Blog

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mosiah 24:13-23 — LeGrand Baker — covenants and power

Mosiah 24 contains one of my favorite stories about covenants and covenant-keeping in the Book of Mormon.

When, at the Waters of Mormon, the people of Alma were about to be attacked by the army of King Noah, the Lord warned Alma to get out of there, then he prevented the army from pursuing them. But somewhat later, under an almost identical circumstance, the Lord didn’t warn them when the Lamanites, under the command of Amulon, came suddenly upon Alma’s community. Rather, the Lord let his covenant people become enslaved by the Lamanites. He left them in that situation for a while, then provided a way for Alma and his entire community to escape. Given the similarity of the situations, one is left to ask, “Wouldn’t it have been a lot simpler for the Lord just to have warned Alma that the Lamanites were coming and helped them escape before they became slaves?” If one asks that, one misses the most important part of the story. A more relevant question would be, “Why did the Lord permit his faithful saints to be enslaved?” It is the answers to that question that makes the story so beautiful to me. The answers are found in the narrative, but much of their detail in encoded in the temple-language of its sub-text.

As you know, I am convinced that the Book of Mormon was carefully translated so that the words of the King James Bible map one-on-one to the words in the Book of Mormon, and visa versa. If that were not so we could not read the scriptures with understanding, but because it is so, we can go to the Old and New Testaments to know the meaning of words in the Book of Mormon, and we can go to the Book of Mormon to know the meaning of words in the Bible.

I also understand that the Book of Mormon and significant parts of the Bible are written in a double language. There is a very good reason for that. The Book of Mormon is the greatest missionary tool we have. The text of its surface stories and doctrines are about the things seminary students and new converts need to know – the first principles of the gospel, and how to gain a testimony of the Saviour. Those things can, and must be taught to everyone.

However, the sub-text is addressed only to the Lord’s temple covenant people. The sub-text the Book of Mormon is, in fact, a temple text. Those things cannot be taught. The Saints who know, understand because they already know; for those who do not know already, the sub-text is simply not there.

You know that I love to point out the sub-text to my friends – I can do that because I realize that my calling attention to it is all I have to do – because I know that you can supply for yourselves all the background information requisite to your understanding. So the purpose of my writing is simply to engage in my half of a conversation that begins, “Did you notice this?”

In this week’s chapter of Mosiah, the code words that are used so perfectly are “faith” (which is in the New Testament Greek, pistis; It does not mean belief, but the token of a covenant.) and “comfort” (which means empowerment and in the scriptures is related to the coronation ceremony of sacral kingship and priesthood.) My dear sister keeps reminding me that until we all have access to an archive of past comments, I need to do a better job of providing scriptural definitions of code words. So next week I will discuss both pistis and “comfort.”

————–

In Mosiah 24, the people of Alma were threatened with death if they were caught praying to God, and even though the story does not say so, it is apparent that they were also prohibited from talking about God – or maybe even talking with each other at all. In any case, when the Lord made the covenant with them, he did not tell Alma and let Alma tell the rest. He made the covenant with each one individually.

13     And it came to pass that the voice of the Lord came to them in their afflictions, saying: Lift up your heads and be of good comfort,

[“Comfort” may, of course, be read the way we usually read it: to mean something like the Lord said, “don’t be too concerned, because everything will be OK.” But if one reads the word to mean “empower,” and if the empowerment has to do with sacral kingship and priesthood as “comfort” does in Isaiah 61 and Psalm 23, then the words “be of good comfort” in our verse are a covenant. Verse 14 describes how that covenant will be fulfilled.]

….for I know of the covenant which ye have made unto me

[The covenant they made at the Waters of Mormon was that they would give their all in support of each other, the Church, and Kingdom of God. They fulfilled that covenant – or demonstrated that they would fulfill it – when they lived the law of consecration in the wilderness before the Lamanites came and enslaved them.];

….and I will covenant with my people

[those words are a promise that there is another covenant yet to come. We will find that covenant later on in the story.]

….and deliver them out of bondage.

[and that new covenant will come before the people are delivered from bondage. But in the meantime, the Lord describes to each of them individually his covenant of empowerment:

14     And I will also ease the burdens which are put upon your shoulders, that even you cannot feel them upon your backs, even while you are in bondage; and this will I do that ye may stand as witnesses for me hereafter, and that ye may know of a surety that I, the Lord God, do visit my people in their afflictions. [- and there we have the Lord’s reason for letting the Lamanites make them slaves.]

As I understand it, this is the story so far: The Lord let the Lamanites enslave the people of Alma so those saints could testify that the Lord keeps his covenants with his children even when they are under circumstances that would appear to the world as though the Lord had forgotten his people. The Lord said “that ye…” “Ye” is plural. He was using the plural form even though he was revealing his covenant to each person individually. It is significant that he did not say “that ye stand as witnesses of me hereafter” – rather he said, “that ye stand as witnesses for me hereafter.” The only way I can account for that wording is that when they got to Zarahemla their testimony would have a specific purpose. I presume, from the way events turned out, that purpose had something to do with King Mosiah’s surrendering his authority as the spiritual leader of his kingdom, and giving Alma permission to both establish and preside over the Church of Christ.

15     And now it came to pass that the burdens which were laid upon Alma and his brethren were made light; yea, the Lord did strengthen them that they could bear up their burdens with ease, and they did submit cheerfully and with patience to all the will of the Lord.

[Their submitting “cheerfully and with patience to all the will of the Lord” was the pistis – their token of the covenant. They did not “submit cheerfully and with patience to all the will of the” Lamanites, but “to all the will of the Lord.”]

16     And it came to pass that so great was their faith [pistis – the token of the covenant] and their patience that the voice of the Lord came unto them again [again to each individual, and not just to Alma], saying: Be of good comfort [a second promise of empowerment], for on the morrow I will deliver you out of bondage.

[Under the intense pressure of those circumstances, each individual had to know for oneself that the time had come, so that each person could make the necessary preparations to leave quickly. This time the promise of empowerment was not that their burdens would be light, but that they would have the ability to prepare so quickly for their departure.]

17     And he said unto Alma

[It is significant that the Lord gave different instructions to Alma than to the others. The fact that Mormon differentiates between the revelations that were given “to them” and “to Alma” reinforces the idea that in the first two instances the revelation did not come “to them through Alma” but “to them” individually.]:

….Thou shalt go before this people, and I will go with thee and deliver this people out of bondage. [There is the promised covenant that preceded the deliverance: “I will go with thee -Alma – and because they have a prophet to lead them, I will deliver this people…”]

18     Now it came to pass that Alma and his people in the night-time gathered their flocks together, and also of their grain; yea, even all the night-time were they gathering the flocks together.

[Thus, the second covenant of empowerment was fulfilled in a single night. I grew up on a farm, and to me that is an amazing story. Their gathering their flocks and preparing them to move was one thing. Getting all the grain into sacks and then getting it on their pack animals was quite another. It is a wonder that they were able to do all that, and still prepare the necessary meals, pack their belongings, get the children ready – and all that in one night without any previous preparations that would alert the Lamanites.]

19     And in the morning the Lord caused a deep sleep to come upon the Lamanites, yea, and all their task-masters were in a profound sleep.

[Thus the promise that they would be delivered. This time they didn’t have to get their overlords drunk, the Lord himself just kept them sound asleep.]

20     And Alma and his people departed into the wilderness; and when they had traveled all day they pitched their tents in a valley, and they called the valley Alma, because he led their way in the wilderness.
21     Yea, and in the valley of Alma they poured out their thanks to God because he had been merciful unto them, and eased their burdens [He kept the first covenant of empowerment], and had delivered them out of bondage [He kept the second covenant of empowerment]; for they were in bondage, and none could deliver them except it were the Lord their God.
22     And they gave thanks to God, yea, all their men and all their women and all their children that could speak lifted their voices in the praises of their God.

[As I imagine that scene, I am sure they didn’t all sound like a replay of the confounding of tongues in Babylon. Rather, I suspect that this is one of several places in the Book of Mormon where it is intended to be understood that all the people spoke and/or prayed in unison.]

23     And now the Lord said unto Alma: Haste thee and get thou and this people out of this land, for the Lamanites have awakened and do pursue thee; therefore get thee out of this land, and I will stop the Lamanites in this valley that they come no further in pursuit of this people. [That is the way the Lord had saved them before, so his system still worked when he wanted to use it again.]

This conclusion of the story is a further testimony that the Lord had purpose in letting his people be enslaved, just as his strengthening them and then delivering them, testifies that his purpose had nothing whatever to do with punishing them, or making their lives more difficult than they needed to be. This story is also a testimony to us that one’s pain, sorrow, disappointment, and hardship are not the curses of this lonely, dreary world, but they are blessing of empowerment if we will accept them as such and “submit cheerfully and with patience to all the will of the Lord.”

24     And it came to pass that they departed out of the valley, and took their journey into the wilderness.
25     And after they had been in the wilderness twelve days they arrived in the land of Zarahemla; and king Mosiah did also receive them with joy.

——–

It is always important, when one considers the temple/sub-textual meanings of passages in the scriptures, to compare them with other places in the scriptures where the same words and phrases are used.

There is a beautiful example in the New Testament where the Saviour says essentially the same thing to a lone woman that he had said to each of the people in Alma’s covenant community: “Daughter, be of good comfort: thy faith hath made thee whole; go in peace.” We are only told the conclusion of the story, but if the phrase “good comfort” and the word “faith” mean the same thing there as they do in Alma’s story, then we can also know that this dear woman and her Heavenly Father had made a covenant, and that the Saviour recognized that covenant as the source of her empowerment; and that, for her, the token of that covenant was simply to touch the Saviour – even if only the garment he was wearing.

43     And a woman having an issue of blood twelve years, which had spent all her living upon physicians, neither could be healed of any,
44     Came behind him, and touched the border of his garment: and immediately her issue of blood stanched.
45     And Jesus said, Who touched me? When all denied, Peter and they that were with him said, Master, the multitude throng thee and press thee, and sayest thou, Who touched me?
46     And Jesus said, Somebody hath touched me: for I perceive that virtue is gone out of me.
47     And when the woman saw that she was not hid, she came trembling, and falling down before him, she declared unto him before all the people for what cause she had touched him and how she was healed immediately.
48     And he said unto her, Daughter, be of good comfort: thy faith hath made thee whole; go in peace.(Luke 8:43-48, see also (Matthew 9:20-22.)

Mosiah 23:15-20 — LeGrand Baker — ‘Prosperous’ as a codeword

Mosiah 23:15-20
15     Thus did Alma teach his people, that every man should love his neighbor as himself, that there should be no contention among them.
16     And now, Alma was their high priest, he being the founder of their church.

In our Church, the Presiding High Priest and the Prophet are the same man. But in the ancient world that was not necessarily so. A prophet is – has always been—one who communes with God and teaches the people what God instructs him to teach. In ancient Israel, during the time of Solomon’s Temple, that was the king, with the Aaronic Priesthood High Priest being in charge of the temple on a daily basis. At the time of King Hezekiah the king appears to have been presiding high priest and Isaiah was the prophet. After the Babylonian captivity, when the Jews returned to Jerusalem, they had no king, and the Aaronic High Priest assumed the temple prerogatives of the king, which included the authority to function in the Holy of Holies.

The Nephites had no king until they built a temple, then a king became necessary because he was the chief actor in the temple drama. Nephi was king and appointed his brothers Jacob and Joseph to be priests and teachers. At the time of King Benjamin the king was both prophet and presiding high priest.

So Mormon’s statement in verse 16 is precisely correct. Alma who lived away from Zarahemla received authority from God to preside over church in that area and to perform the ordinances. He had organized their church, instituted baptism into that church, and had done whatever else was required. Just what that was, Mormon explains in encoded language. He does not intend to say too much, but wants to say enough to make his point.

17     And it came to pass that none received authority to preach or to teach except it were by him from God. Therefore he consecrated all their priests and all their teachers; and none were consecrated except they were just men.
18     Therefore they did watch over their people, and did nourish them with things pertaining to righteousness. [“Righteousness” is zedek = the correctness of high-priestly / temple things.]
19     And it came to pass that they began to prosper exceedingly in the land; and they called the land Helam.
20     And it came to pass that they did multiply and prosper exceedingly in the land of Helam; and they built a city, which they called the city of Helam (Mosiah 23:15-20).

Here, what appears at first glance to be a redundancy seems to me to be Alma’s carefully worded explanation of what Alma was instructing his people. The code word is “prosper.” To understand that, I use Psalm 45 as background. This Psalm can be read as a three-act play that takes place at the Council in Heaven where Jehovah has just been anointed to be the eternal King of Israel. Now the king is receiving an ordinance and a blessing (see Who Shall Ascend into the Hill of the Lord for a complete analysis of the Psalm). The blessings reads:

3     Gird thy sword upon thy thigh, O most mighty, with thy glory and thy majesty.
4     And in thy majesty ride prosperously because of truth and meekness and righteousness; and thy right hand shall teach thee terrible things.
5     Thine arrows are sharp in the heart of the king’s enemies; whereby the people fall under thee. (Psalms 45: 1- 5.)

Now the examination:

3     Gird thy sword upon thy thigh, O most mighty, with thy glory and thy majesty. [Glory and majesty are names of two separate sets of clothing. One representing priesthood, and the other representing kingship. For example, in Isaiah 61: 10, they are called “garments of salvation” and “robes of righteousness.” In Job 40: 10. They are first called “majesty and excellency,” then “glory and beauty” (in Hebrew poetry the same idea is often repeated in two different ways)]

4     And in thy majesty [royal robes] ride prosperously [that’s the word we are looking for] because of truth [“truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come.” In other words, truth is what one knows in sacred time.]

…. and meekness [In Psalm 25 the meek are described as those to whom the Lord has revealed his “secret” (sode), and those who keep their eternal covenants.]

…. and righteousness [righteousness is zedek, which I understand to be absolute correctness in temple things: having the right authority, wearing the correct clothing, doing and saying what one ought to say and do with the right words, in the right place, and at the right time];

…. and thy right hand [note which hand] shall teach thee terrible [awesome] things. [Now that one has received those blessings, one has come to know the kind of peace that transcends pain and sorrow, and is thereby invulnerable to the evils of this world. In the blessing in Psalm 45, as in most psalms, that strength is described in military symbolism:]

5     Thine arrows are sharp in the heart of the king’s enemies; whereby the people fall under thee.

This blessing bestows: 1) the powers of sacral kingship, 2) priesthood authority, and 3) the absolute assurance of God’s protection. That’s all there is. This blessing incorporates a comprehensive covenant, embracing all of the powers and blessings of sacral kingship and priesthood – and there is nothing left to be added except a promise about his posterity, and that is reserved for the conclusion of the psalm.

The first use of “prosper” in the Book of Mormon is when the Lord promised Nephi:

19    And it came to pass that the Lord spake unto me, saying: Blessed art thou, Nephi, because of thy faith, for thou hast sought me diligently, with lowliness of heart.
20     And inasmuch as ye shall keep my commandments, ye shall prosper, and shall be led to a land of promise; yea, even a land which I have prepared for you; yea, a land which is choice above all other lands.
21     And inasmuch as thy brethren shall rebel against thee, they shall be cut off from the presence of the Lord.
22     And inasmuch as thou shalt keep my commandments, thou shalt be made a ruler and a teacher [king and priest] over thy brethren (1 Ne. 2:19-22).

Here, to prosper is not just an economic blessing, but a spiritual one. Being cut off from the presence of the Lord is the opposite of prosper, so one may deduce that prosper means being brought into the Lord’s presence.

1 Nephi 2: 19-24 are some of the most important verses in the Book of Mormon because they authorize Nephi to become the king and priest to his people and to establish a new dynasty. Those verses have the same pivotal importance to the Book of Mormon history as the story as Samuel’s anointing David to be king has to Old Testament history.

As part of that covenant to Nephi, the Lord said, “And inasmuch as ye shall keep my commandments, ye shall prosper, and be led to a land of promise….thou shalt be made a ruler and a teacher over thy brethren.”

When the Lord promised Nephi he would be a ruler and a teacher (king and priest), he used the word translated “prosper” to convey that promise. I presume the reason was because Nephi was familiar with Psalm 45, and the Lord was simply used language Nephi associated with the blessings of kingship and priesthood.

That assertion may not be as reckless as it sounds. One cannot know what Hebrew word was used in the Book of Mormon, but the word used in Psalm 45 is only used three other places in the Psalms and in four places in Isaiah, and all of them have a similar connotation as the promise given to Nephi. The Hebrew word translated ‘prosperously” in Psalm 45 has the connotation of success rather than of wealth. ( In the dictionary at the back of James Strong, ed., The Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, #6734.)

One of the other places where it is used is Psalm 1. There it is in conjunction with a promise that is reminiscent of the blessings associated with the tree of life.

1     Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly,
nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful.
2     But his delight is in the law of the Lord; and in his law doth he meditate day and night.
3     And he shall be like a tree planted by the rivers of water, that bringeth forth his fruit in his season; his leaf also shall not wither; and whatsoever he doeth shall prosper. (Psalm 1:1-3)

In the Book of Mormon, but there the phrase that is used to represent the Lord’s promise to Nephi is “prosper in the land.” The first example of that usage is Lehi’s exhortation,

19 O my sons, that these things might not come upon you, but that ye might be a choice and a favored people of the Lord. But behold, his will be done; for his ways are righteousness forever.
20     And he hath said that: Inasmuch as ye shall keep my commandments ye shall prosper in the land; but inasmuch as ye will not keep my commandments ye shall be cut off from my presence. (2 Nephi 1:20)

A short time later, Lehi used the phrase again when speaking to his grandchildren:

4     For the Lord God hath said that: Inasmuch as ye shall keep my commandments ye shall prosper in the land; and inasmuch as ye will not keep my commandments ye shall be cut off from my presence. (2 Ne. 4:4)

Alma used it several times. There is also an intriguing statement in Zeniff’s brief autobiography.

5     And I did cause that the women should spin, and toil, and work, and work all manner of fine linen, yea, and cloth of every kind, that we might clothe our nakedness; and thus we did prosper in the land – thus we did have continual peace in the land for the space of twenty and two years. (Mosiah 10:5)

The thing that makes it intriguing is that in almost every other instance that the phrase “prosper in the land” is found in the Book of Mormon it has to do with either literally or symbolically being in the presence of God. Here he says: “that we might clothe our nakedness; and thus we did prosper in the land” That first is almost the same phrase the Lord uses when he instructs Moses about the priests’ ordinance clothing: “And thou shalt make them linen breeches to cover their nakedness.” ( Exodus 28:42) There, the clothing is used to symbolically come into the presence of God.

In both the Old Testament and the Book of Mormon, prosperity is an important part of the kingship covenant between Jehovah and Israel. God promises if they will serve him he will cause their flocks and fields to prosper. And it is also a part of the covenant that if they will serve him he will be their God and always be with them. Thus, if they prosper as a nation, their temporal prosperity may be an outward evidence that God is with them. But it is equally apparent from the way Alma uses the phrase that he understands its meaning quite literally. He began his testimony to his son Helaman,

1     My son, give ear to my words, for I say unto you, even as I said unto Helaman, that inasmuch as ye shall keep the commandments of God ye shall prosper in the land; and inasmuch as ye will not keep the commandments of God ye shall be cut off from his presence. (Alma 38:1)

And he ended his testimony:

17     But behold, my son, this is not all; for ye ought to know as I do know, that inasmuch as ye shall keep the commandments of God ye shall prosper in the land; and ye ought to know also, that inasmuch as ye will not keep the commandments of God ye shall be cut off from his presence. Now this is according to his word.” (Alma 36: 30. see also Alma 9:13 and 50:17)

As I understand it, the 45th psalm the phrase: “And in thy majesty ride prosperously because of truth and meekness and righteousness” literally means something like this: “In thy royal, priestly robes ride in the presence of the Lord, because you know the truth of the Council, you keep the covenants you made in the Council, and you keep those covenants in the correct high-priestly manner,” and thy right hand shall teach thee wonderful things.

Now lets return and look again at Mosiah 23:

17     And it came to pass that none received authority to preach or to teach except it were by him from God. Therefore he consecrated all their priests and all their teachers; and none were consecrated except they were just men.
18     Therefore they did watch over their people, and did nourish them with things pertaining to righteousness. [zedek = temple correctness]
19     And it came to pass that they began to prosper exceedingly in the land [the same phrase that elsewhere connoted coming into the presence of God]; and they called the land Helam.
20     And it came to pass that they did multiply and prosper exceedingly in the land of Helam [Here, “in the land” is modified by the preposition, “of Helam,” So it must be read, “in the land of Helam,” rather than just “in the land.” Their prosperity in Helam has to do with “multiply,” so apparently relates to the increase of their families, cattle, or harvests – but probably all three]; and they built a city, which they called the city of Helam.

It appears to me that there is no redundancy in Mormon’s description. Rather I read it as his very quiet way of saying powerful and beautiful things.

Mosiah 18:9-30 — LeGrand Baker — the covenants of baptism

(When I began writing this, I expected it would be an easy exercise in examining the symbolism of the ordinance of baptism. But it soon developed into an investigation of the ancient and modern practices of re-baptism – and then, in its conclusion, it brought me to new insights about the meaning of the sacrament. I hope it proves to be ad interesting to you as it was to me. )

The meaning of baptism is simple enough that a child can understand it, yet so complex and many faceted that an adult’s intellect is stretched to its edges even to begin to try to comprehend all of its ramifications. (But then, I suppose that is equally true of the other ordinances.) The symbolism of the baptism we receive covers the full range of the meanings of the atonement. Baptism represents the death brought about by Adam’s fall, a subsequent burial, and the resurrection brought about by the atonement. It symbolizes one’s adoption into the family of Christ, and is itself a pattern of a new birth, as the Saviour explained to Nicodemus. It is a cleansing from sin, and therefore denotes the ending of an old life as well as a new beginning. It is an official, somewhat legalistic, token of the covenant that admits one into membership of the Saviour’s Church and Kingdom, and is a necessary prerequisite to receiving the Gift of the Holy Ghost.

Because baptism has such a wide range of possible symbolic meanings, the ordinance can be used as a token of a variety of covenants. Consequently, not all baptisms that are preformed by legitimate priesthood authority represent the same things, nor are they always tokens of the same covenants. The most important of all, is of course, for the remission of sins.

When John the Baptist gave Joseph and Oliver the authority to baptize, he was specific about both its meaning and its method:

1    Upon you my fellow servants, in the name of Messiah, I confer the Priesthood of Aaron, which holds the keys of the ministering of angels, and of the gospel of repentance, and of baptism by immersion for the remission of sins… (JS History 1:69) (Doctrine and Covenants 13:1.)

Joseph used those same words when he described baptism in the Articles of Faith:

We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Nevertheless, baptism also came to mean more than that. Joseph’s history records that he and Oliver baptized each other at the time John the Baptist ordained them to the Aaronic Priesthood. It also records that soon after that they baptized several other people. The third person baptized in this dispensation was Joseph’s younger brother Samuel. He records:

After a few days, however, feeling it to be our duty, we commenced to reason out of the Scriptures with our acquaintances and friends, as we happened to meet with them. About this time my brother Samuel H. Smith came to visit us. We informed him of what the Lord was about to do for the children of men, and began to reason with him out of the Bible. We also showed him that part of the work which we had translated, and labored to persuade him concerning the Gospel of Jesus Christ, which was now about to be revealed in its fulness. He was not, however, very easily persuaded of these things, but after much inquiry and explanation he retired to the woods, in order that by secret and fervent prayer he might obtain of a merciful God, wisdom to enable him to judge for himself. The result was that he obtained revelation for himself sufficient to convince him of the truth of our assertions to him; and on the twenty-fifth day of that same month in which we had been baptized and ordained, Oliver Cowdery baptized him; and he returned to his father’s house, greatly glorifying and praising God, being filled with the Holy Spirit.  {endnote #1}

Not long after that Hyrum Smith and others were also baptized. The circle expanded, and soon Joseph and Oliver were baptizing people who were not members of the Smith family.

We found the people of Seneca county in general friendly, and disposed to enquire into truth of these strange matters which now began to be noised abroad. Many opened their houses to us, in order that we might have an opportunity of meeting with our friends for the purpose of instruction and explanation. We met with many from time to time who were willing to hear us, and who desired to find out the truth as it is in Christ Jesus, and apparently willing to obey the Gospel, when once fairly convinced and satisfied in their own minds; and in this same month of June, my brother Hyrum Smith, David Whitmer, and Peter Whitmer, Jun., were baptized in Seneca lake, the two former by myself, the latter by Oliver Cowdery. From this time forth many became believers, and some were baptized whilst we continued to instruct and persuade as many as applied for information  {2}

In April, 1830, the Lord gave Joseph instructions to organize the Church, and in that revelation he also gave additional instruction about the ordinance of baptism.

37     And again, by way of commandment to the church concerning the manner of baptism—All those who humble themselves before God, and desire to be baptized, and come forth with broken hearts and contrite spirits, and witness before the church that they have truly repented of all their sins, and are willing to take upon them the name of Jesus Christ, having a determination to serve him to the end, and truly manifest by their works that they have received of the Spirit of Christ unto the remission of their sins, shall be received by baptism into his church. (D&C 20:37)

These instructions make it clear that baptism was now to be a token of three distinct covenant relationships. It signified that:

1)   They “are willing to take upon them the name of Jesus Christ, having a determination to serve him to the end.”
2)   They have “truly manifest by their works that they have received of the Spirit of Christ unto the remission of their sins.”
3)    They “ shall be received by baptism into his church.”

Consistent with those instructions, on April 6, 1830, when the Church was officially organized, the people who had already been baptized for the remission of their sins were rebaptized as members of the church. But those in attendance who had not previously been baptized for the remission of sins, and were being baptized for the first time, were baptized both for the remission of sins and also to become members of the Church. Joseph records,

Several persons who had attended the above meeting, became convinced of the truth and came forward shortly after, and were received into the Church; among the rest, my own father and mother were baptized, to my great joy and consolation; and about the same time, Martin Harris and Orrin Porter Rockwell. {3}

The following statement is interesting as furnishing the names of these six: Names of the six members of the Church as they were organized April 6, 1830

Oliver Cowdery, Joseph Smith, Jun., Hyrum Smith, Peter Whitmer, Jun., Samuel H. Smith, David Whitmer.
Some of these had been baptized previously; but were all baptized on the day of organization.
These names were given to Joseph Knight by Oliver Cowdery.
(signed) Joseph Knight.
G. S. L. City, Aug. 11th, 1862.
Witnesses: G. A. Smith, Robt. L. Campbell, Thos. Bullock, John V. Long. {5}

A short time later, “in consequence of some desiring to unite with the Church without rebaptism, who had previously been baptized,” {4} Joseph received the revelation that is now Section 22. In it we learn that baptism “is a new and an everlasting covenant, even that which was from the beginning. (D&C 22:1)

After the organization of the Church, rebaptisms were not at all uncommon. The ordinance was used for a number of important purposes, including a restoration of health. {6}

After the Saints got to Utah, and the United Order was established, people were baptized into that order. Wilford Woodruff reported,

On the 13th of July, [1875] in the evening, according to his journal, there was a priesthood meeting held in the old Tabernacle, where the subject of renewing covenants by baptism was discussed. The whole assembly voted to renew their covenants, and later the Presidency, the Twelve, the Seventies, and the Presiding Bishopric were baptized and entered into a special covenant to observe the rules of the United Order. Among them was this: “We will sustain home industry and patronize our brethren who are in the Order, as far as possible.” This movement became general throughout the Church. {7}

George Q. Cannon later remembered,

Under President Young’s administration, when action was being taken in regard to the United Order, he taught some of the brethren to use the words “into the United Order” in the ceremony of baptism. In the same way the words “for the renewal of your covenants” were used at the time of the Reformation in 1856.

It is always safe, however, for those who officiate in baptisms to confine themselves to the written word. The Lord has given the form, and unless there is some special occasion, when the man holding the keys suggests another form, it is unsafe and unwarranted to depart therefrom. {8}

In 1913, after the United Order had been discontinued, Charles W. Penrose reminded the Saints of the covenants the Saints had made when they entered the United Order through baptism.

A few days ago, in the Historian’s Office, I came across some doctrines and principles, rules of order that were laid down by the President of the Church for the obedience of the people at the time when we, all of us old members, entered into what was called the United Order, by baptism. Certain rules were given to us, and we agreed that we would abide by them. I thought it would be a very good thing to call the attention of the brethren and sisters to some of these rules, which I will do as briefly as I can, so as not to take up too much time; so that we may come back to some of these simple things that you and I covenanted to do, and see how they fit in with the instructions that were given to us this morning by President Smith:

First: We will not take the name of Deity in vain, nor speak lightly of His character or of sacred things….
Rule two: We will pray with our families morning and evening and also attend to secret prayers….
Rule three: We will observe and keep the Word of Wisdom, according to the spirit and meaning thereof….
Rule four: We will treat our families with due kindness and affection, and set before them an example worthy of imitation. In our families and intercourse with all persons, we will refrain from being contentious or quarrelsome, and we will cease to speak evil of each other, and will cultivate a spirit of charity towards all. We consider it our duty to keep from acting selfishly or from covetous motives, and will seek the interest of each other and the salvation of all mankind.” ….
“Rule five: We will observe personal cleanliness and preserve ourselves in all chastity, by refraining from adultery, whoredom and lust. We will also discountenance and refrain from all vulgar and obscene language or conduct….
“Rule six: We will observe the Sabbath day to keep it holy, in accordance with the revelation….
“Rule seven: That which is committed to our care we will not appropriate to our own use….
“Rule eight: That which we borrow we will return according to promise, and that which we find we will not appropriate to our own use, but seek to return it to its proper owner….
“Rule eleven: In our apparel and deportment, we will not pattern after nor encourage foolish and extravagant fashions, and will cease to import or buy from abroad any article which can reasonably be dispensed With, or which can be produced by combination of home labor….
“Rule twelve: We will be simple in our dress and manner of living, using proper economy and prudence in the management of all entrusted to our care…. {9}

Apparently Alma organized his church at the Waters of Mormon, and it seems apparent to me that the baptisms performed at the Waters of Mormon incorporated the same kinds of covenants that President Charles W. Penrose enumerated. Now lets examine the discussion of baptism in the Book of Mormon.

Nephi is the first person to discuss baptism in the Book of Mormon, making it clear that he (and so presumably, the righteous in Old Testament times) had been baptized and had the authority to baptize. His explanation of one’s need for baptism and its relationship with the atonement is one of the most explicit in the scriptures.

10    And he [the Saviour] said unto the children of men: Follow thou me. Wherefore, my beloved brethren, can we follow Jesus save we shall be willing to keep the commandments of the Father?
11    And the Father said: Repent ye, repent ye, and be baptized in the name of my Beloved Son.
12    And also, the voice of the Son came unto me, saying: He that is baptized in my name, to him will the Father give the Holy Ghost, like unto me; wherefore, follow me, and do the things which ye have seen me do.
13    Wherefore, my beloved brethren, I know that if ye shall follow the Son, with full purpose of heart, acting no hypocrisy and no deception before God, but with real intent, repenting of your sins, witnessing unto the Father that ye are willing to take upon you the name of Christ, by baptism—yea, by following your Lord and your Savior down into the water, according to his word, behold, then shall ye receive the Holy Ghost; yea, then cometh the baptism of fire and of the Holy Ghost; and then can ye speak with the tongue of angels, and shout praises unto the Holy One of Israel.
14    But, behold, my beloved brethren, thus came the voice of the Son unto me, saying: After ye have repented of your sins, and witnessed unto the Father that ye are willing to keep my commandments, by the baptism of water, and have received the baptism of fire and of the Holy Ghost, and can speak with a new tongue, yea, even with the tongue of angels, and after this should deny me, it would have been better for you that ye had not known me.
15    And I heard a voice from the Father, saying: Yea, the words of my Beloved are true and faithful. He that endureth to the end, the same shall be saved.
16    And now, my beloved brethren, I know by this that unless a man shall endure to the end, in following the example of the Son of the living God, he cannot be saved.
17    Wherefore, do the things which I have told you I have seen that your Lord and your Redeemer should do; for, for this cause have they been shown unto me, that ye might know the gate by which ye should enter. For the gate by which ye should enter is repentance and baptism by water; and then cometh a remission of your sins by fire and by the Holy Ghost.
18    And then are ye in this strait and narrow path which leads to eternal life; yea, ye have entered in by the gate; ye have done according to the commandments of the Father and the Son; and ye have received the Holy Ghost, which witnesses of the Father and the Son, unto the fulfilling of the promise which he hath made, that if ye entered in by the way ye should receive. (2 Nephi 31:10-18)

Even though baptism is not mentioned after that in the Book of Mormon until Alma’s story at the Waters of Mormon, it is clear that Nephi’s descendants both understood and practiced the ordinance. For example there can be no question but that King Benjamin’s sermon was addressed to a people who have already made temple covenants – that presupposes that they had also been baptized. It seems reasonable to me to believe that the people who went with Zeniff when they returned to the land of Nephi to reclaim their inheritances – that those people would have had the priesthood – and if they had the priesthood they would have performed its ordinances – baptism first of all. Abinadi certainly had the priesthood, and it is quite likely that there were still other people who exercised it in righteousness, even after the beginning of Noah’s apostate reign.

There is abundant evidence that the Nephites had all priesthood authority and ordinances, but before Alma organized his church, (as was also true in much of the Old Testament times) those ordinances were administered under the royal and priesthood authority of the king. There is no evidence that there was a church in America before the time of Alma. So when Alma said he received his authority directly from God, one can surmise that he is referring to his authority to organize the church. (Mosiah 18:13, 17, 26 ) {10} If that is so, then the events at the Waters of Mormon probably had much the same significance as the events over which Joseph presided on April 6, 1830. In both cases, the purpose of the new church was not only to administer the ordinances, but also to give people a structured opportunity to serve one another. Consequently, it seems likely to me that what happened at the Waters of Mormon was not the introduction of the ordinance of baptism for the remission of sins (Alma does not even mention the remission of sins), but rather the organization of the Church of Christ and a baptism into that Church. Alma’s baptismal prayer seems to support that idea.

13    And when he had said these words, the Spirit of the Lord was upon him, and he said: Helam, I baptize thee, having authority from the Almighty God, as a testimony that ye have entered into a covenant to serve him until you are dead as to the mortal body; and may the Spirit of the Lord be poured out upon you; and may he grant unto you eternal life, through the redemption of Christ, whom he has prepared from the foundation of the world. (Mosiah 18:13)

As does Mormon’s explanation of those same events.

17     And they were called the church of God, or the church of Christ, from that time forward. And it came to pass that whosoever was baptized by the power and authority of God was added to his church.
18     And it came to pass that Alma, having authority from God, ordained priests; even one priest to every fifty of their number did he ordain to preach unto them, and to teach them concerning the things pertaining to the kingdom of God. (Mosiah 18:17-18)

It appears that there were other times in the Book of Mormon when rebaptisms were employed in much the same way they were in the early days of the Church in Utah. For example, after the Church was organized in Zarahemla, there followed a time when people were not so much apostate, as they were lax in keeping their covenants. Alma’s son Alma then left the Judgement Seat, retained only his authority as President of the Church, and went on a campaign of reformation and rededication among Church members.

His sermons in both Alma 5 and Alma 7 suggest that he was urging the Saints to be rebaptized as a token of the renewal of their earlier covenants. (Alma 5:1-62.)

2     And these are the words which he spake to the people in the church which was established in the city of Zarahemla, according to his own record, saying: ….
6     And now behold, I say unto you, my brethren, you that belong to this church, have you sufficiently retained in remembrance the captivity of your fathers? …
14     And now behold, I ask of you, my brethren of the church, have ye spiritually been born of God? Have ye received his image in your countenances? Have ye experienced this mighty change in your hearts? ….
61     And now I, Alma, do command you in the language of him who hath commanded me, that ye observe to do the words which I have spoken unto you.
62     I speak by way of command unto you that belong to the church; and unto those who do not belong to the church I speak by way of invitation, saying: Come and be baptized unto repentance, that ye also may be partakers of the fruit of the tree of life. (Alma 5: 2, 6, 14, 61-62)

If I read that last verse correctly, it appears that he has commanded the members of the Church to renew their covenants by baptism, and that he also invited those who were not members to be baptized also. That reading seems reinforced by his sermon in chapter 7, which was apparently addressed to an assembly of priesthood holders. {11} He used the phrase “my beloved brethren” four times throughout his speech (v. 1, 17, 22, 26), and in one of those he reminds them of their temple covenants.

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.
23     And now I would that ye should be humble, and be submissive and gentle; easy to be entreated; full of patience and long-suffering; being temperate in all things; being diligent in keeping the commandments of God at all times; asking for whatsoever things ye stand in need, both spiritual and temporal; always returning thanks unto God for whatsoever things ye do receive.
24    And see that ye have faith, hope, and charity, and then ye will always abound in good works.
25    And may the Lord bless you, and keep your garments spotless, that ye may at last be brought to sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and the holy prophets who have been ever since the world began, having your garments spotless even as their garments are spotless, in the kingdom of heaven to go no more out  (Alma 7: 14-16).

In the last, which is his blessing, he speaks of their physical, as well as their spiritual, well-being.

26    And now my beloved brethren, I have spoken these words unto you according to the Spirit which testifieth in me; and my soul doth exceedingly rejoice, because of the exceeding diligence and heed which ye have given unto my word.
27    And now, may the peace of God rest upon you, and upon your houses and lands, and upon your flocks and herds, and all that you possess, your women and your children, according to your faith and good works, from this time forth and forever. And thus I have spoken. Amen. (Alma 7: 22-27)

Notice what else he tells this congregation:

14    Now I say unto you that ye must repent, and be born again; for the Spirit saith if ye are not born again ye cannot inherit the kingdom of heaven; therefore come and be baptized unto repentance, that ye may be washed from your sins, that ye may have faith on the Lamb of God, who taketh away the sins of the world, who is mighty to save and to cleanse from all unrighteousness.
15    Yea, I say unto you come and fear not, and lay aside every sin, which easily doth beset you, which doth bind you down to destruction, yea, come and go forth, and show unto your God that ye are willing to repent of your sins and enter into a covenant with him to keep his commandments, and witness it unto him this day by going into the waters of baptism.
16    And whosoever doeth this, and keepeth the commandments of God from thenceforth, the same will remember that I say unto him, yea, he will remember that I have said unto him, he shall have eternal life, according to the testimony of the Holy Spirit, which testifieth in me. (Alma 7: 14-16)

One cannot help but observe that much of what he has said there is incorporated into the sacrament prayers. He also said much in those speeches that were reminiscent of what his father had told the Saints at the Waters of Mormon.

7     And it came to pass after many days there were a goodly number gathered together at the place of Mormon, to hear the words of Alma. Yea, all were gathered together that believed on his word, to hear him. And he did teach them, and did preach unto them repentance, and redemption, and faith on the Lord.
8    And it came to pass that he said unto them: Behold, here are the waters of Mormon (for thus were they called) and now, as ye are desirous to come into the fold of God, and to be called his people, and are willing to bear one another’s burdens, that they may be light;
9    Yea, and are willing to mourn with those that mourn; yea, and comfort those that stand in need of comfort, and to stand as witnesses of God at all times and in all things, and in all places that ye may be in, even until death, that ye may be redeemed of God, and be numbered with those of the first resurrection, that ye may have eternal life—
10    Now I say unto you, if this be the desire of your hearts, what have you against being baptized in the name of the Lord, as a witness before him that ye have entered into a covenant with him, that ye will serve him and keep his commandments, that he may pour out his Spirit more abundantly upon you? (Mosiah 18: 7-10)

Compare that with what Alma the Younger said to the Saints at Zarahemla:

14     And now behold, I ask of you, my brethren of the church, have ye spiritually been born of God? Have ye received his image in your countenances? Have ye experienced this mighty change in your hearts? (Alma 5:14)

[And then he defines that in terms of one’s attitude toward other people (these passages need to be read in their full context, but I’ll quote a few here]

29     Behold, I say, is there one among you who is not stripped of envy? I say unto you that such an one is not prepared; and I would that he should prepare quickly, for the hour is close at hand, and he knoweth not when the time shall come; for such an one is not found guiltless.
30     And again I say unto you, is there one among you that doth make a mock of his brother, or that heapeth upon him persecutions?
31     Wo unto such an one, for he is not prepared, and the time is at hand that he must repent or he cannot be saved! ……
53    And now my beloved brethren, I say unto you, can ye withstand these sayings; yea, can ye lay aside these things, and trample the Holy One under your feet; yea, can ye be puffed up in the pride of your hearts; yea, will ye still persist in the wearing of costly apparel and setting your hearts upon the vain things of the world, upon your riches?
54     Yea, will ye persist in supposing that ye are better one than another; yea, will ye persist in the persecution of your brethren, who humble themselves and do walk after the holy order of God, wherewith they have been brought into this church, having been sanctified by the Holy Spirit, and they do bring forth works which are meet for repentance—
55     Yea, and will you persist in turning your backs upon the poor, and the needy, and in withholding your substance from them?
56 And finally, all ye that will persist in your wickedness, I say unto you that these are they who shall be hewn down and cast into the fire except they speedily repent. (Alma 5:29-56)

Note that there is also a remarkable similarity between these ideas and those “rules” enumerated by President Charles W. Penrose when he described the covenants of the United Order.

So it appears to me that the covenant of baptism at the Waters of Mormon was an induction into the Church of Christ and an introduction into the society of Zion where they would practice the Law of Consecration in the wilderness. (I am not confusing the United Order and the Law of Consecration. Unlike living the Law of Consecration, one cannot be a part of the United Order alone by oneself – it requires a group. But obeying the Law of Consecration is a purely individual matter. Zion is the pure in heart – that is the condition of individuals in a society, not the condition of a society to which one may apply for membership.)

In addition to the ones I have mentioned above, there are at least two other apparent examples of rebaptism in the Book of Mormon.

After Alma organized his church, people became members of that church by baptism. (Alma 6:2, 7:14-15, 62:45; Helaman 5:17, 16:1-2; 3 Nephi 1:23, 7:25, 11:23-27) But when the Saviour came and organized a new Church and Kingdom, he instructed the Saints that they must now be baptized. Apparently that meant that they must be baptized again in order to belong to the new Church.

1     And it came to pass that when Jesus had spoken these words unto Nephi, and to those who had been called, (now the number of them who had been called, and received power and authority to baptize, was twelve) and behold, he stretched forth his hand unto the multitude, and cried unto them, saying: 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.)

The other example of rebaptism in the Book of Mormon is in Moroni.

1     And now I speak concerning baptism. Behold, elders, priests, and teachers were baptized; and they were not baptized save they brought forth fruit meet that they were worthy of it.
2     Neither did they receive any unto baptism save they came forth with a broken heart and a contrite spirit, and witnessed unto the church that they truly repented of all their sins.
3     And none were received unto baptism save they took upon them the name of Christ, having a determination to serve him to the end.
4     And after they had been received unto baptism, and were wrought upon and cleansed by the power of the Holy Ghost, they were numbered among the people of the church of Christ; and their names were taken, that they might be remembered and nourished by the good word of God, to keep them in the right way, to keep them continually watchful unto prayer, relying alone upon the merits of Christ, who was the author and the finisher of their faith. (Moroni 6:1-4)

There is a third example also, and it is very important; but it is probably quite different from the ones I have just cited – and at the same time, it throws considerable light on some I have not mentioned. Before the Saviour left his friends in America he said to them: (These verses also need to be read in context!)

13     Behold I have given unto you my gospel, and this is the gospel which I have given unto you—that I came into the world to do the will of my Father, because my Father sent me. …
18     And this is the word which he hath given unto the children of men. … no unclean thing can enter into his kingdom; ….
20     Now this is the commandment: Repent, all ye ends of the earth, and come unto me and be baptized in my name, that ye may be sanctified by the reception of the Holy Ghost, that ye may stand spotless before me at the last day.

Here he was talking to people who had made and kept eternal covenants. To them he has just explained the meanings of the “gospel,” the “word,” and the “commandment.” But if the commandment is relevant to his audience; if “come unto me” means what it usually means, then “and be baptized” is either in the wrong part of the sequence (which it is not), or else he is talking about another baptism altogether (which it is). He elaborates by defining “gospel” a second time: only this time he defines it in terms of their covenants rather than his own:

21     Verily, verily, I say unto you, this is my gospel; and ye know the things that ye must do in my church; for the works which ye have seen me do that shall ye also do; for that which ye have seen me do even that shall ye do;
22     Therefore, if ye do these things blessed are ye, for ye shall be lifted up at the last day. (3 Nephi 27:13-33.)

It is that second definition of “gospel” and the promise that follows that convinces me that the “baptism” he is recommending to them is not a baptism by water. In another place, the Lord explained,

11     Yea, repent and be baptized, every one of you, for a remission of your sins; yea, be baptized even by water, and then cometh the baptism of fire and of the Holy Ghost. (D&C 33:11)

And Mormon was even more explicit when he explained that if we “are baptized, first with water, then with fire and with the Holy Ghost, following the example of our Savior, according to that which he hath commanded us, it shall be well with you in the day of judgment.” (Mormon 7:10)

Jesus’ baptism was a singular event.

13     Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him.
14     But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?
15     And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him.
16     And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:
17     And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. (Matthew 3:13-17.)

“To fulfil all righteousness” is a very big phrase: “Fulfill” can be read to mean simply to “perform,” and it carries the connotation of satisfying a prerequisite that is necessary to a final goal. “All” means “all,” just as it does in Ephesians 1:3-4. There is no bigger word than “all.” When it stands alone as a noun it means everything there is. When it is an adjective or adverb it means every instance of existence in that category of things. “Righteousness” is Zedek – truth and rectitude in performing and keeping priesthood and temple ordinances and covenants. If the Saviour’s baptism was “to fulfil all righteousness,” it was much more than just an example for us to follow. It was the path by which we also must “fulfil all righteousness.”

It is apparent to me that the Saviour’s baptism was not a baptism for the remission of his sins – Jesus certainly had no need of that – but it was a preliminary coronation ceremony which announced the beginning of his ministry, and was also a formal acknowledge that he was to become King and Priest.

I have analyzed the ancient coronation ceremony elsewhere, so will only briefly describe it here. The only place in the Old Testament where it is described in full is in Isaiah 61 which is a prophecy of salvation for the dead (D&C 138: 42) There can be no question that Isaiah is describing a coronation, because the steps he mentions were essential to the coronation ceremonies of all ancient and modern people. They were used in ancient Israel, Egypt, and Mesopotamia, and are still used in modern England. They are these:

3     To appoint unto them that mourn in Zion, to give unto them beauty for ashes, the oil of joy for mourning, the garment of praise for the spirit of heaviness; that they might be called trees of righteousness, the planting of the LORD, that he might be glorified.(Isaiah 61:3.)

“To appoint unto them that mourn in Zion,” [to invite them to be Zion]

1. “To give unto them beauty [a crown] for ashes [several scholars have pointed out that ashes placed on the head for mourning or repentance are removed by a ceremonial washing. So this reference to replacing ashes by a crown necessarily presupposes a ceremonial washing.]
2. “the oil of joy for mourning.” Kings and priests were anointed with perfumed olive oil.
3. “the garment of praise for the spirit of heaviness” [In verse 10, where a marriage ceremony is celebrated, that clothing is described this way: “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,… ]
4. “that they might be called [given the new royal king-name of] trees of righteousness, the planting of the LORD, that he might be glorified [The name connotes eternal life andeternal increase].

It is possible to understand Jesus’ baptismal ceremony as containing all of those elements.

1. Jesus was washed by John’s baptism.
2. Peter explained that “… after the baptism which John preached; How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power….” (Acts 10:37-38)
3. When Jesus was baptized, John saw the heavens opened, and he saw something white, that floated like a bird with wings. He testified “I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him.” (John 1:32) In my imagination, I have invisioned that, not as a bird, but as a royal coronation garment with flowing white sleeves – the garment of light which Adam left in the Garden and which denoted both his priesthood and his kingship.
4. And the Father himself pronounced the royal king-name: “Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” (Mark 1:11, see Psalm 2 for the use of that same new king- name in the ancient Israelite coronation ceremony.)

After prophetically describing Jesus’ baptism, Nephi added,

9     And again, it showeth unto the children of men the straitness of the path, and the narrowness of the gate, by which they should enter, he having set the example before them.
10     And he said unto the children of men: Follow thou me. Wherefore, my beloved brethren, can we follow Jesus save we shall be willing to keep the commandments of the Father?
11 And the Father said: Repent ye, repent ye, and be baptized in the name of my Beloved Son.
12 And also, the voice of the Son came unto me, saying: He that is baptized in my name, to him will the Father give the Holy Ghost, like unto me; wherefore, follow me, and do the things which ye have seen me do. (2 Nephi 31: -12) {12}

Conclusion

It seems to me that the ordinance of baptism as performed at the Waters of Mormon was probably an induction into the Church, and a covenant that the people would do all they could do to support each other and the Kingdom, rather than only a baptism for the remission of sins. And it further seems to me that it may also have been a token of a covenant that invited them into the Zion society in which they would live the Law of Consecration while they were in the wilderness. If that is so – if one’s baptismal covenants can be so all-encompassing – perhaps it would be appropriate if we would take our own baptismal covenants more seriously.

In this, the last dispensation, when one is baptized, the ordinance is the token of a multi-faceted covenant. It is a cleansing from sin, and an invitation to continually repent that one may remain clean; it is an initiation ordinance that makes one a member of the Church and Kingdom of God; it is a necessary prerequisite for receiving the Gift of the Holy Ghost; and it implies a personal covenant that is not at all unlike the covenant that was made by Alma and his people at the Waters of Mormon.

In the church nowadays, we are not rebaptized to renew or remake our covanants, but each Sabbath Day we renew those covenants when we take the sacrament. The blessing on the bread reaffirms our willingness to keep the commandments upon which all blessings are predicated.

O God, the Eternal Father, we ask thee in the name of thy Son, Jesus Christ, to bless and sanctify this bread to the souls of all those who partake of it; that they may eat in remembrance of the body of thy Son, and witness unto thee, O God, the Eternal Father, that they are willing to take upon them the name of thy Son, and always remember him, and keep his commandments which he hath given them, that they may always have his Spirit to be with them. Amen.

It seems to me that the blessing on the water is about the consequences of one’s keeping those commandants, and may be also about a second baptism – one of fire and of the Holy Ghost.

O God, the Eternal Father, we ask thee, in the name of thy Son, Jesus Christ, to bless and sanctify this wine to the souls of all those who drink of it, that they may do it in remembrance of the blood of thy Son, which was shed for them; that they may witness unto thee, O God, the Eternal Father, that they do always remember him, that they may have his Spirit to be with them. Amen.

As I understand it, the sacrament is a reaffirmation of one’s baptismal covenants, but for we who have received our endowments, it is a reaffirmation of those covenants as well. Together these two sacramental tokens of the Saviour’s atonement are a weekly rededication – a kind of culmination – of all the other ordinances and blessings of the gospel combined.

———————————————-

ENDNOTES

{1} Joseph Smith, History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 7 vols., introduction and notes by B. H. Roberts (Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter- day Saints, 1953), 1: 44. [Hereafter: “DHC” because we old folks knew this as the Documentary History of the Church.]

{2} DHC 1:51. {3} DHC 1:79.

{4} DHC 1:79

{5} That information is not in my printed copy of DHC, but is in the Gospel Link version. DHC vol 1, chapter 8, footnote 4.

{6} A quick word search using “rebaptism” in Gospel Link will give you a number of articles about that. Here is one of the most comprehensive examples:

“Another nineteenth-century practice that was reexamined was rebaptism. For many years it had been common for members to recommit themselves to building the kingdom through rebaptism. This practice was not considered essential to salvation, but was a symbol of rededication. On other occasions the Saints were baptized as a symbolic gesture related to blessings for their health, entry into the United Order, preparation for marriage, and even for going to the temple if they had not been there for some time. So common, in fact, was rebaptism that printed forms introduced in 1877 for ward membership records contained columns for recording it, and these forms were not replaced until 1900.

“In 1893 the First Presidency instructed stake presidents not to require rebaptism for Saints wishing to attend the Salt Lake Temple dedication, for “the Lord will forgive sins if we forsake them.” In 1897 the practice was discontinued altogether. As explained by President George Q. Cannon, the possibility of frequent rebaptism led many people to think of it as an easy way to obtain constant forgiveness of their sins. “It is repentance from sin that will save you,” he reminded them, “not rebaptism .” – – James B. Allen and Glen M. Leonard, The Story of the Latter-day Saints, 2nd ed., rev. and enl. (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1992), 430-431.)

{7}Wilford Woodruff, Wilford Woodruff, His Life and Labors, comp. Matthias F. Cowley (Salt Lake City: Deseret News, 1916), 487 – 488.

{8}Apr. 1, 1891, Juvenile Instructor 26:218) quoted in: George Q. Cannon, Gospel Truth: Discourses and Writings of President George Q. Cannon, selected, arranged, and edited by Jerreld L. Newquist (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1987), 136-137.)

{9}President Charles W. Penrose., Conference Report, October 1913, p. 20-23 (President Penrose commented on the continued relevance of each of those covenants, but I have only quoted the original covenants here.)

{10} As you know, in order to prevent this from becoming a chat room, everything that we post is read by at least one other person, and in almost every case that is Bruce Cowser, who deserves a lot of thanks for his work. When Bruce returned this draft to me, he asked,

“Could he not have once been properly ordained prior to his interim apostasy? And wasn’t his self-baptism an indication that he had possibly once been properly baptized? So even though his commission may have come directly from God, his authority may have come by normal ordination.”

{11} Relative to that comment, Bruce cautioned me “to be slightly more provisional or tentative in asserting” that Alma 7 is an address to a priesthood meeting; and asked, Is it not possible he would call people his “beloved brethren” even if ladies or non-priesthood holders present? The answer, of course, is “Yes, it is possible.” Then the question has to be asked, “Is it likely.”

I was basing my assumption Alma was addressing a priesthood assembly on some research Dan Belnap showed me he had done several years ago where he examined the uses of “beloved brethren” and “beloved brother” in the scriptures. His conclusion, which I found to be very convincing, is that those phrases denote a covenant relationship between the speaker and the person or person’s addressed.

Let me show you just a few examples (in addition to Alma 7) that Dan he showed to me. When Jacob was speaking at the temple he said,

10     And he [the Saviour] said unto the children of men: Follow thou me. Wherefore, my beloved brethren, can we follow Jesus save we shall be willing to keep the commandments of the Father? (2 Nephi 31:10)

When Mormon delivered a very formal sermon in which he reminded his “beloved brethren” that he was speaking by the authority of “his calling” – presumably as President of the Church, he began the sermon by saying,

2     And now I, Mormon, speak unto you, my beloved brethren; and it is by the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, and his holy will, because of the gift of his calling unto me, that I am permitted to speak unto you at this time. (Moroni 7:2.)

Another example is Helaman’s epistle to Moroni. This is interesting because it is an official military report. He begins,

2     My dearly beloved brother, Moroni, as well in the Lord as in the tribulations of our warfare; behold, my beloved brother, I have somewhat to tell you concerning our warfare in this part of the land (Alma 56:2).

And concludes with,

41     And now, my beloved brother, Moroni, may the Lord our God, who has redeemed us and made us free, keep you continually in his presence; yea, and may he favor this people, even that ye may have success in obtaining the possession of all that which the Lamanites have taken from us, which was for our support. And now, behold, I close mine epistle. I am Helaman, the son of Alma. (Alma 58:41.)

While there can be little doubt that there was a truly loving relationship between these two men, it is also evident that this is a very formal letter. The conclusion of colophon, “I am Helaman, the son of Alma,” insists that the letter is an official correspondence, yet the relationship he evokes is not a military one, but is “my beloved brother.” The meaning of that phrase seems to be shown in the prayer, “ Moroni, may the Lord our God, who has redeemed us and made us free, keep you continually in his presence.” If Helaman is using the word “redeemed” the way his statement says he is using it, then the phrase “my beloved brother” is very likely a formal statement of their covenant relationship.

Peter describes Paul the same way, and perhaps with the same meaning.

15     And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; (2 Peter 3:15)

That argument is not conclusive, so perhaps Bruce’s suggestion is correct. It is clear that there were people in the congregation of Alma 5 who had not been baptized, and perhaps that was also true with Alma 7.

{12} If, as seems likely to me, Jesus’’ baptism was a coronation ceremony, then it also appears that it was a preliminary one – that is, like the ancient Israelite kings, Jesus was anointed to become king, before he was anointed King. If that assumption is correct, then it is also probable that his final coronation occurred on the Mount of Transfiguration, where the Father again pronounced the royal King-name, “This is my Beloved Son.”

During the ancient Israelite ceremonies, the psalm that was probably used in the part of the ceremony in which the crown prince was anointed to become king is Psalm 72. For Mowinckel’’s analysis of the 72 Psalm see: Sigmund Mowinckel, D. R. Ap-Thomas, trans., The Psalms in Israel’ ’ s Worship (Nashville: Abingdon, 2 vols., 1979), 1: 67–70.

From the Old Testament we learn very little about the ancient coronation ceremonies. However we do know that before Solomon’’s Temple was built, Saul and David were chosen and anointed to become king by the prophet Samuel, and again by him they were later anointed king. Solomon was anointed by Zadok the priest. Thereafter, Jeroboam was chosen by the prophet Ahijah; and later still, a priest was responsible for making Josiah king. See 1 Samuel 16:13; I Kings 1:39; 1 Kings 11:29-40; 11 Kings 11: 12.

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).

For a detailed discussion of the anointing of Israelite kings, 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.

Mosiah 17:2 — Who was Alma — & — scriptural testimonies of the Saviour — LeGrand Baker

Mosiah 17:2
2    But there was one among them whose name was Alma, he also being a descendant of Nephi. And he was a young man, and he believed the words which Abinadi had spoken, for he knew concerning the iniquity which Abinadi had testified against them; therefore he began to plead with the king that he would not be angry with Abinadi, but suffer that he might depart in peace.

Abinadi had come into the city and permitted himself to be arrested because there was a young prince who sat in Noah’s council with whom he was assigned by God to teach. Alma listened and the Spirit taught him that Abinadi’s testimony of the Savior is true. I contemplated the power of that testimony while I was looking through some things I had done 20 years ago. I found this list of scriptures. As I read it and reflected, I decided I wanted to share what I was feeling with my friends. Perhaps as a reflection of the power of Alma’s testimony.

Who was Alma

When Zeniff begins his short autobiography, the very first thing he says is that he has a royal education. “I, Zeniff, having been taught in all the language of the Nephites, and having had a knowledge of the land of Nephi, or of the land of our fathers’ first inheritance…. (Mosiah 9:1)” So the second circumstantial evidence is that Alma’s grandfather had a royal education (OK, so that bit about their relationship was a leap of logic that needs to be dealt with. Just hang on and we’ll get there.)

The circular evidence that Zeniff was a prince is based on that logical leap, but it is still the strongest evidence of all: Mosiah II could not have given the rule of the Nephite nation to just anyone. Mosiah could never have acknowledged Alma as a legitimate claimant to the Nephite throne if Alma’s grandfather had not also been a legitimate heir to the kingdom.

Now our next problem is to establish that Alma was, in fact, a young Nephite prince. The first evidence is that Mormon tells us so. When Mormon introduces us to Alma, he describes Alma’s heritage with the same words as he describes his own. He writes, “But there was one among them whose name was Alma, he also being a descendant of Nephi. And he was a young man, and he believed the words which Abinadi had spoken (Mosiah 17:2).”

In a footnote in Who Shall Ascend into the Hill of the Lord, Stephen and I examined the evidence that Alma was a prince — a younger brother of King Noah. There are several indications that Alma was a young prince. Evidence of his age is found when his son Alma II spoke to the people of Zarahemla, saying:

5 And behold, after that, they were brought into bondage by the hands of the Lamanites in the wilderness; yea, I say unto you, they were in captivity, and again the Lord did deliver them out of bondage by the power of his word; and we were brought into this land, and here we began to establish the church of God throughout this land also (Alma 5:5).

So “they” were brought into bondage, and “we” came out. When Luke wrote “we” and “they” in Acts, it is taken as a key to knowing when he was and was not with Paul’s party. If that same principle can be applied here, it says that when they were brought into bondage Alma II was not with them, but he was when they came out—indicating that he had been born while they were there.

It was customary that a boy be married by the age of 18 to 20, but if one were not a “young man,” he could not sit in the councils of the Israelites, until he was 32, married, and had a child. If Alma II were his father’s oldest child, or at least his oldest son, and born when his father was in his early twenties, then Alma I may have been only in his late teens when he heard Abinadi. That was too young to sit in the king’s Council unless one was a prince.

Another indication of Alma’s high rank (and probably of his popularity among the people) is that Noah did not arrest him, as he would have done a commoner, but rather sent someone to assassinate him.

Probably the strongest evidence is that after he got to Zarahemla and the king’s sons refused to accept the throne, Alma was next in line for the throne. That could only be true if Zeniff, the king of the Nephites in the land of Nephi, were also a Nephite prince, and if Alma were his son and Noah’s younger brother, and, therefore, a legal heir to both Nephite thrones.

After Alma and his people came to Zarahemla and he was made Chief Judge he did not have the title of king, but he did have all of the authority of the royal office, including his status as High Priest of the Church.

In pre-exilic Israel the king was both head of government and the head of the state religion. That is evident by the facts that Solomon dedicated the Temple and offered sacrifices. Later the temple appears to have been the “royal chapel” during the reign of Isaiah’s friend King Hezekiah. We see the same relationship of church and state in the reign of King Benjamin who presided at the celebration of the Feast of Tabernacles.

*******************

SCRIPTURAL TESTIMONIES OF THE SAVIOUR IN THE BEGINNING

Testimony of Abraham and Moses – – Abraham 3: 22-28; Moses 4: 2-3; Moses 1: 31-33; Moses 2: 27-

Testimony of John – – John 1: 1-5; Joseph Smith Translation, John 1: 1-19,29-33 (pages 807-8 of new LDS Bible); D&C 93: 1-17

TESTIMONIES OF THOSE WHO KNOW HIM BEFORE HE WAS BORN

Enoch – – Moses 7: 2-4, 35-36, 53 Brother of Jared – – Ether 3: 6-18 Job – – Job 19: 23-27
Moses – – Exodus 3: 1-15

Isaiah – – Isaiah 6: 1-13, 7: 14-15, 9: 6-7, 52: 6-10 Jeremiah – – Jaremiah 1: 4-6

Ezekiel – – Ezekiel 1: 3-28, 3: 12-14
Nephi – – 1 Nephi 11: 13-36, 2 Nephi 11: 2-3 Lehi and Jacob – – 1 Nephi 1: 8-14, 2 Nephi 1: 15 Alma – – Alma 5: 46-48
Nephi III – – 3 Nephi 1: 12-14

THOSE WHO KNEW HIM ON EARTH

His mother Mary – – Luke 1: 26-38, 2: 4-19 John – – Mark 1: 9-12
Peter, James and John – – Matthew 17: 1-9 The Saviour’s testimony – – John 16: 12-16, John – – John 19: 17-30

16: 33 – 17: 26

THOSE WHO KNEW HIM AFTER HIS DEATH

Joseph F. Smith – – D&C 138: 18-24, 36-37

Mary, John and Peter – – John 20: 1-17

The Twelve – – John 20: 26-29, 21: 15-17; Matthew 28: 16-20; Acts 1: 7-11

In America – – 3 Nephi introduction before chapter 11; 3 Nephi 11: 9-17, 3l-39; 3 Nephi 17: 8-25

Stephen – – Acts 7: 55-56
Paul – – Hebrews 1: 1-3
Peter – – 2 Peter 1: 16-19, 3: 17-18 Moroni – – Ether 12: 38-41
John – – Revelation 1: 10-18

Joseph Smith – – Joseph Smith 2: 16-17; D&C 20: 21-25; D&C 110: 1-4; D&C 45: 3-5, 51-52; D&C 76: 19-24

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