Category: Mosiah

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Day 1:
New Year Day.

Day 2-9:
time of repentance.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mowinckel reminds us,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mosiah 3:19 — LeGrand Baker — Beatitudes and King Benjamin

Mosiah 3:19
19    For the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord, and becometh as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father.

It is my habit, whenever I see a reference in the Book of Mormon to Adam or the fall, to ask myself, “Is this about the fall, or is this about the story in the temple drama of the Feast of Tabernacles which depicts Adam and Eve and the fall?” Often, as in this case, the answer is the latter rather than the former. Thus the answer to the question gives the key to understanding the scripture. Another good example is Alma 12:28-35. There Alma recalls the drama to his listeners by beginning in the Council then moving to the story of Adam and Eve. He tells how angels taught men to pray and God himself said he would teach people to “enter into my rest.” Whereas Alma went through most of the essentials of the drama in just eight verses, King Benjamin did an even more thorough job in only one verse. An interesting difference is that Alma concludes with “whosoever will harden his heart [which he has just defined (v. 9-11) as refusing to know the mysteries of Godliness] and will do iniquity, behold I swear in my wrath that he shall not enter into my rest.” King Benjamin, on the other hand, begins with that idea: “the natural man is an enemy to God…”

The remarkable thoroughness of King Benjamin’s short verse is so concise that it almost reads as though it were written in code. But it probably was not intended to be that, as we may assume his audience understood everything he was saying. For us the easiest way to expand his words so we may understand them, is to compare them with a similar, but more explicit, statement of the Saviour. I believe the Beatitudes contain everything there is to know about the entire plan of salvation. It does not contain it in a great deal of detail, but in macrocosm, everything there is to say is said there. King Benjamin follows precisely those same ideas in precisely the same sequence. So, to understand what King Benjamin has to say, the simplest way seems to be to look at what the Saviour said in the Beatitudes.

I have discussed the Beatitudes before. Some of you, like my dear friend Dan Belnap, will wonder why I am doing it again here. The answer is that it is necessary until we have a convenient way to refer back to comments one has already made in this Project. Beck is working on that. In the meantime, continuity sometimes requires repetition.

In the remainder of this comment I will:
Part 1- review how the Beatitudes relate to the temple drama of the ancient Israelite Feast of Tabernacles.
Part 2- relate those ideas in that sequence to this verse in King Benjamin’s address
Part 3- make some comments about the unique information one learns from King Benjamin about the meaning of the Beatitudes.

For a more complete discussion of the Beatitudes see Who Shall Ascend into the Hill of the Lord.

PART 1 – HOW THE BEATITUDES RELATE TO THE TEMPLE DRAMA OF THE ANCIENT ISRAELITE NEW YEAR’S FESTIVAL.

This discussion of the Beatitudes is very brief. For a fuller explanation see the chapters that deal with the Beatitudes in Who Shall Ascend into the Hill of the Lord.

FOLLOW THE BRETHREN

1    Blessed are ye if ye shall give heed unto the words of these twelve whom I have chosen from among you to minister unto you, and to be your servants; and unto them I have given power that they may baptize you with water; and after that ye are baptized with water, behold, I will baptize you with fire and with the Holy Ghost; therefore blessed are ye if ye shall believe in me and be baptized, after that ye have seen me and know that I am (3 Nephi 12:1).

FIRST PRINCIPLES AND ORDINANCES

2    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. Yea, blessed are they who shall believe in your words, and come down into the depths of humility and be baptized, for they shall be visited with fire and with the Holy Ghost, and shall receive a remission of their sins.

ENDOWMENT FOR THE LIVING

3    Yea, blessed are the poor in spirit who come unto me, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

VICARIOUS WORK FOR THE DEAD

4     “And again, blessed are all they that mourn, for they shall be comforted (3 Nephi 12: 3).

Here the Saviour is paraphrasing Isaiah 61. Isaiah 61 is a prophecy of the Lord’s visit to the world of the spirits of the dead during the period between his own death and his resurrection. President Joseph F. Smith saw in vision the fulfilment of Isaiah’s prophecy. In recording his own vision (which is D&C 138) President Smith used much of Isaiah’s language, and paraphrased the entire first verse when he wrote that Isaiah had “declared by prophecy that the Redeemer was anointed to bind up the broken-hearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that were bound.” (D&C 138:42) In describing how the dead will be “comforted,” Isaiah wrote that “to comfort all that mourn; [means] “To appoint unto them that mourn in Zion [to make them a part of Zion], to give unto them beauty [Hebrew: the beauty of a hat or crown] for ashes [there must be a ceremonial washing to remove the ashes], the oil of joy for mourning, the garment of praise for the spirit of heaviness; that they might be called [new king-name] trees of righteousness, the planting of the LORD, that he might be glorified. [implication of the meaning of the new name: a combination of tree of life and eternal increase] (Isaiah 61:2-3)

KEEPING THE ETERNAL COVENANTS ONE MADE AT THE COUNCIL IN HEAVEN

5    And blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth (3 Nephi 12:5).

Here the Saviour is referring to two Psalms. Psalm 37:7-11 says the meek “shall inherit the earth,” and 25:9-14. In the latter, the meek are defined within the terms of eternal covenant. Verse 11 reads “The secret [Hebrew: sode means the decisions of the Heavenly Council (see footnote 1) ] of the Lord is with them [the meek ] that fear [ respect, honor ] him; and he [the Lord] will show them [the meek ] his covenant [the covenant they made in the Council.].

I believe to show means to show as in Isaiah 6, or to show as in to instruct by the Spirit so one will know how one is to fulfil the assignments made and accepted at the Council – and also remind him of the covenant provisions which would guarantee that one would be able to fulfil those assignments. Thus, in the Psalms which the Saviour quotes and paraphrases, the “meek” are those who keep their eternal covenants.

One gets a broader picture of what all of the Beatitudes are about, when one examines the Greek word which is translated “blessed”in the New Testament Sermon on the Mount. In their Anchor Bible translation of Matthew 5, Albright and Mann have chosen to substitute it with the word “fortunate.” They explain that “blessed” has been given an ecclesiastical kind of connotation which the original Greek did not have. So they avoided that by using the word “fortunate.” Then in a footnote they explain that “fortunate” is not really correct, but the actual Greek word could not possibly be translated into what it really says, because that would make no sense to them — it will make perfect sense to you, however! They write that the classical Greek meaning of the word which Matthew uses, and which they translate “fortunate,” actually means “in the state of the gods.” (Anchor Bible, Matthew, p. 45, fn 3.)

Thus, what we hear the Saviour saying in this Beatitude is this: “In the state of the gods are those who keep their eternal covenants, for it is they and their children who shall inherit the celestial earth.”

PARTAKING OF THE FRUIT OF THE TREE OF LIFE

6    And blessed are all they who do hunger and thirst after righteousness, for they shall be filled with the Holy Ghost (3 Nephi 12:6).

Hunger and thirst brings to mind the promises in Nephi’s vision of the tree of life and the waters of life. “Righteousness” is zadek – which we have defined elsewhere as meaning “temple things.”  To be “filled with the Holy Ghost” is different from being “visited” in verse 2.

LEARNING TO BE A RIGHTEOUS KING

7    And blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy (3 Nephi 12:7).

Kingship imputes two major functions and responsibilities: 1) to be commander-in-chief, and 2) to be judge. The need to be military leader is temporary, and passes when the enemy is defeated. But the function of judge is eternal. To judge sometimes implies to condemn, but more importantly, it means to justify, but not only to justify, but also to sustain the just by the strength and integrity of one’s power to judge. Thus, to be a righteous judge is the epitome of the powers of kingship. If one is to continue on this path which the Saviour is outlining in the Beatitudes and eventually become a sacral king or queen, then one’s learning to be a merciful king is the next – and the next necessary – step along that way.

BEING ABLE TO STAND AT THE VEIL

8    And blessed are all the pure in heart, for they shall see God (3 Nephi 12:8).

THE CORONATION – BECOMING A CHILD OF GOD – THE CRITERION IS LOVE

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

We learn the definition of “peacemaker” in Moroni 7, where Mormon speaks to “the peaceable followers of Christ,” whom he can identify “because of your peaceable walk with the children of men.” Of these people, we are told that they “have obtained [past tense] a sufficient hope by which ye can enter into the rest of the Lord, from this time henceforth until ye shall rest with him in heaven.” That seems to me to say that these people have already passed the step which is “blessed are all the pure in heart, for they shall see God,” and Mormon is now teaching these people how to go the next step and become “children of God.”

Mormon explains to them that after they have come this far, in order to inherit all that the Father has, one must have faith (“pistis” – the token of the covenant), hope (to live as though the blessings of the covenant were already fulfilled), and charity (love – love is the first and the last criterion of being like the Father, and therefore is the final necessary prerequisite to inheriting all that the Father has. – v. 48 )

While charity may be more understandable if it is experienced than if it is defined, the concept of being a “child” of God is very definable. It is a highly legalistic concept which deals with the right to inherit – “And who overcome by faith, and are sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, which the Father sheds forth upon all those who are just and true. They are they who are the church of the Firstborn. They are they into whose hands the Father has given all things-They are they who are priests and kings, who have received of his fulness, and of his glory;” (D&C 76:53-56)

The Beatitude, “And blessed are all the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God,” is about that, for these “peacemakers” are given a new name — a royal king-name, which is “the children of God.”

If the Saviour is referring to one of the Psalms of the temple rites, it is Psalm 2. The Second Psalm was one of the first to be identified as a Royal Psalm. “The usual interpretation of the psalm…suggests that it is an oracle on the day of the king’s ascension to his throne.” (Aage Bentzen, King and Messiah (London, Lutterworth Press, 1955), 16.) The lines most often quoted from that psalm are, “Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.”

That is very important, for if the king were not a “son,” his sitting to the throne would be an act of usurpation. Only if he is a legitimately adopted son of God may the king legitimately sit upon his Father’s throne in the temple’s Holy of Holies. Sigmund Mowinckel says that the anointing of the king at the time of his coronation was a dual ordinance. The anointing was an ordinance of adoption and an ordinance of coronation. He writes, that “the act adoption is identical with the anointing and installation.” The context of his statement is as follows:

“It is clear that the king is regarded as Yahweh’s son by adoption. When, in Ps. ii, 7, Yahweh says to the king on the day of his anointing and installation, ‘You are My son; I have begotten you today’, He is using the ordinary formula of adoption, indicating that the sonship rests on Yahweh’s adoption of the king. The act of adoption is identical with the anointing and installation.” (Sigmund Mowinckel, He that Cometh (New York: Abingdon Press, 1954), 78. )

Thus in the words, “And blessed are all the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God,” we have an implicit anointing which represents both an adoption with the covenant name “child of God,” and a final coronation. This dual

ordnance is the full culmination of all that precedes it. In verse 3 one was acknowledged as one who would become king, but here in verse 9 one is anointed king in fact. That kingship is acknowledged in the interesting context of the “persecution” which is in the next three verses.

PERSECUTION – THE CONSEQUENCE OF SACRAL KINGSHIP

10    And blessed are all they who are persecuted for my name’s sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
11    And blessed are ye when men shall revile you and persecute, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake;
12    For ye shall have great joy and be exceedingly glad, for great shall be your reward in heaven; for so persecuted they the prophets who were before you (3 Nephi 12:10-12).

A RESPONSIBILITY OF A SACRAL KING OR QUEEN IS MISSIONARY WORK

13    Verily, verily, I say unto you, I give unto you to be the salt of the earth; but if the salt shall lose its savor wherewith shall the earth be salted? The salt shall be thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out and to be trodden under foot of men (3 Nephi 12:13).

In my article “What does it mean to be the ‘salt of the earth’?” (Ensign, April 1999, p. 53-34) I showed that to be the “salt of the earth” means to be the catalyst of the Lord’s sacrifice. That is, it is our responsibility to do missionary work to the people of the earth.

THE SECOND RESPONSIBILITY OF A SACRAL KING OR QUEEN – PERFECT THE SAINTS.

14    Verily, verily, I say unto you, I give unto you to be the light of this people. A city that is set on a hill cannot be hid.
15    Behold, do men light a candle and put it under a bushel? Nay, but on a candlestick, and it giveth light to all that are in the house;
16    Therefore let your light so shine before this people, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father who is in heaven (3 Nephi 12:14-16).

Being a light has to do with one’s relationship with “this people” rather than with “the earth,” so it is the responsibility one has to help “perfect the Saints.”

PART 2 – HOW KING BENJAMIN’S ADDRESS RELATES TO THE BEATITUDES

Now, lets return to King Benjamin and look at what he said. “For the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord, and becometh as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father.”

In both the Beatitudes and King Benjamin’s address, the pinnacle of the whole concept is to become a legal heir — a child of God — a sacral king or queen.

It is consistent with the scriptures that King Benjamin’s definition of what it means to be a “child” is relevant in every stage of one’s spiritual development: the 8-year-old who is about to be baptized; the maturing teenager who is struggling to know himself; the new convert to the church (whether that “convert” is already a baptized member of the church, but is now comprehending its significance and power, or whether one is a mature person born outside the church, who is learning about the gospel for the first time, the same idea applies here); finally, the person who is trying to live temple covenants. For each of these, King Benjamin’s description of what it means to be a child is meaningful and relevant.

The Saviour used the word “child” in those same multiple ways.

37    And again I say unto you, ye must repent, and become as a little child [King Benjamin’s definition works here.], and be baptized in my name baptism by water], or ye can in nowise receive these things. [The “these things” are the testimonies of the Holy Ghost which he has just been talking about.]
38    And again I say unto you, ye must repent [this repentance is what follows baptism by water], and be baptized in my name [He has, and will again, talk about another baptism, this one by fire and the Holy Ghost], and become as a little child [King Benjamin’s definition still works, only now we are talking about kingship, inheritance, and receiving the king-name “child of God.”], or ye can in nowise inherit the kingdom of God [It all comes back to the same thing: One can not be a legitimate “king or queen” unless one is a legitimate “child”.]. (3 Nephi 11:37-38)

In the last instance, it appears that King Benjamin’s “becometh a child…even as a child doth submit to his father” maps directly to the Saviour’s Beatitude, “And blessed are all the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God.”

It is relatively easy to map the rest of King Benjamin’s sequence of concepts to the sequence of concepts in the Saviour’s Beatitudes

“Yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit” = 3 Ne. 12:1-2 – follow the brethren and believe, repent, be baptized, and receive the Holy Ghost.

“Putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord,” = the temple ordinances and covenants represented in 3 Ne. 12: 3-4.

In Isaiah 61 (as everywhere else, for that matter) one of the fundamental parts of the kingship coronation rites is to be clothed in priesthood/kingly garments. For example, before Job approached the veil where he saw God (Job 42:5), the Lord instructed him, “Deck thyself now with majesty and excellency; and array thyself with glory and beauty.” (Job 40:10). In Isaiah 61 we have two references to the royal garment. One is in the coronation scene: “the garment of praise…” ; and the other is in the wedding hymn at the end of the chapter: “I will greatly rejoice in the Lord, my soul shall be joyful in my God; for he hath clothed me with the garments of  salvation, he hath covered me with the robe of righteousness, as a bridegroom decketh himself with ornaments, and as a bride adorneth herself with her jewels.” (Isaiah 61:10)

The pre-condition of being royally clothed is always the same (as in Isaiah 61 again): to be prepared by a ceremonial washing and anointing. That requires one’s taking off his “street clothes” and becoming naked so that one can later be clothed in “robes of righteousness.”

In this Mosiah 3 context, I presume that to “put off the natural man” means to strip onself naked of the things of this world, so that God may clothe one with his own glory, just as one had to be similarly prepared to receive

the kingly-priestly garments of the ancient temple coronation rites. If that is correct, then “putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord,” has the same fundamental meaning as v. 3 and 4 in the Beatitudes.

— “submissive, meek” = Blessed are the meek – keeping the covenants one
make at the Council. Two of the best examples I can find of that are Abinadi standing before King Noah, and Joseph Smith leaving Nauvoo for Carthage jail. Neither Abinadi nor Joseph bowed to or shrank from the earthly powers which were about to destroy them, but both submitted themselves to the Lord by keeping their eternal covenants in order to fulfil their earthly missions.

“Humble” = Blessed are all they who do hunger and thirst after righteousness.

“Patient” = Blessed are the merciful

“Full of love” = pure in heart – peacemakers – to see God and become children of God

“Willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him” = Blessed are all they who are persecuted…

“Even as a child doth submit to his father” = For they shall be called the children of God.

PART 3 — THE UNIQUE INFORMATION ABOUT THE BEATITUDES ONE LEARNS FROM KING BENJAMIN’S SYNOPSIS.

If, as it appears, King Benjamin’s statement is a synopsis of the Saviour’s Beatitudes, which are, in turn, a synopsis of everything that is fundamental in the plan of salvation and the temple drama of the ancient Israelite New Year festival, then, from that fact, we learn several important things:

1) Since King Benjamin’s address was given about 124 years before the Saviour’s, Benjamin cannot be said to have copied something he read the Saviour had said. Instead King Benjamin was giving his own summary of long established principles and ordinances which his congregation understood very well. Similarly, the Saviour’s Beatitudes were not new ideas, but a magnificent expression of gospel principles which had been understood ever since the origin of the ancient Israelite temple rites. That origin, according to Abraham, Alma, Paul, and others, dates at least as  far back as the Heavenly Council.

2) To me, one of the most interesting new insights I gained from writing this was in the mapping of “humble” to ” blessed are all they who do hunger and thirst after righteousness.” One watches that hungering and thirsting in the story of Nephi’s desire to experience the tree of life and the waters of life, and in Alma 32 where Alma talks about wishing to taste the light of the fruit of the tree of life. But reducing all of that to the simple concept of “humble” is both instructive and meaningful to me.

3) It helps me to understand the phrase, “For the natural man is an enemy to God…” One of the central themes of the drama of the ancient New Year festival was the defeat of chaos by the powers of creation. It appears first in the war in heaven, where the chaotic forces of evil are driven from the heavens; again in the story of the creation of the world when the sacred hill where the Garden was planted rises from the chaotic waters; again when the forces of evil on this earth are defeated by the power of Jehovah; and finally when Jehovah himself descends into the underworld to defeat both death and hell, and restore the king back to Zion where he crowned king and priest forever.

In each of these instances the “enemy” is one who is, or who supports and sustains the disorganizing energies of chaos, while the object of God is to create order and harmony — the cosmos which is Zion. Thus, “the natural man” who will not “put off the natural man”- and become a saint through the ordinances and covenants which give him access to the full royal blessings of the atonement, must stay outside of Zion. And therefore remains by his own volition, and by definition, an “enemy to God.” His being an enemy is not a status assigned to him by God, but by himself. And he will cease to be an enemy when he accepts the invitation becomes a “child.”

———————————-

Footnote 1:
Brown shows how the Hebrew word sode and the greek word mysterion (mystery) often mean the same thing. He wrote:

One cannot begin this investigation simply by studying mysterion in the LXX and the corresponding Hebrew words it translates. Actually, mysterion appears only in the LXX translation of the post-exilic books….Rather, we must trace the idea of “mystery” in its historical development and through a variety of terms. We may begin with the Hebrew word “sod” a word which is never translated in the LXX by mysterion….the word has a wide semantic area: confidential talk, a circle of people in council, secrets….When we approach the early biblical uses of “sod” with the idea of “council” or “assembly” in mind, we find that this meaning particularly fits the passages dealing with the heavenly “sod” occur in biblical references to the heavenly council of God and his angels…. Amos (3:7) announces almost as a proverb that God will surely not do anything `until he has revealed his “sod” to his servants the prophets.’…In the Hebrew represented by Proverbs, Sirach, and Qumran, “sod” is used simply for secrets or mysteries.(Brown, Raymond E., The Semitic Background of the Term “Mystery” in the New Testament, Fortress Press, Philadelphia, 1968, p. 2-6).

Mosiah 3:7 — LeGrand Baker — Orson F. Whitney’s testimony

Mosiah 3:7
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.

Many years ago, when I was a graduate student in Madison, Wisconsin, President Kimball came to our ward. He had family in Madison and had come to visit them, while he was there, our bishop asked him if he would speak to us. He didn’t give a speech, but simply testified of the reality of the Saviour’s atonement, then, in conjunction with his own testimony, he read to us Elder Whitney’s testimony. Later, it was published in the Improvement Era as follows:
—————————————————
“I was asleep at my Post,” testimony of Orson F. Whitney “Lest We Forget” by Albert L. Zobell, Jr. Improvement Era, September, 1969, 68-79.

Elder Orson F. Whitney (1855.1931). one of the poet.historian princes of the Latter-day Saints, became an apostle April 9. 1906, at the same time as George F. Richards and David 0. McKay.

Elder Whitney, always a popular and much-sought-for speaker, spoke at the MIA June Conference in 1925, recalling how, as a young man of 21, he had served a mission in Pennsylvania and had found some success in expressing his thoughts in newspaper articles and poems.

His companion chided: “You ought to be studying the books of the Church; you were sent out to preach the gospel. not to write for the newspapers.”

Young Whitney knew his missionary-brother was right. but he still kept on, fascinated by the discovery that he could wield a pen. In his words, as he spoke at a Sabbath evening MIA session June 7,1925:

“One night I dreamed-if dream it may be called–that I was in the Garden of Gethsemane, a witness of the Savior’s agony. I saw Him as plainly as I see this congregation. I stood behind a tree in the foreground. where I could see without being seen. Jesus, with Peter, James and John, came through a little wicket gate at my right. Leaving the three Apostles there, after telling them to kneel and pray, he passed over to the other side, where he also knelt and prayed. It was the same prayer with which we are all familiar: ‘0 my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.’ (Matt. 26:36-44; Mark 14:32-41; Luke 22:42.)

“As he prayed the tears streamed down his face, which was toward me, I was so moved at the sight that I wept also, out of pure sympathy with his great sorrow. My whole heart went out to him, I loved him with all my soul, and longed to be with him as I longed for nothing else.

“Presently he arose and walked to where the Apostles were kneeling-fast asleep! He shook them gently, awoke them, and in a tone of tender reproach, untinctured by the least suggestion of anger or scolding asked them if they could not watch with him one hour. There he was, with the weight of the world’s sin upon his shoulders, with the pangs of every man, woman and child shooting through his sensitive soul — and they could not watch with him one poor hour!

“Returning to his place, he prayed again, and then went back and found them again sleeping. Again he awoke them, admonished them, and returned and prayed as before. Three times this happened, until I was perfectly familiar with his appearance — face, form and movements. He was of noble stature and of majestic mien-not at all the weak, effeminate being that some painters have portrayed — a very God among men, yet as meek and lowly as a little child.

“All at once the circumstances seemed to change, the scene remaining just the same. Instead of before, it was after the crucifixion, and the Savior, with those three Apostles, now stood together in a group at my left. They were about to depart and ascend into Heaven. I could endure it no longer. I ran out from behind the tree, fell at his feet, clasped him around the knees, and begged him to take me with him.

“I shall never forget the kind and gentle manner in which He stooped and raised me up and embraced me. It was so vivid, so real, that I felt the very warmth of his bosom against which I rested. Then He said: ‘No, my son; these have finished their work, and they may go with me, but you must stay and finish yours.’ Still I clung to him. Gazing up into his face — for he was taller than I — I besought him most earnestly: ‘Well, promise me that I will come to you at the last.’ He smiled sweetly and tenderly and replied: ‘That will depend entirely upon yourself.’ I awoke with a sob in my throat, and it was morning.”

“That’s from God,” Elder Musser said, when he heard the story.

“I don’t need to be told that,” Elder Whitney replied, and then he told the vast MIA congregation:

“I saw the moral clearly. I had never thought that I would be an Apostle, or hold any other office in the Church; and it did not occur to me even then. Yet I knew that those sleeping apostles meant me. I was asleep at my post — as any man is, or any woman, who, having been divinely appointed to do one thing, does another.

“But from that hour all was changed — I was a different man. I did not give up writing, for President Brigham Young, having noticed some of my contributions in the home papers, wrote advising me to cultivate what he called my ‘gIft for writing’ so that I might use it in future years ‘for the establishment of truth and righteousness upon the earth.’ This was his last word of counsel to me. He died the same year, while I was still In the mission field, … laboring then in the State of Ohio. I continued to write, but it was for the Church and Kingdom Of God, I held that first and foremost; all else was secondary.”

Mosiah 2:37 — LeGrand Baker — ‘ye are temples’

Mosiah 2:37
37    I say unto you, that the man that doeth this, the same cometh out in open rebellion against God; therefore he listeth to obey the evil spirit, and becometh an enemy to all righteousness; therefore, the Lord has no place in him, for he dwelleth not in unholy temples.” (Mosiah 2:37)

The idea that righteous people are holy temples is a very ancient and often affirmed doctrine of the gospel. But, as the case here, when it is mentioned, it is usually assumed that the audience understands its significance, so it is rarely explained. In this regard, Paul’s question is probably most frequently quoted, but gives us no clarification because Paul gives no explanation about what he means.

16    Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?
17 If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are (1 Corinthians3:16-17).

The remarkable thing is that the idea that people are temples seems to have been so universally accepted in the ancient world that no one bothers to explain it. So what one gets now, are statements like “What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? (1 Corinthians 6:19).”

Later on, when Paul was writing again to the Corinthians, he used that idea as an argument against marrying non-Christians.

16    And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people (2 Corinthians 6:16).

When the idea comes up in the gospel of John, it is in the context that the Jews did not understand what the Saviour was saying.

19    Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.
20    Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?
21    But he spake of the temple of his body.” (John 2:19-21)

We get a somewhat similar argument in the Book of Mormon when Alma is trying to bring wayward church members back into the fold. Only in this instance Alma’s statement is full of code words which we have come to associate with ideas which are most sacred, such as “walk” and “path.” There are other references to sacred things which are not so obscure, such as “his course is one eternal round.” “Filthiness” and “unclean” are words which suggest ritual washings and the ordinances which follow or are associated with them. The idea of “awake” suggests giving life and making covenants, { footnote # 1 } and the phrase, “walk after the holy order of God” suggests ordinances, covenants and priesthood power. – And in the midst of all that, Alma says, “he doth not dwell in unholy temples.” Like Paul, he gives no explanation for that statement, but simply assumes his listeners understand the importance of what he is saying. The full statement reads:

20    I perceive that it has been made known unto you, by the testimony of his word, that he cannot walk in crooked paths; neither doth he vary from that which he hath said; neither hath he a shadow of turning from the right to the left, or from that which is right to that which is wrong; therefore, his course is one eternal round.
21    And he doth not dwell in unholy temples; neither can filthiness or anything which is unclean be received into the kingdom of God; therefore I say unto you the time shall come, yea, and it shall be at the last day, that he who is filthy shall remain in his filthiness. 22 And now my beloved brethren, I have said these things unto you that I might awaken you to a sense of your duty to God, that ye may walk blameless before him, that ye may walk after the holy order of God, after which ye have been received. (Alma 7:20-22).

Amulek uses the same argument, again, with the understanding that his audience accepted the idea as a fundamental truth, so he gives only the slightest explanation about what it means.

35    For behold, if ye have procrastinated the day of your repentance even until death, behold, ye have become subjected to the spirit of the devil, and he doth seal you his; therefore, the Spirit of the Lord hath withdrawn from you, and hath no place in you, and the devil hath all power over you; and this is the final state of the wicked.
36    And this I know, because the Lord hath said he dwelleth not in unholy temples, but in the hearts of the righteous doth he dwell; yea, and he has also said that the righteous shall sit down in his kingdom, to go no more out; but their garments should be made white through the blood of the Lamb (Alma 34:35-36).

Mormon uses the idea the same way—as an argument, but not as an idea requiring an explanation:

4     And they saw that they had become weak, like unto their brethren, the Lamanites, and that the Spirit of the Lord did no more preserve them; yea, it had withdrawn from them because the Spirit of the Lord doth not dwell in unholy temples– (Helaman 4:24)

The same thing occurs in the Doctrine and Covenants, where God simply states, “The elements are the tabernacle of God; yea, man is the tabernacle of God, even temples; and whatsoever temple is defiled, God shall destroy that temple (D&C 93:35).”

In LDS sermons the idea that we are temples is frequently used to support the Word of Wisdom. Milton R. Hunter’ speech is a classic example:

Thus, as Paul proclaimed, our bodies are temples of God, given to us that we might keep them clean, pure, and uncontaminated in all respects, that some day we might come back with our bodies into the presence of our eternal Maker and have them purified and exalted. So the things that we do that will contaminate our bodies certainly work against the saving of our souls. (Conference Report, October 1953, p.48)

All this suggests that the idea that people are temples is, or ought to be, so obvious that there is no need to explain what that means or how we come to be temples. But not all the scriptures are silent about an explanation. In fact, they give three explanations, and I believe all of them are worthy of serious consideration. Theyare:

1) The suggestion implied by many of the above quotes that we are temples because the Holy Ghost dwells in us; the Holy Ghost is a member of the Godhead, and the place where he would dwell is a temple. In the quotes above, both Paul and Brigham Young have explained that, but there are others who have also considered that meaning.

2) The explanation that focus on our relationship with the Saviour: We are temples because we are built upon his sacred “Rock”—the hill in Jerusalem where the Temple was located.

3) An idea, which so far as I know is found exclusively in Isaiah’s discussions of our pre-mortal existence: We are temples because God has measured us and has set us apart as sacred space. That idea, being sacred space, is expanded (or perhaps only exemplified) in our this-world existence, by the ancient scriptural notion that sacred clothing delineated the wearer as being sacred space. I would like to explore each of those three ideas.

1) WE ARE TEMPLES BECAUSE THE HOLY GHOST DWELLS IN US.

When the Saviour organized his church, he said, “thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” (Matthew 16:18) The Saviour instructed to the Prophet Joseph, “Build upon my rock, which is my gospel;” { fn # 2 } and later explained to the Prophet, as he had to Peter, that the “rock” upon which the church is built, included the priesthood sealing powers. (D&C 128:10.) In a sermon, Joseph explained to the Saints the meaning of the “rock” in a single word, when he said, “What rock? Revelation.” {fn # 3 }John

Taylor expanded that comment by saying, “The foundation upon which The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is built is the rock of revelation-upon the rock that Jesus said He would build His church, and the gates of hell should not prevail against it.” { fn # 4}

President McKay brought that idea home to each of us when he said, “Inspiration, revelation to the individual soul, is the rock upon which a testimony should be built, and there is not one living who cannot get it if he will conform to those laws and live a clean life which will permit the holy Spirit to place that testimony in him.” { fn # 5 }

2) WE ARE TEMPLES BECAUSE WE ARE BUILT UPON HIS SACRED “ROCK.” The Saviour’s use of this imagery is well known:

24    Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock. And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his hous upon the sand: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.” (Matthew 7:24) { fn # 6 }

Alma explained the meaning of the Rock in these words:

12    And now, my sons, remember, remember that it is upon the rock of our Redeemer, who is Christ, the Son of God, that ye must build your foundation; that when the devil shall send forth his mighty winds, yea, his shafts in the whirlwind, yea, when all his hail and his mighty storm shall beat upon you, it shall have no power over you to drag you down to the gulf of misery and endless wo, because of the rock upon which ye are built, which is a sure foundation, a foundation whereon if men build they cannot fall (Helaman 5:12)

President Benson often referred to that scripture and used it to emphasize the importance of our relationship with the Saviour. { fn # 7 }

How, building oneself upon the Rock of Christ makes one a temple, is easy to understand. It is tied to the idea that the Rock upon which the church is built is revelation, and it includes the idea of priesthood sealing powers.

Throughout the history of Israel, in all the world there is only one sacred rock. It is the solid outcropping at Jerusalem on which Melchizedek first built his temple { fn # 8 }; where Abraham went to sacrifice Isaac; where Solomon, Zerubbabel, and Herod, all built temples to the Lord. { fn # 9 } All one has to do is recognize there is a necessary symbolic connection between the “Rock” which represents the Saviour and the sacred Rock at Jerusalem on which the temple is built, to understand why people who build their covenants, ordinances, and their lives, on the Rock which is the Saviour, are temples, just as the temple at Jerusalem is the acknowledge first or central temple because it is built upon the sacred rock. Similarly, one cannot be a temple if one is built upon some non-sanctified foundation. It seems to me that what the Saviour is explaining that just as one builds one’s life upon Christ, and becomes a temple; and just as the most sacred part of that temple is the Holy of Holies, in which sits the Ark of the Covenant (which symbolizes the ordinances and covenants, and, when he is not there, the presence of God), and the throne of Jehovah on which he sits when he is present; so, if one builds one’s life upon that most sacred Rock, and if there is a Holy of Holies where Christ can come to be acknowledged King, then one is in fact, a temple. {fn # 10 }

3) WE ARE TEMPLES WHEN WE ARE SACRED SPACE.

I am aware of two basic scriptures where this idea is expressed. Both are in Isaiah, and both are in the context of the pre-mortal existence.

One is in Isaiah 48. As I have mentioned before, that chapter in the Bible is the end of the Cyrus series, but in 1 Ne 20 (which does not have the biblical additions which suggest it was written by “Second Isaiah”) the chapter sounds like it is a description of the War in Heaven.

In the Book of Mormon version we are reminded of Moses 4 when we read:

10   For, behold, I have refined thee, I have chosen thee in the furnace of affliction.
11    For mine own sake, yea, for mine own sake will I do this, for I will not suffer my name to be polluted, and I will not give my glory unto another.
12    Hearken unto me, O Jacob, and Israel my called, for I am he; I am the first, and I am also the last.
13    Mine hand hath also laid the foundation of the earth, and my right hand hath spanned the heavens. I call unto them and they stand up together.
14    All ye, assemble yourselves, and hear; who among them hath declared these things unto them?  The Lord hath loved him [the person who gives the speech]; yea, and he [the speaker, which turns out to be the Prophet Joseph (1 Ne 21:8 fn.a)] will fulfil his word which he hath declared by them….” (1 Nephi 20:12-14)

Here we see several things going on. The one we are most concerned with is that Jehovah’s “right hand hath spanned the heavens.”

That he used the right hand seems important. Remember, in the story of Joseph when he took his sons to his father, Israel, who wished to give them a blessing. Here it is the right hand which conveys the birthright blessing of Abraham.

13    Joseph took them both, Ephraim in his right hand toward Israel’s left hand, and Manasseh in his left hand toward Israel’s right hand, and brought them near unto him.
14    And Israel stretched out his right hand, and laid it upon Ephraim’s head, who was the younger, and his left hand upon Manasseh’s head, guiding his hands wittingly; for Manasseh was the firstborn
….
17    And when Joseph saw that his father laid his right hand upon the head of Ephraim, it displeased him: and he held up his father’s hand, to remove it from Ephraim’s head unto Manasseh’s head.
18    And Joseph said unto his father, Not so, my father: for this is the firstborn; put thy right hand upon his head.
19    And his father refused, and said, I know it, my son, I know it: he also shall become a people, and he also shall be great: but truly his younger brother shall be greater than he, and his seed shall become a multitude of nations. (Genesis 48:13-19)

The right hand has other significance, also, as is visually suggested in the Psalms.

9    We have thought of thy lovingkindness [hesed], O God, in the midst of thy temple.
10    According to thy name, O God, so is thy praise unto the ends of the earth: thy right hand is full of righteousness. (Psalm 48:8-9)

The word “span,” in the Isaiah passage(“my right hand hath spanned the heavens”), means to measure. Of several definitions in the Oxford English Dictionary, two are especially interesting in this context: “To measure by means of the outstretched hand; to cover with the hand in this way.” “To stretch out (the thumb) as in spanning.” [The parenthesis are a part of the quote.]

The “heavens,” in the Isaiah passage, means the same thing as “stars” in Revelation, where it is said of Satan, “his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven” (Revelation 12:3); and in Job, where the Lord asks, “Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? … When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? (Job 38:4-7) In the scriptures, the words “heavens” and “stars” frequently refer to the members of the Council in Heaven. { fn # 11 }

In the 1 Ne. 20 reading of Isaiah 48, God calls the Heavens to assemble, and they stand up (again the idea of covenant), and hear a speech by one whom the Lord loves.  All this reinforces the idea that the “heavens” whom God has measured with his right hand are members of the heavenly Council.

The principle of measuring is central to our discussion. Sacred space must first be measured before it can be defined and walled off from the profane world. In our world, the measurements of the sacred space are given by revelation. Thus, God gives Moses the measurements for the Ark of the Covenant and consequently for its cover, and for the Tabernacle and the portable wall which divides it from the rest of the camp of Israel. The Lord gave Solomon the measurements of his temple. Ezekiel carefully gives us the measurements of the future temple he sees in a vision, and John, at the end of Revelation, gives us the measurements of the holy city he sees. When the Prophet was instructed to build the Kirtland Temple, the Lord gave him the measurements, and it is said that when President Hinckley first conceived the idea of Small Temples, he sketched them out with their measurements. { fn # 12 }

So t if people are going to become sacred space, they will have to be defined as such by measuring. Isaiah’s description of God’s stretching his right hand over the members of the Heavenly Council to measure them, is certainly evidence that he designated them as sacred space—as temples.

Priesthood holders in this world do the same sort of thing when we stretch our hands over someone’s head to ordain and to bless (“set apart” and “make sacred space” are virtually the same concept). Patriarchs not only place their hands on one’s head, but literally define the perimeters of one’s calling when they give Patriarchal Blessings.

Isaiah chapter 40 is the other place where we find God measuring the “heavens.” The context is the Council in Heaven, where we learn of the callings of John the Baptist { fn # 13 } and of the Saviour. Then, as in Job, the author asks a series of questions. As in Job, the questions seem almost to be an attack on the reader, until one realizes that Job or the reader is supposed to know and give the answers. Question: “[Where wast thou] when I laid the foundations of the earth? … When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? (Job 38:7).” Implied answer: “I was there, at the Council.” So it goes, question after question, first dealing with the Council, then with the creation, until finally the reader, with Job, is brought to the veil where he may see God (Job 42:5).

Isaiah 40 does the same thing. After the reader is introduced to the workings of the Council, he is asked questions about the creation. Only the questions are given, it is assumed the reader will supply the answers. If he does not, he is challenged, “Have ye not known? have ye not heard? hath it not been told you from the beginning? have ye not understood from the foundations of the earth?” (Isaiah 40: 21) { fn # 14 } The first of those questions whose answer one has known from the foundations of the earth is this:

“Meted” means measured: “span” designates the hand as the means of measuring. So in this context, one is expected to know the answer to the question: “God has measured out heaven with the span.” { fn # 15 }

Sacred space is separated fom non-sacred space by a wall or some other physical thing, either the wall around the courtyard, or the wall of the building, or even within the Temple at Jerusalem, by the veil between Holy Place and the Holy of Holies.

Also, people are separated from profane space by the clothes they wear. When Adam left the Garden of Eden, he took with him a garment made of skin which was to replace the garment made of light which he had lost in the garden. { fn # 16 } Later on, after that garment was lost, along with instructions about how to build the Tabernacle, Lord also gave Moses specific instructions about how to make another sacred garment in which Aaron should be clothed when he performed sacred ordinances. { fn # 17 }

In ancient Israel, the High Priests, and apparently the King, was anointed priest or king after he put on his sacred garments (Exodus 29:21, 29; Leviticus 8:30) with olive oil mixed with perfume; and in Psalm 45, where Jehovah had just been anointed King in the Heavenly Council, we are told his garments still smell of the perfumes which were mixed with the sacred anointing oil.

Thus, the garment is not only the veil between the sacred and the profane, “to cover their nakedness” (Exodus 28:42), but was itself a part of the sacred space which it protected, defined and encircled, just as the temple walls are a part of the sacred space which they define.

That High Priestly garment is described by Paul in Ephesians 6, where he calls it “the whole armor of God.” He admonishes the saints to protect themselves with that armor after he tells them, “now ye are light in the Lord: walk as children of light” (Ephesians 4:8).

Zechariah describes seeing the same garment in a vision.

1    And he shewed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the Lord, and Satan standing at his right hand to resist him. …
3    Now Joshua was clothed with filthy garments, and stood before the angel.
4    And he answered and spake unto those that stood before him, saying, Take away the filthy garments from him. And unto him he said, Behold, I have caused thine iniquity to pass from thee, and I will clothe thee with change of raiment.
5    And I said, Let them set a fair mitre upon his head. [a flat hat like the High Priest wore] So they set a fair mitre upon his head, and clothed him with garments.And the angel of the Lord stood by.
6    And the angel of the Lord protested unto Joshua, saying,
7    Thus saith the Lord of hosts; If thou wilt walk in my ways, and if thou wilt keep my charge, then thou shalt also judge my house, and shalt also keep my courts, and I will give thee places to walk among these that stand by (Zechariah 3:1-7).

This sacred clothing, symbolic of the garment of light worn by Adam, is also symbolic of the garment or veil that separates God from earthly man. The Psalmist wrote,

1    Bless the Lord, O my soul. O Lord my God, thou art very great; thou art clothed with honour and majesty.
2    Who coverest thyself with light as with a garment: who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain.” (Psalms 104:1-2)

It is not surprising then, that accounts of one’s seeing either God or his angels often include a statement about the brightness of their clothes { fn # 18 }.

That same idea is found in Isaiah, “Awake, awake; put on thy strength, O Zion; put on thy beautiful garments, O Jerusalem, the holy city: for henceforth there shall no more come into thee the uncircumcised and the unclean. (Isaiah 52:1) { fn # 19 } Alma explains that the garments are beautiful because they are purified through the atonement of the Saviour.

21    I say unto you, ye will know at that day that ye cannot be saved; for there can no man be saved except his garments are washed white; yea, his garments must be purified until they are cleansed from all stain, through the blood of him of whom it has been spoken by our fathers, who should come to redeem his people from their sins (Alma 5:21).

The Saviour further explained,

19    And no unclean thing can enter into his kingdom; therefore nothing entereth into his rest save it be those who have washed their garments in my blood, because of their faith, and the repentance of all their sins, and their faithfulness unto the end. (3 Nephi 27:19)

This applies as much to those whose temple work is done after their death, as it applies to the sanctified who are living. In Isaiah 61, being clothed in the “garment of praise,” the “garments of salvation,” and “the robe of righteousness” are important parts of both the coronation scene and the resurrection hymn. { fn # 20 }

In his Revelation, John reports,

9    After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands;
….
14    And he said to me, These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.” (Revelation 7:9, 14)

There is, in this connection, a suggestion in Proverbs that to clothe is reminiscent of the creation acts of the Heavenly Council. Again, as in Job and Isaiah, were asked questions to which the initiated are expected to respond correctly, just as in Proverbs:

4    Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? what is his name, and what is his son’s name, if thou canst tell? (Proverbs 30:4).

Thus, the third way one may become a temple is by one’s virtually becoming sacred space. This was first done at the Council when God himself measured his children with his own hand. It is reaffirmed here when we do things which are strikingly similar. And people are defined as sacred space by wearing clothing which serves the same function as a veil, separating the sacred within from the profane without.

And there is one more way which the ancient Israelites were so closely connected with the temple rites and drama that it virtually became a mirror by which they could know themselves. The drama itself was their own personal autobiography, orienting themselves to all creation; through its story they could identify themselves with the gods at the Council, with the creation, with their place in this world and in the world to come. The drama said to them, this is where, in the great eternal scheme of things, you are just now. This is where you came from, where you are going, and how you are to get there.

—— —————— FOOTNOTES

{ 1 } Holman suggests that when the word “awake” is used alone it carries the connotation of one’s having secured, or having received a covenant securing, one’s own resurrection. He also says that when “awake” is used with “arise” in the Old Testament, the “awake” becomes a kind of command with the connotation of creating something, and the “arise” suggests standing in the attitude of defense. So, he says, “awake and arise” suggests creating and defending. Jan Holman, “Analysis of the Text of Ps 139 [part 2]”, Biblische Zeitschnft, vol. 14, 1970, p. 199-227. “Arise” also implies covenant making, as in 2 Kings 23:1-3, so the phrase might suggest creation or being created, and covenant making in connection with that.

{ 2 } D&C 11:24. See also: D&C 18:5, D&C 33:12-13.

{3} Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 273.

{ 4 } Teachings of Lorenzo Snow, p.50-51, 6 October 1879; JD, 20:332.

{ 5 } David O. McKay, Gospel Ideals, p.428. Deseret News Church Section, September 12, 1951, p. 4.

{ 6 } The Saviour frequently repeated that idea. For examples see: Luke 6:48; 2 Nephi 28:28; 3 Nephi 11:40; 3 Nephi 14:24; 3 Nephi 18:12; 3 Nephi 18:13; D&C 6:34.

{ 7 } For examples see: Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, p.6 and 11.

{ 8 } “[Jerusalem’s] original founder was a prince of Canaan called Melchizedek, or “Righteous King,” for such, indeed, he was. He was the first priest of God, and the first to build the temple; he named the city Jerusalem, which was previously called Solyma.” Josephus, The Essential Writings, translated and edited by Paul L. Mayer (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Kregel Publications, 1988) p. 367.

{ 9 } For a history of these three temples see “Temple” in the dictionary at the end of the LDS Bible.

{ 10 } There is a credible little book called Secrets of Jerusalem’s Temple Mount (Washingon D.C., Biblical Archaeology Society, 1989) by Leen and Kathleen Ritmeyer. Ritmeyer is the architect attached to the archaeological excavation project south of the Temple Mount. He is recognized as the world’s leading expert on the Temple Mount. In the book, he shows were, on the Rock, the Ark of the Covenant was placed (That is not speculation. There is a man-made indent on the surface of the rock which is the size of the Ark, indicating that the indent was made to hold the Ark in that place.) Thus the identification of the Holy of Holies of the Temple is also identified.

{ 11 }”A further piece of ancient folklore about the celestial beings is preserved in Job 38:7, where the expression ‘sons of God’ stands parallel to ‘morning stars.’ The equivalence…occurs already in Ugaritic test of the fourteenth century B.C., and reflects a far older tendency, well attested in Mespotamian literature, to associate gods and goddesses with heavenly bodies.” (The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, An Illustrated Encyclopedia (5 vols., Nashville,Abingdon Press, 1991, p. 131 [Angel: stories about celestial beings].

{ 12 } I have heard that several times. If any of you have a reference saying gave the measurements of the small temples at the time he first got the idea, I would appreciate your sending it to me.

{13}Isaiah40:1-11. All four of the Gospels begin in the same way as this Isaiah sequence:See Matthew 3:3, Mark 1:3, Luke 3:4-6, John 1:23.}

{ 14 } The phrase “the beginning” has a consistent meaning throughout much of the scriptures. It seems to have a specific reference in time, and is associated with the events surrounding the creation of the spirit body of this earth. For example: “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth,” Genesis 1:1; “In the beginning was the Word…and without him was not any thing made that was made,” John 1:1-3; “from the beginning…before the world was,” Abraham 3:21-2; and “I saw his glory, that he was in the beginning, before the world was,” in Doctrine and Covenants 93:7.

{ 15 } It is significant that the Prophet Joseph does not expand on its meaning, he quotes that scripture in the Lectures on Faith, Lecture 2, Q&A, p.23 – p.24.

{ 16 } Geo Widengren, The King and the Tree of Life in Ancient Near Eastern Religion (Uppsala, Lundequistska bokhandeln,1951)

{ 17 } Exodus 28:2-4. Widengren in Ibid, suggests that the pattern of this garment was given to Moses by the Lord to replace the garment of skins which had been worn by Adam.

{ 18 }  See for example Daniel 7:9; Luke 24:4; Revelation 1:13; 1 Nephi 12:10-11; 3 Nephi 11:8; Joseph Smith account of the First Vision and of the visit of Moroni.

{ 19 }That is paraphrased by the Saviour in 3 Nephi 20:36, and by Moroni in Moroni 10:31, and by the Lord in D&C 82:14, where he says,”Zion must arise and put on her beautiful garments.”

{ 20 }We learn in D&C 138: 42 that Isaiah 61 is Isaiah’s prophecy about salvation for the dead.

Mosiah 2:9 — LeGrand Baker — ears to hear

Mosiah 2:9
9   … that you should hearken unto me, and open your ears that ye may hear, and your hearts that ye may understand, and your minds that the mysteries of God may be unfolded to your view.”

King Benjamin’s is speaking during what is probably the most important annual temple festival of the ancient Nephites. So what he says ought to be understood in the context of covenants and ordinances. We get only a small glimpse of the ordinances later on, when his audience speaks in unison while making a covenant.

Dil (Richard Dilworth Rust) sent me a copy of his question at the same time he sent it to Beck. His question expanded the subject considerably by adding Isaiah 6:9-10, so I have also expanded my comments in response to his question. As I try to answer Dil’s question, there is not much I can do except string a bunch of scriptures together and hope you will walk with me along the path of the ideas which they represent.

Isaiah 6:9-10, which Dil cites, is a part of the conversation between the Lord and Isaiah which took place when Isaiah was given his assignment at the Council in Heaven. It reads,

9   And he said, Go, and tell this people, hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not.
10   Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed (Isaiah 6:9-10).

This scripture is important, because it brings the idea of “hearing” and “seeing” to the forefront, even as early as the Lord’s giving Isaiah his assignment during the Council in heaven. That is, “hearing” and “seeing” are recognize as vital issues way back then.

One discovers something of that same idea in Isaiah 48. In the Bible that chapter is the end of the Cyrus section, but on the Brass Plates, as we have it in 1 Ne. 20, it appears to be a discussion of the war in heaven. As far as I can tell, there are more references to ideas like “in the beginning” and before “you were born” in that chapter than in any other chapter of the Old Testament except the creation story. If I read 1 Ne. 20 correctly, the Lord is chastising people in the pre-earth life spirit world for not keeping their covenants (“they swear not in truth nor in righteousness”) and also for choosing to not understand the ordinances. He says,

6-8    Thou hast seen and heard all this … And that I have showed thee new things from time to time, even hidden things, and thou didst not know them … Yea, thou herdest not; yea, thou knewest not; yea, from that time thine ear was not opened; for I knew that thou would deal very treacherously, and was called a transgressor from the womb (1 Ne. 20: 6-8). [Remember a third  part of these people messed up really bad. If I’m reading this correctly, he is talking here about their birth as spirit children, rather than their physical birth.]

It appears to me that in this chapter the idea of “hearing” and “seeing” (being shown) is associated with ordinances and covenants in the pre-mortal existence, but if I am not correct, the ideas of “hearing” and “seeing” are being associated with ordinances and covenants in this life. So it works either way. This association of “hearing” and “seeing” with ordinances is consistant with other scriptures. For example, before the Lord showed his great vision to Enoch, the Lord instructed him, “Anoint thine eyes with clay, and wash them, and thou shalt see. And he did so.” (Moses 6:35) Expressing a similar idea, the Lord gave these instructions at the beginning of John’s Revelation, “I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see.” (Revelation 3:18) In a different setting, but probably not a different spiritual context, the Saviour turned to “his disciples, and said privately, Blessed are the eyes which see the things that ye see.” Luke 10:23)

Ordinances are also associated with the idea of hearing with the sacral ears. Here is a negative example, where Jeremiah says of his people, “their ear is uncircumcised, and they cannot hearken: behold, the word of the LORD is unto them a reproach; they have no delight in it.” (Jeremiah 6:10)

So it appears that the concept of one’s being able to see with one’s eyes and hear with one’s ears is an ordinance and covenant related concept, and is central to salvation, probably not only in the world in which we now live, but also the ones before, and, we may presume, also the ones after.

As to the nature of things after this life, these scriptures seem relevant:

“He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna, and will give him a white stone, and in the stone a new name written, which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth [it]. (Revelation 2:17) That is explained by the Prophet Joseph this way: “This earth, in its sanctified and immortal state, will be made like unto crystal and will be a Urim and Thummim to the inhabitants who dwell thereon, whereby all things pertaining to an inferior kingdom, or all kingdoms of a lower order, will be manifest to those who dwell on it; and this earth will be Christ’s. Then the white stone mentioned in Revelation 2:17, will become a Urim and Thummim to each individual who receives one, whereby things pertaining to a higher order of kingdoms will be made known; And a white stone is given to each of those who come into the celestial kingdom, whereon is a new name written, which no man knoweth save he that receiveth it. The new name is the key word.” (D&C 130: 9-11)

The concept of being able to see, hear, and understand is very big, even if one limits it to a this-world discussion. For that reason, my comment this week will be longer than usual. I appologize in advance for that. To make it easier to follow, I will break it down into the following ideas. First, the difference betweed the “heart” and the “mind” as they apply to seeing and hearing. Then the consistency with the prophets have admonished the people to “see” and “hear.” After that I will discuss the implications of what one sees and hears, and the promises given to those whose eyes can see and whose ears can hear.
************************************
HEARTS and MINDS –“your hearts that ye may understand, and your minds that the mysteries of God may be unfolded to your view.”

In the ancient world, the heart of an individual was the seat of his intellect as well as of his emotions. In their world, it was the heart which understood, considered, contrived, learned, loved, and hated. It was the heart, therefore, which was weighed on judgement day, in the theology of both ancient Egypt and ancient Israel. Significantly, it is the broken heart which is the sacrifice requisite to salvation in the gospel of Christ. But that sacrifice also requires a contrite spirit. The spirit and the heart are separate things. The ancients had no idea what the brain was for, so the use of the word “mind” cannot refer to the functions of the brain.

In a brilliant little book called The Vitality of the Individual in the Thought of Ancient Israel (Cardiff : University of Wales Press, 1964)

Professor Aubrey Johnson has used the Old Testament to try to sort out many of the religious beliefs of ancient Israel. (He is not LDS, so does not have the advantage of having the sources we have.) From his study, Johnson concluded that the pre-exilic Israelites believed people are dual creatures, consisting of a physical body and a spiritual one. He wrote that the ancient Israelites believed one’s physical self had the capacity to think and feel emotion (i.e. the heart), and that one’s spirit self had an independentant ability to think and feel emotion. That was a new concept to me. LDS theology agrees that our spirit body somehow inhabits and animates our physical body, and when the spirit leaves, the physical is dead. With that understanding, we think of some sort of communication or coordination between our spirit self and our physical self as a natural and necessary phenomenon but the idea that our spirit has a separate and independent intellect is a philosophical step which most of us do not take. Yet it is one which is clearly taught in the Book of Mormon. (See the discussion of Mosiah 15:1-7)

As I read the words “heart” and “mind” in the scriptures, it occurs to me that as the “heart” is the seat of the intellect and emotion of the this-world person, it follows that the “mind” is the intellect and emotion of the spirit within us. If that is so, then King Benjamin’s admonition to “open your ears that ye may hear, and your hearts that ye may understand, and your minds that the mysteries of God may be unfolded to your view (i.e. that you may see)” makes perfect sense to me.

In a related way, it also makes sense that having clean lips, or a worthy mouth, is an appropriate evidence of the quality of both the heart and the mind. The prayer of the palmiest, “Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD,” (Psalms 19:14) is consistent with a prayer for help: “For the sin of their mouth and the words of their lips let them even be taken in their pride: and for cursing and lying which they speak.” (Psalms 59:12) As the Saviour observed, “out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.” (Matthew 12:34)
****************************************

KING’S LAMENT THAT PEOPLE NEITHER “SEE” NOR “HEAR.”

Throughout history, the Lord and his prophets have cited the inability to see and hear as evidence of a people’s waywardness. Enoch “heard a voice from heaven, saying: Enoch, my son, prophesy unto this people, and say unto them–Repent, for thus saith the Lord: I am angry with this people, and my fierce anger is kindled against them; for their hearts have waxed hard, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes cannot see afar off;” (Moses 6:27)

Moses complained, “Yet the LORD hath not given you an heart to perceive, and eyes to see, and ears to hear, unto this day.” (Deuteronomy 29:4)

Isaiah admonished his people, “Hear, ye deaf; and look, ye blind, that ye may see,” for he accused them, “Seeing many things, but thou observest not; opening the ears, but he heareth not.” (Isaiah 42: 18, 20)

Jeremiah charged, “Hear now this, O foolish people, and without understanding; which have eyes, and see not; which have ears, and hear not:” (Jeremiah 5:21)

The Lord warned Ezekiel, “Son of man, thou dwellest in the midst of a rebellious house, which have eyes to see, and see not; they have ears to hear, and hear not: for they are a rebellious house.” (Ezekiel 12:2)

The Saviour explained, “Therefore I speak to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. And in them is the fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias [Isaiah], which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive; For this people’s heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed, lest at any time they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and should understand with their hearts, and should be converted, and I should heal them.” (Matthew 13:13-16) He then adds, “But blessed are your eyes, for they see; and your ears, for they hear. And blessed are you because these things are come unto you, that you might understand them.” (JST Matthew 13:15)

John, Paul and the Prophet Joseph also used the Isaiah 6 prophecy to apply to the people of their own times. (John 12:40, Acts 28:25-27; see the quote from TPJS below.)
**************************

IN CONTRAST, A POWERFUL PROMISE IS MADE BY THE LORD, AND BY THE PROPHETS TO THOSE WHO HAVE EARS THAT HEAR AND EYES THAT SEE.

In the famous prophecy of the Book of Mormon, Isaiah wrote, “And in that day shall the deaf hear the words of the book, and the eyes of the blind shall see out of obscurity, and out of darkness.” (Isaiah 29:18) In the JST, the Prophet Joseph added a statement to that prophecy which brings together the promise of the Book of Mormon and the promise of the Beatitudes. The Prophet’s version reads: “And in that day shall the deaf hear the words of the book; and the eyes of the blind shall see out of obscurity and out of darkness; and the meek also shall increase, and their joy shall be in the Lord; and the poor among men shall rejoice in the Holy One of Israel.” (JST Isaiah 29:30)

In partial fulfillment of that prophecy, the Lord promised the Prophet Joseph, “Let him that is ignorant learn wisdom by humbling himself and calling upon the Lord his God, that his eyes may be opened that he may see, and his ears opened that he may hear;” (D&C 136:32)

The idea of opening one’s ears, is expanded by this observation in Third Nephi which describes the coming of the Saviour, “And again the third time they did hear the voice, and did open their ears to hear it; and their eyes were towards the sound thereof; and they did look steadfastly towards heaven, from whence the sound came.” (3 Nephi 11:5)

The following words of the Lord to Ezekiel were spoken in a different context, but the same idea is expressed, and the circumstances seem almost to be the same: “And the man said unto me, Son of man, behold with thine eyes, and hear with thine ears, and set thine heart upon all that I shall shew thee; for to the intent that I might shew them unto thee art thou brought hither: declare all that thou seest to the house of Israel.” (Ezekiel 40:4)

As one must see, so must one hear. So it is not surprising that the phrases “he who has ears let him hear” (or some variation of that) is a kind of code in much of the New Testament. It is found in the gospels and in Revelation, and means something like: “If you are among the initiated, pay attention! I have just written something important and temple-related.” I quoted one of those above, in connection with the white stone. I will quote only one more of those passages here: “For there is nothing hid which shall not be manifested; neither was anything kept secret, but that it should in due time come abroad. If any man have ears to hear, let him hear.” (Mark 4:19)

One may get that same idea from another of the Lord’s instructions to Ezekiel. “And the LORD said unto me, Son of man, mark well, and behold with thine eyes, and hear with thine ears all that I say unto thee concerning all the ordinances of the house of the LORD, and all the laws thereof; and mark well the entering in of the house, with every going forth of the sanctuary.” (Ezekiel 44:5)

That reminds one of an oft-repeated prophecy of Isaiah. “The LORD hath made bare his holy arm in the eyes of all the nations; and all the ends of the earth shall see the salvation of our God.” (Isaiah 52:10. That prophecy is cited in Mosiah 12:24 and 15:31, and by the Saviour twice in Third Nephi [16:28, 20:35] and again in the D&C [133:3].)

The statement that “the LORD hath made bare his holy arm in the eyes of all the nations” reminds one of the Lord’s question to the brother of Jared: “Sawest thou more than this?” and the response, “Nay; Lord, show thyself unto me.” (see Ether 3:6-16)

Similarly, the psalmist testifies,”Now know I that the LORD saveth his anointed; he will hear him from his holy heaven with the saving strength of his right hand.” (Psalms 20:6) He further prays, “That thy beloved may be delivered; save with thy right hand, and hear me.” (Psalms 60:5)

In these and many other many scriptures, for one to be saved, the “hearing” must go both ways, as the following Psalms suggest: “Hear the voice of my supplications, when I cry unto thee, when I lift up my hands toward thy holy oracle.” (Psalms 28:2) “Hear my prayer, O God; give ear to the words of my mouth.” (Psalms 54:2) For Isaiah, the Lord’s answer to that kind of prayer was the promise of eternal life, couched in the memory of the kingship covenants he had made with David. The Lord is quoted as responding, “Incline your ear, and come unto me: hear, and your soul shall live; and I will make an everlasting covenant with you, even the sure mercies of David.” (Isaiah 55:3)

In the concept of salvation, the ideas of hearing and seeing come together in one place. Again it is the Psalms which says this most clearly. “When thou saidst [that is: when I heard you say], seek ye my face; my heart said unto thee, Thy face, LORD, will I seek.” (Psalms 27:8)

One’s seeking, wishing to see, is a hope for the fulfillment of an ancient and often reiterated promise. It goes back as far as Adam. “And in that day Adam blessed God and was filled, and began to prophesy concerning all the families of the earth, saying: Blessed be the name of God, for because of my transgression my eyes are opened, and in this life I shall have joy, and again in the flesh I shall see God.” (Moses 5:10) It was spoken again by Job. “For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth: And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God: Whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not another; though my reins be consumed within me.” (Job 19:17-27) Later, as Job’s story comes to a conclusion, we see him standing before the vail and here him say, “I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear: but now mine eye seeth thee.” (Job 42:5)

Again the echoing of the Psalmist’s praise,”Thereforemyheartisglad,andmyglory rejoiceth: my flesh also shall rest in hope.” (Psalms 16:9) [If “heart” is heart, and it is, then the question here is this: Is the word “glory” used here the way King Benjamin used the word “mind”?]

Perhaps Paul was writing of the same thing when he observed, “I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) such an one caught up to the third heaven.” (2 Corinthians 12:2)

The Prophet Joseph’s introduction to D&C 76 suggests the same idea: “By the power of the Spirit our eyes were opened and our understandings were enlightened, so as to see and understand the things of God-” (D&C 76:12) That sounds very much like the way Enoch introduced his vision. “Enoch a righteous man, whose eyes were opened by God, saw the vision of the Holy One in the heavens, which the angels showed me, and from them I heard everything, and from them I understood as I saw.” ( R. H. Charles, The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament {Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1976} Vol. 2, p. )

As a conclusion, let me turn to the Prophet Joseph for an explanation of this entire theme:

Now we discover that the very reason assigned by this prophet, why they would not receive the Messiah, was, because they did not or would not understand; and seeing, they did not perceive; “for this people’s heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed, lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.” But what saith He to His disciples? “Blessed are your eyes for they see, and your ears for they hear; for verily I say unto you, that many prophets and righteous men have desired to see those things which ye see, and have not seen them; and to hear those things which ye hear, and have not heard them.

We again make remark here-for we find that the very principle upon which the disciples were accounted blessed, was because they were permitted to see with their eyes and hear with their ears-that the condemnation which rested upon the multitude that received not His saying, was because they were not willing to see with their eyes, and hear with their ears; not because they could not, and were not privileged to see an hear, but because their hearts were full of iniquity and abominations; “as your fathers did, so do ye.” The prophet, foreseeing that they would thus harden their hearts, plainly declared it ; and herein is the condemnation of the world; that light hath come into the world, and men choose darkness rather than light, because their deeds are evil. This is so plainly taught by the Savior, that a wayfaring man need not mistake it.” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 95)