LeGrand L. Baker

3 Nephi 13:1-4

1 Verily, verily, I say that I would that ye should do alms unto the poor; but take heed that ye do not your alms before men to be seen of them; otherwise ye have no reward of your Father who is in heaven.
2 Therefore, when ye shall do your alms do not sound a trumpet before you, as will hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, they have their reward.
3 But when thou doest alms let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth;
4 That thine alms may be in secret; and thy Father who seeth in secret, himself shall reward thee openly.

When the Lord introduced the law of consecration to the Church in Missouri, its object was to enable needy Saints to become part of a prosperous community. Two main factors caused the experiment to fail. The first was that the “old citizens” (the ones that were there before the Mormons arrived) wanted to get possession of the improved lands without paying for the improvements. The second was that there were contentions among the Mormons. Even some of the leaders (like Oliver Cowdery and the Whitmers) were unwilling to share the advantages of property. The combined result was the tragic forced expulsion of the Saints from Missouri.

One of the things the experiment forcefully demonstrated was that we cannot make a Zion community by declaring it to be such, then opening it up to non-Zion type people and expecting them to live the law of consecration. Rather, Zion is a community must be made up of people who are already living the law of consecration.

As I understand it, the Church is now (and probably has always been) made up of three basic types of people: (1) Non-Zion people who are primarily concerned about what they perceive to be their own needs. (2) Those who are seeking to become a Zion people, who recognize what is really important and are personally trying to learn how to live the law of consecration. (3) People who are Zion, who quietly go about doing good because they recognize others’ needs. People in this last group are often the most difficult to identify because they would just as soon no one noticed the good they do.

The Beatitude that brings us to Zion{1} reads, “And blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy,” and that is the way it must be. Everyone has needs and everyone has the ability to help someone.

A good way to understand the law of consecration is to liken it to the ancient temple blessings of priesthood and sacral kingship. Neither are primarily about giving or receiving. In their simplest forms, both are only a functional acknowledgment of truth—of reality. In each, there is nothing about either giving or receiving that implies subservience, superiority, or indebtedness. They are only about acknowledging and filling honest needs. The need may cost the giver his substance, his time, or a simple act of kindness, but what its cost is only partly determined by the generosity of the giver: it is always— sometimes only— determined by the needs of the recipient. Here are some examples:

(1) A family with the means learns that a single mom’s car just died a permanent death. The family conclude in council that they can afford to give her a workable car. The father goes to the bishop, tells him how much he can afford, and asks him to get with a mechanic and the single mom and buy her another car— nothing too expensive, but adequate for her needs.

(2) That mom has a next door neighbor who can’t do yard work any more. The single mom and her teenage children take it upon themselves to mow the widow’s lawn and help her keep down the weeds.

(3) The widow likes to sit in the park and watch the children play. If a child is hurt, or is picked on, she invites the child to come and sit on the bench beside her. Then she listens. A hug may be appropriate, and she always just happens to have some cookies that she can share.

As I understand it, that is what the law of consecration is. It is giving when there is a need and when one has the means to satisfy the need. In the three examples, there is no difference between the car, the lawn mowing, and the hug with cookies. Each answers the legitimate need of the recipient, and each is within the resources of the giver.

There are at least two psalms, that were enacted during the ancient Israelite Feast of Tabernacles temple drama, that represented events that took place in the Council in Heaven. One of those is Psalm 82. Its first verse reads: “God [Elohim] standeth in the congregation of the mighty [Council in Heaven]; he judgeth among the gods.” The rest of the psalm are the words spoken by the Father to the members of the Council. It appears to be instructions about how they are to perform their assignments when they come to this earth and fits perfectly within the text of Abraham 3:23 where God makes assignments to the members of the Council. The instructions he gives in Psalm 82 can easily be recognized as the law of consecration. {2}

If that is correct, then our covenants to keep the law of consecration predates our being born into this world by a very, very long time.
————————————————–

ENDNOTES

{1} The Beatitudes read:
. 7 And blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy.
. 8 And blessed are all the pure in heart, for they shall see God (3 Nephi 12:7-8).
And the definition is:
. 21 Therefore, verily, thus saith the Lord, let Zion rejoice, for this is Zion—THE PURE IN HEART; therefore, let Zion rejoice, while all the wicked shall mourn (D&C 97:21).

{2} For a discussion of Psalm 82 and its connection with the Council in Heaven see Who Ascend into the Hill of the Lord. “Act 1, Scene 1: The Council in Heaven,” p. 159
.       “Pssalm 82, The Father’s Instructions to the Council,” p. 162
.        “Psalm 82: Instruction and Covenant,” p. 165- 74

You can download, free, all or any portion of the book from this website. It is located under “Published Books.”

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

3 Nephi 12:46-48
46 Therefore those things which were of old time, which were under the law, in me are all fulfilled.
47 Old things are done away, and all things have become new.
48 Therefore I would that ye should be perfect even as I, or your Father who is in heaven is perfect.

The old law that the Savior fulfilled was based on obedience in performances. That is, the Law was a catalog of things one must do and things one must not do. The new law eliminated almost all of the regulations and focused on personal integrity. Under the new law, is not conforming to cultural norms. Rather, obedience is a natural byproduct of knowing the doctrine.

A quick review of what the Savior had taught, beginning with what he said when he first spoke to the Nephites when they were enshrouded in darkness and continuing to this point in his sermon, leaves us amazed at the simplicity, forthrightness, and clarity of the new law. The Savior had given step by step instructions about how the could begin to fulfill his command that they become perfect: (If the following quick review of the of the principles taught by the Savior seems to ask more questions than it answers, you will find a careful discussion of each verse in my posts of the past weeks.)

The Savior’s words in 3 Nephi began with a lament for the destruction that had come upon those whose had not obeyed (3 Nephi 9:1-13), and he commends those who have obeyed (3 Nephi 9:14-18).

He instructed them about changes in the law of sacrifice (3 Nephi 9:19-22).

He fulfilled the promise that he would come to the earth, fulfill the law of Moses and bring the fullness of the gospel (3 Nephi 11:7-12).

They touched his side, his hands, and his feet as a testimony of the power of his love and the reality of the Atonement (3 Nephi 11:13-18).

He established his church, and gave Twelve authority over it (3 Nephi 11:18-41).

In the Beatitudes, he reviewed all of the principles and ordinances that are requisite to eternal life.

3 Nephi 12:1 — “Give heed to the words of the Twelve”
3 Nephi 12:2 — First principles (be visited by the Holy Ghost)
3 Nephi 12:3 — Endowment for the living
3 Nephi 12:4 — Endowment for the dead
3 Nephi 12:5 — Keep the covenants you made at the Council in Heaven
3 Nephi 12:6 — Hunger and thirst after priesthood and temple things and be filled with the Holy Ghost
3 Nephi 12:7 — How to be a priest and sacral king – merciful shall receive mercy
3 Nephi 12:8 — Zion (pure in heart) shall see God
3 Nephi 12:9 — Peacemakers called “children of God”
3 Nephi 12:10-12 — Persecution follows
3 Nephi 12:13 — Missionary work
3 Nephi 12:14-16 — A light — menorah among the people in the temple

The law of the gospel  (3 Nephi 12:21-24)
Chastity  (3 Nephi 12:27-32)
Truth in keeping covenants  (3 Nephi 12:33-37)

All that is preliminary to the Savior’s next instruction which was how to live the law of consecration.

The perfection the Savior was asking the Nephites to achieve was not about meeting a universal standard of obedience, but rather it was about each individual’s being absolutely true to the eternal law of his own being.

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

3 Nephi 12:33-37

33 And again it is written, thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths;
34 But verily, verily, I say unto you, swear not at all; neither by heaven, for it is God’s throne;
35 Nor by the earth, for it is his footstool;
36 Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair black or white;
37 But let your communication be Yea, yea; Nay, nay; for whatsoever cometh of more than these is evil.

As humans, we do not live in a world of absolute truthfulness, and that is not what the Savior was expecting of us. For example, when one’s options are between speaking kindness and frankness, kindness almost always needs the greater weight. When a lady asks if you like her new hairdo, there is only one appropriate answer, and, whatever you might think, that answer should never sound like: “Ouch! It makes you look like an unkept sheep dog!”

But that is not what the Savior was talking about. He is talking about lies whose intent is to deceive, to hurt, or to manipulate. His meaning is made clear in other places in other scriptures. For instance, when speaking of those who belong in the telestial glory, the Prophet Joseph wrote: “These are they who are liars, and sorcerers, and adulterers, and whoremongers, and whosoever loves and makes a lie (D&C 76:103).” Nephi’s brother Jacob said it more succinctly: “Wo unto the liar, for he shall be thrust down to hell (2 Nephi 9:34).” (There is no problem in the meaning of “hell” there. In the Book of Mormon the prophets see only two eternal options: either that one will be where God is, or one will be where God is not.)

To “forswear” means to swear falsely or to perjure oneself. In some cultures it is the norm for a person to give oneself credibility by evoking the credibility of some greater power. For example, Nephi tells us:

32 And it came to pass that I spake with him [Zoram], that if he would hearken unto my words, as the Lord liveth, and as I live, even so that if he would hearken unto our words, we would spare his life.
33 And I spake unto him, even with an oath, that he need not fear; that he should be a free man like unto us if he would go down in the wilderness with us (1 Nephi 4:32-33).

In our legal system, truthfulness in court is made by an oath. Even the American Constitution acknowledges the validity of this practice. It says of the President of the United States:

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States (Article 2, Section 1).”

There was a reason the phrase “or affirm” is included: Quakers took the New Testament admonition very seriously and would not swear a oath, even in court, even though their refusal might be used against them. So in order to not preclude a Quaker from becoming president, the option of not swearing an oath was included in the Constitution.

The Savior’s injunction, “But let your communication be Yea, yea; Nay, nay; for whatsoever cometh of more than these is evil,” probably has little to do with legal forms, but rather is about casual, flippant or perverse oath taking. Shakespeare echoed the Savior’s sentiment in one of his most beautiful loving scenes:

Romeo:        Lady, by yonder blessed moon I swear
.                     That tips with silver all these fruit-tree tops—
Juliet:          O, swear not by the moon , the inconstant moon,
.                    That monthly changes in her circled orb,
.                    Lest that thy love prove likewise variable.
Romeo:       What shall I swear by?
Juliet:          Do not swear at all;
.                    Or, if thou wilt, swear by thy gracious self,
.                    Which is the god of my idolatry,
.                   And I’ll believe thee. (Romeo and Juliet, Act 2, Scene 2)

A person of integrity does not need to decorate one’s words with meaningless assertions of honesty. The question, always, is not “What does he say?” but rather, “Why does he say it?” That is, “Is there is no gap between what he says, what he does, and the motive for which he does it.” And there’s the rub: unfortunately even the truth may be a lie.

Macbeth, who had believed the deceiving witches, learns too late the meaning of their doublespeak. As he finally confronts his own reality, he laments:

And be these juggling fiends no more believed,
That palter with us in a double sense;
That keep the word of promise to our ear,
And break it to our hope. (Macbeth, Act 5, Scene 8).

We are caught in this world of deceptions. We must not only pay attention to who tells the truth, but we must also be able to discern what kind of truth they tell.

There is a theme that runs as an undercurrent throughout the Savior’s entire sermon. It is that one must be true to the law of one’s eternal self. That theme comes very near the surface in these verses that conclude, “But let your communication be Yea, yea; Nay, nay.” As the revelation says about Hyrum Smith: “for I, the Lord, love him because of the integrity of his heart, and because he loveth that which is right before me (D&C 124:15).

Probably the most quoted lines in any of Shakespeare’s plays are these spoken by Polonius to his son Laertes.

This above all: to thine ownself be true,
And it must follow, as the night the day,
Thou canst not then be false to any man (Hamlet, Act 1, Scene 3).

Hidden within the depth of those words is, for each of us, the greatest mystery of the universe. The mystery is the answer to the question: “Who/what am I?” That mystery will ever be enshrouded in darkness until one can be honest enough with oneself to answer the question: “Who am I just now?” To answer that question we return to the Savior’s command: “But let your communication [with your Self] be Yea, yea; Nay, nay. ” It sounds easy, but in a world that imposes its own identities upon us, sometimes it is the most difficult thing of all. However, until we can do that, the answer to the great mystery will remain enshrouded in the darkness of self-indulgence, self-denial, or self-disdain.

An equally acceptable way of understanding our verses is that the Savior was talking about making and keeping covenants. Covenants are the face of integrity, and are not to be taken lightly. Virtually every facet of the gospel is founded on covenants—on the covenants the Savior and his Father have made with us—and the covenants we make with them and each other.

In the conversation between Jehovah and the brother of Jared, the latter “answered: Yea, Lord, I know that thou speakest the truth, for thou art a God of truth, and canst not lie (Ether 3:12). That is an extraordinary concept. In this world we deal with no one but little children about whom we can say “he cannot lie.” Yet, whether in this world or the spirit world to follow, until we can follow the Savior’s admonition to just speak only the truth, it is doubtful that we could be comfortable in the presence of a God who “cannot lie.”

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

3 Nephi 12:27-32

27 Behold, it is written by them of old time, that thou shalt not commit adultery;
28 But I say unto you, that whosoever looketh on a woman, to lust after her, hath committed adultery already in his heart.
29 Behold, I give unto you a commandment, that ye suffer none of these things to enter into your heart;
30 For it is better that ye should deny yourselves of these things, wherein ye will take up your cross, than that ye should be cast into hell.
31 It hath been written, that whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement.
32 Verily, verily, I say unto you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery; and whoso shall marry her who is divorced committeth adultery.

To say the commandment against adultery is not about sex, is like saying that taking someone to dinner is not about food. Each statement is both true and false. Taking someone to dinner is about being with the someone, it is not primarily about eating to avert starvation. Yet, eating the food is what one does, so taking someone to dinner is about food. Similarly, the probation against adultery was not so much about sex as it was about preserving the legal and sacral relationship of the wife and the husband. The covenant of fidelity is fundamental to the covenant of marriage. (For a discussion of Psalm 45 and the eternal nature of the marriage covenant, look in the “scriptures” section and then go to “Mosiah 13:22 — LeGrand Baker – Thou shalt not commit adultery.”)

Leviticus 20 is a catalogue of sexual sins. It lists almost every possible combination of partners except a man and his lawful wife. For each combination the punishment is the same: “they shall surely be put to death.” Apparently the law was not taken any more seriously in ancient Israel or among the ancient Nephites than it is in own culture. In the Bible and the Book of Mormon there many evidences that adultery was almost common place, but there are no accounts of mass executions on account of it.

The definition Leviticus gives of adultery is:

10 And the man that committeth adultery with another man’s wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death (Leviticus 20:10).

Adultery is defined as infidelity in marriage. It is violating the marriage covenant. Premarital sex is different from adultery because there has been no covenant to violate. However, casual premarital sex can inhibit or even negate one’s ability to later experience real emotional intimacy, and therefore might cripple a later marriage relationship.

When the Savior condemned adultery, he did not limit himself to condemning the act, rather he condemned the attitude that precipitated the act. Without the attitude coming first, the act would never happen.

Marriage is both a legal contract and a religious covenant. The legal contract can be broken by the act, but the religious covenant can be broken by the attitude. Just as the act can negate the contract, so can the attitude negate the covenant.

The last page of the Book of Mormon contains a review of the Feast of Tabernacles temple drama. The last verse of that review is a promise of eternal marriage and eternal increase. That verse reads:

31 And awake, and arise from the dust, O Jerusalem; yea, and put on thy beautiful garments, O daughter of Zion; and strengthen thy stakes and enlarge thy borders forever, that thou mayest no more be confounded, that the covenants of the Eternal Father which he hath made unto thee, O house of Israel, may be fulfilled (Moroni 10:28-31).

This is a paraphrase of Isaiah, so it comes from his culture rather than from Moroni’s. In the Near Eastern desert, when a man married, he gave his wife a tent, just large enough for the two of them. It was then hers, and she was responsible for it. As her family grew, she made additional flaps for the tent, and added more stakes to secure it. Thus, Moroni’s statement may be a reference to family homes—eternal families— “forever” —rather than being about future church units of wards and stakes. The Isaiah passage that Moroni paraphrased is also about God’s promise of eternal families. It reads:

2 Enlarge the place of thy tent, and let them stretch forth the curtains of thine habitations: spare not, lengthen thy cords, and strengthen thy stakes (Isaiah 54:2).

“Thine habitations” are homes. The tents are the places where families dwell. Moroni continues with the promise that the tent will be expanded “forever”:

and strengthen thy stakes and enlarge thy borders forever, that thou mayest no more be confounded, that the covenants of the Eternal Father which he hath made unto thee, O house of Israel, may be fulfilled (Moroni 10:31b).

As those words are about the ancient Nephite temple experience, so Moroni’s last words are about what one did after one left the ancient temple:

32 Yea, come unto Christ, and be perfected in him, and deny yourselves of all ungodliness; and if ye shall deny yourselves of all ungodliness, and love God with all your might, mind and strength, then is his grace sufficient for you, that by his grace ye may be perfect in Christ; and if by the grace of God ye are perfect in Christ, ye can in nowise deny the power of God.
33 And again, if ye by the grace of God are perfect in Christ, and deny not his power, then are ye sanctified in Christ by the grace of God, through the shedding of the blood of Christ, which is in the covenant of the Father unto the remission of your sins, that ye become holy, without spot (Moroni 10:32-33).

This is a portion of the discussion of Moroni’s review of the Nephite temple drama in Who Shall Ascend into the Hill of the Lord, 722-24.

The prophet Jeremiah used the word “adultery” in another way also. He represented the people of Israel as God’s covenant “bride.” and condemned them for “committed adultery with stones and with stocks,” referring to their worshiping pagan gods made of stone and wood. While the Savior does not make specific reference to that kind of adultery, it would certainly apply to anyone who breaks their sacred covenants (Jeremiah 3:6-11, Jeremiah 5:7-9).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3 Nephi 12:17-20
17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets. I am not come to destroy but to fulfil;
18 For verily I say unto you, one jot nor one tittle hath not passed away from the law, but in me it hath all been fulfilled.
19 And behold, I have given you the law and the commandments of my Father, that ye shall believe in me, and that ye shall repent of your sins, and come unto me with a broken heart and a contrite spirit. Behold, ye have the commandments before you, and the law is fulfilled.
20 Therefore come unto me and be ye saved; for verily I say unto you, that except ye shall keep my commandments, which I have commanded you at this time, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Three times the Savior said he had fulfilled the Law of Moses. To fulfil means to complete, to satisfy, to bring to fruition, to finalize. He later explained:

5 Behold, I am he that gave the law, and I am he who covenanted with my people Israel; therefore, the law in me is fulfilled, for I have come to fulfil the law; therefore it hath an end (3 Nephi 15:5).

The words, “therefore it hath an end” was very explicit. So the Law was no longer operative or relevant in the Nephite religion or in their personal lives.

This may sound strange: but while we can be assured that the Law was fulfilled, we really don’t know what the Nephites or the Savior understood by “the Law of Moses.” In Who Shall Ascend into the Hill of the Lord, Stephen and I explained:

A point that must not be lost is that the people of the Book of Mormon come out of the religious culture of the pre-exilic Old Testament—the period when Solomon’s Temple was standing and in use. So the religion of Lehi, Nephi, and their descendants was the religion of the Jews before the changes were made in our texts of the Old Testament. What we have in our Old Testament is a severely edited version of the Law of Moses. But the text on the brass plates was written before those editorial changes were made. That means that our most reliable contemporary text that date to pre-exilic times is found in the Book of Mormon (Who Shall Ascend into the Hill of the Lord, 460-61).

The fact is, we cannot know just what the Nephites understood by “the Law of Moses” because of the way they described it. They wrote repeatedly that the purpose of the Law was to help people understand the Savior and his Atonement. They considered the Law to be a type of the Savior’s coming. As Jacob said,

4 Behold, my soul delighteth in proving unto my people the truth of the coming of Christ; for, for this end hath the Law of Moses been given; and all things which have been given of God from the beginning of the world, unto man, are the typifying of him (2 Nephi 11:4. See also 2 Nephi 25:24-28, 2 Nephi 26:1, Jacob 4:5, Alma 25:15-16.)

If we look hard in Leviticus, we can find only a few parts of the Law that teach about the atonement, but Jacob’s description of the Law does not fit what is in our Old Testament. It is impossible for us to know what the Nephites understood by “the Law of Moses,” because the only thing we can be sure of is that it was different from the version of the Law that is found in our Bible.

After the Babylonian captivity the Jews had no more king, and the temple was destroyed. By the time they returned from Babylon they had lost the Melchizedek Priesthood also. Sometime during or after the Babylonian captivity the Jewish editors rewrote the Law to conform to their new political and ecclesiastical circumstances. Consequently, our Old Testament version of the Law reflects the post-exilic Jewish religion that was substantially different from the one that had been believed and practiced while Solomon’s Temple was standing and in proper use. These editors left so many fingerprints on their work that most scholars now believe the books of Moses were not written any earlier than 400 BC.

(For a discussion of the Jewish apostasy and its impact on the editorial changes in the Law see Who Shall Ascend into the Hill of the Lord, pages 47-67, the chapters called “The Ancient Jewish Apostasy that Rearranged the Order of the Psalms and Changed the Festival Drama,” and “Evidences of Ancient Jewish Apostasy.” For an example showing that the purposes of those editors was to remove from the record evidences of the gospel of the Messiah, the priesthood, and the temple, see the comparison between the stories of Noah and the ark as told in Genesis and in the book of Moses in the Pearl of Great Price, shown on the chart on pages 60-61.)

We also know almost nothing about the structure of the early Nephite church or how the Law of Moses was administered. What we do know is there is no evidence of an Aaronic Priesthood in the Book of Mormon, and that Lehi and the prophets had the Melchizedek Priesthood (otherwise he, Jacob, Alma, and others could not have seen God — D&C 84:19-22), and we also know that Lehi and others offered sacrifices and burnt offerings that we normally associate with the duties of the ancient Old Testament Aaronic Priesthood (1 Nephi 5:9, 1 Nephi 7:22, Mosiah 2:3.) Therefore, we cannot rely on the Old Testament to teach us how the Law of Moses would have been administered by Nephites who held the Melchizedek Priesthood.

There is enough discussion of consistent Melchizedek Priesthood temple rites from the beginning to the end of the Book of Mormon to let us know that those rites remained essentially unchanged throughout the full thousand years of Nephite history — both before and after the Savior fulfilled the Law of Moses (encoded examples are in 1 Nephi 1, 2 Nephi 1, Alma 12, and Moroni 10).

In the Sermon at the Temple in 3 Nephi 9 through 14, the Savior gave examples about how far-reaching the effect of his fulfilling the Law would be. There we learn that when put into practice, the new law would not only change the outward form of their religious practices, but would also change some of their most fundamental cultural and legal practices as well. Thereafter, an appeal to Leviticus to establish rules of personal conduct, family relations, moral code, or dietary practices was no longer a valid evidence to support an argument about what was right or wrong (just as it is not for us).

We needn’t wonder if the Nephites then did, as we sometimes tend to do, pick and choose from among the parts of the Law of Moses we wished to use to justify our beliefs and practices. They clearly did not. The description of the righteousness of the society of the next three generations teaches us that the Nephites took the Saviors instructions very seriously. Mormon does not tell us very much about the Fourth Nephi society, but what he does tell us is enough that we may know that the rigidity and bigotry that was justifiable under the Law had given way to acceptance of personal integrity rather than perfect conformity as the standard of individual excellence. I take it that in that society there could not have been found a picked-on teenager who felt the need to pray, “Dear God, make the bad people good and the good people nice.”

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