Blog

2 Nephi 4:25 – LeGrand Baker – “the wings of his Spirit”

2 Nephi 4:25
25   And upon the wings of his Spirit hath my body been carried away upon exceedingly high mountains. And mine eyes have beheld great things, yea, even too great for man; therefore I was bidden that I should not write them.

I wish to comment on only two ideas. First that the great sin which weighs down Nephi’s soul is that he got angry with his brothers when they tried to murder him. That fact tells one a great deal about the fine-tuned sensitivity of Nephi’s soul, but it also tells one about the erosive power of the sin of being angry. I recall the story, that once when the Prophet was translating the Book of Mormon, he and Emma had a tizzy. The Spirit withdrew and Joseph could not continue to translate until he had gone out into the woods to apologize to the Lord, then returned to the house to apologize to Emma. Anger is addictive because it gives one an adrenalin high and gives the angry person a false sense of superiority. People who get angry frequently become chemically dependent on that artificial high and emotionally dependent on the sense of power. Anger is a cancer which destroys its host from within, often so subtly that the host thinks it is both normal and healthy, until it has had time to mature and is ready to strike its devastating, sometimes deadly blow.

The second idea upon which I wish to comment is the phrase, ‘the wings of his Spirit,’ in the verse, “And upon the wings of his Spirit hath my body been carried away upon exceedingly high mountains. And mine eyes have beheld great things, yea, even too great for man; therefore I was bidden that I should not write them.” These wings are both real and symbolic.

The cherubim who surround the celestial throne of God are described as having wings (sometimes called wings like the wings of an eagle), by Isaiah (ch. 6), Ezekiel (ch. 1), Daniel (ch. 7), and John (Rev. 4). But, we are told by the Prophet Joseph that “their wings are a representation of power, to move, to act, etc.” (D&C 77:4)

Similarly, there were cherubim whose wings overreached the throne of God in the Tabernacle of Moses, which throne was the Ark of the Covenant. (Exodus 25:20). Then, later, when Solomon built his temple, he constructed a huge throne in the Holy of Holies. There, cheribums with a wingspan of about 16 feet (1 Kings 6:24) spread those wings over a golden throne; and over whomever sat upon that throne; and over the Ark of the Covenant, which now served as the throne’s footstool.

Only the king who had been anointed a son of God, and thereby also adopted as a legitimate heir of God, could sit upon this earthly representation of the heavenly throne. Therefore, sitting upon the throne, under the wings of the cherubim represented not only priesthood power and temporal majesty, but also security and peace, as is expressed in the 63rd psalm, “Because thou hast been my help, therefore in the shadow of thy wings will I rejoice.” (Psalm 63:7. See also Psalms 17:8, 36:7, 57:1, 61:4, 91:4.)

Because the throne and its overshadowing wings were symbolic of priesthood and kingship, they were also symbolic of the invitation to receive the gift of eternal life. The Saviour used that symbolism repeatedly, as a lament for those who would not accept the invitation.

37   O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! (Matthew 23:37, see also Luke 13:34, 3 Nephi 10:4-6, D&C 43:24)

And also as a promise to those how would accept that invitation:

Who will gather his people even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, even as many as will hearken to my voice and humble themselves before me, and call upon me in mighty prayer. (D&C 29:2, see also 10:65) (The phrase “mighty prayer” has an obvious significance in this enthronement context.)

Thus, the symbolism of those enthroning wings is the same as the symbolism of the powerful wings of the celestial cherubim upon whose power, God himself may ride.”And he rode upon a cherub, and did fly: yea, he did fly upon the wings of the wind. (Psalms 18:10 and 2 Samuel 22:11)” And upon whose wings he invites his children to ride also. “But they that wait upon the Lord shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings as eagles; they shall run, and not be weary; and they shall walk, and not faint. (Isaiah 40:31)”

So Nephi’s statement resounds with the clarity of the ancient enthronement ordinances, is a testimony of the validity of those ordinances, and a representative form and pattern of their fulfilment. He wrote,

25   And upon the wings of his Spirit hath my body been carried away upon exceedingly high mountains. And mine eyes have beheld great things, yea, even too great for man; therefore I was bidden that I should not write them. (2 Nephi 4:25)

The wings have a further and expected symbolism, which is an extension of the ones mentioned so far. They also represent the association of enthronement and peace. “But unto you that fear my name, shall the Son of Righteousness arise with healing in his wings; and ye shall go forth and grow up as calves in the stall.” That, as Nephi adds, “all those who shall believe on his name shall be saved in the kingdom of God. (3 Nephi 25:2 and 2 Ne. 25:13)

2 Nephi 4:1-2 — LeGrand Baker — Joseph in Egypt

Sometimes I suspect that the best kept secret in the church is the academic value of the latter-day scriptures. That observation is not intended to be a criticism of members of the church, just as the following is not intended to be a criticism of scholars of other faiths. The following is only an example of how much Mormons can know which other people cannot know. The example begins with Psalm 105, which is a review of Israelite history.

17   He sent a man before them, even Joseph, who was sold for a servant:
18   Whose feet they hurt with fetters: he was laid in iron:
19   Until the time that his word came: the word of the LORD tried him.
20   The king sent and loosed him; even the ruler of the people, and let him go free.
21   He made him lord of his house, and ruler of all his substance:
22   To bind his princes at his pleasure; and teach his senators wisdom (Psalm 105:17-22).

In commenting on those verses, Svend Holm-Nielsen wrote,

The description of Joseph’s release and his promotion in vv. 20-22 resembles that of the Joseph narrative in Genesis. The idea of Joseph as the instructor of Pharaoh’s elders and the teacher of wisdom seems to be a rather exaggerated interpretation of Gen. 41:37- 40, maybe inspired by the views on the heathen world as an underdeveloped world in relation to Israel,… (“The Exodus Traditions in Psalm 105″, Annual of the Swedish Theological Institute, vol. 11, p 25)

Notice how different that analysis is from Nephi’s,

1   And now, I, Nephi, speak concerning the prophecies of which my father hath spoken, concerning Joseph, who was carried into Egypt.
2   For behold, he truly prophesied concerning all his seed. And the prophecies which he wrote, there are not many greater. And he prophesied concerning us, and our future generations; and they are written upon the plates of brass (2 Nephi 4:1-2).

It is not that Holm-Nielsen is not a good scholar; it is only that he probably hasn’t read the Book of Mormon and does not know its value as an historical record.

My point is this. In our world there is a prevailing notion that any idea which in not “test-tube- demonstrable” must not be taken too seriously. That notion, in some contexts, is the stimulus which invites experimentation, study, and the continued search for knowledge. But in other contexts, it is the opiate which virtually cripples many fine, intelligent, and otherwise capable young minds. How priceless, then, is one’s knowing that the Book of Mormon is a trustworthy statement of historical and doctrinal truth. Such a knowledge gives one academic and spiritual stability which the otherwise learned might envy or reject with contempt, and which their university education might appear to approximate, but can never duplicate.

2 Nephi 3:1, 3 — LeGrand Baker — ‘the wilderness of mine afflictions’

2 Nephi 3:1,3
1  And now I speak unto you, Joseph, my last-born. Thou wast born in the wilderness of mine afflictions; yea, in the days of my greatest sorrow did thy mother bear thee….
3  And now, Joseph, my last-born, whom I have brought out of the wilderness of mine afflictions,…

Lehi says it twice the same way, “the wilderness of mine afflictions.” Neither time does he say, “my afflictions in the wilderness.”

Chauncey Riddle told me once that he had never met a truly spiritual person who had not suffered a great deal in this life. I believe he is correct. It is not the suffering, but the way one grows from it, that defines the person. There is an ancient Chinese proverb, “The same heat which melts the butter, boils the egg.

Consider just a few examples:

Abraham was despised by his father’s family, and placed on an Egyptian altar to be sacrificed. His wives jangled so much he had to send one away. He had been promised a son and heir, but he was a very old and disappointed man before the boy was born, then some years later, Abraham was asked to sacrifice his own beloved son.

Isaiah received a call at the Council in Heaven (Isaiah 6:1-12), then lived long enough to see its promises fulfilled. They were not happy promises. Isaiah’s best friend’s son ascend to the throne of Judah, turned from the Lord to worship Baal, and finely stretch Isaiah out on a table and sawed him in two.

The Saviour’s pain was unspeakable. He experienced in only a few short hours all my sorrows, all my sins, and all my physical pains and maladies, not only mine but those of every other creature in all eternity.

Joseph Smith not only lived with continual persecution, but also with the constant threat of being killed. About 30 years ago I wrote a short paper published in the Improvement Era (June 1969, 10-15) which showed that Joseph went through much of his life knowing that someday he would be murdered.

Lehi’s wilderness of affliction was not unusual for prophets — nor for anyone else, for that matter.

Nephi wrote to teach, not to confuse; so if he quotes his father about a wilderness, then he must already have told us what that wilderness was. There are two wildernesses which Nephi describes in some detail. The first was the wilderness in which Lehi and his family were physically afflicted, the desert, the hunger and thirst, the children in rebellion. The second wilderness was the one Lehi saw in his vision, the lonely, dreary, darkened place through which he walked as held to the iron rod.

I believe that, except for specific and well defined exceptions, the Lord does not teach one about other people. For example the endowment I experience in the temple is my personal autobiography. It is only mine. For you, it is also only yours. But it is never ours. For me, it is the private, intensely personal story about MY eternal relationship with the Saviour. For you, it is your private, intensely personal story, about YOUR eternal relationship with the Saviour. For me it is not a story about someone else, into which I may peek and become privy to its most sacred details. Because the things which are most sacred about the temple endowment are the experiences one has with the Holy Ghost who teaches one what the story says about oneself.

Our temple service may be understood as a generic story of everyone, just as Isaiah 6, D&C 76, and Lehi’s Tree of Life vision may be understood that same way. As such they are valuable, but they become priceless when the Spirit uses them to teach one about oneself.

If what I have just written is true, then Lehi’s Tree of Life vision, was for and about Lehi. It was a prophecy of the way his life would be, preparing him for the wilderness of his affliction, promising him the fruit of the tree of life at the end of his journey. Now, as I read these first chapters of Second Nephi, I find Lehi’s testimony that the promises made to him were fulfilled in his lifetime. He waded through much sorrow, and I suspect much pain. Nonetheless, he could humbly testify,

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

The explanation of why there is, and must be, all that unhappiness is found when the Lord said to Joseph,

7   And if thou shouldst be cast into the pit, or into the hands of murderers, and the sentence of death passed upon thee; if thou be cast into the deep; if the billowing surge conspire against thee; if fierce winds become thine enemy; if the heavens gather blackness, and all the elements combine to hedge up the way; and above all, if the very jaws of hell shall gape open the mouth wide after thee, know thou, my son, that all these things shall give thee experience, and shall be for thy good.
8   The Son of Man hath descended below them all. Art thou greater than he?
9   Therefore, hold on thy way, and the priesthood shall remain with thee; for their bounds are set, they cannot pass. Thy days are known, and thy years shall not be numbered less; therefore, fear not what man can do, for God shall be with you forever and ever. (D&C 122:7-9)

The last verse I just quoted is as important to our discussion as the first. Before each of us came to the earth, the Lord made immutable covenants guaranteeing our eternal success if we would choose to have success. And, I believe, guaranteeing that each of us would have the necessary experiences to prepare us for that success. Knowing this, feeling sometimes as Job and Isaiah felt, in my heart I echo Isaiah’s words: “Lord, how long?” And I am comforted by the words of a Psalm.

For yet a little while, and the wicked shall not be:
yea, thou shalt diligently consider his place, and it shall not be.

But the meek shall inherit the earth; and shall delight themselves in the abundance of peace(Psalm 37:10-11).

2 Nephi 2:26-30 — LeGrand Baker — free to choose

2 Nephi 2:26-30

26  And the Messiah cometh in the fulness of time, that he may redeem the children of men from the fall. And because that they are redeemed from the fall they have become free forever, knowing good from evil; to act for themselves and not to be acted upon, save it be by the punishment of the law at the great and last day, according to the commandments which God hath given.
27  Wherefore, men are free according to the flesh; and all things are given them which are expedient unto man. And they are free to choose liberty and eternal life, through the great Mediator of all men, or to choose captivity and death, according to the captivity and power of the devil; for he seeketh that all men might be miserable like unto himself.
28 And now, my sons, I would that ye should look to the great Mediator, and hearken unto his great commandments; and be faithful unto his words, and choose eternal life, according to the will of his Holy Spirit;
29  And not choose eternal death, according to the will of the flesh and the evil which is therein, which giveth the spirit of the devil power to captivate, to bring you down to hell, that he may reign over you in his own kingdom.
30  I have spoken these few words unto you all, my sons, in the last days of my probation; and I have chosen the good part, according to the words of the prophet. And I have none other object save it be the everlasting welfare of your souls. Amen. Please remember that I feel free to write what I write here because I trust that each of you will know these ideas are only my opinions. If they are true, then they are true. If not, you may hope that some day I will have enough good sense to change my mind.

When I was a boy in seminary, I was taught that there were three consequences of the fall. First, that our spirits were removed from the presence of God and would forget what it was like to be there. Second, that our spirits could come to this world to get a physical body, but that body would eventually die. Third, that in this world we would be subject to sin. I was also taught that the atonement took care of the fall because, first and second, everyone would be resurrected and brought back into God’s presence, and third, it would be possible to repent and be forgiven. I had a testimony then, that those principles are true and I still have that testimony. However since then, the simple, somewhat flat, black and white picture sketched there in the barest outline has been filled in. It now has taken on brilliant color, and it has become three dimensional, with a breadth, height and depth that I could never have imagined when I was a boy. The Book of Mormon has been largely responsible for that change, and this sermon by Lehi is a major factor in giving the picture its three dimensional perspective.

Lehi’s assumptions about the fall seem to be somewhat more complex than simply that we left God’s presence to get a body and became subject to sin. Let me try to briefly describe what I think he is saying and why he is saying it. That task is difficult, because his information was first hand. He had seen all things from before the beginning. He apparently read in the book given him by the Saviour the purposes and plans of the Council in Heaven. He not only knew what was going to be done, and when, but he also knew who the people are, and who have which assignments. That last bit is going to take a little explaining, so let me digress just a little.

In Section 138, President Joseph F. Smith identified the following two groups of people as being present at the meeting which the Saviour attended in the spirit world between the time of his death and his resurrection. Some of those in the first group were Adam, Eve, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Elijah, as well as the ancient Nephite prophets. All of those in this group had already lived in mortality, and were “dead.” The other group consisted of those who had not yet lived in mortality. Some of those who were named in President Smith’s revelation are: the Prophet Joseph and Hyrum, Brigham Young, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, and others “who were reserved to come forth in the fulness of times to take part in laying the foundations of the great latter-day work.” Of these, Joseph F. Smith wrote, “I observed that they were also among the noble and great ones who were chosen in the beginning to be rulers in the Church of God. Even before they were born, they, with many others, received their first lessons in the world of spirits and were prepared to come forth in the due time of the Lord to labor in his vineyard for the salvation of the souls of men.”

First lessons” is an interesting phrase. We tend to equate that sort of phrasing with the idea of remedial, or simple, like first grade or kindergarten. But these “first lessons” included teaching their children how to come to Christ (Alma 13), expelling Satan during the war in heaven, and creating the world (Abraham 3-6). The people in the meeting President Smith described, both those who were “dead” and those still in the pre-earth spirit world, had known each other and worked together for eons. Lehi had seen the Council, he would have recognize his friends, remembered their assignments, and their impact on the fulfillment of his own assignment –even if that impact would follow his life on earth by thousands of years (as would the Prophet Joseph’s), or precede it by only a hundred and twenty years (as would Isaiah’s). I suspect that there is a group of friends — a very large group of friends, not just a few, for President Smith describes them as “an innumerable company of the spirits of the just.” (v.12) — who were friends there, will be friends again. Some, those who live at the same time and same place in mortality, are also friends here. But others may be anyway. For example, I presume that means that the friendship between Joseph Smith and Moroni was a very long standing one and that Moroni had a perfect memory of their friendship even if Joseph had temporarily forgotten. Nephi also knew who the Prophet Joseph was, and what his mission would be, as I presume did Lehi also.

My point is, if one is going to discuss the meaning of the fall, with even an inkling of the background from which Lehi discussed it, it seems to me one must do so (even in a very limited way) within the context in which Lehi would have understood it. And Lehi’s understanding was intimate with people and events which stretched to both ends of eternity.

I suppose I ought to stop here and call attention to some things modern prophets have said about this earth, before I discuss the meaning of the fall to the people on the earth. The first is a statement made by the Prophet Joseph. Joseph re-wrote the entire revelation of the 76th Section of the D&C in poetry form. The poem was published in the Times and Seasons (Feb. 1, 1843), and reprinted in the August 1843 issue of the Millennial Star. A few stanzas read as follows:

Speaking of those who fear the Lord “and live for the life that’s to come,” Joseph wrote,

I’ll surely reveal all my myst’ries to them —
The great hidden myst’ries in my kingdom stor’d;
From the council in Kolob, to time on the earth,
And for ages to come unto them I will show
My pleasure and will, what the kingdom will do:
Eternity’s wonders they truly shall know.
Great things of the future I’ll show unto them,
Yea, things of the vast generations to rise;
For their wisdom and glory shall be very great,
And their pure understanding extend to the skies.
And before them the wisdom of wise men shall cease,
And the nice understanding of prudent ones fail?
For the light of my spirit shall light mine elect,
And the truth is so mighty ’twill ever prevail.
And the secrets and plans of my will I’ll reveal,
The sanctifi’d pleasures when earth is renew’d;
What the eye hath not seen, nor the ear hath yet heard,
Nor the heart of the natural man ever view’d.

In those verses are two ideas to which I wish to call especial attention. The first is that those about whom the Prophet is speaking are promised that they may see the Council and know its secret plans (sode). The second is the information that the place where the Council met was Kolob, which is identified in Abraham 3:13-16 as the central star and temple of the universe. (I read “nearest unto me” to mean temple, or, if all creation is considered sacred space, then it would mean the Holy of Holies. This seems to me to be a more likely interpretation than the idea that the phrase suggests a geographical location in the universe.) describes his own sode experience.

I, Joseph, the prophet, in spirit beheld,
And the eyes of the inner man truly did see
Eternity sketch’d in a vision from God,
Of what was, and now is, and yet is to be.
Those things which the Father ordained of old,
Before the world was or a system had run,
Through~Jesus, the Maker and Saviour of all –
The only begotten (Messiah) his son
Of whom I bear record, as all prophets have,
And the record I bear is the fulness-yea, even
The truth of the gospel of Jesus — the Christ,
With whom I convers’d in the vision of heav’n.
I marvell’d at these resurrections, indeed,
For it came unto me by the spirit direct:
And while I did meditate what it all meant,
The Lord touch’d the eyes of my own intellect.
Hosanna, for ever! They open’d anon,
And the glory of God shone around where I was;
And there was the Son at the Father’s right hand,

The Prophet Joseph then wrote:

In a fulness of glory and holy applause.
I beheld round the throne holy angels and hosts,
And sanctified beings from worlds that have been,
In holiness worshipping God and the Lamb,
For ever and ever. Amen and amen.

Then follows the Prophet’s testimony which is so often quoted from Section 76. But this too is broader than the other, giving priceless information about the meaning and extent of the atonement.

And now after all of the proofs made of him,
By witnesses truly, by whom he was known,
This is mine, last of all, that he lives; yea, he lives!
And sits at the right hand of God on his throne.
And I heard a great voice bearing record from heav’n,
He’s the Saviour and only begotten of God;
By him, of him, and through him, the worlds were all made,
Even all that career in the heavens so broad.
Whose inhabitants, too, from the first to the last,
Are sav’d by the very same Saviour as ours;
And, of course, are begotten God’s daughters and sons
By the very same truths and the very same powers.

The other reference I wish to use for a background to my discussion of the fall is from John Taylor’s editorial in the 29 August 1857 issue of The Mormon. I quoted it in full earlier, so wish to call attention to only a part of it here.

Knowest thou not that; eternities ago, thy spirit, pure and holy, dwelt in thy Heavenly Father’s bosom, and in his presence, and with thy mother, one of the Queens of heaven, surrounded by thy brother and sister spirts in the. spirit world, among the Gods. That as thy spirit beheld the scenes transpiring there, and thou growing in intelligence, thou sawest worlds upon worlds organized and peopled with thy kindred spirits, took upon them tabernacles, died, were resurrected, and received their exaltation on the redeemed worlds they once dwelt upon. Thou being willing and anxious to imitate them, waiting and desirous to obtain a body, a resurrection and exaltation also, and having obtained permission, thou made a covenant with one of thy kindred spirits to be thy guardian angel while in mortality, also with two others, male and female spirits, that thou wouldst come and take a tabernacle through their lineage, and become one of their offspring. You also choose a kindred spirit whom you loved in the spirit world, (and had permission to come to this planet and take a tabernacle) to be your head, stay, husband, and protector on the earth, and to exalt you in the eternal worlds. All these were arranged, likewise the spirits that should tabernacle through your lineage. Thou longed, thou sighed, and thou prayed to thy Father in heaven for the time to arrive when thou couldst come to this earth, which had fled and fell from where it was first organized, near the planet Kolob. Leave thy father and mother’s bosoms, and all thy kindred spirits, come to earth, take a tabernacle, and imitate the deeds of, those you had seen exalted before you.

Now, to review the most important points, and add a couple other relevant ones. Kolob is “nearest to God.” It is also the site where the Council met. It was there where Joseph saw “the Son at the Father’s right hand….on his throne….round the throne holy angels….” The earth, “had fled and fell from where it was first organized, near the planet Kolob.” The implications of Abraham 3 to the end, is that this earth was the first world which was created by the Council. Elsewhere the earth is called the “footstool” of God, which suggests that it is the part of the throne by which one ascends to sit upon the throne. This earth is the “altar” of the universe, upon it the Saviour performed his atoning sacrifice; and from the elements of this earth, the Saviour obtained the Celestial elements of his own resurrected body.

Well, all that’s background. Now let’s get to the point. The questions are: What was the fall? What were its immediate effects? What were its ultimate purposes?

What was the “fall” as far as this earth is concerned? Was the earth inhabited by spirit people while it was “near” Kolob, or only after it “fled and fell”? What are the implications of the answer? That’s easy, I don’t know the answer, so I haven’t the foggiest idea what the implications are. But laying aside the question of the earth’s fall, lets look at the question Lehi poses: What was the fall as far as people who not occupy this earth are concerned?

First of all, the fall made it possible for specific members of the Council, and for others who had spirit bodies, to clothe those spirit bodies in physical bodies. Second, the world where one comes to receive these physical bodies is sacred but not “clean;” therefore it is, and must be, outside the presence of God — that is, it is outside the presence of God from the perspective of humans who can neither see him nor hear his voice. Third, there is an almost total memory loss on the part of those spirits who came into these physical bodies. Fourth, the fall places one in a physical environment where he can experience and find meaning in physical birth, growth, exhilaration, deterioration, and death; in an academic and emotional environment where one can learn through study, faith, observation, and experience; and in a spiritual environment where one can see and experience both good and bad, and learn to distinguish between them. These complexly intertwined environments can only exist in a world where the people have an almost total loss of their memory of the life, learning, and experiences which brought them here; and an almost total loss of ability to see and hear things other than those in a physical dimension.

Lehi seems very aware of this. While his discussion touches every facet of the fall, he focuses it especially on our loss of memory and the consequences of our not being able to remember who or what we were, why we came here, and what our assignment was.

When one is born into this world, he is innocent. That innocence is a gift of the atonement (D&C 93:38), and therefore evidences one’s having had faith in Christ before being born into this world. The evidence is in the fact that the blessings of the atonement come to one only after one has accepted them through the appropriate ordinances and covenants. If that law also held in the world before this one, each person born here must have accepted the Saviour’s atonement or he could not have been born innocent in this world. It seems to me that a little child’s absolute innocence is evidence of his previous faith, covenants, and holy works. But it also seems to me that one’s innocence is expressed largely in the fact that he cannot remember where we came from (Or, if remembering it, he is not able to communicate it until after that memory has been displaced by more immediate experiences.), and thus he is not able to anticipate what will come after. So, in terms of the functions of one’s physical body, and in terms of academic and emotional “realities” one will encounter here, he comes to this earth almost completely oblivious, callow, without guile, having almost no experience with which to judge happy from sad, good from bad, evil from righteousness. One comes, as Adam and Eve came, of one’s own volition, but having no memory of the part one played in the former world. Symbolically, every individual born into this world must partake of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. One is then free to learn anew the meaning of pleasure, happiness, good, righteousness, joy in this world; and thus can learn anew in this world how to distinguish those positive feelings from their negative counterparts: pain, sorrow, bad, evil, darkness.

The object of all that background I gave at the beginning of this note was to illustrate that the forgetfulness which came when we were born, is not a little thing. Each of us had a great deal to forget. And our absolute innocence was accomplished in that complete forgetfulness, without which innocence would have been impossible.

But, even in our forgetfulness, there are some fundamental parts of us which were neither obliterated nor diminished. One example is the quality of one’s integrity. Job’s interesting, and I think accurate, account of one issue of the “war in heaven,” points that out.

A few verses from Job will illustrate this point.

3  And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil? and still he holdeth fast his integrity, although thou movedst me against him, to destroy him without cause. (Job 2:3)

9  Then said his wife unto him, Dost thou still retain thine integrity? curse God, and die. But he said unto her, Thou speakest as one of the foolish women speaketh.
10  What? shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil? In all this did not Job sin with his lips. (Job 2:9-10)

1  Moreover Job continued his parable, and said,
2  As God liveth, who hath taken away my judgment; and the Almighty, who hath vexed my soul;
3  All the while my breath is in me, and the spirit of God is in my nostrils;
4  My lips shall not speak wickedness, nor my tongue utter deceit
5  … till I die I will not remove mine integrity from me.
6  My righteousness I hold fast, and will not let it go: my heart shall not reproach me so long as I live. (Job 27:1-6)

We come into this world innocent, but not defenseless. We come with our integrity, our fore-ordination, and a promise from God that no external power in hell or on earth will be sufficient to prevent us from keeping the covenants we made before we came here. Those covenants includes the promise of our ultimate redemption.

Before we continue, we need to review the meanings of the word “redeem.” The Greek word translated “redeem” means to ransom or purchase. The Hebrew word means the same, except it carries the connotation that it is done by a brother or another close relative. Another meaning of

the word “redeem, as it is used in Job (19:26-30) and frequently throughout the Book of Mormon, is that one is brought into the presence of God.

Now, after all that introductory stuff, let’s look at what Lehi was saying. We will begin with verse 26.

26  And the Messiah [The word “Messiah” means the Anointed One. This name/title, Messiah, pulls one back into the context of the Council where Jesus was “the anointed Son of God, from before the foundation of the world.” (TPJS 265)] cometh in the fulness of time, that he may redeem [bring back to the presence of God] the children of men from the fall [their state of forgetfulness]. And because that they are redeemed [brought back into the presence of God] from the fall [Their forgetfulness is completely eradicated only when they are shown all things.] they have become free forever, knowing good from evil [because they have experienced both, rejected evil, been purified by the atonement, and been brought back into the presence of God]; to act for themselves and not to be acted upon, save it be by the punishment of the law at the great and last day, according to the commandments which God hath given. [I think that means, according to the instructions one received at the Council.](2 Nephi 2:26)

One’s coming into the presence of God is a multi-leveled experience. The Holy Ghost is a member of the Godhead, so to hear and harken to his promptings is a coming into God’s presence. The endowment is symbolically that in a more precise way. In each instance one receives instructions which will lead one along the path of the fulfilment of his covenants at the Council. Ultimately one can literally come into the presence of God and renew their covenants there. In each layer of this ascending cycle, Lehi’s words are relevant and true:

27  Wherefore, men are free according to the flesh; and all things are given them which are expedient unto man [line upon line, precept upon precept, experience upon experience]. And they are free to choose liberty and eternal life [ “Free to choose” is an active, not a passive state. Freedom is the ability to act without restraint. Choosing liberty and eternal life is never passive.], through the great Mediator of all men, [Accepting the blessing and responsibilities of the Saviour’s atonement is never passive either.] or to choose captivity and death, according to the captivity and power of the devil; for he seeketh that all men might be miserable like unto himself.

28  And now, my sons, I would that ye should look to the great Mediator, and hearken unto his great commandments; and be faithful unto his words [ “Faithful” means one’s doing what one has promised he will do.], and choose eternal life, according to the will of his Holy Spirit (2 Nephi 2:27-28).

In every level of one’s progression, obedience to the Spirit, is the key to knowing who and what one is, and what one must do to accomplish ones purposes here. The Saviour explained,

24  He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father’s which sent me.
25  These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with you.
26  But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
27  Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid (John 14:24-27).

Lehi continued his instructions to his children by issuing this warning,

29  And not choose eternal death, according to the will of the flesh and the evil which is therein, which giveth the spirit of the devil power to captivate, to bring you down to hell, that he may reign over you in his own kingdom(2 Nephi 2:29).

The ancient Egyptians believed that the retention of memory was the equivalent of having eternal life; and that eternal death and the loss of memory are the same. Alma seems to have taught something of the same concept.

9 And now Alma began to expound these things unto him, saying: It is given unto many to know the mysteries of God; nevertheless they are laid under a strict command that they shall not impart only according to the portion of his word which he doth grant unto the children of men, according to the heed and diligence which they give unto him.
10 And therefore, he that will harden his heart, the same receiveth the lesser portion of the word; and he that will not harden his heart, to him is given the greater portion of the word, until it is given unto him to know the mysteries of God until he know them in full.
11 And they that will harden their hearts, to them is given the lesser portion of the word until they know nothing concerning his mysteries; and then they are taken captive by the devil, and led by his will down to destruction. Now this is what is meant by the chains of hell (Alma 12:9-11).

I think that a valid meaning of the phrase “to be redeemed from the fall” is that at the end of this age one is brought back into the presence of his Father with one’s memory absolutely in tact.

So what is the point of it all? The fall was not a casual thing. It apparently caused a great deal of trouble. It was probably the principle about which the war in heaven was fought. It obviously took a great deal of planning — both for us to get into it, and for us to get out of it. Given all that, one may assert that it must afford opportunity of inestimable value to our Father’s children, otherwise, why would anyone have bothered. To say that we came here to be judged, is correct, of course; but then, what does that mean. As I understand it, the object of the atonement is to save every individual in the highest degree of glory to which he is willing to ascend. And there can be no question but that a major function of this earth life and the spirit world which follows is to give each individual a maximum opportunity to define himself in terms of his own capacity to BE good. That is what the fall does, but how is it done? The answer which seems most likely to me, is this:

Each one of us came into this world innocent, in utter forgetfulness, and subject to being acted upon by everything from accident and bacteria, to evil people and evil spirits. God is not unkind; he did not throw us down here to torture us. So somehow it must be that one’s being in this environment, which sometimes seems so nearly to approximate hell, has great value. That value, I believe, is this. Everything in this environment testifies that it is temporary, tentative, of no eternal (and for the most part, of little real earthly) value. If one can learn that, and learn what is real and what has value, and get out of this world with an experiential knowledge of the difference between good and evil; having lived close enough to the Spirit that one’s memory of eternal things is restored in a large measure; and having accomplished the assignment — in this environment — which he was anointed in the Council to accomplish; then, by virtue of the power of the Saviour’s atonement, the person may once again become clean and innocent in his cleanliness. Only this time the innocence and cleanliness is secured in earned personal priesthood power rather than in forgetfulness. Thus if one is cleansed by ordinance, enthroned in charity, and sustained by his own choice and by the power of the atonement — and this within the environment of this world — then one becomes free indeed. Free to act, at liberty to BE, full of peace, having been redeemed into the eternal presence of a loving Father.

Lehi concludes,

30  I have spoken these few words unto you all, my sons, in the last days of my probation; and I have chosen the good part, according to the words of the prophet. And I have none other object save it be the everlasting welfare of your souls. Amen (2 Nephi 2:30).

2 Nephi 2:25 – LeGrand Baker – “that they might have joy”

2 Nephi 2:25
25  Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy.

Probably more than any other passage in the Book of Mormon, this verse has become a cliché among Mormon people. I once heard someone say that the sentence was a bit awkward, and wondered why Lehi hadn’t just said “Adam fell so men could live happily.” His point was well taken: If one is going to trivialize ideas which are most profound and most sacred, one may as well do it in a way that makes perfect sense, even if the sense is only minimally associated with the intent of the original text.

“To Be” and other forms of the present tense “be” verb (especially “am” and “is”) are the strongest words in the English language. Examples are the way God speaks of himself: “I Am,” and the way we speak of him: “He is.” It is in that context that one must understand Lehi’s “that man might BE.”

“To be” is different from “to live.” “To live” is only to be alive and that only suggests one aspect of Being. Shakespeare, in Hamlet’s most famous soliloquy, struggles with the question of the difference between living and “being.”

To be, or not to be – that is the question.
Whether ’tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles
And by opposing end them. To die, to sleep–
No more, and by a sleep to say we end
The heartache and the thousand natural shocks
That flesh is heir to. ‘Tis a consummation
Devoutly to be wished. To die, to sleep,
To sleep – perchance to dream. Aye, there’s the rub,
For in that sleep of death what dreams may come
When we have shuffled off this mortal coil
Must give us pause. There’s the respect
That makes calamity of so long life.
For who would bear the whips and scorns of time,
The oppressor’s wrong, the proud man’s contumely
The pangs of de’spised love, the law’s delay,
The insolence of office and the spurns
That patient merit of the unworthy takes,
When he himself might his quietus make
With a bare bodkin? Who would farde1s bear,
To grunt and sweat under a weary life,
But that the dread of something after death,
The undiscovered country from whose bourn
No traveler returns, puzzles the will,
And makes us rather bear those ills we have
Than fly to others that we know not of?
Thus conscience does make cowards of us all,
And thus the native hue of resolution
Is sicklied o’er with the pale cast of thought
And enterprises of great pitch and moment
With this regard their currents turn awry
And lose the name of action (Hamlet, Act 3, scene 1).

Lehi answers Hamlet’s “unanswerable” question. Hamlet has projected his question into the darkened realms of future uncertainly, where “to be” lurks like a fearsome dream; but Lehi’s answer is projected into realms of light, where to be is to know boundless joy. Hamlet’s question is the focal point of Shakespear’s most brilliant play. Lehi’s answer is a summing up of all the aged prophet knew. To understand what Lehi meant, would require understanding what he knew. That is beyond the scope, not only of my knowledge, but even of my imagination. Yet there are scriptures which can help.

So far as I know, one of the best commentaries on the relationship of life and being is in the first few pages of section 88. I would like to do a somewhat superficial review of only the first 32 verses, and thereby try to discover the beginnings of the answer to two related questions, “What is life that one might be?” and, “If to be is to have joy, how, in this life, can one establish his being, and taste its joy?”

1  Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you who have assembled yourselves together to receive his will concerning you:
2  Behold, this is pleasing unto your Lord, and the angels rejoice over you; the alms of your prayers have come up into the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth, and are recorded [present tense] in the book of the names of the sanctified, even them of the celestial world (D&C 88:1-2).

I have often wondered why it did not say “the words of your prayers” or simply “your prayers.” What does “alms” have to do with it? OED helps a little. Its first definition of alms is “Christian relief of the poor.” That might be relevant to our question, but the second definition might help more: “A meritorious action.” Perhaps it may have had to do with the way they prayed.

3  Wherefore, I now send upon you another Comforter, even upon you my friends, that it may abide in your hearts, even the Holy Spirit of promise; which other Comforter is the same that I promised unto my disciples, as is recorded in the testimony of John.
This Comforter is the promise which I give unto you of eternal life, even the glory of the celestial kingdom;

I have also wondered about the word “Comforter,” as it is used here. “Comfort” is a code word in Isaiah 61:2-3. There, “to comfort all that mourn” means the same as performing the ancient kingship coronation rites:

1.  To appoint unto them that mourn in Zion [That is, to make them a part of Zion], ‘
2.  to give unto them beauty for ashes [Isaiah commentators say that represents a ceremonial washing–one washes to remove the ashes.]
3.  the oil of joy for mourning [an anointing],
4.  the garment of praise for the spirit of heaviness;
5.  that they might be called [new name] trees of righteousness, the planting of the LORD, that he might be glorified. [That new name represents the tree of life and the principle of eternal increase.]

If that is what to comfort means; and the Holy Ghost is the “Comforter;” and the Saviour is the “Second Comforter;” then I leave it to you to discover the implications as the word is used here.

5  Which glory is that of the church of the Firstborn, even of God, the holiest of all, through Jesus Christ his Son–
6  He that ascended up on high, as also he descended below all things, in that he comprehended all things, that he might be in all and through all things, the light of truth;

These verses, even though they are couched in different words, place the ideas of this revelation in the same context as Lehi placed his words. That is, the meaning of “to be” and “joy” must be understood within the contextual meaning of the atonement of Christ. And the atonement of Christ must be understood in terms which reach from “the beginning,” to Gethsemane, to “the end.”

7  Which truth shineth. This is the light of Christ. As also he is in the sun, and the light of the sun, and the power thereof by which it was made.
8  As also he is in the moon, and is the light of the moon, and the power thereof by which it was made;
9  As also the light of the stars, and the power thereof by which they were made;
10  And the earth also, and the power thereof, even the earth upon which you stand.
11  And the light which shineth, which giveth you light, is through him who enlighteneth your eyes, which is the same light that quickeneth your understandings;
12  Which light proceedeth forth from the presence of God to fill the immensity of space–
13  The light which is in all things, which giveth life to all things, which is the law by which all things are governed, even the power of God who sitteth upon his throne, who is in the bosom of eternity, who is in the midst of all things (D&C 88: 7-13).

John expressed the same idea when he wrote that in the beginning, “All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of man. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. (1:3-4)” Paul brings the idea back to Lehi’s statement by saying, “For in him we live, and move, and have our being;… (Acts 17:28)” And the Saviour pulls it back again, to the beginning, where it was with John. “…give ear to him who laid the foundation of the earth, who made the heavens and all the hosts thereof, and by whom all things were made which live, and move, and have a being. (D&C 45:1)” But in our section 88, the Saviour says the light was not only the life of man

in the beginning, but also in the resurrection. The revelation continues:

14  Now, verily I say unto you, that through the redemption which is made for you is brought to pass the resurrection from the dead.
15  And the spirit and the body are the soul of man.
16  And the resurrection from the dead is the redemption of the soul
17  And the redemption of the soul is through him that quickeneth all things, in whose bosom it is decreed that the poor and the meek of the earth shall inherit it(D&C 88: 7-13).

As far a I can tell, in the Beatitudes the “poor” are those who have sacrificed a broken heart and contrite spirit, and the “meek” are those who keep the covenants they made at the Council in Heaven. It is they, our revelation says, for whom the earth was created, and, the Beatitudes adds, who will inherit the earth. Thus, the nature of the fullness of “life,” even in one’s distant future, is a “this earth” reality. Implicitly, that suggests that the joys also are a “this earth” reality.

18  Therefore, it [the earth] must needs be sanctified [future tense] from all unrighteousness [from everything which is not Zadok, temple oriented.], that it [the earth] may be prepared [future tense] for the celestial glory;
19  For after it [the earth] hath [future tense] filled the measure of its [the earth’s] creation, it shall be crowned [future tense] with glory, even with the presence of God the Father (D&C 88: 18-19-13);

I suspect that may also be said of us. If one is to be sanctified from all unrighteousness, one must fill the measure of one’s creation, and be crowned with glory, even with the presence of God the Father;

20  That bodies [ the physical bodies of individual people] who are [present tense] of the celestial kingdom may [future tense] possess it [the earth] forever and ever; for, for this intent was [past tense] it [the earth] made and created, and for this intent are they [the individual children of God] sanctified [“Are sanctified” is in present tense. Throughout this part of the scripture the Lord moves back and forth from the present to the future, acknowledging the binding power between that which is present and that which is to come.].
21  And they who are [present tense] not sanctified through the law which I have given unto you, even the law of Christ, must inherit [future tense] another kingdom, even that of a terrestrial kingdom, or that of a telestial kingdom.
22  For he who is not able to abide [present tense] the law of a celestial kingdom cannot [present tense] abide a celestial glory.
23  And he who cannot abide [present tense] the law of a terrestrial kingdom cannot [present tense] abide a terrestrial glory.
24  And he who cannot abide [present tense] the law of a telestial kingdom cannot [present tense] abide a telestial glory; therefore he is not meet [present tense] for a kingdom of glory. Therefore he must abide a kingdom which is not a kingdom of glory.
25  And again, verily I say unto you, the earth abideth [present tense] the law of a celestial kingdom, for it filleth [present tense] the measure of its creation, and transgresseth not [present tense] the law—
26  Wherefore, it shall be sanctified [future tense]; yea, notwithstanding it shall die [future tense], it shall be quickened [future tense] again, and shall abide [future tense] the power by which it is [present tense] quickened, and the righteous shall inherit [future tense] it.
27  For notwithstanding they die, they also shall rise [future tense] again, a spiritual body.
28  They who are [present tense] of a celestial spirit shall receive [future tense] the same body which was [past tense] a natural body; even ye shall receive [future tense] your bodies, and your glory shall be [future tense] that glory by which your bodies are [present tense] quickened.
29  Ye who are quickened [present tense] by a portion of the celestial glory shall then receive [future tense] of the same, even a fulness.

If you have questioned whether the present tense verbs have really been in the present, or whether they have referred to the future as though it were the present, this verse should answer that question. Notice the word “then.” It clarifies the problem by clearly distinguishing the present “are quickened” from the future “shall then receive.”].

30  And they who are quickened [present tense] by a portion of the terrestrial glory shall then receive [future tense] of the same, even a fulness.
31  And also they who are quickened [present tense] by a portion of the telestial glory shall then receive [future tense] of the same, even a fulness.
32  And they who remain shall also be quickened [future tense]; nevertheless, they shall return [future tense] again to their own place, to enjoy that which they are willing to receive, because they were not willing to enjoy that which they might have received (D&C 88: 7-13).

What all that says to me is that the glory by which one’s person is now partially quickened, will be the same glory with which one is fully quickened in the resurrection. I don’t think that is just talking about an accumulation of the good things one does. I think it is describing what one IS — the nature of his BEing. It has to do with what one IS within the context of the atonement. It has to do with the peace and charity one translates to joy, and with the peace and joy one helps others to achieve. It has to do with BEing a peacemaker within the context of this fallen world, without losing sight of the present reality of the future celestial earth. Thus, Adam fell that each individual might BE. And each IS that he might have JOY.

2 Nephi 2:18-24 – LeGrand Baker – About Adam and Eve

This is one of a whole bucket full of examples where the Latter-day Saints wouldn’t know any more than the rest of the world except for modern scriptures. The Bible contains no adequate explanation for the of the purposes of Adams’ fall or of its indispensable role in the plan of salvation. It was there at one time, no doubt, but it was apparently edited out.

Another thing that we have that no one else has is the answer to the question, who was this man Adam and his wife Eve; why were they chosen; and what is the extent of their mission. Yet, non-Mormon scholars have come up with some facinating ideas about the importance of our first parents. One noteworthy scholar is Frederick H. Borsch. His book, The Son of Man in Myth and History (London, SCM Press, 1967) has some interesting comments about Adam. The first is a paragraph which discusses some ancient Near Eastern ideas about the first Man. When Borsch capitalizes Man, he is referring to the first man, Adam, or his equivalent. The following is from page 103.

In texts from many lands and times we find a continual association of the king and the sun. The language used parallels descriptions and imagery which we have seen employed with regard to First Man figures. The idea seems to be that the king on his accession to the throne becomes like a sun-god. If it is too much to say that the king becomes identified with the sun-god, it is nevertheless true that ‘The King could be viewed, in Mesopotamia as elsewhere, as an image of the sun-god’. In this respect, as in others, the king resembles his god; he is his son, made like him in his image. So, too, is the First Man thus created, and one, of course, thinks immediately of Gen. I .26. The point is succinctly illustrated by the little poem which Engnell uses as a prologue to his Studies in Divine Kingship:

The shadow of God is Man (amelu) And men are the shadow of Man. Man, that is the King, (who is) like the image of God.

The second quote is from pages 181-184. It is from a chapter which deals with Jewish/Christian gnostic sects. Except in two instances, I have omitted Borsch’s footnotes, as I also did in the quote above. If you e-mail has problems showing what is indented, I’ll just tell you. Everything that follows in this comment is only a long, albeit an interesting quote.

The Naassenes
The Naassenes we remember as a sect closely linked with the Sethians, Ophites and Peratae in Egypt. They display a blend of Jewish, Christian and pagan beliefs, while there is every likelihood that the Christian features were added after the group had had a previous existence. Even, however, if some version of Christianity were one of the formative influences, it was certainly not the sole one, and we should remain most interested in the thought forms.

The position and influence of the sect can best be explained by a beginning little later than the early part of the second century AD, and many feel that we still would need to postulate a nascent version earlier than this, or at least an earlier form of similar teaching upon which these men built. There are good reasons for believing that the group or its forebears were originally Semitic and that, more particularly, their teaching spread to Egypt from Syria or some adjacent Palestinian locality. In addition to other factors, this would help to account for their name, their Jewishness and their apparent connection with known sectarian groups of the Syria-Palestine-Trans-Jordan area.

There are the diverse ideas about the Primal Man summarized for us by Hippolytus. The Man, Adam, is worshipped as heavenly, yet once, according to Naassene lights, he had to fall into Adam below, there to be enslaved and suffer. On earth he has no reputation, but in heaven he is all-glorious. All are descended from Adam, and he is present in all his descendants. In the temple of the Samothracians there are two statues; one is said to represent the Primal Man while the other is that of the spiritual or pneumatic individual, the one that is born again. In every respect the second is of the same essence with the Man.

What most intrigues here, however, is how both the Man and his genuine descendants are said to ascend from their earthly existence and to become true pneumatics in heaven. The Man is represented as one, the ‘unportrayed one’, who came down and is unrecognized. Nevertheless, this is ‘the god that inhabits the flood’, according to the Psalter, ‘and who speaks and cries from many waters’. The ‘many waters’, he says are the diversified generation of mortal men, from which he cries and vociferates to the unportrayed Man, saying, ‘Preserve my only-begotten from the lions.’ In reply to him, it has, says he, been declared, ‘Israel, thou art my child: fear not; even though you pass through rivers, they shall not drown thee; even though you pass through fire, it shall not scorch thee.’ By rivers he means, says he, the moist substance of generation, and by fire the impulsive principle and desire for generation. ‘Thou art mine; fear not. again he says, ‘If a mother forget her children, so as not to have pity on them and give them food, I also will forget you.’ Adam, he says, speaks to his own men: ‘But even though a woman forget these things, yet I will not forget you. I have painted you on my hands.’ In regard, however, of his ascension, that is his regeneration, that he may become spiritual, not carnal, the Scripture, he says, speaks (thus): ‘Open the gates, ye who are your rulers; and be ye lift up, ye everlasting doors, and the king of glory shall come in,’ that is a wonder of wonders. ‘For who’, he says, ‘is this king of glory? A worm and not a man; a reproach of man, and an outcast of the people; himself is the king of glory and powerful in war.’ [footnote # 1: Refutation V, 8.15ff.]

There follows a reference to Jacob seeing the gate of heaven (in Mesopotamia) and to Mesopotamia as the great river which flows from the belly of Perfect Man. Even the Perfect Man, imaged from the unportrayable one above, must enter in through the gate and be born again.

What, we wish to know, caused some of these texts from or allusions to PSS. 22; 24; 29 and Isa. 4′; 43 and 49, along with an interest in the Man, to come together in the first place? Is it not legitimate to wonder if behind this there lies the story of one who, representing him who is above, goes into the waters (here said to resemble those of creation), who calls out to the Man above for rescue from the waters and wild beasts, is named the only-begotten, [ footnote # 2: The text makes it appear as though the Man on earth were pleading for his own only-begotten’ (a term which comes out of kingship ideology and which was used by Christians rather than created by them). If this was the intention, we must be at a stage in which the Man on earth was regarded as the father of the individual needing salvation in this manner. The Man on earth would then be sharing in the role of the Man in heaven, while the believer would be acting out the role of the Man on earth. Yet we should think it more likely that the original intention was ‘Preserve your only-begotten from the lions.’ It might even have been a liturgical plea uttered by the people on behalf of the one in the waters.] and who, though despised by the people, rises up through the heavenly gates like a king? One might argue that by some odd coincidence of exegesis this pattern and these references to the king in his suffering and glory were reduplicated. Yet is it not far more likely that there is a cause? That cause looks to us as though it might well be some manner of earlier context involving ideas about baptism and enthronement, even though the Egyptian Naassenes probably no longer practiced or understood the language in quite this way any longer.

Adam is here set forth as a father figure who, though as the Man below he still requires his own salvation, yet will also aid in the salvation of others. (Whatever painting on his hands means, it seems a further suggestion of the intimate relationship between Adam and his sons.) At times this Adam seems almost to be conceived of as though he himself were the unportrayed one above. They act as though functions one of the other.

Who, then, is the Perfect Man imaged from the one above, who yet must himself be saved by passing through the gate and being born again? Of course, in one sense it is this Adam below, but the implications are also fairly strong that this is not really the Primal Man on earth (for there is a way in which the true Man, or at least his counterpart, always seems to remain above). Rather is it the believer~ the individual who himself would be saved by following in the way of the First Perfect Man. This is made more probable by the Naassene insistence that all who do not enter through this gate will remain dead, and that it is only the rational living men who will be thus saved. Here, too, then, we may be viewing relics from a rite which has been democratized in the process of transforming it.

Further we hear that the pneumatics are ones who have been chosen out of the living water, the Euphrates which flows through Babylon. They now account themselves Christians, having been made perfect by entering through the gate which is Jesus, and there having been anointed with oil from the horn, like David. This being chosen from out of the waters and the mention of anointing again suggest something like a cultic or liturgical background. The ceremony is said to take place in the heavenly realms just as the royal ritual was often described as though it were taking place in heaven. Let us notice, too, that the anointing~ act here is not associated primarily with cleansing or healing but rather with a rite like king David’s. It is said that the ceremony makes the pneumatic into a god as well, just like the one above. In other words he will be a royal god.

2 Nephi 2:14-17 – LeGrand Baker – origin of evil

2 Nephi 2:14-17
14  And now, my sons, I speak unto you these things for your profit and learning; for there is a God, and he hath created all things, both the heavens and the earth, and all things that in them are, both things to act and things to be acted upon.
15  And to bring about his eternal purposes in the end of man, after he had created our first parents, and the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air, and in fine, all things which are created, it must needs be that there was an opposition; even the forbidden fruit in opposition to the tree of life; the one being sweet and the other bitter.
16  Wherefore, the Lord God gave unto man that he should act for himself. Wherefore, man could not act for himself save it should be that he was enticed by the one or the other.
17  And I, Lehi, according to the things which I have read, must needs suppose that an angel of God, according to that which is written, had fallen from heaven; wherefore, he became a devil, having sought that which was evil before God.

The juxtaposition of ideas may sometimes tell one a great deal about the relative meanings of those ideas. If that is true of this section of the scriptures, then it may tell us a great deal about the nature and origin of evil, the purposes of Satan, and the reason his purposes are evil.

To begin, let’s examine verse 17, and clarify the meaning of some of the words.

And I, Lehi, according to the things which I have read, must needs suppose that an angel of God, according to that which is written, had fallen from heaven; wherefore, he became a devil, having sought that which was evil before God.

First, let’s get the “suppose” out of the way so we won’t have to stumble all over it. I grew up thinking that the word means to assume, or to entertain an idea. The OED confirms those meanings, but they are numbers 6 and 8 of its definitions. The first is “to hold as a belief or opinion, to believe as a fact.” In that definition, one finds Lehi is expressing conviction and authority, rather than a wishy-washy not being too sure of himself. His conviction is reinforced by the words “must need suppose.” That is a very firm statement.

Now the question is, what is he using for a source. Obviously he has read something. But it is not an ordinary something. “According to that which is written,” is a very formal structure which denotes a source of absolute authority. It is probable that he holds some of the words on the Brass Plates in that regard, but that is likely not the answer. Remember how Nephi introduces us to his father:

9  And it came to pass that he saw One descending out of the midst of heaven, and he beheld that his luster was above that of the sun at noon-day.
10  And he also saw twelve others following him, and their brightness did exceed that of the stars in the firmament.
11  And they came down and went forth upon the face of the earth; and the first came and stood before my father, and gave unto him a book, and bade him that he should read. (1 Nephi 1:9-11)

I suspect that is the book Lehi he is talking about.

Lehi is an extraordinary man: a great prophet, the patriarch and father of two mighty nations, and a profound theologian and philosopher. In this week’s verses he approaches and encapsulates the answer to a question which other theologians and philosophers have been wrestling with from the most ancient of times: what is the origin, nature, and purpose of evil.

One place in the Bible where the question of the creation of evil is addressed in those terms is not a credible place. It is in the middle of the Cyrus section of Isaiah. Scholars call its author “Second Isaiah” because it seems to be an attachment to the real Isaiah. I concur and believe it is a forgery put in the Isaiah text to impress and influence king Cyrus. In that section there is a classic bit of wisdom literature which reads, “I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me:… I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. (Isaiah 45:5-7)” If it is true that this part of Isaiah was written by Jews who were contemporary with Cyrus, then the statement “I…create evil,” was not on the Brass Plates, and cannot be considered as an influence on Lehi’s thinking. Besides that, I think the statement is false.

There are two other credible accounts of the beginnings of evil. One is in our cannon, and the other is in the cannon of the ancient Israelites and of the early Christians. The first is John’s Book of Revelation, the second is the Book of Enoch. Lehi himself saw the revelation John saw (Nephi says Nephi saw what John saw and also says that Lehi saw the things Nephi saw. As far as I can tell, that works out to say Lehi saw what John saw.), and the Book of Enoch was very likely on the Brass Plates. So in our quest to know what Lehi knew about the origin of evil, we would do well to begin with the Book of Enoch and John’s Revelation.

Since the Book of Enoch is not all that accessible, and the translation I like best is out of print, for the sake of you who would like to read it, I am going to quote much more of it than is necessary for my purpose here.

The ancient manuscript from which this portion of the Book of Enoch was translated is obviously an abridgment of the original. Whoever abridged it also added his own editorial comments as he went along. One frequently hears the voice of this ancient editor explaining the narrative. Except for the first sentence I quote, I will leave out those editorial comments, and only quote Enoch’s first-person account (The following long quote is from R.H. Charles, The Book of the Secrets of Enoch).

The ancient editor wrote:
Hence they took Enoch into the seventh Heaven. [Now I will quote only what Enoch wrote.]

And those two men lifted me tip thence on to the seventh Heaven, and I saw there a very great light, and fiery troops of great archangels, in-corporeal forces, and dominions, orders and governments, cherubim and seraphim, thrones and many-eyed ones, nine regiments, the Ioanit stations of light, and I became afraid, and began to tremble with great terror, and those men took me, and led me after them, and said to me: ‘Have courage, Enoch, do not fear,’ and showed me the Lord from afar, sitting on His very high throne….And all the heavenly troops would come and stand on the ten steps according to their rank, and would bow down to the Lord, and would again go to their places in joy and felicity, singing songs in the boundless light with small and tender voices, gloriously serving him.

And the cherubim and seraphim standing about the throne, the six-winged and many-eyed ones do not depart, standing before the Lord’s face doing his will, and cover his whole throne, singing with gentle voice before the Lord’s face: Holy, holy, holy, Lord Ruler of Sabaoth, heavens and earth are full of Thy glory.’ When I saw all these things, those men said to inc: ‘Enoch, thus far is it commanded us to journey with thee,’ and those men went away from me, and thereupon I saw them not. And I remained alone at the end of the seventh heaven and became afraid, and fell on my face and said to myself: ‘Woe is me, what has befallen me? And the Lord sent one of his glorious ones, the archangel Gabriel, and he said to me: ‘have courage, Enoch, do not fear, arise before the Lord’s face into eternity, arise, come with me,’ and I answered him, and said in myself: ‘My Lord, my soul is departed from me, from terror and trembling,’ and I called to the men who led me up to this place, on them I relied, and it is with them I go before the Lord’s face. And Gabriel caught me up, as a leaf caught up by the wind, and placed me before the Lord’s face. ….

I saw the appearance of the Lord’s face, like iron made to glow in fire, and brought out, emitting sparks, and it burns. Thus I saw the Lord’s face, but the Lord’s face is ineffable, marvellous and very awful, and very, very terrible.

And who am I to tell of the Lord’s unspeakable being, and of his very wonderful face? and I cannot tell the quantity of his many instructions, and various voices, the Lord’s throne very great and not made with hands, nor the quantity, of those standing round him, troops of cherubim and seraphim, nor their incessant singing, nor his immutable beauty, and who shall tell of the ineffable greatness of his glory?

And I fell prone and bowed down to the Lord, and the Lord with his lips said to me: Have courage, Enoch, do not fear, arise and stand before my face into eternity.’

And the archistratege Michael lifted me up and led me to before the Lord’s face.

And the Lord said to his servants tempting them: ‘Let Enoch stand before my face into eternity,’ and the glorious ones bowed down to the Lord, and said: ‘Let Enoch go according to Thy word.’

And the Lord said to Michael ‘Go and take Enoch from out his earthly garments, and anoint him with my sweet ointment, and put him into the garments of My glory.’

And Michael did thus, as the Lord told him. He anointed me, and dressed me, and the appearance of that ointment is more than the great light, and his ointment is like sweet dew, and its smell mild, shining like the sun’s ray, and I looked at myself, and was like one of his glorious ones.

And the Lord summoned one of his archangels by name Pravuil, whose knowledge was quicker in wisdom than the other archangels, who wrote all the deeds of the Lord ; and the Lord said to Pravuil: ‘Bring out the books from my store-houses, and a reed of quick-writing, and give it to Enoch, and deliver to him the choice and comforting books out of thy hand.’ ….

And he was telling me all the works of heaven, earth and sea, and all the elements, their passages and goings, and the thunderings of the thunders, the sun and moon, the goings and changes of the stars, the seasons, years, days, and hours, the risings of the wind, the numbers of the angels, and the formation of their songs; and all human things, the tongue of every human song and life, the commandments, instructions, and sweet-voiced singings, and all things that it is fitting to learn. And Pravuil told me: ‘All the things that I have told thee, we have written. Sit and write all the souls of mankind, however many of them are born, and the places prepared for them to eternity; for all souls are prepared to eternity, before the formation of the world.’ And all double thirty days and thirty nights, and I wrote out all things exactly, and wrote three hundred and sixty-six books. ….

And the Lord summoned me, and said to me: Enoch, sit down on my left with Gabriel.’ And I bowed down to the Lord, and the Lord spoke to me: Enoch, beloved, all thou seest, all things that are standing finished I tell to thee even before the very beginning, all that I created from non-being, and visible things from invisible. Hear, Enoch, and take in these my words, for not to My angels have I told my secret, and I have not told them their rise, nor my endless realm, nor have they understood my creating, which I tell thee to- day.

For before all things were visible, I alone used to go about in the invisible things, like the sun from east to west, and from west to east. But even the sun has peace in itself, while I found no peace, because I was creating all things, and I conceived the thought of placing foundations, and of creating visible creation.

I commanded in the very lowest parts, that visible things should come down from invisible, and Adoil came down very great, [Translator’s footnote: Adoil is from a Hebrew word meaning ‘the hand of God.” “The word does not occur elsewhere that I am aware of.”] and I beheld him, and lo! he had a belly of great light. And I said to him: ‘Become undone, Adoil, and let the visible’ come out of thee.’ And he came un done, and a great light came out. And I was in the midst of the great light, and as there is born light from light, there came forth a great age, and showed all creation, which I had thought to create. And I saw that it was good. And I placed for myself a throne, and took my seat on it, and said to the light: ‘Go thou up higher and fix thyself high above the throne, and be a foundation to the highest things.’ And above the light there is nothing else, and then I bent up and looked up from my throne. ….

And I summoned the very lowest a second time, and said: ‘ Let Archas come forth hard,’ and he came forth hard from the invisible. And Archas came forth, hard, heavy, and very red. And I said: ‘ Be opened, Archas, and let there be born from thee,’ and he came undone, an age came forth very great and very dark, bearing the creation of all lower things, and I saw that it was good and said to him: ‘Go thou down below, and make thyself firm, and be for a foundation for the lower things,’ and it happened and he went down and fixed himself, and became the foundation for the lower things, and below the darkness there is nothing else. ….

And I commanded that there should be taken from light and darkness, and I said: ‘ Be thick,’ and it became thus, and I spread it out with the light, and it became water, and I spread it out over the darkness) below the light, and there I made firm the waters, that is to say the bottomless, and I made foundation of light around the water, and created seven circles from inside, and imaged it (sc. the water) like crystal wet and dry, that is to say like glass, and the circumcession of the waters and the other elements, and I showed each one of them its road) and the seven stars each one of them in its heaven, that they go thus, and I saw that it was good. And I separated between light and between darkness, that is to say in the midst of the water hither and thither, and I said to the light, that it should be the day, and to the darkness, that it should be the night, and there was evening and there was morning the fist day.

That is from R.H. Charles, The Book of the Secrets of Enoch, in The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1976), p. 141-146.

John’s account in Revelation is much more symbolic and difficult to understand, but it sounds to me like it might be the same story.

1  And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars:
2  And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered.
3  And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads.
4  And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born.
5  And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne (Revelation 12:1-5).

The broad sequence of these stories are strikingly similar to Nephi’s first account of Lehi vision. In both Enoch and John the sequence is that they see God and then are shown a great light. In John there are twelve stars associated with that light. Now, compare that with Lehi’s much briefer account and see what you think.

8  And being thus overcome with the Spirit, he was carried away in a vision, even that he saw the heavens open, and he thought he saw God sitting upon his throne, surrounded with numberless concourses of angels in the attitude of singing and praising their God.
9  And it came to pass that he saw One descending out of the midst of heaven, and he beheld that his luster was above that of the sun at noon-day.
10  And he also saw twelve others following him, and their brightness did exceed that of the stars in the firmament. (1 Nephi 1:8-10)

My point in all that is simply to suggest that if we want to know what Lehi is talking about in the verses under discussion, a legitimate way of discovering that may be to examine the accounts of the beginning of evil found in Enoch and John.

————

Without making any attempt to speculate on what these creation accounts are trying to say, I wish only to observe that they appear to represent the primary creation. It appears that from a great light was born a smaller light in which was a great age. Apparently, the Lord then separated it into two parts, the first was those whose inclination was to do good; the second, those whose inclination was to do evil. The part of the story which may be important to Lehi’s statement we are reading is what Enoch reports to say about both the good and the bad. Here are the two relevant quotes taken from the larger quote above.

…and I beheld him, and lo! he had a belly of great light. And I said to him: ‘Become undone, Adoil, and let the visible’ come out of thee.’ And he came undone, and a great light came out. And I was in the midst of the great light, and as there is born light from light, there came forth a great age, and showed all creation, which I had thought to create. And I saw that it was good.
…
And I summoned the very lowest a second time, and said: ‘ Let Archas come forth hard,’ and he came forth hard from the invisible. And Archas came forth, hard, heavy, and very red. And I said: ‘ Be opened, Archas, and let there be born from thee,’ and he came undone, an age came forth very great and very dark, bearing the creation of all lower things, and I saw that it was good.

It appears to me that what this suggests is that God was so determined to give all in the creation an opportunity to receive whatever level of salvation they would accept, that he separated his creations into two groups, then let everyone in each group go through the system — each serving as opposition to the other. Thus those who were inclined toward good were tested by their encounter with those who were inclined to do evil; and those who were inclined to do evil were tested by their encounter with those who were inclined to do good. Thus all had a maximum opportunity to define themselves as to their final stance on the scale of good and evil and all had a maximum opportunity for salvation.

There is some support for that idea in the statement the Lord made to Cain.

18  And Cain loved Satan more than God. And Satan commanded him, saying: Make an offering unto the Lord.
19  And in process of time it came to pass that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the Lord.
20  And Abel he also brought of the firstlings of his flock, and of the fat thereof. And the Lord had respect unto Abel, and to his offering;
21  But unto Cain, and to his offering, he had not respect. Now Satan knew this, and it pleased him. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell.
22 And the Lord said unto Cain: Why art thou wroth? Why is thy countenance fallen?
23 If thou doest well, thou shalt be accepted. And if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door, and Satan desireth to have thee; and except thou shalt hearken unto my commandments, I will deliver thee up, and it shall be unto thee according to his desire. And thou shalt rule over him;
24 For from this time forth thou shalt be the father of his lies; thou shalt be called Perdition; for thou wast also before the world.
25 And it shall be said in time to come–That these abominations were had from Cain; for he rejected the greater counsel which was had from God; and this is a cursing which I will put upon thee, except thou repent (Moses 5:18-25).

The three parts of that quote which are relevant to our question are: #1, “And Cain loved Satan more than God.” #2, “And the Lord said unto Cain… If thou doest well, thou shalt be accepted.” #3, “thou shalt be called Perdition; for thou wast also before the world.”

I think that #3, “for thou wast also before the world,” can not be interpreted as saying, “Guess what, Cain, you had a pre-existence.” Because if it is read that way, it has no meaning at all since not only Cain but also everyone else had a pre-existence. So I think it must be read to say that Cain was perdition in the spirit world before he was born into this world. That idea was suggested in #1, but in #2 Cain is told that he can still repent and be saved. I like to think that promise is held out to every individual of God’s creations, whether they were originally separated into the portion which was light, or the portion which was dark and red.

Well, all that was only speculation on my part, but I think it is worth wondering about or I wouldn’t have written it. So lets us return to what Lehi said, and I leave it to you to decide whether what I have written is relevant or entirely beside the point.

14  And now, my sons, I speak unto you these things for your profit and learning; for there is a God, and he hath created all things, both the heavens and the earth, and all things that in them are, both things to act and things to be acted upon.
15  And to bring about his eternal purposes in the end of man, after he had created our first parents, and the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air, and in fine, all things which are created, it must needs be that there was an opposition; even the forbidden fruit in opposition to the tree of life; the one being sweet and the other bitter.
16  Wherefore, the Lord God gave unto man that he should act for himself. Wherefore, man could not act for himself save it should be that he was enticed by the one or the other.
17  And I, Lehi, according to the things which I have read, must needs suppose that an angel of God, according to that which is written, had fallen from heaven; wherefore, he became a devil, having sought that which was evil before God(2 Nehi 2:14-17).

2 Nephi 2: 6-7 – LeGrand Baker – broken heart and a contrite spirit

2 Nephi 2:6-7

6  Wherefore, redemption cometh in and through the Holy Messiah; for he is full of grace and truth.
7  Behold, he offereth himself a sacrifice for sin, to answer the ends of the law, unto all those who have a broken heart and a contrite spirit; and unto none else can the ends of the law be answered (2 Nephi 2: 6-7).

Some ideas about what it might mean that the Lord requires us to sacrifice a broken heart and a contrite spirit.

“Sacrifice” is, of course, a key word, and “similitude” is the key to understanding what sacrifice is about. In the Pearl of Great Price we read:

6  And after many days an angel of the Lord appeared unto Adam, saying: Why dost thou offer sacrifices unto the Lord? And Adam said unto him: I know not, save the Lord commanded me.
7  And then the angel spake, saying: This thing is a similitude of the sacrifice of the Only Begotten of the Father, which is full of grace and truth.
8  Wherefore, thou shalt do all that thou doest in the name of the Son, and thou shalt repent and call upon God in the name of the Son forevermore. (Moses 5:6-8)

It’s easy, at least superficially, to see how the slaughter of an unblemished lamb might be a reminder of the Saviour’s sacrifice upon the cross. But “similitude” is a stronger idea than “reminder.” The animal sacrifice was important to the people but it had no powers of redemption. for even symbolically, “it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.” (Hebrews 10:4) It was not the dead animal, but the living Adam who was “in similitude.”

When the angel spoke to Adam about a burnt offering, he made it very clear that “this thing” which was “in similitude” of the Saviour’s sacrifice, was Adam’s attitude when he made the offering. It was Adam’s doing the will of the Father which was “in similitude,” as the angel explained, “Wherefore, thou shalt do all that thou doest in the name of the Son, and thou shalt repent and call upon God in the name of the Son forevermore.”

This concept of a dual sacrifice (one of an animal, the other of Adam himself) was preserved, even in the days of the Law of Moses. David understood that the sprinkling of the blood of animals could never be more than a symbol of a real cleansing, and that cleansing, made effectual by the blood of Christ, must happen within the heart and spirit of every individual. David wrote,

15  Deliver me from bloodguiltiness, O God, thou God of my salvation: and my tongue shall sing aloud of thy righteousness. OLord, open thou my lips; and my mouth shall shew forth thy praise.
16  For thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give it: thou delightest not in burnt offering.
17  The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.(Psalms 51:15-17)

To the Saviour on the cross, a broken heart was real, and there was nothing symbolic about it. John saw its reality, he understood, and testified what he saw. I am told that the separation of the plasma as described by John is medical evidence that his heart burst under the extreme pressure of his agony.

34  But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water.
35  And he that saw it bare record, and his record is true: and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe.
36  For these things were done, that the scripture should be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broken. (John 19:34-36)

That which we are asked to sacrifice is a similitude of the Saviour’s sacrifice. If we are to sacrifice a broken heart, it must surely be a similitude of his. For him the heart was real, for us it is usually only symbolic, even though it may hurt more than one can say, and as much as one can bear. That being so, if we are to understand what it is which must be broken, we must first understand something of the symbolism of the “heart.”

Anciently, people assigned thoughts and emotions to the parts of the body where they could feel them. No one feels any thought in his head so that clearly wasn’t where they happened. (The ancients didn’t know what good the brain might be. When Egyptians embalmed a body, they preserved the important organs in jars, but threw the brain away with the entrails.) There were other places where thoughts seemed to originate. For example, one feels compassion in the “pit of the stomach” as we would say; they spoke of that as “the bowels of mercy.” But they assigned most of the other emotions to the heart. Consequently, in the Old and New Testaments, we find the heart being full of anger, jealousy, fear, desire, and every other feeling which motivates men and women to make decisions and to act. That is not all. They believed the heart was also the seat of their intellect. The scriptures say the heart thinks, plans, contrives and reasons. In short, all of their rational and academic thinking happened in their heart.

Thus the phrase “the thoughts and intents of the heart” includes all the emotional and rational reasons we can invent to justify our attitudes, motives, prejudices, beliefs and actions. Since we think, say, or do nothing whose objective is not found in our heart, every purpose for which we act is a “purpose of the heart.”

A heart is all that, so now, what causes a heart to be “broken?”

When I was a boy, living on the farm, someone told me that a broken heart meant the same as a broken horse. That is, when a young or wild horse is “broken” it is taught to obey. Thereafter it will carry its rider where he wishes, responding knowingly or intuitively to the slightest movement of the reins or to the tilt of the rider’s body and the pressure of his knees. But the Hebrew word translated “broken” doesn’t mean anything like that. The word has nothing at all to do with obedience. But the concept does.

Even though, on the surface, obedience seems to be beside the point in this question of sacrifice, if fact, obedience is the beginning of the whole matter. This dichotomy is derived from the fact that obedience is the “first law of heaven,” but it is only the first. There are four others. Sacrifice is the second; charity, expressed as the Law of Consecration, is the last. Nevertheless, to understand the other three one must first obey, which takes some careful doing, for obedience is fraught with danger. Its consequences can be either to enslave one or to make one free. For a rational human, obedience is never the product of the instructor or of the instruction, but is always a product of the motive of the obedient, whether that motive be self-preservation, self- aggrandizement, fear, compulsion, or love unfeigned. Obedience, then, is always a consequence of “the purpose of the heart.”

In the beginning of our odyssey in time, we learned that there seems to be a relationship between obedience and getting what we want. The more nearly we keep the commandments, the more apt we are to get the blessings–that sort of thing. If we never admit to religious experiences which take us farther than that, then we might choose to conclude that blessings from the Lord are for sell and that we may purchase them simply by following instructions. That is a wonderfully convenient idea, because it asserts that we can have the fruits of righteousness as often as we choose to purchase them, and having purchased them, we no longer owe anyone for them. Such an idea puts us entirely in control and it is comfortable to be in control.But comfortable or not, the time comes when the child in us matures and we open our eyes to discover that there is much more to it than that. Eventually we come to realize that those truths which “seemed” are not the same as those truths which are. Then the Spirit itself will teach us that we can purchase neither the gifts of the Spirit nor the blessings of its companionship by our dedicated obedience. Obedience is not a kind of currency with which we purchase blessings from the Lord and it certainly is not the medium by which we can purchase eternal life. It brings us to the gates of the temple, but can take us no further along the Way. When Israel was obedient they brought their offerings to the temple, but their obedience would have been of little consequence had it not been followed by their sacrifice. So it is with us. We come to the doors of the temple through obedience to the Saviour and to the apostles and prophets whom he has set to be our guides, and to the Holy Ghost who testifies of the correctness of eternal principles.

But, having come, we do not enter to learn obedience, but to learn love through sacrifice.

After that, it is not so much a question of obedience as it is a question of orientation–toward whom we look, with whom we walk. When we walked in darkness it was expedient that we listen and obey, but when obedience brought us to the light, it is expedient that we walk in that light, that our light, also, may be amplified.

As we enter the allegorical temple, the burden of our responsibility shifts. For when we walk in the light, the question is no longer whether we will obey, but why we wish to obey. So the governing principle shifts from simple obedience to the much more complex question of the law of one’s own being, and whether the obedience one chooses will enslave or make one free. It seems paradoxical that in the end we will discover there can be no freedom without obedience, but in this life’s beginning, obedience and freedom seem ill at ease with each other, and they remain so until obedience becomes a simple, unpretentious expression of charity.

Let me explain. If one is free to choose, to do, and to be, three factors must be present. Both the first and the second are integrity. The first is that one must not be for sell, for as soon as another can discover and supply the price, one finds himself in the slave market where he is bought and sold. Second, one must not be afraid, for as soon as another can discover what causes one to fear, the other becomes the master of the body as well as the mind of the one who is intimidated. Even if one can be neither bribed nor intimidated he cannot be free if he does not know what to do. Integrity is not enough. The third factor is that one must have sufficient correct information to make a correct decision. Without such information one may be free to guess, but he cannot be free to choose.

If freedom is considered in that light, it seems virtually impossible for anyone in this world to be free. But freedom is possible, as the Saviour explained when he said simply, “You shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free. Sufficient truth is not available except within the testimony of Christ. Then we are free indeed, as Abinadi was free, or as the Prophet Joseph was free. Free to be oneself, to act in accordance with the laws of one’s own being, and to fulfill the covenants one made with the Father at the Council. If one is free to do that, one is free indeed.

As far as I can tell, “freedom,” as I have just described it, and “having a broken heart” mean precisely the same thing. Let me tell you why I think that is true, and why it is so important.

The Hebrew word translated “broken” means shattered–like an earthen pot which tips off a shelf, falls to the ground and shatters so there is nothing left which can be called a pot. So what is a broken heart? It is the now shattered motives, both rational and emotional, with which I once drove my Self, and with which I once justified all my attitudes and actions. It is a shattering of all of my old contrivances to possess and to become. And that breaking doesn’t come easily. And when it comes, it isn’t painless. It is the product of becoming acutely aware of the law of one’s own being, and then of sincere repentance, removing from oneself every inclination which is in violation of that law.. One must turn away from sin, turn toward the Saviour, offer him our sins, let him take them, and let him purge the uncleanness from our souls.

The “turning” is the key. When the Way of our lives leads from motive to purpose, then on to advancement, then to power and recognition, we accumulate titles and regalia as we “become.” We deck our Selves with the evidence of our success and adorn our Selves in their robes and uniforms and masks. Then we secret our BEing within, defining and redefining our “Self” by the clothes and hats we wear. As we seek security by hiding behind the power and glory of our pretended Self, its regalia becomes like a stiff and bristly hide. We wear it to cover our vulnerability to want and to fear. But the vulnerability is still there and it is very real. It is the masks and the regalia which are the fictions–like a false god whose only existence is enshrined in our own insistence that we want to worship it. We pile on the robes of our dignities until we are so obscured by them that we sometimes cannot even find ourselves under the weight of all that we have defined as our Selves..

These masks, robes, and regalia with which one seeks to cover his vulnerability are part of what is called the “vain imaginations of the heart.” I think it is that imagination which must be broken, shattered, until it falls about our feet, leaving us utterly exposed, wholly naked, and entirely vulnerable before the Lord.

May I tell you a short story.

One day I dropped in on my daughter Dawn and her family. Little two-year-old Chelsea was in the tub having a bath. She heard my voice and came running into the living room to meet me. “Grandpa,” she shouted, all dripping wet, holding out her arms, wanting to be picked up and hugged. As I held her, wetness and all, I understood what it means to be like a little child in the Kingdom of God. The little girl in my arms was completely, simply, Chelsea. She needed no clothing to define who she was. At that moment she was only herself; trusting, but not noticing she trusted; vulnerable, but unaware of her vulnerability because it did not concern her; loving, and finding fulfillment and identity in the moment of her giving her love. In her unabashed dripping-wetness Chelsea was wholly free to be herself–to express her love–to BE the expression of her love.

I suppose we are all like that. When we are stripped of all the masks and facades of the artificial needs and fears by which we define our Selves, then we may kneel naked, vulnerable, and unashamed before our loving Heavenly Father. When one is childlike in that nakedness, he is free. He knows and loves the voice of Him by whom he walks. Nothing can bribe him because in his Saviour all of his needs are satisfied. Nothing can threaten him because in the arms of his Saviour he can find no fear. He may not have all the information he needs all the time, but his Friend has, and one can always ask when one does not know. When one is naked in that way, one may begin to know as he is known and see as he is seen. Only when one is comfortable with that kind of nakedness may he be clothed in a “robe of righteousness” and become one who may “inherit the kingdom of God.”

I suspect when that happens, the question of one’s obedience will become moot because the question of his motive will have no practical meaning. Obedience will simply be one of the fruits of love, and his absolute obedience the simple expression of his absolute freedom.

If that, or something like that, is what it means to have a broken heart, then in that, as in all things, we may look to the Saviour as our guide and exemplar. “Be of good cheer,” he said, “for I have overcome the world” — then he let himself be taken to the Jewish and Roman courts where he was rejected, spat upon, and beaten; then to the cross where he suffered death. He was God; he didn’t have to put up with that. But by doing so he proved, as he said, he had “overcome the world”. I know the phrase means more than what I am about to write, but I suspect it means this also: He was free from all of the bribes or fears this world could throw against him. He knew the covenants he had made with his Father and he understood what he must do to fulfil those covenants. His permitting them to take him to Golgotha declared his freedom, and thus validated his sacrifice to all eternity.

Now, I ask, “What must I do? How can my sacrifice be in ‘similitude’ to his?” As I consider his sacrifice, I come to believe that I must do, in my weak and finite stumblings, what my Saviour did in his infinite power and love. Upon my cross I must sacrifice a broken heart and thereby overcome the world. If I can make that sacrifice, then I may begin to become prepared to sacrifice a contrite spirit also.
———————-

That brings us to the next question: What does “contrite spirit” mean, and how may I sacrifice that to the Lord?

The Oxford English Dictionary gives two definitions for “contrite,” the first is literal and the second figurative.

The figurative one suggests repentance in much the same way “broken heart” suggests repentance: That is, “Crushed or broken in spirit by a sense of sin, and so brought to complete penitence.” Similarly, it says “contrition” connotes “the condition of being bruised in heart; sorrow of affliction of mind for some fault or injury done; especially penitence for sin.”

While those ideas work well in the context of “a sacrifice of a broken heart and contrite spirit,” they don’t say much. If read that way, “broken heart” says all there is to say, and “contrite spirit” only says it again for emphasis. I still don’t much believe in redundancies, especially when it seems to leave an emptiness in the place where I would expect some truth to be. So I go back to the OED and look at the literal meaning.

The word “contrite” is derived from a Latin word, contritus, which is a compound of con meaning “together,” and terere, meaning “rub, triturate [grind to dust], bray [grind to powder], grind.” Therefore, OED says, the literal definition of “contrite” is to be “bruised, crushed; worn or broken by rubbing.” It adds that “contrition” means, “the action of rubbing of things together or against each other; grinding, pounding or bruising, so as to comminute [reduce to small particles] or pulverize.”So the literal meaning of contrite has to do with taking something large, then bruising it, beating it, grinding it, until it becomes something very small, like powder. In one important respect that is not the same as “broken.” In “broken” there is a necessary force which effects the breaking, but that force might be internal (such as being too hot, too cold, or too heavy) as well as external. However, in “contrite” the force must be external. Nothing can grind itself. In order to have a contrite spirit, there must be a grinder as well as a grinded.

The word “spirit” is wonderful. In Psalms, David wrote, “The Lord is nigh unto them that are of a broken heart; and saveth such as be of a contrite spirit.” (Psalms 34:18) In Strong I learn that the Hebrew word translated “spirit” means wind and breath, as in the phrase “breath of life.”

In the Doctrine and Covenants the Lord says, “Thou shalt offer a sacrifice unto the Lord thy God in righteousness, even that of a broken heart and a contrite spirit.” (D&C 59:8) For the meaning of that word “spirit” we go again to the Oxford English Dictionary: “The animating or vital principle in man, that which gives life to the physical.” I like that. What I think those two definitions mean to this discussion is that it doesn’t matter whether we are talking about the spirit person which inhabits the physical body and thereby gives it life, or whether we are talking about the aura of light which IS–which pervades, surrounds, and defines our person and personality. Either way, the word “spirit” means the essence of what we are: the thing which is the Individual, and which has been from the beginning of eternity and will continue until its end (having neither beginning nor end) It is that “spirit,” made “contrite,” which must now be sacrificed if one is to “inherit the kingdom of God.”

At first thought it seemed to me that after I had sacrificed a broken heart, there wouldn’t be much of me left. If all my masks, facades, and regalia were gone, then all that would be left is just my naked Self–the thing I am, my BEing. That’s a lot! It’s a thing wonderful and worthy to be placed upon the altar of God! Right? Hogwash! That Self of mine might be stripped of its pretended decorations, but it still knows how to be angry, contemptuous, Self-righteous and condescending. It may not be bribable for money or power, but it can still judge others with a wilful and crooked eye. My Self has become like Job was in his beginning: Upright, obedient, giving God the credit for all the wonderful things I am, and doing daily obeisance lest I or my children should become anything less than that. I sort of believe that when I get that way I probably could use troubles and comforters like the ones Job was blessed with, in order to discover that it is my precious sense of Self which now must be placed upon the sacrificial altar.

But how to do it? That’s not such a hard question because its answer is everywhere in the Scriptures. Even I know that. Most succinctly it is in the Sermon on the Mount and Moroni 7; most beautifully in the Book of Job and the Gospel of John.

Both Job and John write first of the preexistence, then bring us to this world. They walk us through the principles and the ordinances that take us to the veil and beyond, concluding, I believe, with the final sacrificial offering of a contrite spirit.Job’s experience before and at the veil is vividly described, but the sacrifice which followed is told so simply that it almost evades detection.

“Then Job answered the LORD, and said….I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear: but now mine eye seeth thee. Wherefore I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes….And the LORD turned the captivity of Job, when he prayed for his friends: also the LORD gave Job twice as much as he had before (Job 42:1,5,6,10).”

The same elements found in the conclusion of Job are also in John, but instead of only six words (“when he prayed for his friends”), John’s discussion of that principle consists of almost the entire last half of his Gospel, from the time Jesus reached behind the veil to bring Lazarus back into his presence, until the Saviour ascended to the presence of his own Father.

I believe that if one wishes to know the meaning of “contrite”–that is, to identify the grinders as

well as the grinded –the Gospel of John is the best place to look. I have supposed that one of John’s objectives may have been to teach us what our own ultimate sacrifice must be.

I can’t know, of course, but it occurs to me that may be the reason why the Gospel of John is the only gospel which does not contain an account of the Saviour’s experience on the Mount of Transfiguration or of his suffering in the Garden of Gethsemane. If John’s purpose was to walk us through the covenants and ordinances and say: “This is how the Saviour did it, so you will know how to do it too”–If that was his intent, he may have deliberately left out of his story the Saviour’s experiences which we could never replicate, even in our weak and time-bound way, but carefully described for us the kind of contrition which led to the Saviour’s final sacrifice and ultimate exaltation.

John is the only one of the four gospels which concludes the Saviour’s life by giving us the words of his discourse to his Apostles about love and unity, and of his great “High Priestly Prayer” which is our best key to understanding the meaning of his (and perhaps our own) ultimate and final sacrifice.

Somehow the notion of playing leap-frog through John to illustrate my point seems to me to be a sacrilege. If it seems so to you, too, pick up your Bible and read it in its entirety, but also please notice the parts I have called attention to.

Now Jesus loved Martha, and her sister, and Lazarus….Then when Mary was come where Jesus was, and saw him, she fell down at his feet, saying unto him, Lord, if thou hadst been here, my brother had not died….Jesus wept….he cried with a loud voice, Lazarus, come forth. And he that was dead came forth, bound hand and foot with graveclothes….Then gathered the chief priests and the Pharisees a council, and said, What do we? for this man doeth many miracles….Then from that day forth they took counsel together for to put him to death.

…took branches of palm trees, and went forth to meet him, and cried, Hosanna: Blessed is the King of Israel that cometh in the name of the Lord….The Pharisees therefore said among themselves, Perceive ye how ye prevail nothing? behold, the world is gone after him.

Jesus answered them, saying, The hour is come, that the Son of man should be glorified. Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit. He that loveth his life shall lose it; and he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal. Now is my soul troubled; and what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour: but for this cause came I unto this hour. Father, glorify thy name. Then came there a voice from heaven, saying, I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again….But though he had done so many miracles before them, yet they believed not on him…Nevertheless among the chief rulers also many believed on him; but because of the Pharisees they did not confess him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue: For they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God.

Now before the feast of the passover, when Jesus knew that his hour was come that he should depart out of this world unto the Father, having loved his own which were in the world, he loved them unto the end….So after he had washed their feet, and had taken his garments, and was set down again, he said unto them, Know ye what I have done to you? Ye call me Master and Lord: and ye say well; for so I am. If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also ought to wash one another’s feet. For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you….And after the sop Satan entered into him. Then said Jesus unto him, That thou doest, do quickly.

A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another….Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me…If ye love me, keep my commandments. And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever…He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him…If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.

As the Father hath loved me, so have I loved you: continue ye in my love. If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father’s commandments, and abide in his love. These things have I spoken unto you, that my joy might remain in you, and that your joy might be full. This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you. Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.

These things I command you, that ye love one another. If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you. If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you…They hated me without a cause (various passages throughout the Gospel of John).

Do you see in that what I see there: The Saviour is telling them that he and they are going to die, but their death is incidental to the sacrifice he requires of them, which is that they love one another, and with that same love, they must love all of His other children as well.

A contrite spirit is one which is bruised and ground until only light/love is left. And it is that light/love which, in the end, we must place upon the altar of God. The first consequence of making that sacrifice would be a unity of spirit which only those “of a celestial glory” could experience. When that idea occurred to me, the Saviour’s prayer in John 17 took on a new and beautiful meaning:

These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee: As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him. And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent. I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do. And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was. I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word. Now they have known that all things whatsoever thou hast given me are of thee. For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me. I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine. And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them. And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.  While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled. And now come I to thee; and these things I speak in the world, that they might have my joy fulfilled in themselves. I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil. They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth. As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world. And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth. Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me. Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world. O righteous Father, the world hath not known thee: but I have known thee, and these have known that thou hast sent me. And I have declared unto them thy name, and will declare it: that the love wherewith thou hast loved me may be in them, and I in them (John 17).

To be one they must BE charity in a this-world environment where charity is alien and love is bruised, despised, hated. Where the evil one who asserts the claim that hie is “the god of this world” and his servants try to grind upon those who have charity and make them as dust–an objective diametrically opposed to God’s. At the conclusion of his beautiful discourse to the Twelve, and immediately before he began his “High Priestly Prayer” the Saviour said to his Apostles,

33  These things I have spoken to you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world (John 16:33).

That is important, in fact, it may be the key to understanding everything else he said then. As, when one sacrifices a broken heart he obtains freedom in its place, so, when one sacrifices a contrite spirit, what he gets in its place is peace. If we are to have freedom we must sacrifice everything which would make us unfree. If we are to have peace we must sacrifice all of ourSelves which is alien to peace, leaving no part of our Selves except THAT WE LOVE.

36  Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
37  Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
38  This is the first and great commandment.
39  And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
40  On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. (Matthew 22:36-40)

27  Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid. (John 14:27)

My musing on these ideas has brought me to the angels’ announcement of the Saviour’s birth: “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.”

As I understand it, there are, in the alien world in which I live, only two sacrifices which I can make which will be acceptable to the Lord. The first, under the careful tutelage of the Holy Ghost, is to let my heart be broken–to permit my Saviour’s love to shatter every pretended and acquired criterion by which I define mySelf: my masks, facades, ambitions; and the regalia with which I adorn mySelf. I can do that only if I know the voice of my Shepherd; and if I know what has value and what does not, and know that–as there are more for me than there can ever be against me–I need never be for sale and I need never be afraid. My Saviour was stripped of all he had until there was only one decision left to be made: “Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.” After having forsaken all else his sacrifice was culminated upon the cross. My sacrifice of a broken heart must be no less: To do only the will of the Father, in the way I live, and the way I die.

The second sacrifice, contrite spirit, is all of me that’s left over after I have sacrificed a broken heart. I understand that in this sacrifice my Self must not be discarded in the way its regalia was in the previous sacrifice, but that Self must be made clean and pure, as through a refiner’s fire. It must be bruised and beaten (“persecuted” is one of the words used in the Beatitudes) until it is small like a grain of salt, then pulverized until there is nothing left of its substance except the pure light/love from which it was created, until it is in perfect accord with the law of my own being.

Like my Saviour, who, within this environment of utter rejection, extended himself from eternity to eternity, conquering death and hell by the power of his love, I must do the same: not from eternity to eternity, but only within the limits of the tiny sphere of the light which is me. In this world whose god is not the Lord, I must lay aside all evil, learn to cherish good until I have tasted of the Saviour’s love. Having tasted, and thus having known, I must love others as he loves me, that I may become holy, without spot, immersed and clothed in the glory of his light.

Ezekiel understood all that, and he wrote it very well:

24  For I will take you from among the heathen, and gather you out of all countries, and will bring you into your own land.
25  Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you.
26  A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.
27  And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.
28  And ye shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers; and ye shall be my people, and I will be your God.
29  I will also save you from all your uncleannesses…(Ezekiel 36:24-28).

6  Wherefore, [Father Lehi might have added] redemption cometh in and through the Holy Messiah; for he is full of grace and truth.
7  Behold, he offereth himself a sacrifice for sin, to answer the ends of the law, unto all those who have a broken heart and a contrite spirit; and unto none else can the ends of the law be answered (2 Nephi 2:6-7).

But I am weak of heart and feeble of spirit, and am not sufficient to come unto Christ without a great deal of practical help. That help was guaranteed to me when Adam and Eve wisely and courageously partook of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Their heritage to me was the promise to me that I could, by rich experience, learn how to offer my own sacrifice which will, by the Lord’s grace, bring me home to him.

You will recall that “Contrite” means to rub together, to grind into something very small. Well, I can’t grind myself, I need some grinders to assist me, or I cannot become little like dust. I can only be there, someone else has to do the grinding. Knowing that need, my Heavenly Father has, in his kindness, provided me with three kinds of “grinders”

The first, of course is the Holy Ghost which teaches me, and leads me in and out of all sorts of bruising experiences.

The second are my “enemies” (whom I must learn to love) who knock me about and rub off my roughest edges. They are both devils and people, whoever seeks to stand between me and the fulfillment of my covenants with my Heavenly Father. Among my “enemies” are also the otherwise “nice guys” whose actions give me the excuse to feel upset, angry, or vindictive. The world seems to be so well supplied with these sorts of “enemies” that my happening upon them is an every day occurrence. They are important, but so plentiful that I’m afraid I don’t think of them as being very precious.

The third are precious–they are very precious in deed! They are my friends who let me practice on them, and who don’t get upset when I don’t get it right. It is they who teach me the meaning of charity. I believe the greatest kindness a friend can do for me is not to love me in return, but to permit me to love him. How else could I ever learn, by experience, the unbounded joy which charity can bring. It would be jolly hard to learn anything about love if I had no dear friends whom I could love. Thank you for being that kind of friends.

PART 2

Wherefore, redemption cometh in and through the Holy Messiah; for he is full of grace and truth.

Behold, he offereth himself a sacrifice for sin, to answer the ends of the law, unto all those who have a broken heart and a contrite spirit; and unto none else can the ends of the law be answered (2 Nephi 2:6-7).

The reason that is so is explained in Third Nephi where the Saviour says:

19  And ye shall offer up unto me no more the shedding of blood; yea, your sacrifices and your burnt offerings shall be done away, for I will accept none of your sacrifices and your burnt offerings.
20  And ye shall offer for a sacrifice unto me a broken heart and a contrite spirit.
21  And whoso cometh unto me with a broken heart and a contrite spirit, him will I baptize with fire and with the Holy Ghost… (3 Nephi 9:19-21).

Last week I said something about a meaning of a broken heart. This week I wish review that, then continue with a comment about the nature of a contrite spirit.

Consider a clay pot, tall and beautifully turned, slender at the bottom and top, gentle and gracious in its slope, and movement. It sits, not too precariously on a shelf, but the shelf is not quite true and slopes a bit, or the pot’s bottom is not quite flat or smooth, and its a bit top-heavy. A door slams too hard. A stiff wind blows through an open window, or someone lifts his head and bumps the shelf. One can’t actually assert that there were no external force which caused the pot to fall; one can’t say that the pot fell all by itself without assistance. But neither can one say that it was entirely the fault of the door, or the wind, or the careless head. If the pot had had a larger or flatter base, or a lower center of gravity, or had not been so heavy, it would not have fallen, and it would not now lie broken upon the floor, no longer distinguishable as a pot.

A “broken heart” is like that. There is an environment in which one lives, of course, and that environment effects what the “heart” does. But the environment is not sufficient to break the heart. The breaking is a result of the heart’s response to the environment, but also a consequence of its own nature, the way it sits on the shelf. At the risk of carrying the simile too far, let me just say that in the phrase, “a broken heart and contrite spirit,” breaking is something that the heart does of its own volition, external pressures do not force it to break.

As I pointed out last week, to have a broken heart is to strip oneself of the masks and regalia with which one wished to re-define oneself. To do that successful, one must do it alone. One may receive and accept assistance from others, but he may also resist and refuse the help. The “other” is never the major factor in one’s change. If one is to have his heart broken, it must happen within oneself, by oneself (with the help of the Spirit), and in anticipation of the fulfillment of Ezekiel’s promise:

36  A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. (Ezekiel 36:26, see also, 11:19 and 18:31)

As I understand it, our Father in Heaven requires from each of us to make the same kind of sacrifice as the Saviour made — not anything like the same in power or magnitude, but in similitude. It would be absurd to suggest that one’s sacrifice might have the same infinite and eternal consequences as the Saviour’s, but it is not absurd to suggest that the sacrifice which is expected of me, must be as nearly like the Saviour’s as I am able to make it. By that I mean that just as the Saviour sacrificed all that he had and was, so I must also. Otherwise, my sacrifice will not be in similitude to his. On the cross he was mocked, despised, and (in this world’s terms) reduced to nothing. This he did in fulfilment of the covenants he had made with his Father. With a broken heart we do the same. Perhaps one’s covenant with the Father did not require that one relinquish all the power, wealth, and reputation one gathers to himself in this world, but it does require that he be willing to do so, and that he does not try to define and preserve his Self by the things which he will leave behind when he goes into the grave. The Saviour who hung upon that cross was the Great God of Heaven, The Creator of All Things, the Father and King of Israel. Jesus’s being stripped, mocked, and crucified did not alter who and what he was. But, in contrast, the Jewish High Priest who ordered the Saviour’s death, who was clothed in the majesty and power of his worldly office and wealth, was not exalted by his dress, titles, or recognitions. He was neither god nor king, nor, as for as I can tell, will he be heir to either.

So we, like the Saviour, must remove all our regalia, and be as naked before God as Christ was on the cross. Then we may be defined in accordance to the law of our own being, and thus, may sacrifice that stripped and “broken heart” upon the altar of God.

Ezekiel wrote of a “new heart” and a “new spirit;” the Saviour spoke of a “broken heart and contrite spirit.” I suspect they are the same. To receive a broken/new heart one must be changed from within. That is, the force which causes the change must come from within. But the opposite is true with a new/contrite spirit. In that case, the cause of change must come from without.

That brings us to the next question: What does “contrite spirit” mean, and how may one sacrifice it “in similitude” of the sacrifice of the Son, to the Father?

The Oxford English Dictionary gives two definitions for “contrite,” the first is literal and the second figurative.

The figurative one suggests repentance in much the same way “broken heart” suggests repentance: That is, “Crushed or broken in spirit by a sense of sin, and so brought to complete penitence.” Similarly, it says “contrition” connotes “the condition of being bruised in heart; sorrow of affliction of mind for some fault or injury done; especially penitence for sin.”

While those ideas work well in the context of “a sacrifice of a broken heart and contrite spirit,” they don’t say much. If read that way, “broken heart” says all there is to say, and “contrite spirit” only says the same thing a second time. I still don’t much believe in redundancies, especially when the second leaves an emptiness in the place where I would expect some truth to be. So I go back to the OED and look at the literal meaning.

The word “contrite” is derived from a Latin word, contritus, which is a compound of con meaning “together,” and terere, meaning “rub, triturate [grind to dust], bray [grind to powder], grind.” Therefore, OED says, the meaning of “contrite” is to be “bruised, crushed; worn or broken by rubbing.” It adds that “contrition” means, “the action of rubbing of things together or against each other; grinding, pounding or bruising, so as to comminute [reduce to small particles] or pulverize.”

So the literal meaning of contrite has to do with taking something large, then bruising it, beating it, grinding it, until it becomes something as small as dust or powder. In one important respect that is not the same as “broken.” In “broken” there is one or a combination of forces which cause the breaking, but that impetus is largely within oneself. However, in “contrite” that force is always and must always be, external. Nothing can grind itself to dust. In order to become dust there must be something else which does the grinding. So it is with a “contrite spirit.” The contrition comes from forces outside oneself.

The word “spirit” is wonderful. It means exactly what one would expect it to mean. In Psalms, David wrote, “The LORD is nigh unto them that are of a broken heart; and saveth such as be of a contrite spirit.” (Psalms 34:18) For the meaning of the Hebrew word translated “spirit” we go to Strong and learn that the word means wind or breath, as in the phrase “breath of life.”

In the Doctrine and Covenants the Lord says, “Thou shalt offer a sacrifice unto the Lord thy God in righteousness, even that of a broken heart and a contrite spirit.” (D&C 59:8) That’s simple English, so we can go to back to the OED and read, “The animating or vital principle in man, that which gives life to the physical.” I like that. What I think those two definitions mean to our discussion is that it does not matter whether we are talking about the “spirit” as the spirit person who inhabits the physical body and thereby gives it life; or whether we are talking about the aura of light which IS–which pervades, surrounds, and defines our person and personality. Either way, the word “spirit” means the essence of what one is: the thing which is the Individual, and which has been from the beginning of eternity, and will continue to be forever. It is that “spirit,” made “contrite,” which one must sacrifice if one is to “inherit the kingdom of God.”

I think it is important to notice that it is not “the spirit” which is to be sacrificed. Rather it is a “contrite spirit.” That is, it is the ground down, powered remains of one’s spirit which must be placed upon the sacrificial altar .

When I first considered what it meant to sacrifice a broken heart, to strip myself of all my artificial masks, and pretended glories, and the “vain imaginations of the heart;” I thought, “Surely, that is all there is!” Such a sacrifice leaves nothing except one’s naked Self — what one really is, one’s Being, a thing now made pure and beautiful. That’s a lot! It’s all of me. It’s a thing wonderful and worthy to be placed upon the altar of God! Right?

Hogwash!

That Self might be stripped of its pretended decorations, but it still knows how to be angry, contemptuous, Self-righteous and condescending. It may not be bribable for money or power, but it can still judge others with a wilful and crooked eye. This Self has become like Job was in his beginning: Upright, obedient, giving God the credit for all the wonderful things of life, and doing daily obeisance lest he or his children should unwittingly do something wrong. When one gets to such a high state of perfection, then one really needs troubles and comforters somewhat like the kind Job was blessed with. Otherwise how is one to discover that it is his precious sense of his righteous Self which now must be ground to dust before it can be placed upon the sacrificial altar.

But how to do it? That’s not such a hard question because its answer is everywhere in the Scriptures, most succinctly it is in the Sermon on the Mount and Moroni 7; most beautifully in the Book of Job and the Gospel of John. Both Job and John write first of the preexistence, then bring us to this world, then walk us through the principles and the ordinances which take us to the veil and beyond. The three synoptic gospels tell of Gethsemane and the Saviour’s sacrifice there, but the Gospel of John replaces that part of the Saviour’s story by his walk with his Apostles when he taught them to love one another and by his prayer that they would always be one.

The Saviour is explaining to the Twelve that he and they were going to be put to death, but their death is incidental in comparison to the real sacrifice he require of them, which was that they love one another — but not just each other — they must love everyone else as well. To be one they must BE charity. Another way of saying that is that they must live the Law of Consecration. They must be the very personification of charity, even in the this-world environment where charity is alien and love is bruised, despised, and hated.

Job was taught the same thing. His experience before and at the veil is vividly described, but the sacrifice which followed is told so simply that it almost evades detection.

Then Job answered the LORD, and said….I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear: but now mine eye seeth thee. Wherefore I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes….And the LORD turned the captivity of Job, when he prayed for his friends: also the LORD gave Job twice as much as he had before. (Job 42:1,5,6,10)

The same elements found in the conclusion of John are also in Job, but while John’s discussion of that principle expands to almost the entire last half of his gospel, from the time Jesus reached behind the veil to bring Lazarus back into his presence, until the Saviour ascended to the throne of his Father, in Job it consists of only six words (“when he prayed for his friends”),

What does that have to do with contrite? Everything. You will recall that “Contrite” means to rub together, to grind into something very small. Well, I can’t grind myself, I need some grinders to assist me, or I cannot become little like dust. Someone else has to do the grinding. Knowing that, my Heavenly Father has, in his kindness, provided me with three kinds of others who can grind away at my pride.

The first, of course, is the Holy Ghost which teaches me, lets me in and leads me out of all sorts of bruising experiences.

The second are my “enemies” (whom I must learn to love) who knock me about and rub off my roughest edges. They are both devils and people, whoever seeks to stand between me and the fulfillment of my covenants with my Heavenly Father. Among my “enemies” are those whose actions give me the excuse to feel upset, angry, or vindictive. The world seems to be so well supplied with these sorts of “enemies” that my happening upon them is an every day occurrence. They are important, but so plentiful that I’m afraid I don’t think of them as being very precious.

The third are precious in my eyes–they are very precious in deed! They are my friends who let me practice on them, and who don’t get upset when I don’t get it right. It is they who teach me the meaning of charity. I believe the greatest kindness a friend can do for me is not to love me in return, but to permit me to love him. How else could I ever learn, by experience, the unbounded joy which charity can bring. It would be jolly hard to learn anything about love if I had no dear friends whom I could love. (Thank you each for being that kind of friend.)

A contrite spirit is one which is bruised and ground until only love/light is left. And it is that love/light which, in the end, we must place upon the altar of God. The first consequence of making that sacrifice is the oneness the Saviour spoke about, a unity of spirit which only those of a celestial nature can experience.

Like my Saviour, who, within this environment of utter rejection, extended himself from eternity to eternity, conquering death and hell by the power of his love, I must do the same: not from eternity to eternity, but only within the limits of the tiny sphere of the light which is me. In this world whose god is not the Lord, I must lay aside all evil, learn to cherish good until I have tasted of the Saviour’s love. Having tasted, and thus having known, I must love others as he loves me, that I may become holy, without spot, immersed and clothed in the glory of his light, that I might have peace.

So the sum of it is this: As when one sacrifices a broken heart he obtains freedom in its place, so, when one sacrifices a contrite spirit, what he gets in its place is peace. If one is to have freedom, one must break everything which would make himself unfree. And, if one is to have peace he must have grinded away every part of him which is alien to peace, leaving no part remaining except charity. That person of charity is what one places, as an peace offering, upon the altar of his God. And the offering is acceptable.

2 Nephi 2:5, 7, 26 — LeGrand Baker — knowing good from evil

I would like to try to address Devan Barker’s question about the nature of the eternal “law,” but before I do, I would like to make a brief comment about another of his questions.

Devan wrote:

I look around and I see very few people who seem to know good from evil or who seem to have had the law given them. In fact, I manage to like a lot of people that I might not otherwise like by assigning their acts to ignorance rather than malice. What am I missing?

Devan, you are missing what you have always missed: a narrow little mind which would make you judgmental and overly critical. Keep missing it. It’s that quality in you that is one of the reasons I love you so much.

Devan added this quote to his question:

5  And men are instructed sufficiently that they know good from evil. And the law is given unto men (2 Nephi 2:5).

So his question is, whether all (a word Lehi did not include) men are instructed sufficiently to know good from evil.

It is true that the conscience teaches one to do what is right, but it also seems true that one’s culture teaches the conscience what “right” is. So, it appears, the conscience teaches one to do good, but only within the parameters of what his culture defines as “good.” Sometimes cultures get it all wrong. The flood covered the earth because the people sought to do evil continually. Nephi taught his brothers that the reason the Israelites were permitted to supplant the Canaanites was because that entire culture had turned from doing good. Presumably that means, in both cases, that a child reared in those cultures could not have the opportunity to know good, so could not learn in this life to judge between good and evil. Their situation was apparently extreme, but not unique; other peoples have been destroyed for the same reason. And, I suspect, in every one instance there was a Jeremiah or an Abinadi.

Most ancient religions which were contemporary with Lehi had no theological sense of good and evil. Many Babylonian prayers have been found and translated from cuneiform tablets, but none speak of sorrow for sin, or of the idea of repentance. What the Babylonians prayed for, instead of forgiveness, was that Marduk would divert the consequence of their inappropriate actions so they won’t get punished. That is not the same as repentance.

We are in a world like theirs. In America, the most pervasive legacy of the 60’s revolution is that “every man did that which was right in his own eyes.” During and after that revolution “right”

and “wrong” came to mean “politically correct” or “politically incorrect.” The intelligentsia of the revolution declared that all standards of excellence in political, Constitutional, and religious matters were archaic relics of Victorian morality. They were said to be the arbitrary and irrelevant remnants of a less enlightened age, and ought to be surgically removed from our culture. The effectiveness of their argument has left many people, especially the better educated, with a keen sense of “right and wrong” in terms of social, ecological, and ethical questions; but little sense of “good and evil” as the scriptures would define them.

Nonetheless, in our world there is enough left of the heritage of religious “goodness” that when missionaries talk to people, the Holy Ghost can teach them correct principles. Then, when they are baptized that same Spirit can teach them further, so they can truly know to cherish the good. Thus, knowing good from evil is available in spite of the setbacks of their cultural background.

In the meantime, we appreciate the goodness that is inherently theirs. We, and the church, and its missionary system survive because we live under the umbrella of the fundamental moral sense of the majority of people whose basic “goodness,” honor, and fair play protect us from persecution and give us the right to teach whomever will listen. I truly appreciate those good people and if I have written anything here which suggests otherwise, I did not intend it to be read that way.