereof was white, to exceed all the whiteness that I had ever seen.
12   And as I partook of the fruit thereof it filled my soul with exceedingly great joy; wherefore, I began to be desirous that my family should partake of it also; for I knew that it was desirable above all other fruit (1 Nephi 8:10-12).

When Nephi also saw the tree, he echoed his father’s description: “And I looked and beheld a tree; and it was like unto the tree which my father had seen; and the beauty thereof was far beyond, yea, exceeding of all beauty; and the whiteness thereof did exceed the whiteness of the driven snow. (1 Nephi 11:8) When Nephi asked his angel guide what its interpretation was, the angel showed him a vision of the life of Christ. Thus, Nephi testified, “I also beheld that the tree of life was a representation of the love of God. (1 Nephi 11:25)

Verse 4 is probably one of those many scriptures which give us a glimpse of what has been lost from our own Bible. One of the wonderful features of the Saviour’s Sermon on the Mount is that it brings into perspective many teachings of the ancient prophets. Many people have noted the temple-significance of his statement that one must seek, ask, and knock. Here, Nephi is probably referring to the same ancient (but now lost) prophet’s statement to which the Saviour was probably referring. Nephi wrote, “Wherefore, now after I have spoken these words, if ye cannot understand them it will be because ye ask not, neither do ye knock; wherefore, ye are not brought into the light, but must perish in the dark.” A difference is that Jesus said simply, “…and it shall be opened unto you.” Nephi gives us an idea of what “it” is. He says if one does not knock, one will not be “brought into the light.” (See: Matthew 7:7; Luke 11:9; 3 Nephi 14:7; 3 Nephi 27:29; D&C 4:7, 6:5, 11:5, 12:5; 14:5, 49:26, 66:9. 75:27. In section 88:63 the Lord promises, “Draw near unto me and I will draw near unto you; seek me diligently and ye shall find me; ask, and ye shall receive; knock, and it shall be opened unto you.”)

Then Nephi adds,

5   For behold, again I say unto you that if ye will enter in by the way [code word], and receive the Holy Ghost, it will show unto you all things what ye should do (2 Nephi 32:5).

One should not overlook the comparison Nephi draws when he describes how one shall know what to do. In verse three he writes, “… the words of Christ will TELL you all things what ye should do.” In verse 5 he adds, “… the Holy Ghost, it will SHOW unto you all things what ye should do.” In verse 7 Nephi will be told he must write nothing more explicit than what he has written. Thus giving us to understand that the phrase “all things what ye should do” is also a code.

Nephi’s conclusion is this:

6   Behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and there will be no more doctrine given until after he shall manifest himself unto you in the flesh. And when he shall manifest himself unto you in the flesh, the things which he shall say unto you shall ye observe to do (2 Nephi 32:6).

I believe Nephi wrote, and the Prophet Joseph translated, with a great deal of precision. If they were as careful about their choice of words as I suppose they were, then what we have read is not about the “gospel” of Christ, it is about the “doctrine” of Christ. Nephi makes that quite clear. In verse 2 he wrote, “I must speak concerning the doctrine of Christ…” In verse 21, “… this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end. Amen.” Finally in 32:6 he concludes, “… this is the doctrine of Christ, and there will be no more doctrine given until after he shall manifest himself unto you in the flesh.”

If Nephi means by “doctrine of Christ,” the same thing the apostle John meant, then once again we discover a remarkable consistency between the words used by the Prophet Joseph in the translation of the Book of Mormon and the words used by the men who translated the King James version of the Bible. There John is quoted as writing: “Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.” (2 John 1:9)

I suppose the difference between the “gospel of Christ” and the “doctrine of Christ” is quite simple. In 3 Nephi 27 the Saviour defines his gospel as: “that I came into the world to do the will of my Father, because my Father sent me,” then explains what it was he did. It seems to me that the gospel of Christ is about what the Saviour did. It is the “good news”—the testimony of the atonement. On the other hand, the “doctrine of Christ” as Nephi explains it, is what each individual must do – the path he must follow, steps he must take – in order to take full advantage of the blessings of the gospel.

Nephi began by saying he was going to spell it out as simply and straightforwardly as words could speak it. But there was a limit to how much, and how clearly he could say. For, he laments,

7    And now I, Nephi, cannot say more; the Spirit stoppeth mine utterance, and I am left to mourn because of the unbelief, and the wickedness, and the ignorance, and the stiffneckedness of men; for they will not search knowledge, nor understand great knowledge, when it is given unto them in plainness, even as plain as word can be.
8   And now, my beloved brethren, I perceive that ye ponder still in your hearts; and it grieveth me that I must speak concerning this thing. For if ye would hearken unto the Spirit which teacheth a man to pray ye would know that ye must pray; for the evil spirit teacheth not a man to pray, but teacheth him that he must not pray.
9   But behold, I say unto you that ye must pray always, and not faint; that ye must not perform any thing unto the Lord save in the first place ye shall pray unto the Father in the name of Christ, that he will consecrate thy performance unto thee, that thy performance may be for the welfare of thy soul (2 Nephi 32:7-9).

Nephi understands that he can go no further and maintain the “plainness” that lets each understand according to his own understanding. So he brings his readers back to the first of the three great steps along the way: “ask, and it shall be given you.” After that, one may “seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you.”

2 Nephi 31:15-21 — LeGrand Baker — a sacred conversation

In these verses Nephi tells us part of a sacred conversation between himself, the Father, and the Saviour. He begins:

15   And I heard a voice from the Father, saying: Yea, the words of my Beloved are true and faithful. He that endureth to the end, the same shall be saved.

The voice of Heavenly Father is not often heard in the scriptures. When it is, it is almost exclusively in either one of two contexts. The first is when He is quoted as giving instructions to the members of the Council, as in Abraham 3 and Psalm 82. The second is when He testifies of the divinity of his Son and of the validity of his mission, as in Joseph Smith’s first vision, Jesus’ baptism, Christ’s coming to America, and here, by Nephi. Nephi is telling us a story of great importance, but he is so concerned that we hear the message that the story is barely mentioned. This is not just a sermon by Nephi, it is a review of a conversation he had with the Saviour and the Saviour’s Father. Notice how frequently with which Nephi quotes from that conversation:

11   And the Father said: Repent ye, repent ye, and be baptized in the name of my Beloved Son.
12   And also, the voice of the Son came unto me, saying: He that is baptized in my name, to him will the Father give the Holy Ghost, like unto me; wherefore, follow me, and do the things which ye have seen me do.
…
14   But, behold, my beloved brethren, thus came the voice of the Son unto me, saying: After ye have repented of your sins, and witnessed unto the Father that ye are willing to keep my commandments, by the baptism of water, and have received the baptism of fire and of the Holy Ghost, and can speak with a new tongue, yea, even with the tongue of angels, and after this should deny me, it would have been better for you that ye had not known me.
15   And I heard a voice from the Father, saying: Yea, the words of my Beloved are true and faithful. He that endureth to the end, the same shall be saved.
…
20   Wherefore, if ye shall press forward, feasting upon the word of Christ, and endure to the end, behold, thus saith the Father: Ye shall have eternal life.

Nephi’s report of this conversation is less a sermon than it is a pleading, but it is less a pleading than it is a testimony. Nephi is testifying from his own experience – not only what he has heard, but also what he has seen:

17    Wherefore, do the things which I have told you I have seen that your Lord and your Redeemer should do; for, for this cause have they been shown unto me, that ye might know the gate by which ye should enter. For the gate by which ye should enter is repentance and baptism by water; and then cometh a remission of your sins by fire and by the Holy Ghost.

Sometimes, as we read the scriptures, when we get to the parts about the “first principles,” we jump over them in our mind with a leap which echoes, “I don’t need to bother to stop here, I already know that.” But Nephi is not talking about simple stuff. He has witnessed and described to a coronation, and has discussed the principles of those ordinance with Jehovah and Elohim. Now he is telling us the implications of those ordinances:

18   And then are ye in this strait and narrow path which leads to eternal life; yea, ye have entered in by the gate; ye have done according to the commandments of the Father and the Son; and ye have received the Holy Ghost, which witnesses of the Father and the Son, unto the fulfilling of the promise which he hath made, that if ye entered in by the way ye should receive.

That’s interesting, isn’t it. When one has hands placed upon his hands after baptism, one receives a command. The words of that command are: “receive the Holy Ghost.” It appears that Nephi is speaking about those who have obeyed that command. I presume that’s what he means by “…and ye have received…”

19   And now, my beloved brethren, after ye have gotten into this strait and narrow path, I would ask if all is done? Behold, I say unto you, Nay;

There is nothing unusual about what Nephi is about to say here. The profundity of the ideas may be obscured in the simplicity of the words, but what he says is what all the prophets say. When one follows the “way” through the “path” to the “end,” one always discovers the same thing there. It is faith, hope, and charity. More simple words, but buried beneath their meaning is the crown of eternal life.

You and I have talked about this before. Faith is not a passive “believing” word. It is an active, doing word. The New Testament Greek word pistis, which is translated “faith,” means making and keeping covenants (See the chapter called “The Meaning of Faith” in Who Shall Ascend into the Hill of the Lord). The wonderful thing about Joseph Smith’s translation of the Book of Mormon is that the words – including the code words – in the Book of Mormon mean the same as the words in the Bible. Faith is a token of the covenant. Being faithful means fulfilling the promises of the covenant. Acting in faith is acting according to the covenant. Praying in faith is praying according to the covenant. Faith in Christ is doing all those things while acknowledging that Christ is the token – the personification – of the Covenant of the Father. Nephi continues:

19-b   for ye have not come thus far save it were by the word of Christ with unshaken faith in him, relying wholly upon the merits of him who is mighty to save.”

Nephi then talks about “relying.” It isn’t as one relies on a crutch. It is as one relies on the fulfillment of an immutable promise. The word which describes the way one lives when one looks to the future fulfillment of the covenant as though that covenant were already fulfilled, is “hope.” Hope is not wishing hard, it is not even believing. It is more like trust, but a trust so perfect that it is as though that which is trusted to become — already IS. Thus Nephi writes,

20   Wherefore, ye must press forward with a steadfastness in Christ, having a perfect brightness of hope,. and a love of God and of all men. Wherefore, if ye shall press forward, feasting upon the word of Christ, and endure to the end, behold, thus saith the Father: Ye shall have eternal life.

Nephi’s final words ring with the authority of one who knows — first hand — “And now, behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end. Amen.”

2 Nephi 31:8-14 — LeGrand Baker — the Holy Ghost

A personal note to my friends: I believe that when you read what I write for our Book of Mormon Project, you often smile and say, Well, that’s LeGrand’s opinion. I certainly hope you do. Because just now it occurs to me, that while you may think that often enough, I don’t say it often enough. So let me say it clearly now: What follows is only my opinion. It is not even that, it is my opinion in the making. It is only my current thinking about a subject which to me is most sacred.

8   Wherefore, after he was baptized with water the Holy Ghost descended upon him in the form of a dove (2 Nephi 31:8).

In the verses immediately preceding this, Nephi testified that Jesus was baptized to fulfill all righteousness. His testimony continues here with an account, like the ones in each of the four gospels, of Jesus’ receiving the Holy Ghost. However, this is more than just a recounting of the gospel narratives, or even more than a testimony that they are true. Nephi follows this verse with an explanation of the significance to each of us individually, of Christ’s baptism and reception of the Holy Ghost. That explanation is, to say the least, quite extraordinary.

Before we look closely at Nephi’s explanation, let’s review what is found in the gospels and other standard works about the Saviour’s reception of the Holy Ghost.

16   … he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him (Matthew 3:16).

10   …he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him ( Mark 1:10).

22   And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him ( Luke 3:22).

32   And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him.
33   And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.
34   And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God (John 1:32-34).

Latter-day Saint scripture contain three additional testimonies of the event:

27   …and after he was baptized, I beheld the heavens open, and the Holy Ghost come down out of heaven and abide upon him in the form of a dove. (1 Nephi 11:27)

8   Wherefore, after he was baptized with water the Holy Ghost descended upon him in the form of a dove. (2 Nephi 31:8)

15   And I, John, bear record, and lo, the heavens were opened, and the Holy Ghost descended upon him in the form of a dove, and sat upon him,… (D&C: 93:15)

At a meeting in the Nauvoo Temple, in January, 1843, the Prophet Joseph respond to a question:

The question arose from the saying of Jesus, “Among those that are born of women there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist: but he that is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he.” [Luke 7:28.] How is it that John was considered one of the greatest prophets? His miracles could not have constituted his greatness.

First. He was entrusted with a divine mission of preparing the way before the face of the Lord. Whoever had such a trust committed to him before or since? No man.

Secondly. He was entrusted with the important mission, and it was required at his hands, to baptize the Son of Man. Whoever had the honor of doing that? Whoever had so great a privilege and glory? Whoever led the Son of God into the waters of baptism, and had the privilege of beholding the Holy Ghost descend in the form of a dove, or rather in the sign of the dove, in witness of that administration? The sign of the dove was instituted before the creation of the world, a witness for the Holy Ghost, and the devil cannot come in the sign of a dove. The Holy Ghost is a personage, and is in the form of a personage. It does not confine itself to the form of the dove, but in . The Holy Ghost cannot be transformed into a dove; but the sign of a dove was given to John to signify the truth of the deed, as the dove is an emblem or token of truth and innocence.

Thirdly. John, at that time, was the only legal administrator in the affairs of the kingdom there was then on the earth, and holding the keys of power. The Jews had to obey his instructions or be damned, by their own law; and Christ Himself fulfilled all righteousness in becoming obedient to the law which he had given to Moses on the mount, and thereby magnified it and made it honorable, instead of destroying it …. These three reasons constitute him the greatest prophet born of a woman. (Joseph Fielding Smith, comp. Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1976], 275-76).

To return to the accounts of Jesus’s baptism.

An important part of the account in each of the gospels is the Father’s statement, “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” Relative to that declaration, Albright and Mann observe,

My Son, the Beloved One. According to Mark’s account of this incident, the voice is addressed directly to Jesus (Mark Ill); in Matthew, the proclamation is public. the Beloved One is not an attributive adjective of my Son, but is a separate title, in apposition. Isaac is so described in Gen xxii 2, and the Servant of Isa xliii is the Beloved. The first part of the proclamation of sonship appears to be reminiscent of PS il 7, speaking of the Messiah. Israel ill the Old Testament is described as God’s son (cf. Exod iv 22; Hos xi 1). We shall not wholly grasp the full meaning of Matthew’s material unless we bear in mind that Jesus in this tradition is at once the chosen, the anointed personal Messiah, and at the same time represents the people of the Old Covenant. …. Paul uses other figures to the same end, variously describing Jesus as the new man and the second Adam (cf. Rom v 14; I Cor xv 45, etc.).” (W. F. Albright and C. S. Mann, The Anchor Bible, Matthew, New York, Doubleday, 1964, p. 30-31, n. 17. )

Other scholars see this declaration as being like the one in Psalm 2:6-7. There the Lord says, “Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion.” And then, apparently the king responds with, “I will declare the decree: the Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.”

That psalm was probably sung during the coronation ceremonies of the New Year’s festival in ancient Israel, perhaps at the time the king was anointed king. In these ceremonies, it seems, the anointing of the king was a duel ordinance: of adoption and of coronation. Thus the declaration: Thou art my Son is both an statement of adoption, and also the giving of a new king name – a separate title, as Albright and Mann suggested above.

Their further observation that Jesus is the anointed personal Messiah, pulls our attention to Peter’s statement that Jesus’s reception of the Holy Ghost was an anointing ordinance. Peter said,

37   That word, I say, ye know, which was published throughout all Judaea, and began from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached;
38   How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil (Acts 10:37-38).

If my observations are correct and relevant, then we have in the account of Jesus’ baptism, all of the major necessary elements of a royal coronation. He was baptized (ceremonially washed), anointed with the Holy Ghost, given a king name, and declared to be the legitimate heir.

The bringing together of those elements may shed some light on a statement found in the Pearl of Great Price, where we find,

Fig. 3. Represents God sitting upon his throne, revealing through the heavens the grand Key-words of the Priesthood; as, also, the sign of the Holy Ghost unto Abraham, in the form of a dove. (P of GP: Facsimile 2:7)

Now, I have nothing left to say. If the observations I have made above are even partly true, then Nephi’s explanation about the personal relevance, to each of us, of Christ’s baptism and reception of the Holy Ghost, are more sacred, and more significant than I wish to comment further.

2 Nephi 31:1-8 — LeGrand Baker — Jesus’s baptism

2 Nephi 31:1-8
1   And now I, Nephi, make an end of my prophesying unto you, my beloved brethren. And I cannot write but a few things, which I know must surely come to pass; neither can I write but a few of the words of my brother Jacob.
2   Wherefore, the things which I have written sufficeth me, save it be a few words which I must speak concerning the doctrine of Christ; wherefore, I shall speak unto you plainly, according to the plainness of my prophesying.
3   For my soul delighteth in plainness; for after this manner doth the Lord God work among the children of men. For the Lord God giveth light unto the understanding; for he speaketh unto men according to their language, unto their understanding.
4   Wherefore, I would that ye should remember that I have spoken unto you concerning that prophet which the Lord showed unto me, that should baptize the Lamb of God, which should take away the sins of the world.
5   And now, if the Lamb of God, he being holy, should have need to be baptized by water, to fulfil all righteousness, O then, how much more need have we, being unholy, to be baptized, yea, even by water!
6   And now, I would ask of you, my beloved brethren, wherein the Lamb of God did fulfil all righteousness in being baptized by water?
7   Know ye not that he was holy? But notwithstanding he being holy, he showeth unto the children of men that, according to the flesh he humbleth himself before the Father, and witnesseth unto the Father that he would be obedient unto him in keeping his commandments.
8   Wherefore, after he was baptized with water the Holy Ghost descended upon him in the form of a dove.

When Nephi writes “For the Lord God giveth light unto the understanding; for he speaketh unto men according to their language, unto their understanding,” he seems to be saying the Lord only tells us what we are willing and capable of understanding—and not more than that until we can understand more. So I suppose if we read what he is “obviously” saying, we are probably not getting the whole message. Nephi’s speaking “plainly” presupposes that his readers know how to read Isaiah whom he loves to quote. Consequently, his discussion of “the doctrine of Christ” begins with a reference to Isaiah 40, where we have an account of John the Baptist’s receiving his assignment at the Council in Heaven. The first three verses read:

1    Comfort ye, comfort ye my people, saith your God.
2    Speak ye comfortably to Jerusalem, and cry unto her, that her warfare is accomplished, that her iniquity is pardoned: for she hath received of the Lord’s hand double for all her sins.
3    The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make straight in the desert a highway for our God. (Isaiah 40:1-3)

“Comfort,” in verse one, is defined in Isaiah 61:3 as: to be made a part of Zion through washing (removing the ashes), anointing, clothing, giving a new name which is “Trees of Righteousness….”

“Ye” is plural, so God is speaking to a congregation. God is Elohim. So that places this chapter of Isaiah (and of our present reading of Nephi) in the same time frame as the latter part of Abraham 3 (“these I will make my rulers) which immediately precedes the account of the creation.

In verse 2, Isaiah’s evidence that Jerusalem has been pardoned is that she hath received of the Lord’s hand double in exchange for all her sins. Again we look in Isaiah 61, where the code word “double” is used twice — once to describe the blessings given to the dead and the other to describe the similar blessings given to the living who perform the vicarious work for the dead. One may assume that “at the Lord’s hand” means “at the Lord’s hand” and that it is the appropriate conclusion of the “comforting” sequence just mentioned. It’s like when Joseph received a double blessing when he received the birthright blessings of his fathers: He received the priesthood birthright and got two tribes (Ephraim and Manasseh) rather than just one as each of his brothers did. One can conclude that receiving “of the LORD’s hand double” refers to the to the birthright blessings of Abraham which one receives “of the Lord’s hand.” And that the instructions given to the members of the Council had to do with making sure that happened. The very next verse, 3, is the prophecy of the mission of John the Baptist, or, in this Council context, it appears to be an account of the assignment John received at the Council. (As Amos points out, prophecies and a recounting of the decisions of the Council are essentially the same thing.)

What follows after that is the same pattern one would expect. That is, Isaiah 40 goes on to rehearse the decisions of the Council relative to the relationship of Israel to its King, Jehovah — which is, of course, a prophecy about the this-world work of the Saviour. From there Isaiah 40 moves into a series of questions which have to do with both covenants made and also the creation of the world. From there, the rest of Isaiah follows the pattern one would expect.

This is the context in which Nephi places what he calls “the doctrine of Christ.” What he will do next is give the rationale, presumably understood in the Council, but certainly valid in this world, about why the Saviour must be baptized.

His rationale is that the Saviour will “fulfil all righteousness.” Last week I wrote about “righteousness” and there is no reason to repeat it here, except to observe that it is “zedek-ness.” That is, “righteousness” has to do with temple things and, in this case, the propriety of the sequence of the ordinances and covenants of the temple.

Baptism, (which, for the dead, may only be performed in a temple) is not distinct from the other ordinances except that it is the first one – a cleansing ordinance which is a necessary prerequisite from all others. What Nephi is saying, so far as I can tell, is that in order to “fulfil all righteousness” (correctness in priesthood and temple things), Jesus had to go through all of the coronation ordinances just as everyone else. The fact that he was perfectly clean, and that the cleansing ordinance would not make him any cleaner, did not preclude the necessity of going through each of the steps in their proper order.

5   And now, if the Lamb of God, he being holy, should have need to be baptized by water, to fulfil all righteousness, O then, how much more need have we, being unholy, to be baptized, yea, even by water!

If one considers the accounts of Jesus’s baptism in light of Psalm 2, Acts 10, and the stories of the Mt. of Transfiguration, including 2 Peter 1, then what Nephi is saying is much more complex than it appears at first reading.

2 Nephi 30:7-18 — LeGrand Baker– Poor and Meek

2 Nephi 30:7-18
7   And it shall come to pass that the Jews which are scattered also shall begin to believe in Christ; and they shall begin to gather in upon the face of the land; and as many as shall believe in Christ shall also become a delightsome people.
8   And it shall come to pass that the Lord God shall commence his work among all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, to bring about the restoration of his people upon the earth.
9   And with righteousness shall the Lord God judge the poor, and reprove with equity for the meek of the earth. And he shall smite the earth with the rod of his mouth; and with the breath of his lips shall he slay the wicked.
10   For the time speedily cometh that the Lord God shall cause a great division among the people, and the wicked will he destroy; and he will spare his people, yea, even if it so be that he must destroy the wicked by fire.
11   And righteousness shall be the girdle of his loins, and faithfulness the girdle of his reins.
12   And then shall the wolf dwell with the lamb; and the leopard shall lie down with the kid, and the calf, and the young lion, and the fatling, together; and a little child shall lead them.
13   And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together; and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.
14   And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall
put his hand on the cockatrice’s den.
15   They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain; for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea.
16   Wherefore, the things of all nations shall be made known; yea, all things shall be made known unto the children of men.
17   There is nothing which is secret save it shall be revealed; there is no work of darkness save it shall be made manifest in the light; and there is nothing which is sealed upon the earth save it shall be loosed.
18   Wherefore, all things which have been revealed unto the children of men shall at that day be revealed; and Satan shall have power over the hearts of the children of men no more, for a long time. And now, my beloved brethren, I make an end of my sayings.

In these few short verses Nephi carries us from the time of the gathering of the Jews to the beginning of the millennium. He goes so quickly that it almost causes one to try to catch him and ask, “You have just skipped through the events of my lifetime, but where am I in your story.”

I suppose, if we could do that, he would respond, “I have told you already, that’s why we have read so much of Isaiah together.” At least, I think that’s what he might say, because as I read the parts of these verses which speak specifically of the members of Christ’s church, my mind moves back to Nephi’s emphasis on Isaiah, then, almost with transition, forward to the Beatitudes (for it’s all the same story). Now, as I sit here, my mind replaying some of the things Nephi has taught, I just go “WOW,” and wonder what to write to make that “WOW” intelligible to my friends.

It seems to me that in these passages Nephi does not write about our times as much as he writes about us – individually. The verse I have in mind is the one which he quoted from Isaiah before (Isaiah 11:4 quoted in 2 Nephi 21:4), and which he now pulls from its original context to paraphrase again here. In Isaiah’s code words (as I read the words) Nephi sums up our lives and our missions. He paraphrases Isaiah, “And with righteousness shall the Lord God judge the poor, and reprove with equity for the meek of the earth.”(2 Ne. 30: 9a )

I think what I would like to write today, is a review of the meaning of the code words, especially “poor,” “meek,” and “judge.” In looking at the meaning of “meek” we will have to look at other code words, like “way,” “path,” “secrets (sode),” and a few others. For some of you who have been a part of our Book of Mormon Project for about as long as I have, what I am going to write may contain nothing new. Some of you will recognize parts of this as being lifted almost verbatim from other things I have written. To you, I apologize for the redundancy, and suggest you may want to stop reading now. But for others of you, some of these ideas may be new, and may even have some value. I believe it is important in order to understand our verses, to observe that the two major code words which are used here are the same ones which are used in D&C 88:17. “And the redemption of the soul is through him that quickeneth all things, in whose bosom it is decreed that the poor and the meek of the earth shall inherit it.” The earth, as I understand that passage in its full context, was created, and will be celestialized, for the express purpose of being inhabited by the “poor” and the “meek.” Those are the same words which describe the people in our Book of Mormon verse. So our quest to understand either verse needs to begin with our discussing the answers to the questions: “Who are the ‘poor?’ and Who are the ‘meek’?”

First, Who are the poor?

The place to begin to look is in the Beatitudes (I will quote the ones in 3 Nephi 12 rather than in Matthew 5.), where verse three reads, “Yea, blesed are the poor in spirit who come unto me, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.”

Non-LDS scholars don’t know (and most are honest enough that they say they really don’t know) what “poor” means in the Beatitude, “Blessed are the poor in spirit, who come unto me, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” (3 Nephi version rather than the one in Matthew) However these scholars do insist that “poor” has nothing to do with poverty, or a lack of spirituality. The Anchor Bible translation uses ‘pious’ or God-fearing as a substitute for poor. That substitution makes sense in the first part of the verse, but it does not account for why the Saviour used “poor” as the requisite condition of those who will ultimately own the Kingdom of Heaven (It says, “theirs is the kingdom” – It does not say, “they shall be citizens of the kingdom”) People to whom kingdoms belong are called “kings” and “queens,” or, if it is an ecclesiastical kingdom, “priests,” and “priestesses.”

Some scholars have noted that the first three Beatitudes seem to be something of a paraphrase of Isaiah 61:1-3, which speaks of a coronation ceremony, of comforting those who mourn, and of the “meek.” In fact, Isaiah 1:3 is a review of the ancient royal and priestly coronation ceremonies. It mentions a washing (symbolized by exchanging ashes for a crown), anointing, clothing, and giving of a new name (“called”). (See: Margaret Dee Bratcher, “Salvation Achieved, Isaiah 61:1-7, 65: 17-66:2,” in Review and Expositor, Spring, 1991, Vol. 88, No. 2, p. 177-187; Paul D. Hanson, Isaiah 40 – 66, Interpretation, A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching (Louisville, John Knox Press, 1995), p. 223-226; George A. Knight, The New Israel, A Commentary on the Book of Isaiah 56–66 (Grand Rapids, Mich., Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1985) p. 50-57; Claus Westermann, Isaiah 40 – 66 (Philadelphia, Westminster Press, 1969), p. 364-367.)

That coronation setting reenforces the idea that the “poor” to whom the kingdom of heaven belong, are its kings and queens rather than just its citizens, but it still doesn’t answer the question of why this adoptive royalty should be described by the word “poor.”

I believe the Book of Mormon gives us the answer to that question by telling us the sequence of the Saviour’s teachings. Third Nephi reports that one of the first things he did was to instruct the people about a fundamental change in the law of sacrifice. He told them the only appropriate sacrifice would be their own broken hearts and contrite spirits. That was not a new teaching, it was also found in the Psalms. The thing which was new in the instruction was that the outward sacrifices were to be discontinued, where major importance would be placed on the inward sacrifices instead. Soon after giving these instructions he said, “Blessed are the poor in spirit….”

(Other scriptures which suggest the same conclusion are: Psalms 34:18, Psalms 51:17, Isaiah 29:19, Isaiah 57:15, Isaiah 66:2, 2 Nephi 9:30, 2 Nephi 2:7, 2 Nephi 4:32, 2 Nephi 27:30, 2 Nephi 28:13, Helaman 8:15, 3 Nephi 9:20, 3 Nephi 12:19, Ether 4:15, Moroni 6:2, D&C 20:37, D&C 52:15, D&C 56:17-18, D&C 59:8, D&C 109:72 )

It seems to me that one who has sacrificed a broken heart and contrite spirit can legitimately be called “poor” in the only sense which is perfectly consistent with the meaning of the first Beatitude. For that reason, I often read that Beatitude this way: Blessed are those who have sacrificed a broken heart and a contrite spirit, who come unto Christ, for they are the kings and queens, priests and priestesses in the Kingdom of God. At least, I think that is what it means.

If I am correct, it squares well with the statement, “And with righteousness shall the Lord God judge the poor,” because ‘righteousness’ denotes the propriety of temple ordinances and covenants. Let me explain.

The word “righteousness” is the English rendition of Zadok if it is a proper name, or zedek if it is an adjective as it is in words like Melchizedek (“king of righteousness” or “my king is righteous”). The man Zadok was the High Priest who anointed Solomon to be king, and who later presided at Solomon’s Temple. After his death, according to tradition, all the legitimate High Priests who presided at the Temple (until sometime after the Babylonian captivity when the office of High Priest became a political appointment) were descendants of Zadok. Thus, to do something “in zedek-ness” or “with zedek-ness” means to do it correctly, in the manner of the High Priest. That is, to do it with the right authority, dressed the right way, in the correct manner, in the right place, and at the right time. Thus the words, ‘righteous’ and ‘righteousness’ have to do with the correctness of the rites of the ancient Israelite temples.

“Judge” is also an important word which has both kingship and temple connotations. To judge can mean to condemn, but it can also mean to justify. It can mean to choose or select (as judging the best cake in a baking contest at a county fair) It can also mean to establish a standard of excellence by which one may conduct oneself, and to help one adhere to that standard.

It seems to me that what Nephi’s “And with righteousness shall the Lord God judge the poor,” is saying this: the criteria with which the Lord will judge (justify, select, give directions to) those who have sacrificed a broken hart and contrite spirit, will be ‘Zadok-ness’ — that criteria which is established by the covenants and ordinances of the temple.

Now let’s look at the next phrase, “and reprove with equity for the meek of the earth.” Here, we must go back to where we began before, with the understanding that the earth was prepared so the ‘poor’ and the ‘meek’ may inherit it. And, once again one must go to the Beatitudes to discover the meaning of the word “meek.”

The Beatitude in question is “Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.” It says the same thing as D&C 88 and is lifted almost verbatim from the Psalms. In the scriptures, when those scriptures speak in a temple setting, the word “meek” seems always to mean the same thing – and that meaning is not “humble,” and it is not “timid.” Some people choose to interpret this Beatitude is if it said, “Only non-self- assertive people will inherit the earth,” with the implied, sometimes stated quip, “and they will have to inherit it, because that’s the only way they can get it.” Those folks miss the point. The scriptures suggest that the word “meek” is the very opposite of a lack of assertiveness, and that the meek do not inherit the earth by default, but it is theirs as a legal heritage – it belongs to them by right. (Again I refer you to D&C 88 where the words “poor” and “meek” are words which describe the people in this world who will ultimately become celestial persons.) – and for whom the celestial earth will be created.

That use of “meek” is consistent with the way the word is used elsewhere in the scriptures. An example is in the coronation passages of Isaiah 61 we have already referred to. Isaiah wrote that the Lord was anointed “to preach good tidings to the meek.” Joseph F. Smith quotes that passage and also says that among those to whom the Lord preached were “the noble and great ones who were chosen in the beginning to be rulers in the Church of God.” (D&C 138: 42, 55) So, for those people at least, the quality of “noble and greatness” and the quality of “meekness” are apparently represented as being the same quality. This is also shown in the Bible where we learn, “the man Moses was very meek, above all the men which were upon the face of the earth. (Numbers 12:3) Those who are “meek” are meek before the Lord. For example, in my view, Abinadi, standing defiantly before king Noah while delivering the Lord’s message to him and his fellows, is a splendid example of true meekness. Abinadi’s “meekness” is descriptive of his attitude toward God, but not of his attitude toward men.

One is meek before the Lord, when he keeps the covenants he has made with the Lord, that is, when one obeys the instructions he receives from the Holy Ghost about what to do in order to keep those covenants. This idea is clearly taught in the scriptures.

The Beatitude “Blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the earth,” seems to be a composite of two Psalms, which, together, speak with amazing power. The Psalm from which the Saviour is actually quoting in the Beatitude is 37:11. In context it reads:

7   Rest in the LORD, and wait patiently for him: fret not thyself because of him who prospereth in his [his own, rather than the Lord’s ] way, because of the man who bringeth wicked devices to pass .
8   Cease from anger, and forsake wrath: fret not thyself in any wise to do evil.
9   For evildoers shall be cut off: but those that wait upon the LORD, they shall inherit the earth.
10   For yet a little while, and the wicked shall not be: yea, thou shalt diligently consider his place, and it shall not be.
11   But the meek shall inherit the earth; and shall delight themselves in the abundance of peace (Psalm 37:7-11) .

To “wait” means to be to wait, liking siting at a bus stop and waiting for the bus to come. The implications of that are clarified in Psalm 25. I’ll show you when we get there. For the present let’s just observe that it is apparent from that scripture that to “wait on the Lord” means to be alert to keep the covenants which one made with him at the Council in Heaven and patiently wait for him to fulfill his part.

Here in our present Psalm (37:11) the important relationship of the Psalms with the Beatitudes is shown in more than in the fact that the Lord quoted the Psalm almost verbatim. Verse 11 reads, “But the meek shall inherit the earth; and shall delight themselves in the abundance of peace.”

In the Beatitudes, the Saviour not only quotes the first part of that verse, but he quotes it in its own sequential context. Notice the sequence in the Beatitudes:

5   And blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth. ….
8   And blessed are all the pure in heart, for they shall see God
9   And blessed are all the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God.

The key to the meaning of “peacemakers,” is Mormon’s introductory statements on the first page of Moroni 7.

In that sequence, verse 8 brings one into the presence of God, and verse 9 sits one on the royal throne of God as his legitimate heir. Please let me explain. The coronation setting of the Beatitudes was established in the first three verses, as we have already mentioned. In verse 9 the subject is given a new name or king name, which is “child of God” (“…for they shall be called ‘the children of God’.”). A “child” is a legitimate heir. If such a new-name, or king-name, is found, as this one is, in a coronation context, one can guess that the name “child” probably suggests that the person is being recognized as a legitimate heir to the throne. It appears that in the Beatitudes the king-name “child of God” occurs just as it does in the final anointing rites in the kingship sequence of the ancient New Year’s festival, as suggested in Psalm 2:7. Some scholars believe that in the ancient Israelite New Year’s festival, the final anointing of the king was apparently a dual ordinance, both of adoption and coronation. It had to be, they assert, because anyone who was anointed king, and who sat upon the throne, but who was not a legitimate child, would be a usurper. It is a question of legitimacy. Before one can sit upon the throne, one must be adopted as a legitimate heir. In the ancient coronation ceremony, the king-apparent had first to be acknowledged as a child of God, before he could set upon the throne of God. Thus the anointing ordinance answered both needs. The other Psalm which the Saviour’s Beatitude about meekness refers to is 25:9-14. Even though the direct quote is not there, in many ways this psalm is even more explicit than the other. Let me quote it all to you, then look at it more closely.

9   The meek will he guide in judgment: and the meek will he teach his way.
10   All the paths of the LORD are mercy and truth unto such as keep his covenant and his testimonies.
11   For thy name’s sake, O LORD, pardon mine iniquity; for it is great.
12   What man is he that feareth the LORD? him shall he teach in the way that he shall choose.
13   His soul shall dwell at ease; and his seed shall inherit the earth.
14   The secret of the LORD is with them that fear him; and he will shew them his covenant (Psalm 25:9-14).

Lets begin by looking closely at the concluding verse, 14, then go back and examine the other verses in light of that conclusion. It reads, “The secret of the LORD is with them that fear him; and he will shew them his covenant.”

The word “secret” is the same Hebrew word as in Amos 3:7, which reads “Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets.” The word translated ‘secret’ is the Hebrew word SOD (“sode” in Strong). It means the secrets or the decisions of a council. In these and similar contexts, it refers to the decisions of the Council in Heaven. [Raymond E. Brown, The Semitic Background of the Term “Mystery” in the New Testament (Philadelphia, Fortress Press,  1968),  2-6.]

What Amos says, then, is that the Lord will not do anything until after he recalls to the prophet the covenants and decisions made in Council. What our Psalm says is that the Lord will teach the decisions of the Council to those who fear (respect) him, and “will shew them his covenant.” I understand that to mean that God, by the power of the Spirit, will teach each individual the covenant he made in the pre-mortal existence, relative to that person’s expectations of the mission he would do while on the earth. The psalm introduces that idea by associating the word “meek” with those who remember and keep that covenant. The remembering comes as a gift from God; the keeping is a matter of one’s faith and integrity.

Now lets re-read the portion of Psalm 25 which is quoted above. I’ll put the words of the Psalm in caps and my comments in lower case letters.

The following verses are from Psalm 25:

9    “THE MEEK [those who keep their eternal covenants ] WILL HE [the Lord ] GUIDE IN JUDGEMENT,” [To judge righteously, that is to be a righteous judge, is the first and most important function of a king. It is represented in verse 7 of the Beatitudes, immediately before one sees God, as “Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy.” If the meek are to be the kings and priests of a celestial world, they must learn how to judge righteously. To not learn to judge righteously, is to disqualify oneself. Those who keep their covenants can learn that requisite lesson, because the Lord will be their “guide in judgment.” ]

9-b    “AND THE MEEK WILL HE TEACH IN HIS WAY.” [In a temple context, “way” is a code word which usually means the sequence of the ordinances and covenants. (The Beatitudes, especially as they are reported in the Book of Mormon, may thus be seen as a quick map of the “way.”) ]

10    “ALL THE PATHS [same code meaning as “way” ] OF THE LORD ARE MERCY [Another reference to the primary responsibility of kingship ] AND TRUTH [ Truth is knowledge of reality – things as they were, are, and will be (D&C 93). So, the “path” of kingship includes learning judgement which is based on an understanding of reality.]

10-b    UNTO SUCH AS KEEP HIS COVENANTS [ The covenants, in this context, would be the ones which one made at the Council and which one re-makes in this world. ] AND HIS TESTIMONIES. [Scholars aren’t sure what “testimonies” mean in this and similar contexts. Some believe it was something which was worn on the body, and that the wearing of it was a testimony of the covenants which one had made.]

11    “FOR THY NAME’S SAKE, O LORD” [God has many names, just as covenant people have. New Names are always associated with covenants (For example, one takes upon oneself the name of Christ when one is baptized and takes the sacrament.) Therefore, in a temple context, one can almost always replace the word “name” with the word “covenant” in a scripture without changing the meaning of the scripture. In this instance that is true. The name is question is “LORD,” i.e. “Jehovah,” which the scriptures and our own Bible’s dictionary suggest is the Saviour’s king-name or covenant-name. In which case “Jehovah” is probably the new name given him when he was anointed King of Israel at the Council. (Our Bible Dictionary reads, “Jehovah. The covenant or proper name of the God of Israel.” p. 710). The phrase, “for thy name’s sake” would mean, “for the sake of the mutual covenant which we made at the Council, and which is represented by your king-name, Jehovah.”]

11-b    “PARDON MINE INIQUITY; FOR IT IS GREAT.” [This is an obvious reference to the powers of the atonement. At the New Year’s festival, before one could be anointed king, the king- designate had to be ceremonially cleansed (washed and pardoned) before he could continue in the sequence of ordinances and covenants. In our case, the Saviour’s atonement must be applied for the same reason.]

The next three verses of our Psalm are a reiteration of the blessings of those who receive the ordinances and covenants already referred to. These verses begin with the question,

12    “WHAT MAN IS HE THAT FEARETH [love, respects, as being in “awe” of, gives honor to] THE LORD?” Then it answers its own question:

12-b    “HIM [the man] SHALL HE [God] TEACH IN THE WAY [ I presume “in the way” means in the way. In other words, as one moves through the sequence called the “way,” God will teach him, not only the sequence, but also the meaning and significance of the steps.]

12-c    HE SHALL CHOOSE.” [As I read it, these words mean God will teach the man “in” the “way” so the man may know which options he should choose in order for him to have both the means and the opportunity to keep the covenants he made in Council.]

13   “HIS SOUL SHALL DWELL AT EASE; AND HIS SEED SHALL INHERIT THE EARTH.” [This is an enlargement of the promise we read in Psalm 37. Here the blessing that one’s soul will “dwell at ease” is tied to a further declaration that “his children shall inherit the earth.” Thus, the Beatitude, “Blessed are the meek,” carries with it all the promises of exaltation in the eternal bonds of family.

14    “THE SECRET [ sode — decisions of the Council ]OF THE LORD IS WITH THEM [the meek ]THAT FEAR [ respect, honor ] HIM; AND HE [the Lord] WILL SHOW THEM [the meek ]HIS COVENANT.” [which, I presume, means: The Lord will show him the covenant assignments made at the Council – and also remind him of the covenant provisions made at the Council which would guarantee that one would be able to fulfil those assignments]

As a review, let me get out of the way so you can read the scriptures as they are written, without all the stuff I put in between. They simply say,

7   Rest in the LORD, and wait patiently for him: fret not thyself because of him who prospereth in his way, because of the man who bringeth wicked devices to pass.
8   Cease from anger, and forsake wrath: fret not thyself in any wise to do evil.
9   For evildoers shall be cut off: but those that wait upon the LORD, they shall inherit the earth.
10   For yet a little while, and the wicked shall not be: yea, thou shalt diligently consider his place, and it shall not be.
11 But the meek shall inherit the earth; and shall delight themselves in the abundance of peace (Psalm 37:7-11) .

9 The meek will he guide in judgment: and the meek will he teach his way.
10 All the paths of the LORD are mercy and truth unto such as keep his covenant and his testimonies.
11 For thy name’s sake, O LORD, pardon mine iniquity; for it is great.
12 What man is he that feareth the LORD? him shall he teach in the way that he shall choose.
13 His soul shall dwell at ease; and his seed shall inherit the earth.
14 The secret of the LORD is with them that fear him; and he will shew them his covenant ( Psalm 25:9-14).

Jesus summed all that up by saying simply, “Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth..”

If one adds to that, Albright and Mann’s statement that the classic Greek word translated “blessed” literally means “in the state of the gods,.” (Anchor Bible, Matthew, p. 45, fn 3.), what we hear the Saviour saying is this:

“In the state of the gods are those who keep their eternal covenants, for it is they and their children who shall inherit the celestial earth.”

Now let us return to our original Book of Mormon scripture where this discussion began, “And with righteousness shall the Lord God judge the poor, and reprove with equity for the meek of the earth.”

The direct object of ‘judge’ is ‘the poor’, but the direct object of ‘reprove’ is not given. Presumably it is also the poor. In which case the words might be read, “And with righteousness shall the Lord God judge the poor, and reprove [the poor] with equity for [the sake of] the meek of the earth.”

I think what that says is that the Lord will judge the poor by the covenants they have made and that he will direct the affairs of the meek so they may fulfill those covenants, in order that the Lords purposes on this earth may be fulfilled. That, you will recall, is what Ephesians chapter one is all about.

2 Nephi 30:2 — LeGrand Baker– Name of God

2 Nephi 30:2
2   For behold, I say unto you that as many of the Gentiles as will repent are the covenant people of the Lord; and as many of the Jews as will not repent shall be cast off; for the Lord covenanteth with none save it be with them that repent and believe in his Son, who is the Holy One of Israel (2 Ne. 30:2 ).

The phrase “Holy One of Israel” is the key to the meaning of this verse, thus deserves close attention.

In the phrase, “Holy One of Israel,” the Hebrew word translated “Holy” does not mean “complete,” as “holy” often does. Rather it means: “sacred (ceremonially or morally)” (Strong 6918). In simpler English, on e could say “Holy” means “ceremonially sacred.”

The Hebrew word translated “one” does not simply mean the number, like in the sentence, ‘I have one rose.’ Rather it means oneness, to be “united,” or brought “together” (Strong 259 ).

We find in Psalms 89:18, “For the LORD is our defence; and the Holy One of Israel is our king.” And the similar statement in Isaiah 43:15, ” I am the LORD, your Holy One, the creator of Israel, your King.”

Thus it appears that the phrase “Holy One of Israel” is one of Jehovah’s king-names ( i.e. covenant name, or new name ), reminding us that the Father will “gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him:” (Ephesians 1:10); just as the phrase “Lord of Hosts” (Master of the Armies) is Jehovah’s king-name denoting his responsibility as protector, defender, and commanding general in Israel’s military relations with her neighbors.

Thus it appears that the phrase, “Holy one of israel” is the sacral king-name ( covenant name, or new name ) of the God and king by and in whom israel is ceremonially united.

That phrase “Holy One of Israel” is used 68 times in the scriptures. In each of those uses, the context suggests that the one spoken of has the rights, prerogatives, and powers of a king. But they rarely suggest kingship in a military sense. The greatest single scriptural concentration of the phrase, “Holy One of Israel,” is found in Second Nephi chapter 9, which is Jacob’s discourse on the atonement of Christ. (There it is used twelve times – almost one fifth of the whole. ) Most of these statements have to do with judgement and God’s power to be the judge – which was the most important peace-time power of an ancient Near Eastern king. Typical of Jacob’s teachings is this regard is 2 Nephi 9:25:

25  Wherefore, he has given a law; and where there is no law given there is no punishment; and where there is no punishment there is no condemnation; and where there is no condemnation the mercies of the Holy One of Israel have claim upon them, because of the atonement; for they are delivered by the power of him.

In other statements Jacob refers to Jehovah’s power to give and deny life, which is the ultimate of godly powers which can be expressed also as an earthly-kingly prerogative. Jacob speaks of “that God who gave them breath, which is the Holy One of Israel” ( 2 Ne. 9: 26). And “by the power of the resurrection of the Holy One of Israel” ( 2 Ne. 9:12).

Thus in Jacob’s magnificent sermon about the Saviour’s atonement, Jacob repeatedly ties the powers and prerogatives of the atonement to Jehovah’s authority as King. The second greatest scriptural consecration of the phrase “Holy One of Israel” is found in First Nephi 22 (6 times) which talks about Joseph Smith’s restoration of the temple and of the blessings associated therewith. Here the idea of Jehovah’s kingship is closely associated with the notion of kingship as it was taught by the Saviour in the Beatitudes, that is, the relationship between kingship (having the name “child of God”) and of having peace or being a “peacemaker.” (Nephi does not use the word “peace” in the following verses, but he describes it.)

24   And the time cometh speedily that the righteous must be led up as calves of the stall, and the Holy One of Israel must reign in dominion, and might, and power, and great glory.
….
26   And because of the righteousness of his people, Satan has no power; wherefore, he cannot be loosed for the space of many years; for he hath no power over the hearts of the people, for they dwell in righteousness [ i.e. zedek = priesthood and temple temple correctness ], and the Holy One of Israel reigneth. (1 Nephi 22:24-26 ).

Scholars assert that the Psalms are the texts of the ancient Israelite new year coronation festival. The writings of Isaiah are largely a commentary on the meaning of that festival and its coronation ceremonies. Nephi and Jacob’s writings are very closely tied to that same idea and sequence. Thus, it is not at all surprising that almost all of the scriptural uses of this sacred royal name of Israel’s God are found in the writings of Isaiah, Nephi, Jacob, and in the Psalms.

Now let us return to the verse which initiated this discussion. Embedded in that verse, written by Nephi, one discovers a carefully worded composite of all of the sacred kingship connotations found in the phrase “Holy One of Israel.”

2   For behold, I say unto you that as many of the Gentiles as will repent are the covenant people of the Lord; and as many of the Jews as will not repent shall be cast off; for the Lord covenanteth with none save it be with them that repent and believe in his Son, who is the Holy One of Israel (2 Ne. 30:2 ).