Category: Mosiah

Mosiah 29:26-27 — LeGrand Baker — The nature of government

Mosiah 29:26-27
26 Now it is not common that the voice of the people desireth anything contrary to that which is right; but it is common for the lesser part of the people to desire that which is not right; therefore this shall ye observe and make it your law—to do your business by the voice of the people.
27 And if the time comes that the voice of the people doth choose iniquity, then is the time that the judgments of God will come upon you; yea, then is the time he will visit you with great destruction even as he has hitherto visited this land.

In a very unexpected way, this chapter is one more, very strong, evidence that Joseph did not write the Book of Mormon. The reason is this:

Joseph Smith and Thomas Jefferson were contemporaries. Jefferson died in 1826, only 4 years before the Church was organized. At that time most Americans believe God had supported the Americans in the Revolutionary War, and that he had a direct hand in creating the Federal Constitution–and, of course, that the government created by the Constitution was the best of all possible governments. Joseph was taught that from childhood, and he certainly believed it. That being so, if this young man were writing the Book of Mormon, and if he had wanted to demonstrate that his fictional prophets were great and wise men, he would have had them anticipate the inspired American Constitution, by creating a government that looked like it as was built on the same principles, of representation and separation of powers. But he did not. It is the fact that he did not, that constitutes another “evidence” that he did not write the Book of Mormon.

What the book’s author does instead, is what he says he is doing: dividing the powers of an ancient king into two parts, and creating two separate systems of government–one political and the other ecclesiastical. The ancient kings had two primary responsibilities. First, they were the religious leaders. It was they who represented the will and power of the nation’s gods. In Egypt the kings claimed to be gods. In Israel they were the adopted sons of God. (See Psalm 2) The king was always the highest of the High Priests. Mosiah had not surrendered that authority to Alma when he gave him permission to organize a church, any more than Solomon had surrendered his authority over the Temple when he acknowledged Zadok as High Priest. But in chapter 28, Mosiah did surrender those powers. The record does not give details. It only reports:

20 And now, as I said unto you, that after king Mosiah had done these things, he took the plates of brass, and all the things which he had kept, and conferred them upon Alma, who was the son of Alma; yea, all the records, and also the interpreters, and conferred them upon him, and commanded him that he should keep and preserve them, and also keep a record of the people, handing them down from one generation to another, even as they had been handed down from the time that Lehi left Jerusalem. (Mosiah 28:20)

Possession of the royal religious regalia and genealogies was much of what constituted the legitimacy of kingship and priesthood. That Mosiah’s “conferred them upon” Alma was not only a formal investiture of authority, but also the surrendering of some of the most important symbols of sacral kingship.

The second part of the king’s duties had to do with keeping his nation secure. This entailed: 1) responsibility for the nation’s diplomacy and military welfare and action. 2) responsibility for the citizen’s personal security. The latter involved both making and enforcing the laws, and being the court of final appeal. So far as the people were concerned, the king’s being a righteous judge (whether in religious, civil, or criminal matters) was his single most important duty. That was true of political kingship, just as it is always true of sacral kingship. In the sequence of the Beatitudes, being merciful is the critical juncture that separates what must do to attain salvation, and one’s being able to “see God” and being “called” a child of God. In that sequence, one may do and achieve many things, but if one does not judge righteously, one can progress no farther.

It was the second part of his duties that King Mosiah retained for himself until his death, then transferred to the new Chief Judge.

An interesting, but unemphasized part of the story, is that Mosiah made that division in his authority before he put the proposition to his people about a system of judges, rather than a king.

It is also interesting that, even though the government he proposed was quite different from the American Constitution, the rationale he used to support his proposal was the same used by Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence to justify America’s separation from the British Empire.

King Mosiah wrote:

26 Now it is not common that the voice of the people desireth anything contrary to that which is right; but it is common for the lesser part of the people to desire that which is not right; therefore this shall ye observe and make it your law—to do your business by the voice of the people.
27 And if the time comes that the voice of the people doth choose iniquity, then is the time that the judgments of God will come upon you; yea, then is the time he will visit you with great destruction even as he has hitherto visited this land. (Mosiah 29: 26-27)

In Jefferson’s day, there were two main political philosophies, just as there are today.

One was the idea that rule should be in the hands of the elite. John Locke believed this should be the aristocracy–the propertied class–thus his assertion that peoples’ natural rights were “life, liberty, and property.”

The Frenchman, Jean Jacquis Rousseau, believed differently. His philosophy was that people were innately driven by avarice, therefore, no government controlled by the masses could possibly be equitable or legitimate, because it would soon deteriorate into a system of rule by the strong. He used the Dark Ages as evidence to support his thesis. He wrote that only a self-defined and self-appointed moral elite who were above the desires for wealth and self-aggrandizement could dispense justice, and that it was the responsibility of this moral elite to get control of the government and impose equity upon society. Both Communism (which saw the working class as the moral elite) and Fabian Socialism (which saw the well educated upper classes as the moral elite) are offshoots of Rousseau’s thinking.

Thomas Jefferson represented the other school of thought. The very best book I know about Jefferson’s philosophy is Gary Wills, Inventing America, Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence, first published by Doubleday in 1978. Jefferson did not accept Locke’s “life, liberty, and property,” but rather believed that the rights of all people were “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” The happiness of the citizenry, he believed, was the only correct criterion by which one could judge the legitimacy of a government. When he wrote that “all men were created equal,” he did not mean that there is a sameness in human ability, or aptitude, or even interests and desires. He and the Scottish thinkers he followed believed that all people are equal in that they share an innate sense of goodness and justice, and a conscience to help direct their thinking and actions. In this philosophy, any government that represents the masses would share that same sense of right and wrong, and its laws would reflect the conscience of the people. Therefore if a government were to be legitimate it must be chosen by the masses in order to ensure that it would support and defend that universal sense of right and wrong.

That was precisely King Mosiah’s rationale:

26 Now it is not common that the voice of the people desireth anything contrary to that which is right; but it is common for the lesser part of the people to desire that which is not right; therefore this shall ye observe and make it your law—to do your business by the voice of the people.

And Mosiah’s warning is as relevant now as it was more than 2,000 years ago:

27 And if the time comes that the voice of the people doth choose iniquity, then is the time that the judgments of God will come upon you; yea, then is the time he will visit you with great destruction even as he has hitherto visited this land. (Mosiah 29: 26-27)

8 – Mosiah 28: 13 — LeGrand Baker — the Urim and Thummim

Mosiah 28: 13,
13 And now he translated them by the means of those two stones which were fastened into the two rims of a bow.

That sounds very much like Joseph Smith’s description: “Also, that there were two stones in silver bows—and these stones, fastened to a breastplate, constituted what is called the Urim and Thummim” (Joseph Smith-History:35a) – – and, in fact, they clearly are describing the same thing.

– – – – – – – – – – –

Limhi brought Mosiah a record, “engraven on plates of ore,” (Mosiah 21:27) which he translated by the aid of “two stones which were fastened into the two rims of a bow,” and which gave an account of the Jaredites.(Mosiah 28:11-19).

There is little question about their origin, but there is no information about how Mosiah got those stones except that they were a “gift from God.” (Mosiah 21:28)

They had originally been given, by the Lord, to the brother of Jared. When the Lord commanded the brother of Jared to seal up the record of his great vision, he also instructed him to include with it the Urim and Thummim so that, in the future, one who had the authority could read the record.(Ether 3:21-28) Since they were used by Mosiah for that purpose, one may assume that his “interpreters” were the same as the “Urim and Thummim” that the brother of Jared had sealed up.

But there is no evidence about when or where Mosiah received them. He got them before he was given the plates of Ether. One knows that because the king had already used them to translate the ‘large stone’ that was had engravings on it. Those writings were translated by the “gift and power of God.” (Omni 1:20-21) – the same words that describe how the Book of Mormon was translated.

The history of the Urim and Thummim (called interpreters in the Book of Mormon) is easy to trace after that. Mosiah gave them to Alma (Mosiah 28:20), who in turn gave them to Helaman (Alma 37:20-22). Each gave their successors instructions that they were to be passed down with the plates, sword, and other sacred things. There is no record of that happening, but it clearly did. In the end, Moroni says he hid the Urim and Thummim and the plates together so they could be given to the Prophet Joseph (Ether 4:1-6).

After the Book of Mormon was translated, Joseph did not return them to Moroni with the plates, but continued to use them. The latest account I know of his having them was in July 1843, about a year before Joseph died. William Clayton who was Joseph’s scribe in Nauvoo left this account of the writing of the revelation that is now D&C 132;

He [Joseph] then requested me to get paper and prepare to write. Hyrum very urgently requested Joseph to write the revelation by means of the Urim and Thummim, but Joseph, in reply, said he did not need to, for he knew the revelation perfectly from beginning to end. (Andrew Jensen, Historical Record, Vol. 5-9 [Salt Lake City, Andrew Jensen, 1886-1890], p. 225.)

That part of their history is all clear enough, but that is the only part that is clear. As far as I know, there is no evidence of what happened to them after Joseph’s death, just as there is no account of their origin, other than that they were given, by the Lord, to the Brother of Jared.

– – – – – – – – – –

It appears there is more than one set of stones called the Urim and Thummim (Or else there is only one and the Lord moves them from continent to continent as various people have need of them.)

There are several other references to the (or a) Urim and Thummim in the Old World scriptures. Abraham had a set by which he learned about the systems of stars (Abraham 3:1-4). There is no evidence of where he got it, or what he did with it. Moses later had one, but since Moses did not get his Melchizedek Priesthood from his Israelite fathers in Egypt, it is unlikely that they had the Urim and Thummim to give him. But one does not know that. Moses got the priesthood from his father-in-law, Jethro, who was a descendent of Abraham from another son.

Moses gave the Urim and Thummim to Aaron, who carried in the breastplate that was a part of his high-priestly garments. (Exodus 28:30, Leviticus 8:8, Numbers 27:21, Deuteronomy 33:8) Tradition has it that the they continued with the High Priests until – – – no one knows when. There is a reference to them in 1 Samuel 28:6 that says they didn’t work for King Saul. The implication is that they should have been working, but it doesn’t actually say who was using them, or even if they were really available to use. That is the last we hear of them in the Old Testament until after the Babylonian captivity. Then, there are two versions of the same story in Ezra 2:63 and Nehemiah 7:65. The story is that some people without a proven genealogy were trying to claim they were from a priestly family. The decision about what to do with them was that they could not be acknowledged as priests until their linage was confirmed by someone who used the Urim and Thummim. The implication of that postponement is that at that time there was no one who could do use the Urim and Thummim–presumably because no one had the authority, or no one even knew where they were.

Mosiah 27:34-35 — LeGrand Baker — sons of Mosiah

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

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

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

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

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

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

One does not kill just the king, but also anyone that might claim his throne.

As a footnote to that story as it is told by Josephus, Whiston observed,

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

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

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

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

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

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

“And now if there should be another appointed in his stead, behold I fear there would rise contentions among you. And who knoweth but what my son, to whom the kingdom doth belong, should turn to be angry, and claim his right to the kingdom, and draw away a part of this people after him, which would cause wars and contentions among you, which would be the cause of shedding much blood.” (Mosiah 129, 7&9. I have constructed the statement using words in both verses.)

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

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

Mosiah 27:24-27 — LeGrand Baker– born of the Spirit.

24 For, said he, I have repented of my sins, and have been redeemed of the Lord; behold I am born of the Spirit.
25 And the Lord said unto me: Marvel not that all mankind, yea, men and women, all nations, kindreds, tongues and people, must be born again; yea, born of God, changed from their carnal and fallen state, to a state of righteousness, being redeemed of God, becoming his sons and daughters;
26 And thus they become new creatures; and unless they do this, they can in nowise inherit the kingdom of God.
27 I say unto you, unless this be the case, they must be cast off; and this I know, because I was like to be cast off.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

It is difficult to know how one is to understand Alma’s words. Like so many places it the scriptures, the words can be read to convey seemingly different messages. And, as is typical with such scriptures, each of those messages is (or appears to be) equally valid. Let me show you what I mean. I will quote those verses three times. Each time I will put a different interpretation of the words in brackets.

A – – – – – – – – – – – – –

24 For, said he, I have repented of my sins, and have been redeemed [Believe in the atonement] of the Lord; behold I am born of the Spirit. [Having been baptized, I have also received the Gift of the Holy Ghost.]
25 And the Lord said unto me: Marvel not that all mankind, yea, men and women, all nations, kindreds, tongues and people, must be born again [Be baptized and receive the Gift of the Holy Ghost]; yea, born of God, [It must be done by proper authority] changed from their carnal and fallen state [keep their baptismal covenant and become a true Latter-day Saint], to a state of righteousness [keeping the commandments], being redeemed of God [having the atonement apply to oneself], becoming his sons and daughters [become humble and teachable as a little child];
26 And thus they become new creatures [develop a lifestyle that is compatible with the gospel]; and unless they do this, they can in nowise inherit the kingdom of God. [those are prerequisites to going to the Celestial Kingdom.]
27 I say unto you, unless this be the case, they must be cast off; and this I know, because I was like to be cast off. [Otherwise one will not go to the Celestial Kingdom.]

I doubt if anyone would disagree with that interpretation. That is the way I have been taught since childhood, and I certainly would not question its validity.

Yet, if we were to put those same words in the mouth of a modern prophet, and make the context a sermon he was delivering to an audience that consisted only of temple worshiping Latter-day Saints, I suspect one would hear it quite differently.

B – – – – – – – – – – – – –

24 For, said he, I have repented of my sins, and have been redeemed [Have a burning testimony of the atonement] of the Lord; behold I am born of the Spirit. [Having been baptized, I have received the Gift of the Holy Ghost, and been admitted into the family of God—which implies the sealing ordinances.]
25 And the Lord said unto me: Marvel not that all mankind, yea, men and women, all nations, kindreds, tongues and people, must be born again [Receive all the ordinances, including the temple ordinances]; yea, born of God, [It must be done by proper authority] changed from their carnal and fallen state [keep one’s temple covenants to become a true Latter-day Saint], to a state of righteousness [being in all ways worthy of a temple recommend], being redeemed of God [having the atonement apply to oneself], becoming his sons and daughters [become humble and teachable as a little child–but in the context of keeping one’s temple covenants];
26 And thus they become new creatures [develop a lifestyle that is compatible with the temple covenants]; and unless they do this, they can in nowise inherit the kingdom of God. [those are prerequisites to going to the Celestial Kingdom.]
27 I say unto you, unless this be the case, they must be cast off; and this I know, because I was like to be cast off. [Otherwise one will not go to the Celestial Kingdom.]

I don’t suppose anyone would disagree with that interpretation either. It is consistent with everything I have been taught since I became an adult.

Nevertheless, if one insists that the words in these verses be interpreted in their most precise meaning, then the meaning of the whole is changed more dramatically still.

C – – – – – – – – – – – – –

24 For, said he, I have repented of my sins, and have been redeemed [In many places in the Book of Mormon, to be redeemed means to be brought into the presence of God. Heleman 14:16-18, 2 Ne. 1: 15, 2 Nephi 2: 2-4, Ether 3:13] of the Lord; behold I am born of the Spirit. [to become the sons and daughters of God: Psalm 2, 3 Nephi 12: 8-9, Ether 3:13-14, Moroni 7:46-48.]
25 And the Lord said unto me: Marvel not that all mankind, yea, men and women, all nations, kindreds, tongues and people, must be born again [become the sons and daughters of God, as in the scriptures above]; yea, born of God, [2 Peter 1: 1-11. Read the first verse, “Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith {pistis- tokens of the covenants] with us through the righteousness [correct temple things] of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ, then the remainder becomes a sequence that concludes, “give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall:For so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ”] changed from their carnal and fallen state [Moroni 10: 32-33, “Yea, come unto Christ, and be perfected in him, and deny yourselves of all ungodliness; and if ye shall deny yourselves of all ungodliness, and love God with all your might, mind and strength, then is his grace sufficient for you, that by his grace ye may be perfect in Christ; and if by the grace of God ye are perfect in Christ, ye can in nowise deny the power of God.”], to a state of righteousness [“righteousness” is zedek, which means the correctness in all temple things] being redeemed of God [being brought into the presence of God], becoming his sons and daughters [ Becoming heirs, that one may receive all that the Father has. In Ephesians 1:5 Paul explains this by saying we were foreordained “unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself [to Heavenly Father], according to the good pleasure of his [Heavenly Father’s] will.” I understand that to mean even though we are Heavenly Father’s spirit children, only the Saviour has the right to inherit all the Father has, but that through the Saviour’s atonement, we may become his joint heirs to all the Father has.]
26 And thus they become new creatures [ [Moroni 10: 33-34, “And again, if ye by the grace of God are perfect in Christ, and deny not his power, then are ye sanctified in Christ by the grace of God, through the shedding of the blood of Christ, which is in the covenant of the Father unto the remission of your sins, that ye become holy, without spot. [and can say with Moroni,] And now I bid unto all, farewell. I soon go to rest in the paradise of God, until my spirit and body shall again reunite, and I am brought forth triumphant through the air, to meet you before the pleasing bar of the great Jehovah, the Eternal Judge of both quick and dead. Amen.]; and unless they do this, they can in nowise inherit the kingdom of God. [those are prerequisites to inheriting the Celestial Kingdom.”]
27 I say unto you, unless this be the case, they must be cast off; and this I know, because I was like to be cast off. [Otherwise one cannot inherit the Celestial Kingdom.]

I put all those scriptural references in there because I realize that interpretation seems very severe, and because one cannot relate it to experiences one has had in this life, it may seem to be not all that relevant. Still, I suppose it is also a valid interpretation.

Mosiah 27: 8-17 — LeGrand Baker– Angel visits Alma

Our verses for today are Mosiah 27: 8-17, the account of the angel’s visiting Alma. It is probably one of everyone’s favorite stories in the Book of Mormon—but it asks a couple very serious questions that sits in the back of almost everyone’s mind—“Why not me?” And: “Why not so-and-so, whom I think needs a good kick in the pants by an angel?”

As far as I can tell, there are three answers to those questions. They all have to do with our Father in Heaven’s keeping as many of us as he can from going to hell. And even in that there may appear to be an inconsistency. It seems that some will go to hell because they see angels, and that others are saved from going to hell because they see an angel.

So, I suppose that a perfectly reasonable question is: What criteria does God use to decide who will see angels? First of all, I know as well as you do, that I don’t know the answer to that question. However there are some interesting things in Church history and in the scriptures that can probably bring one close to discovering what that answer is. Lets look at some examples.

The first example isn’t about angels at all. It is about Cain’s conversation with the Lord. Here is the short version:

20 …And the Lord had respect unto Abel, and to his offering;
21 But unto Cain, and to his offering, he had not respect….
22 And the Lord said unto Cain: Why art thou wroth? Why is thy countenance fallen?
23 If thou doest well, thou shalt be accepted…
26 And Cain was wroth, and listened not any more to the voice of the Lord,…(Moses 5:20-26)

In the Laman and Lemuel story the same thing happened. They got angry and stayed angry.

Another example is Sylvester Smith (no relation to Joseph). At the dedication of the Kirtland Temple, “The heavens were opened unto Elder Sylvester Smith, and he, leaping up, exclaimed: ‘The horsemen of Israel and the chariots thereof.’” (DHC 2: 382 – 383.) George A. Smith added some detail. “In his exertion and excitement it seemed as though he would jump through the ceiling.” (JD 11:10) Sylvester became one of the leading men who spread rumors about the Prophet and drove him from Kirtland. Later on, he bore this reverse testimony. President Jedediah M. Grant told what happened after that.

       In relation to men’s apostatizing, I recollect in the upper room of the Temple in Kirtland, Ohio, when we were assembled there, a very noted man, by the name of Sylvester Smith, bore testimony of what he had seen of the Prophet of God, of angels, &c. He said he wanted to bear testimony, and continued to say, “I have spoken by what you call the Holy Ghost; the eyes of my understanding have been touched, and I have seen convoy after convoy of angels; I have laid hands on the lame, and they have leaped like an hart; I have spoken with tongues and had the interpretation thereof; I have seen the sick healed time after time;—but let me tell you, everything I have seen and everything you have seen is the height of idiotism.” This was Sylvester Smith, after he apostatized.
This was the testimony of an apostate, which is conclusive proof to me that a man may see the hosts of heaven—the chariots of Israel and the horsemen thereof, and gaze on the glory of God, and be filled with the Holy Ghost; and unless he retains the Spirit of God, he will apostatize. Therefore my advice to the Saints has been, and is, and whenever I give you good advice in the future, it will be the same, that you propose in your hearts never to depart from God or from his people, only when you are filled with the Holy Ghost; and then when you do it, ask counsel of his servants. (JD 6: 254.)

In brilliant contrast, there are stories of people who were already angry, but who changed, never to change again. These are the stories of Alma, Paul, and the 300 Lamanites who came to the prison to mock Nephi and Lehi.

I have no doubt that the men, women, and children who were gathered at the Bountiful Temple when the Saviour came, were a very select group of righteous individuals, Even so, he made this remarkable statement to them.

…therefore blessed are ye if ye shall believe in me and be baptized, after that ye have seen me and know that I am. And again, more blessed are they who shall believe in your words because that ye shall testify that ye have seen me, and that ye know that I am.(3 Ne. 12: 1b-2a)

I think the rationale behind that may be this: Before we came to this earth, we already demonstrated how we would behave when we were in the presence of God and his Council. Now we are in this world to demonstrate to ourselves and to God how we bill behave when we are on our own. That does not imply that we don’t get help. It only says we don’t always get to see the help we get. Here are two examples. The first is from the Prophet Joseph.

       Also, I saw Elder Brigham Young standing in a strange land, in the far south and west, in a desert place, upon a rock in the midst of about a dozen men of color, who appeared hostile. He was preaching to them in their own tongue, and the angel of God standing above his head, with a drawn Sword in his hand, protecting him, but he did not see it. (DHC 2: 382.)

The other was told by President Heber J. Grant.

       From October when I was called to be one of the council of the Twelve, until the following February, I had but little joy and happiness in my labors. There was a spirit following me that told me that I lacked the experience, that I lacked the inspiration, that I lacked the testimony to be worthy of the position of an apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ. My dear mother had inspired me with such a love of the gospel and with such a reverence and admiration for the men who stood at the head of this Church, that when I was called to be one of them I was overpowered; I felt my unworthiness and the adversary taking advantage of that feeling in my heart, day and night, the spirit pursued me, suggesting that I resign, and when I testified of the divinity of the work we are engaged in, the words would come back, “You haven’t seen the Savior; you have no right to bear such a testimony,” and I was very unhappy.
But in February, 1883, while riding along on the Navajo Indian Reservation with Elder Brigham Young, Jr., and fifteen or twenty other brethren, including the late president, Lot Smith, of one of the Arizona stakes, on our way to visit the Navajos and Moquis—as we were traveling that day, going through a part of the Navajo Reservation to get to the Moqui Reservation—as we were traveling to the southeast, suddenly the road turned and veered almost to the northeast, but there was a path, a trail, leading on in the direction in which we had been traveling. There were perhaps eight or ten of us on horseback and the rest in wagons. Brother Smith and I were at the rear of our company. When we came to the trail I said, “Wait a minute, Lot; where does this trail lead to?”
He said, “Oh, it leads back in the road three or four miles over here, but we have to make a detour of eight or nine miles to avoid a large gully that no wagons can cross.”
I asked: “Can a horseman get over that gully?” He answered, “Yes.”….
I had perhaps gone one mile when in the kind providences of the Lord it was manifested to me perfectly so far as my intelligence is concerned—I did not see heaven, I did not see a council held there, but like Lehi of old, I seemed to see, and my very being was so saturated with the information that I received, as I stopped my animal and sat there and communed with heaven, that I am as absolutely convinced of the information that came to me upon that occasion as though the voice of God had spoken the words to me.
It was manifested to me there and then as I sat there and wept for joy that it was not because of any particular intelligence that I possessed, that it was not because of any knowledge that I possessed more than a testimony of the gospel, that it was not because of my wisdom, that I had been called to be one of the apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ in this last dispensation, but it was because the prophet of God, the man who was the chosen instrument in the hands of the living God of establishing again upon the earth the plan of life and salvation, Joseph Smith, desired that I be called, and that my father, Jedediah M. Grant, who gave his life for the gospel, while one of the presidency of the Church, a counselor to President Brigham Young, and who had been dead for nearly twenty-six years, desired that his son should be a member of the Council of the Twelve. It was manifested to me that the prophet and my father were able to bestow upon me the apostleship because of their faithfulness, inasmuch as I had lived a clean life, that now it remained for me to make a success or a failure of that calling. (President Heber J. Grant., Conference Report, October 1918, First Day—Morning Session 24 – 25.)

So, why do some see, and some not see, and some see some of the time and not all the time? I believe that the answer to all those questions is the same: So God can give his children experiences most conducive to their gaining eternal salvation. Two scriptures help explain how he determines that. The first is in Mormon’s great sermon in Moroni 7:

29 And because he [God] hath done this, my beloved brethren, have miracles ceased? Behold I say unto you, Nay; neither have angels ceased to minister unto the children of men.
30 For behold, they are subject unto him, to minister according to the word of his command, showing themselves unto them of strong faith and a firm mind in every form of godliness.
31 And the office of their ministry is to call men unto repentance, and to fulfil and to do the work of the covenants of the Father, which he hath made unto the children of men, to prepare the way among the children of men, by declaring the word of Christ unto the chosen vessels of the Lord, that they may bear testimony of him.
32 And by so doing, the Lord God prepareth the way that the residue of men may have faith in Christ, that the Holy Ghost may have place in their hearts, according to the power thereof; and after this manner bringeth to pass the Father, the covenants which he hath made unto the children of men. (Moroni 7: 29-32)

There are two points here that are important to our investigation:

(1) God sends angels to people who are “of strong faith and a firm mind.” The corollary to that is: When people who are not of strong faith or do not have a firm mind, see an angel, one can be assured that the angel they saw is not of God, and therefore the testimony they bear is neither valid nor binding.

[When I sent this to Bruce to review, he responded, “This is a little unclear—are you saying that Paul and Alma really were of strong faith and a firm mind before they were visited?” Now, that’s a jolly good question, and I don’t know the answer. But as I thought about it, I think I would guess that the answer is “yes.” This is my rationale: Paul and Alma had two of the strongest intellects in the New Testament and the Book of Mormon respectively. We don’t know what motivated Alma, but there can be no question that Paul’s persecution of the Church was an honest expression of his being “the perfect Jew.” After Paul’s vision, he did not change—he only transferred his integrity and his academic preparations to supporting Christianity. Since the result of Alma’s vision was the same as Paul’s, it may be true that their motivation and their preparations were similar also. It is certainly true that everything we know about Alma evinces he had a “firm mind.” The question of “strong faith” presents a different problem. If Paul’s misdirected “faith” is brought into play, I don’t think that would qualify. And whatever motivated Alma would not qualify either. So now we have to either disallow Mormon’s statement, or else we have to look somewhere else to discover how it may be true. In the next few pages, I will suggest that the decisions about who would see angels were based on assignments one received and covenants one made while at the Council in Heaven. If that is correct, then it is probably also correct that the “strong faith” one exercised in conjunction with that assignment, happened before one came here. So that whether one is to a Laman or an Alma, Heavenly Father keeps his part of the covenant by sending angels to people according to the decisions and promises that were made at the Council.]

(2) The Reason some see angels is so they can teach the others of us. The corollary to that is “And again, more blessed are they who shall believe in your words because that ye shall testify that ye have seen me, and that ye know that I am.” It follows, then, that those who believe without seeing, have as great a blessing in store as those who have seen.

The remaining question is “How does God decide who does, and who does not see angels?”

Since I do not know a direct scriptural answer to that question, it leaves one to try to understand by inference. But in this case the inference seems to work very well.

– – – – – – – – – – – – –

In Section 132, What the Lord is about to explain to the Prophet Joseph is that the Patriarchs’ having multiple wives was a matter of prior justification, and that justification was based on assignments they received, and covenants they made at the Council in Heaven. So in the next few verses, it is the nature and importance of the law-of-pre-mortal-covenant that he talks about.

3 Therefore, prepare thy heart to receive and obey the instructions which I am about to give unto you; for all those who have this law revealed unto them must obey the same.

“This law,” as he is about to explain, is the law derived from one’s eternal covenants.

4 For behold, I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting covenant; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory.

When the Lord says “no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory,” that is serious business. If he were talking about polygamy, we would all be in bad trouble. But he is not, he is talking about the individual covenants we made at the Council. The covenants he is talking about are “new” because they are renewed in the world, and they are “everlasting” because they were made before we came here and their consequences reach into eternity.

On that same page in the Doctrine and Covenants, but in the previous section, one reads,

1 In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees;
2 And in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this order of the priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage]; (D&C 131:1-2)

It is easy to transfer that statement found in section 131 to section 132 where the latter reads “new and everlasting covenant” so that 132 is changed to read, “meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage.” But to make that change distorts the meaning of section 132. For example, the whole of D&C 22 reads.

1 Behold, I say unto you that all old covenants have I caused to be done away in this thing; and this is a new and an everlasting covenant, even that which was from the beginning.
2 Wherefore, although a man should be baptized an hundred times it availeth him nothing, for you cannot enter in at the strait gate by the law of Moses, neither by your dead works.
3 For it is because of your dead works that I have caused this last covenant and this church to be built up unto me, even as in days of old.
4 Wherefore, enter ye in at the gate, as I have commanded, and seek not to counsel your God. Amen. (D&C 22:1-4)

There, baptism is a new and everlasting covenant. That is easy to understand because baptism (either in person or vicariously performed) is a necessary prerequisite to justification. The point is that in the D&C there are three different pre-mortal covenants which are called “new and everlasting:”

1) baptism – D&C 22

2) “of marriage” [but not necessarily of plural marriage] – D&C 131

3) the “law” spoken of in section 132

To confirm the meaning and origin of the “law” which cannot be broken, the Lord ties it to the covenants made at the Council in Heaven.

5 For all who will have a blessing at my hands shall abide the law which was appointed for that blessing, and the conditions thereof, as were instituted from before the foundation of the world.

In the next verses he explains what this “new and everlasting covenant” is.

6 And as pertaining to the new and everlasting covenant, it was instituted for the fulness of my glory; and he that receiveth a fulness thereof must and shall abide the law, or he shall be damned, saith the Lord God.
7 And verily I say unto you, that the conditions of this law are these: All covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations, that are not made and entered into and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, of him who is anointed, both as well for time and for all eternity, and that too most holy, by revelation and commandment through the medium of mine anointed, whom I have appointed on the earth to hold this power (and I have appointed unto my servant Joseph to hold this power in the last days, and there is never but one on the earth at a time on whom this power and the keys of this priesthood are conferred), are of no efficacy, virtue, or force in and after the resurrection from the dead; for all contracts that are not made unto this end have an end when men are dead.

That is one of the most legalistic passages in the scriptures. If one temporarily sets aside the legal language and the part about there being only one prophet at a time on the earth who holds the keys, those verses read this way:

6 And as pertaining to the new and everlasting covenant, it was instituted for the fulness of my glory; and he that receiveth a fulness thereof must and shall abide the law, or he shall be damned, saith the Lord God.
7 And verily I say unto you, that the conditions of this law are these: All covenants, …that are not made and entered into and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise … are of no efficacy, virtue, or force in and after the resurrection from the dead; for all contracts that are not made unto this end have an end when men are dead. [“unto this end” means mortal actions must accord with the pre-mortal covenants]

Then the Lord explains why that is so.

8 Behold, mine house is a house of order, saith the Lord God, and not a house of confusion.
9 Will I accept of an offering, saith the Lord, that is not made in my name?
10 Or will I receive at your hands that which I have not appointed?
11 And will I appoint unto you, saith the Lord, except it be by law, even as I and my Father ordained unto you, before the world was?

This is the way I read those last four verses. The Lord will not consider what one does in this world to be “good,” and therefore as “acceptable,” unless what one does is in accordance with the covenants one made with the Saviour and his Father “before the world was.” And the Lord will require nothing of us in this life except those things which are inherent in those same covenants.

12 I am the Lord thy God; and I give unto you this commandment—that no man shall come unto the Father but by me or by my word, which is my law, saith the Lord.

If he is still talking about the same law, it is one’s keeping those individual covenants which people made before they came here that qualifies one for the celestial world – that is, it is the meek who shall inherit the celestial earth.

13 And everything that is in the world, whether it be ordained of men, by thrones, or principalities, or powers, or things of name, whatsoever they may be, that are not by me or by my word, saith the Lord, shall be thrown down, and shall not remain after men are dead, neither in nor after the resurrection, saith the Lord your God.

None of these new and everlasting covenants are generic, but are all tailored to specific individuals. Even baptism, which is a universal commandant is an individual matter. The fact that these new and everlasting covenants were made in Heaven does not preclude one’s free agency on earth. Rather, keeping those covenants must be an exercise of one’s agency. One of the reasons we came to this earth was to discover whether we will keep those covenants in an environment which is not conducive to our keeping them – indeed, which offers rewards for our ignoring or violating them. Notwithstanding the covenants one made there, one has the option of not keeping them here – the rewards of not doing so are ephemeral – but they wear the cloak of reality. They include the whole catalog of wealth and power to exercise all sorts of governmental, commercial, institutional, and individual authority in the lives of other people. But all such advantages are tentative, and their only eternal consequence is the permanent loss of their temporary gain.

14 For whatsoever things remain are by me; and whatsoever things are not by me shall be shaken and destroyed.

God keeps his covenants but he will not be mocked. The terms of the covenant are negated by anyone who does not do their part, then they cannot receive the blessings which were guaranteed by the covenant. After that introduction, the Lord opens the subject of latter-day celestial marriage.

15 Therefore, if a man marry him a wife in the world….(D&C132:1-15)

“Therefore” is the conjunction between the principle of covenantal justification, and the specific question of why the ancients were justified in their practice of celestial marriage. The Lord, having established the principle of the importance of foreordination, will now show how that principle is applied to the question of how those men were justified in having more than one wife. The justification is simply this: that decision was made at the Council and was a part of their individual new and everlasting covenants. Implicit in that justification is another principle: if that arrangement was not part of one’s pre-mortal covenants, and if a man takes multiple wives anyway, he is in very bad trouble.

One more word about keeping one’s “new and everlasting covenant.” Over the years I have heard many young friends wonder out loud: “How am I going to know what the Lord expects me to do in this life?” The consequences of one’s not knowing and not doing are very severe, yet we wander about in this world of darkness, going through life half awake, and uncertain about where and how to walk. After much thought and a good deal of watching other people, I have found an answer to that question which I believe is true: One should seek to be happy — that means live according to the law of one’s own being – be your Self and cover that Self with no facade which prevents family and friends from filling one’s life with companionship and joy – find a profession which gives one a sense of fulfillment, or if that is not possible (as it was not for my own father who was a laborer in a steel factory), then do what he did: use the fruits one’s labors to bless the lives of other people – find joy in seeing others discover their own sense of Self – and live close to the Spirit.

The reason I believe that is the correct answer is this: I do not believe the Lord would give us an assignment which conflicts with the fundamental law of our individual personalities – consequently, I believe our assignments were each designed to bring us maximum happiness, and at the conclusion of our lives, maximum fulfillment. (I can say from personal experience that when one reaches a critical juncture where one must make a life changing decision, the Spirit will tell one which path to take – sometimes with a still, small voice, sometimes with the proverbial 2×4 at the side of the head – but by whichever means, it will be sufficient for one to know what one must do.) I believe that by the time one gets out of this life,1 if one can define one’s Self in terms of charity and faithfulness, then the final “judgment day” will be a time of fulfillment – a time of rejoicing and of renewal.

If that principle holds true with the question, “how does God justify the practice of plural marriage,” I suppose it also holds true with every other facet of our assignments here—including the responsibility of seeing, and responding to the instructions of angels.

—————
ENDNOTE

1} That statement can only work if “this life” is considered to be all of our experiences between the time of physical birth and the time of our final judgment. Our “this life” must include both our life in this body and the one that follows when we are spirits waiting for the resurrection.

Mosiah 26:39 — LeGrand Baker — prayer without ceasing

Mosiah 26:39
And they did admonish their brethren; and they were also admonished, every one by the word of God, according to his sins, or to the sins which he had committed, being commanded of God to pray without ceasing, and to give thanks in all things.

There is a phrase in this verse that is almost unique, it is “pray without ceasing.” The only other place in the scriptures it is found is Paul’s admonition in 1 Thessalonians 5:12-20.

There is another phrase that is found only in the Book of Mormon, and there only twice. It seems to have a slightly different connotation. It is “pray continually”

Another similar phrase, and is found in each of the standard works except the Pearl of Great Price. It is “pray always.”

I had always assumed they all three meant the same thing—until today when I asked, “is their contest the same, or does their contexts suggest a different meaning. What I found was, to me at least, most interesting. They are all different from each other, and I would like to show you.

“Pray always” is an admonition, and each time the phrase is used there is a blessing promised to one does. I’ve given a quick synopsis of each, then I add an “appendix” where I will quote each in context.

There is a phrase in this verse that is almost unique, it is “pray without ceasing.” The only other place in the scriptures it is found is Paul’s admonition in 1 Thessalonians 5:12-20.

12 And we beseech you, brethren, to know them which labour among you, and are over you in the Lord, and admonish you;
13 And to esteem them very highly in love for their work’s sake. And be at peace among yourselves.
14 Now we exhort you, brethren, warn them that are unruly, comfort the feebleminded, support the weak, be patient toward all men.
15 See that none render evil for evil unto any man; but ever follow that which is good, both among yourselves, and to all men.
16 Rejoice evermore.
17 pray without ceasing.
18 In every thing give thanks: for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus concerning you.
19 Quench not the Spirit.
20 Despise not prophesyings.

There is another phrase that is found only in the Book of Mormon, and there only twice. It seems to have a slightly different connotation. It is “pray continually”

2 But behold, there are many that harden their hearts against the Holy Spirit, that it hath no place in them; wherefore, they cast many things away which are written and esteem them as things of naught.
3 But I, Nephi, have written what I have written, and I esteem it as of great worth, and especially unto my people. For I pray continually for them by day, and mine eyes water my pillow by night, because of them; and I cry unto my God in faith, and I know that he will hear my cry.

Alma 13
28 But that ye would humble yourselves before the Lord, and call on his holy name, and watch andpray continually, that ye may not be tempted above that which ye can bear, and thus be led by the Holy Spirit, becoming humble, meek, submissive, patient, full of love and all long-suffering;
29 Having faith on the Lord; having a hope that ye shall receive eternal life; having the love of God always in your hearts, that ye may be lifted up at the last day and enter into his rest.

Another similar phrase, and is found in all the standard works except the Pearl of Great Price. It is “pray always.”

I had always assumed they all meant the same thing until today when I asked, “is their contest the same, or does their contexts suggest a different meaning. What I found was, to me at least, most interesting, and I would like to show you.

“Pray always” is an admonition, and each time the phrase is used there is a blessing promised to one does. I’ve given a quick synopsis of each, then I add an “appendix” where I will quote each in context.

Luke 21:34-36 — “pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy”

2 Thessalonians 1:9-12 — “pray always for you, that our God would count you worthy”

2 Nephi 32:5-9 — “pray always… that he will consecrate thy performance unto thee”

3 Nephi 18:14-21 —

D&C 10:3-5 — “Pray always, that you may come off conqueror”

D&C 19:37-39 — “pray always, and I will pour out my Spirit upon you”

D&C 20: 32-34 — “ pray always, lest they fall into temptation”

D&C 31:11-13 — “Pray always, lest you enter into temptation and lose your reward.”

D&C 32:3-5 — “pray always that I may unfold the same to their understanding”

D&C 61:38-39 — “Pray always that you enter not into temptation”

D&C 88:123-127 — “Pray always, that ye may not faint”

D&C 90:22-26 — “pray always, … and all things shall work together for your good”

D&C 93:49-52 — “pray always lest that wicked one have power in you
…. pray always, or they shall be removed out of their place….”

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

APPENDIX

Luke 21:34-36 — “pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy”

34 And take heed to yourselves, lest at any time your hearts be overcharged with surfeiting, and drunkenness, and cares of this life, and so that day come upon you unawares.
35 For as a snare shall it come on all them that dwell on the face of the whole earth.
36 Watch ye therefore, and pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all these things that shall come to pass, and to stand before the Son of man.

2 Thessalonians 1:9-12 — “pray always for you, that our God would count you worthy”

9 Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;
10 When he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe (because our testimony among you was believed) in that day.
11 Wherefore also we pray always for you, that our God would count you worthy of this calling, and fulfil all the good pleasure of his goodness, and the work of faith with power:
12 That the name of our Lord Jesus Christ may be glorified in you, and ye in him, according to the grace of our God and the Lord Jesus Christ.

2 Nephi 32:5-9 — “pray always… that he will consecrate thy performance unto thee”

5 For behold, again I say unto you that if ye will enter in by the way, and receive the Holy Ghost, it will show unto you all things what ye should do.
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.
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 mustpray 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.

3 Nephi 18:14-21 —

The instructions from the Savior are “pray always, lest ye be tempted by the devil;….
pray always lest ye enter into temptation;….” Then there is a switch in order: “always pray…whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, which is right, believing that ye shall receive, behold it shall be given unto you.”

14 Therefore blessed are ye if ye shall keep my commandments, which the Father hath commanded me that I should give unto you.
15 Verily, verily, I say unto you, ye must watch and pray always, lest ye be tempted by the devil, and ye be led away captive by him.
16 And as I have prayed among you even so shall ye pray in my church, among my people who do repent and are baptized in my name. Behold I am the light; I have set an example for you.
17 And it came to pass that when Jesus had spoken these words unto his disciples, he turned again unto the multitude and said unto them:
18 Behold, verily, verily, I say unto you, ye must watch and pray always lest ye enter into temptation; for Satan desireth to have you, that he may sift you as wheat.
19 Therefore ye must always prayunto the Father in my name;
20 And whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, which is right, believing that ye shall receive, behold it shall be given unto you.
21 pray in your families unto the Father, always in my name, that your wives and your children may be blessed.

D&C 10:3-5 — “Pray always, that you may come off conqueror”.)

3 Nevertheless, it is now restored unto you again; therefore see that you are faithful and continue on unto the finishing of the remainder of the work of translation as you have begun.
4 Do not run faster or labor more than you have strength and means provided to enable you to translate; but be diligent unto the end.
5 Pray always, that you may come off conqueror; yea, that you may conquer Satan, and that you may escape the hands of the servants of Satan that do uphold his work.

D&C 19:37-39 — “pray always, and I will pour out my Spirit upon you”.)

37 And speak freely to all; yea, preach, exhort, declare the truth, even with a loud voice, with a sound of rejoicing, crying—Hosanna, hosanna, blessed be the name of the Lord God!
38 pray always, and I will pour out my Spirit upon you, and great shall be your blessing—yea, even more than if you should obtain treasures of earth and corruptibleness to the extent thereof.
39 Behold, canst thou read this without rejoicing and lifting up thy heart for gladness?

D&C 20: 32-34 — “ pray always, lest they fall into temptation”

32 But there is a possibility that man may fall from grace and depart from the living God;
33 Therefore let the church take heed and pray always, lest they fall into temptation;
34 Yea, and even let those who are sanctified take heed also.

D&C 31:11-13 — “Pray always, lest you enter into temptation and lose your reward.”

11 Go your way whithersoever I will, and it shall be given you by the Comforter what you shall do and whither you shall go.
12 Pray always, lest you enter into temptation and lose your reward.
13 Be faithful unto the end, and lo, I am with you. These words are not of man nor of men, but of me, even Jesus Christ, your Redeemer, by the will of the Father. Amen.

D&C 32:3-5 — “pray always that I may unfold the same to their understanding”

3 And Ziba Peterson also shall go with them; and I myself will go with them and be in their midst; and I am their advocate with the Father, and nothing shall prevail against them.
4 And they shall give heed to that which is written, and pretend to no other revelation; and they shall pray always that I may unfold the same to their understanding.
5 And they shall give heed unto these words and trifle not, and I will bless them. Amen.

(D&C 61:38-39 — “Pray always that you enter not into temptation”

38 Gird up your loins and be watchful and be sober, looking forth for the coming of the Son of Man, for he cometh in an hour you think not.
39 Pray always that you enter not into temptation, that you may abide the day of his coming, whether in life or in death. Even so. Amen.

D&C 88:123-127 — “Pray always, that ye may not faint”.)

123 See that ye love one another; cease to be covetous; learn to impart one to another as the gospel requires.
124 Cease to be idle; cease to be unclean; cease to find fault one with another; cease to sleep longer than is needful; retire to thy bed early, that ye may not be weary; arise early, that your bodies and your minds may be invigorated.
125 And above all things, clothe yourselves with the bond of charity, as with a mantle, which is the bond of perfectness and peace.
126 Pray always, that ye may not faint, until I come. Behold, and lo, I will come quickly, and receive you unto myself. Amen.
127 And again, the order of the house prepared for the presidency of the school of the prophets, established for their instruction in all things that are expedient for them, even for all the officers of the church, or in other words, those who are called to the ministry in the church, beginning at the high priests, even down to the deacons—

D&C 90:22-26 — “pray always, … and all things shall work together for your good”

22 And let the bishop search diligently to obtain an agent, and let him be a man who has got riches in store—a man of God, and of strong faith—
23 That thereby he may be enabled to discharge every debt; that the storehouse of the Lord may not be brought into disrepute before the eyes of the people.
24 Search diligently, pray always, and be believing, and all things shall work together for your good, if ye walk uprightly and remember the covenant wherewith ye have covenanted one with another.
25 Let your families be small, especially mine aged servant Joseph Smith’s, Sen., as pertaining to those who do not belong to your families;

D&C 93:49-52 — pray always lest that wicked one have power in you …. pray always, or they shall be removed out of their place….

49 What I say unto one I say unto all; pray always lest that wicked one have power in you, and remove you out of your place.
50 My servant Newel K. Whitney also, a bishop of my church, hath need to be chastened, and set in order his family, and see that they are more diligent and concerned at home, and pray always, or they shall be removed out of their place.
51 Now, I say unto you, my friends, let my servant Sidney Rigdon go on his journey, and make haste, and also proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord, and the gospel of salvation, as I shall give him utterance; and by your prayer of faith with one consent I will uphold him.
52 And let my servants Joseph Smith, Jun., and Frederick G. Williams make haste also, and it shall be given them even according to the prayer of faith; and inasmuch as you keep my sayings you shall not be confounded in this world, nor in the world to come.

Mosiah 26:18-24 — LeGrand Baker — importance of sacral names

Mosiah 26:18-24
18 Yea, blessed is this people who are willing to bear my name; for in my name shall they be called; and they are mine.
19 And because thou hast inquired of me concerning the transgressor, thou art blessed.
20 Thou art my servant; and I covenant with thee that thou shalt have eternal life; and thou shalt serve me and go forth in my name, and shalt gather together my sheep.
21 And he that will hear my voice shall be my sheep; and him shall ye receive into the church, and him will I also receive.
22 For behold, this is my church; whosoever is baptized shall be baptized unto repentance. And whomsoever ye receive shall believe in my name; and him will I freely forgive.
23 For it is I that taketh upon me the sins of the world; for it is I that hath created them; and it is I that granteth unto him that believeth unto the end a place at my right hand.
24 For behold, in my name are they called; and if they know me they shall come forth, and shall have a place eternally at my right hand.

The distinguished biblical scholar Sigmund Mowinckel (a man for whom I have enormous admiration) pointed out that the king’s new king-name was a necessarily element in what called “an endowment with the Spirit.” His use of the word “endowment” was appropriate. An endowment is a gift that grows in value with time. For example, when BYU receives an endowment of money, it invests the principle and spends only the accrued interest. Thus the original gift remains permanently intact, providing a perpetual source of income to support university programs or scholarships. Mowinckel wrote,

       [The king’s] anointing was related to his endowment with the spirit. The later tradition says explicitly that when David was anointed, ‘the spirit of Yahweh leaped upon him’.
In virtue of his endowment with the divine spirit, the king is filled with superhuman power. He receives ‘a new heart’; he is changed into a new man (1 Sam. x, 6, 9)….He receives a new disposition expressed, according to oriental custom, in giving to him a new name which indicates his new, intimate relationship with the god who has chosen him, and whom he represents.
Through his anointing and endowment with the divine spirit, the king also receives superhuman wisdom. {1}

To illustrate how strongly those ordinances persist: Just over 50 years ago, when the present queen Elizabeth II of England was coronated, her government used the same formula that had been used in ancient Israel 3,000 years ago, as is described in Isaiah 61 – Elizabeth II was ceremonially washed, anointed, clothed in royal robes, given a royal name, and crowned.. The new name she chose was her given name, Elizabeth, but now it was no longer just her given name, it was also her royal new name.

The most important statement in the psalm is the affirmation by the king that God said, “Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.” Here “son,” “my son,” and in other places “son of God” and “Son of God” (There is a tremendous difference between “son of God” and Son of God”!) are not just a statement of adoption or of genealogy, but are royal name-titles which signify “heir” or “king.” {2} Whenever the Father introduces the Saviour, he uses that name-title which define both his literal relationship and his status as heir to whom all must do obeisance. Examples are Christ’s baptism, his appearance to the Nephites, and Joseph Smith’s first vision.

Several scholars have discussed the evidence for the ancient Israelite use of sacred king-names.

The religious practice of giving and receiving a new name, “is based upon the belief that the name is or symbolizes the self or soul, and that an alteration of the name will effect or symbolize and perpetuate an alteration of the self; on this supposition a man whose name has been changed is no longer quite the same man, for he has been cut off from his own past, or from certain aspects of it, and the future belongs to a different being.” {3}

Mowinckel wrote,

The mention of the king’s ‘name’ [in Psalms 7:18] contains an allusion to the fact that the oracles and ‘decree’ really contained those names of honour which the deity gave to the king on the day of his anointing, his ‘regnal-name’ which expressed both his close relation to Yahweh and the promise of the happiness and honour he was to gain for himself and for his people. We know this to be the case in Egypt, and both in the East generally and in Israel the custom prevailed that the king should take a new name at his accession. {4} Probably also has to be interpreted to the effect that David’s son Jedidiah as king took the name Solomon. {5}

And

The account in II Sam 12:24-25 of the birth of Jedidiah-Solomon imputes the former name to the prophet Nathan under divine inspiration and the latter to Bathsheba or David. … Solomon is the throne name and Jedidiah the private name…. The slayer of Goliath was Elhanan the son of Jesse of Bethlehem, (II Sam. 21:19) Elhanan can be none other than he who reigned as David.”{6}

A new name is a kind of statement of fact – it is a pistis – a formal token of the covenant it represents. It can be a name that evokes memories of covenants made in the past, or it may be ongoing and current in the present, or it may project one’s covenants into the future.

In a very broad sense, a new name, like “son,” is an earnest because it is not only an acclamation of who one is, but is also an avowal of who one is becoming. In the course of one’s life here – and most probably in the course of one’s full existence – one accumulates a large number of covenant names. For example, in the king’s name-titles, one might find the whole history of the king’s final ascension to the throne.

The enthronement psalms must be understood against the background of this festival, with all the rich experiences contained in it, experiences including past and future in a re-creating present….{7}

Nibley explained that the ancient Egyptians had the same concept. In ancient Egypt one received a number of names, some of which were symbolic of where and what one is doing just now, others with one’s role in the Council and creation, still others with promises for the future. The name with which one evoked God for blessing or information was determined by the sort of information or assistance one wished.

When Re says to the gods, “ I have many names and many forms; in me Atun and the youthful Horus are addressed,” he signifies that he may be conjured either as the Ancient of Days or the Newly-born, depending on the name employed and the situation in which his presence is desired…. {8}

Nibley expands on that idea by explaining that the name of Atum (the Egyptian Adam) was changed when he left the realm of the gods and came to the garden.

Atum and Re stick close together in creation contexts. Re “comes down” to be with Atum, or, as in the passage just cited, when he comes down he is Atum. “Re comes down to me in his evening,” says a Coffin Text that forcibly calls to mind God’s walking with Adam in the evening, especially when we read what follows, “and we walk about (dhn.n) and stroll around (orbit, phr.n) the heaven” (C.T. 160, 11, 385). The setting fits, too, in the next Spell, when “Re takes the arm of NN” (the candidate) and places him in his Garden of Reeds, and puts him “in charge of the plants, of which he freely eats” (C.T. 162,11, 393-94). It is Re who is concerned with what goes on in the garden: “The Great God, who breathed (into the) creatures (irw, shapes, forms) within his verdant gardens, who explains (wd’ mdw) the secret matters of the vestry (of Re)” (C.T. 75, I, 359f). But the one he deals with is Atutn, he who comes down to earth and changes his name in doing so. The classic instance of this is Re himself, who is known by the name of Atum when he descends to earth, as attested by our Books of Breathing. This name changing is clearly indicated in C.T. 80, II, 40: “I am the living one … whom Atum made as (to be) Neper (the corn-raiser) when he sent me down to this earth . . . when my name became Neper (or Osiris) the son of Geb (Earth).” When he moves from a heavenly to an earthly role his name is changed accordingly. {9}

The reason it was important to have many names was because one’s existence covered an enormous span of time, and during that time one played many roles with covenantal responsibilities.

 Every name is an epithet designating some peculiar attribute or function of an individual. That is why it is possible for persons even in our society to have more than one name, each name calling attention to a different aspect of the individual: for to have many forms and functions is to have many names…. {10}

Examples he might have given of our current use of multiple name-titles are bishop, scoutmaster, mother, teacher. These are all name-titles, some, like mother and father, are a kind of statement of rank assigned by one’s culture. Others, like Relief Society President and High Counselor are names which denote called responsibilities, and the name-title will is no longer effectual after one is released. In ancient Israel there were some names that were much more significant than others, especially those given by formal ordinance and covenant. The most important example was the formal bestowal of the king’s names in connection with his coronation. Such names were of the utmost importance to the Egyptians because “the name is a person’s essence. If his name perishes, he himself does not exist any more.” {11} Some names are secret, known only to the king on whom they were bestowed, because the name represented his past or future eternal Self.

The importance of these names, even the secret one, is expressed by the fact that “To possess knowledge of another’s name is to hold some power over him, even if it be the high god himself.” {12} A modern legal example is that if two people agree to something their agreement is not legally binding until the agreement is written and their signatures attest its validity. The agreement is nothing without the names.

In ancient ceremonial covenants, there need have been no written contract, only the spoken covenant and a verbal exchange of names which related exclusively to that covenant. Let me give you a very simplistic example. Two persons make a covenant. Sam covenants that he will remember his friend Tom, and Tom covenants that if Sam still remembers five years from now he will give him $100. They exchange covenant names. Sam has the covenant name of Green, and Tom has the new name of Blue. Both are now larger and more complex individuals than they were before. Tom has two concurrent identities: “Tom” and “Blue.” Blue must keep $100 in reserve, because if he fails to pay, Blue will cease to exist, and that part of Tom will be lost forever. Similarly, the extension of Sam who is Green must remember his friend. If he does not remember, then Green will cease to exist, and that part of Sam will be lost forever. Five years pass. A young boy knocks on Tom’s door. He says, “I represent Green. Your name is Blue.” Because the boy knows the names, he has power over Blue. Blue must surrender the $100 to the boy or Blue will cease to be. However if Blue does pay, his covenant is fulfilled, the friendship is renewed, and both Blue and Green live forever. By keeping the covenant the friends have created a new entity whose name is Sam/Green/Tom/Blue. The new “person” may not be perceivable by others in space, but it exists in the dimension of time. All you have to do is recall when you met a friend whom you had not seen for years, and recall how the distances of time and space melted away in the instant of the renewed friendship, and you will understand what I mean. Now Sam/Green and Tom/Blue are fuller, more complex, and more complete persons than they could have ever been without the covenant and the names associated with it. That example is extremely simplistic, but the idea is very complex. If the covenants and names identify one in terms of assignments and friendships sealed in the Council in Heaven, then they have eternal consequences, and the idea of one’s existence being expanded as one takes on more covenant names becomes a very complex idea indeed.

The Israelite kings may have been given several covenant names during the course of the New Year festival. (One representing the time he was at the Council, one for when he came to this earth, one representing his kingship, one representing the promises of eternal life – that sort of thing.) We know of two: One was “son of God” (or simply “son” as given in Psalm 2), and the other was the royal name by which he would be known during his administration. For example, when Nebuchadnezzar captured Jerusalem the first time, he took the Jewish king to Babylon and left his uncle to rule in his place. The account reads, “And the king of Babylon made Mattaniah his father’s brother king in his stead, and changed his name to Zedekiah.”(2 Kings 21:17) So now Mattaniah has at least two names: his given name, and the name which denotes his royal administration and represents his covenant to be a subservient king to Nebuchadnezzar. If Zedekiah breaks his covenant with Nebuchadnezzar, king Zedekiah will cease to exist. That, by the way is exactly what happened. Zedekiah rebelled, and Nebuchadnezzar came a second time to conquer Jerusalem. He captured Zedekiah and his sons; dethroned the rebel king, killed the sons, and blinded the father. As a footnote to that story, Whiston wrote,

 Burder remarks, this was done with the intention of rendering the king incapable of ever re-ascending the throne. Thus it was a law in Persia, down to the latest time, that no blind person could mount the throne. Hence the barbarous custom of depriving the sons and the male relatives of a Persian king, who are not to be allowed to attain the government, of their sight. Down to the time of Abbas, in 1642, this was done by only passing a red-hot copper plate before the eyes, by which the power of vision was not entirely destroyed, and person blinded still retained a glimmer of sight. {13}

Josephus records that the blind man spent the rest of his life in a Babylonian prison. Mattaniah was no longer king, and could never again be king. It was the blind man named Mattaniah who was the prisoner, not the king Zedekiah, because the king who had once had the covenant name of Zedekiah did not exist any more.

Perhaps the best working example of the significance of sacred covenant names is found in the 1 Nephi 20 version of Isaiah 48. The unique thing about that passage is that while we are not told what the covenant was, but we are told the names, and the names are sufficiently explicit that one can guess the broad outline of the covenant. (In the Bible, Isaiah 48 contains more phrases that refer to our pre-mortal existence, such as “in the beginning” and “before you were born,” than any other chapter in the Old Testament except the creation story. The Book of Mormon in 1 Nephi 20 is much more complete and accurate. In the story, as Isaiah tells it, we are not told what the initial covenant was, but we are told the two covenant names associated with it.

1 Hearken and hear this, O house of Jacob, who are called by the name of Israel [Israel is the covenant name], and are come forth out of the waters of Judah, or out of the waters of baptism, who swear [covenant] by the name of the Lord, and make mention of the God of Israel, yet they swear not in truth nor in righteousness. [they are making covenants, but not in zedek]
2 Nevertheless, they call themselves of the holy city [they claim to be Zion], but they do not stay themselves upon the God of Israel, who is the Lord of Hosts; yea, the Lord of Hosts is his name.

“Israel” means “let God prevail” or “one who speaks or acts in God’s behalf” –depending on the dictionary one uses. In either case it means one who works for God and the success of his objectives. “Lord of Hosts” means “Commander of the Armies.” So there we have the covenant: God is the commander and we will obey his commands and work toward his success.

The point is: new names represented covenants and were evidence of their validity (that is, a new name is a pistis). When a person receives a new name, both the name and the covenant become a part of the individual. If one breaks the covenant and loses the name, he has violated that part of the law of his own being, and becomes less than he would be otherwise. God cannot break his covenants, so that leaves us entirely free to define our own destiny. Only we can shrink or expand our Selves by breaking or keeping the covenants we have made with him.

That concept probably accounts for much of the ancient Egyptians’ belief about their judgement after death. As the spirit of the dead person approached the gods who guarded the way, the Egyptian was stopped by a gatekeeper god who demanded a sign before he would give permission for the person to pass. The individual would then give the correct name and assert that he had not broken the covenants. Those names and the covenants could only be known if the individual had performed certain rites on earth. So salvation required three steps: 1) making the covenants, 2) keeping the covenants, 3) being judged accordingly.{14}

Coincidentally, Brigham Young taught essentially the same thing:

 Let me give you a definition in brief. Your endowment is, to receive all those ordinances in the house of the Lord, which are necessary for you, after you have departed this life, to enable you to walk back to the presence of the Father, passing the angels who stand as sentinels, being enabled to give them the key words, the signs and tokens, pertaining to the holy Priesthood, and gain your eternal exaltation in spite of earth and hell. {15}

—————
ENDNOTES

1} Sigmund Mowinckel, He that Cometh (New York: Abingdon Press, 1954), 66. For another discussion on the power of new names see, Hermann Gunkel, (Michael D. Rutter, trans.) The Folktale in the Old Testament (Sheffield, England, Almond Press, 1987), 87.

2} In the context of covenants that were treaties, “son” denoted vassalage rather than heirship. In adoption contracts, “son” designates one as a legal heir.

3} A.M. Honeyman, “The Evidence for Regnal Names Among the Hebrews,” in Journal of Biblical Literature, 67, 1948: 13.

4} In a footnote he adds: See 2 Kgs 23.31 (Shallum-Jo’ahaz); 23.34 (Elijakim-Jehoiakim). 2 Sam. 12.24-25.

5} Sigmund Mowinckel, D. R. Ap-Thomas, trans., The Psalms in Israel’s Worship (Nashville: Abingdon, 2 vols., 1979), 1: 63 and n. 86. See also: James K Hoffmeier “From Pharaoh to Israel’s Kings To Jesus,” in Bible Review (13/2, June 1997), 48.

6} A. H. Honneyman, “The Evidence for Regnal Names Among the Hebrews,” Journal of Biblical Literature, 1984, v. 67, p 23-24.

7} Sigmund Mowinckel, translated by A.P. Thomas, The Psalms in Israel’s Worship, 2 Vols.(Nashville, Abingdon, 1962), vol. 1, 183. Mowinckel’s footnote reads as follows: Pss. 47., 9; 93.2, cf. V. 5b; 96.13; 97.2b, 7b, cf. The description of the epiphany = procession of entry in vv. 3-6; 98.3b, 9b; 99,1.

8} Hugh Nibley, The Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri, and Egyptian Endowment (Salt Lake City, Deseret Book, 1975), p. 40-41.

9} Hugh Nibley, The Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri, and Egyptian Endowment (Salt Lake City, Deseret Book, 1975), p. 133.

10} Hugh Nibley, The Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri, and Egyptian Endowment (Salt Lake City, Deseret Book, 1975), p. 40

11} Hugh Nibley, The Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri, and Egyptian Endowment (Salt Lake City, Deseret Book, 1975), p. 139.

12} Hugh Nibley, The Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri, and Egyptian Endowment (Salt Lake City, Deseret Book, 1975), p. 140.

13} William Whiston, trans., The Complete Works of Flavious Josephus (London, The London Pringing and Publishing Company, Limited, 1876) p. 213 footnote.

14} Hugh Nibley, The Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri, and Egyptian Endowment (Salt Lake City, Deseret Book, 1975), p. 221.

15}Teachings of Presidents of the Church, Brigham Young [Melchizedek Priesthood Manuel] (Salt Lake City, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1997), p, 302. From Discourses of Brigham Young, p.416

Mosiah 3:7-8, thoughts on the Atonement, LeGrand Baker

A friend asked me if the Atonement happened in the Garden or on the cross. This is my response.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

Luke 22:44
44 And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground.

Mosiah 3:7-8
7 And lo, he shall suffer temptations, and pain of body, hunger, thirst, and fatigue, even more than man can suffer, except it be unto death; for behold, blood cometh from every pore, so great shall be his anguish for the wickedness and the abominations of his people.
8 And he shall be called Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Father of heaven and earth, the Creator of all things from the beginning; and his mother shall be called Mary.

Doctrine and Covenants 19:18-19
18 Which suffering caused myself, even God, the greatest of all, to tremble because of pain, and to bleed at every pore, and to suffer both body and spirit—and would that I might not drink the bitter cup, and shrink—
19 Nevertheless, glory be to the Father, and I partook and finished my preparations unto the children of men.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

I don’t know the answer, but I know what I believe:

The scriptures that say Christ bled from every pore all reference the Garden.

“Great drops of blood” sounds like he lost a lot of blood. The shock to his system and loss of blood would have been enough to kill you and I.

Then the Romans whipped him. Jewish law limited that to 40 stripes, Roman law did not. After the sharp iron barbs in the whip had ripped all the muscle from his back and ribs, those barbs would dig into the lungs. Such a whipping was a death sentence. The soldiers were amazed that he did not die and returned him to Pilot.

In addition to the physical pain and the pain in the Garden, he also felt the sorrow of being rejected by people he tried to save.

He then experienced the death on the cross as is so vividly described in Psalm 22.

In my view, all of that together was one dreadful experience, and was much more intense than we can possibly imagine. It took place on this little earth but in its magnitude it reached out to encompass the whole universe in the whole duration of linear time. I am always a bit bothered when I hear someone in church try to describe his physical pain on the cross. They try to describe the pain suffered by Jehovah/Jesus, the Great God of Heaven, by comparing it to the pain suffered by hundreds of ordinary people who were killed on similar crosses. I am sure they have no idea what they are talking about.

While his Eternal Self stayed within that wasted body and willed it to not die, his soul took upon himself all of the sins, sorrows, sickness, pain, inequities, and contridictions —-not just for this world, but for God’s children throughout the whole universe—-not just in this physical time but throughout the entirity of our existence.

The Atonement it much bigger than we tend to think. In his poem, A Vision, the Prophet Joseph wrote:

And I heard a great voice bearing record from heav’n,
He’s the Saviour and only begotten of God;
By him, of him, and through him, the worlds were all made,
Even all that careen in the heavens so broad.
Whose inhabitants, too, from the first to the last,
Are sav’d by the very same Saviour of ours;
And, of course, are begotten God’s daughters and sons
By the very same truths and the very same powers (Times and Seasons, February 1, 1843).

The Atonement is infinite and eternal in its sweep, and I don’t like the notion of reducing the magnitude of the event to just the Garden or just the cross, and certainly not just to the physical pain he suffered.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6 And it came to pass that king Mosiah did walk in the ways of the Lord, and did observe his judgments and his statutes, and did keep his commandments in all things whatsoever he commanded him.
7 And king Mosiah did cause his people that they should till the earth. And he also, himself, did till the earth, that thereby he might not become burdensome to his people, that he might do according to that which his father had done in all things. And there was no contention among all his people for the space of three years.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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