D&C 10:64-70 — LeGrand Baker — ‘as a hen gathereth her chickens’

Posted on September 17, 2012 by LeGrand Baker

 

D&C 10:64-70 — LeGrand Baker — ‘as a hen gathereth her chickens’

I frequently regret that I will never live long enough to even begin to understand the scriptures. That is not my way of inviting you to my upcoming funeral, it is only an acknowledgment of how much I don’t know. The acknowledgment comes easy, because when I read the scriptures I discover so much that I have not known before. Case in point:

Somewhere early on in my life, I got the notion that the doctrines of the gospel were “developed” in the days of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. That notion is justified by the fact that Joseph didn’t tell everything he knew all at once, so the Saints got the ideas precept upon precept. The problem with that notion is that it is also projected onto the Prophet Joseph. The implication being that he also did not know, but was taught little by little. I have come to not believe that. Oh, I will admit that he probably learned some things when he received D&C 76 and others – revelations were instructions, after all. But I have come to firmly believe that he knew what he needed to know to deliver the King Follett discourse (except for his references to Hebrew words) long before the church was even organized in 1830. The reason I believe that is partly because of the reference to ideas of temple which are found in the very early sections of the D&C. These revelations suggest one of two things: either the Lord was using beautiful words which Joseph would someday understand, or else the Lord was saying things which Joseph actually understood at the time. And if Joseph understood them, then I suppose that Joseph must have understood everything.

D&C 3 is a revelation which the Prophet received when Moroni took the plates from him. D&C 10 is the revelation which the Prophet received when Moroni returned the plates – that is, before Oliver Cowdery came, and before Joseph had translated the Book of Mormon as we now have it.

Near the conclusion of section 10, the Lord explains to the Prophet, “If this generation harden not their hearts, I will establish my church among them. (v. 53)” Then, at the end of the revelation, he tells how he will do that. And he explains by referring to the Ancient Israelite temple, and by using key words and phrases which are in the Book of Mormon – which Joseph has not yet read. The words of sect 10 are addressed to Joseph in such a way that it is apparent that the Lord expects Joseph will understand what he is saying. If Joseph did understand, and if my understanding of what Joseph understood is correct, then this remarkable revelation is evidence that Joseph had a full understanding of the rites and ceremonies of the ancient Israelite temple before he even began to translate our Book of Mormon.

That seems reasonable to me – actually it seems necessary — that there is so much of the ancient temple in the Book of Mormon that I cannot imagine Joseph translating it correctly if he did not already have a complete mastery of that sacred subject which pervades the entire text of his work.

Lets read the last few verses of section together.

64 Therefore, I will unfold unto them [not “to you” but “to them” – it appears here, that the Lord assumed Joseph already knew what he was talking about, ant that those who will accept the gospel will find out later.] this great mystery;

If “mystery” is used here as in the Old Testament and in the Book of Mormon, it means the same as the Hebrew word SOD – that is, the secret decisions of the Council in Heaven. (See earlier comments for a discussion of SOD).] Those mysteries – Council decisions, and the playing out of those decisions in the creation, fall, atonement, and exaltation of the Lord’s children – are the essence of what the ancient temple ceremony was all about.

65 For, behold, I will gather them as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings,

As I have mentioned before, the best way this makes sense to me is if it is a reference to the final scenes of the New Year Festival where the king, having been anointed both king and adopted son of God, may now legitimately sit on the great throne at the back of the Holy of Holies. Above that throne were spread the wings of two great cherubim. My notion is that it to this throne of sacral kingship that the Saviour would have brought the people. Joseph Smith did not say exactly that same thing, but he came very close. He said,

“The doctrine of baptism for the dead is clearly shown in the New Testament; and if the doctrine is not good, then throw the New Testament away; but if it is the word of God, then let the doctrine be acknowledged; and it was the reason why Jesus said unto the Jews, “How oft would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!”—that they might attend to the ordinances of baptism for the dead as well as other ordinances of the priesthood, and receive revelations from heaven, and be perfected in the things of the kingdom of God—but they would not. (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 1843–44, p.310)”

v. 65 (cont.) if they will not harden their hearts;

Alma used that phrase the same way when he warned, “my brethren, behold I say unto you, that if ye will harden your hearts ye shall not enter into the rest of the Lord…” (Alma 12:36)

66 Yea, if they will come, they may, and partake of the waters of life freely. (Words that come from the last few chapters of Revelation, which describe the people who live in the celestial city.)

67 Behold, this is my doctrine–whosoever repenteth and cometh unto me,

In the Book of Mormon, as far as I can tell, when the Saviour uses that phrase “come unto me,” it is either an invitation to approach the veil which separated the Holy Place from the Holy of Holies and symbolically come to where the Lord is, or else, as in the case of the Brother of Jared, it has a more literal meaning.

67 (cont.) the same is my church.

68 Whosoever declareth more or less than this, the same is not of me, but is against me; therefore he is not of my church.

69 And now, behold, whosoever is of my church, and endureth of my church to the end, him will I establish upon my rock, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against them.

It is possible he is referring to the church which Joseph will organize in 1830, or it is possible he is talking about the eternal church mentioned in sec 88. Either way, the ultimate objective is the same.

70 And now, remember the words of him who is the life and light of the world, your Redeemer, your Lord and your God. Amen.

That verse is too big for me to comment on.

Joseph’s comment about the meaning of the imagery of the hen gathering her chicks under her wings was made about 15 years after he received the revelation which is sect 10. So we may either choose to believe that it took that long for Joseph to figure out what it meant, or we may believe that when the Lord mentioned it to him in 1828, Joseph understood what the Lord was talking about. If one chooses to believe the latter (which I do) then one may also believe that the Book of Mormon was translated, and the revelations in the D&C given within the full context of that understanding.

Posted in Sec 1-88 | Comments Off on D&C 10:64-70 — LeGrand Baker — ‘as a hen gathereth her chickens’

Abraham 3:22 – 4:1 — A History of Our Premortal Experiences — LeGrand Baker

Posted on September 17, 2012 by LeGrand Baker

22 Now the Lord had shown unto me, Abraham, the intelligences that were organized before the world was; and among all these there were many of the noble and great ones;
23 And God saw these souls that they were good, and he stood in the midst of them, and he said: These I will make my rulers; for he stood among those that were spirits, and he saw that they were good; and he said unto me: Abraham, thou art one of them; thou wast chosen before thou wast born.
24 And there stood one among them that was like unto God, and he said unto those who were with him: We will go down, for there is space there, and we will take of these materials, and we will make an earth whereon these may dwell;
25 And we will prove them herewith, to see if they will do all things whatsoever the Lord their God shall command them;
26 And they who keep their first estate shall be added upon; and they who keep not their first estate shall not have glory in the same kingdom with those who keep their first estate; and they who keep their second estate shall have glory added upon their heads for ever and ever.
27 And the Lord said: Whom shall I send? And one answered like unto the Son of Man: Here am I, send me. And another answered and said: Here am I, send me. And the Lord said: I will send the first.
28 And the second was angry, and kept not his first estate; and, at that day, many followed after him (Abraham 3:22-28).
1 And then the Lord said: Let us go down. And they went down at the beginning, and they, that is the Gods, organized and formed the heavens and the earth (Abraham 4:1).

These verses are some of the most important in LDS scripture because they are the only place in the scriptures where we can find this sequence:

1 Some intelligences were organized and called “the noble and great ones”
2 Those intelligences receive spirit bodies, and are called “good”
3 At a Council in Heaven they are made “rulers” – kings and priests.
4 Jehovah and the members of that Council made plans to create the first estate (spirit earth) and second estate (physical earth)
5 Satan rebelled and there was a war in heaven
6 Jehovah and the members of the Council (now called “the gods”) create the heavens and the earth.

Without the knowledge of that sequence, we would not know how to understand the eternal context of the story told in the temple drama. It was not a coincidence that the Book of Abraham was initially published in conjunction with the Prophet Joseph’s introducing the endowment in this dispensation. Joseph first gave the endowment to a few select friends on Wednesday, May 4, 1842. {1} Book of Abraham was first published in three issues of the Times and Seasons on March 1, March 15, and May 16, 1842.

—————————

22 Now the Lord had shown unto me, Abraham, the intelligences that were organized before the world was; and among all these there were many of the noble and great ones;

The first question we must ask is, What is an intelligence? The best answer is from B. H. Roberts’s priesthood manual. That portion of the manual was originally published in the Improvement Era, where it was introduced by this note from the editor: “Elder Roberts submitted the following paper to the First Presidency and a number of the Twelve Apostles, none of whom found anything objectionable in it, or contrary to the revealed word of God, and therefore favor its publication.”

That is important. If it was approved by “the First Presidency and a number of the Twelve Apostles,” that is about as close to official church doctrine as one can get. Elder Roberts wrote:

The Nature of Intelligences: There is in that complex thing we call man, an intelligent entity, uncreated, self existent, indestructible. He—for that entity is a person; because, as we shall see he is possessed of powers that go with personality only, hence that entity is “he,” not “it,”—he is eternal as God is; co-existent, in fact, with God; of the same kind of substance or essence with deity, though confessedly inferior in degree of intelligence and power to God. One must needs think that the name of this eternal entity—what God calls him—conveys to the mind some idea of his nature. He is called an “intelligence;” and this I believe is descriptive of him. That is, intelligence is the entity’s chief characteristic. If this be a true deduction, then the entity must be self-conscious, and “others—conscious,” that is, he must have the power to distinguish himself from other things—the “me” from the “not me.” He must have the power of deliberation, by which he sets over one thing against another; with power also to form a judgment that this or that is a better thing or state than this or that. Also there goes with this idea of intelligence a power of choosing one thing instead of another, one state rather than another. These powers are inseparably connected with any idea that may be formed of an intelligence. One cannot conceive of intelligence existing without these qualities any more than he can conceive of an object existing in space without dimensions. The phrase “the light of truth” [Doc. & Cov., Sec. xciii.] is given in one of the revelations as the equivalent for an “intelligence” here discussed; by which is meant to be understood, as I think, that intelligent entities perceive the truth, are conscious of the truth, they know that which is, hence “the light of truth,” “intelligence.” Let it be observed that I say nothing as to the mode of the existence of these intelligences, beyond the fact of their eternity. But of their form, or the manner of their subsistence nothing, so far as I know, has been revealed, and hence we are without means of knowing anything about the modes of their existence beyond the fact of it, and the essential qualities they possess, which already have been pointed out. …
The intelligent entity inhabiting a spirit-body makes up the spiritual personage. It is this spirit life we have so often thought about, and sang about. In this state of existence occurred the spirit’s “primeval childhood;” here spirits were “nurtured” near the side of the heavenly Father, in his “high and glorious place;” thence spirits were sent to earth to unite spirit-elements with earth-elements—in some way essential to a fulness of glory and happiness (Doc. & Cov. Sec. xciii: 32-35)—and to learn the lessons earth-life had to teach. The half awakened recollections of the human mind may be chiefly engaged with scenes, incidents and impressions of that spirit life; but that does not argue the non-existence of the uncreated intelligences who preceded the begotten spiritual personage as so plainly set forth in the revelations of God.
The difference, then, between “spirits” and “intelligences,” as here used, is this: Spirits are uncreated intelligences inhabiting spiritual bodies; while “intelligences,” pure and simple, are intelligent entities, but unembodied in either spirit bodies or bodies of flesh and bone. They are uncreated, self-existent entities, possessed of “self-consciousness,” and “other-consciousness”—they are conscious of the “me” and the “not me”; they possess powers of discrimination (without which the term “intelligence” would be a solecism) they discern between the evil and the good; between the “good” and “the better.” They possess “will” or “freedom,”—within certain limits at least—the power to determine upon a given course of conduct, as against any other course of conduct. This intelligence “can think his own thoughts, act wisely or foolishly, do right or wrong.” To accredit an “intelligence” with fewer or less important powers than these, would be to discredit him as an “intelligence” altogether. {2}

Some years later, Elder Roberts carefully described the intelligences who were organized and called “the noble and great ones.” However, rather than making a too-bold statement, he couched his conclusions in a series of rhetorical questions:

Do these higher intelligences of the stellar universe and planetary systems have so developed in themselves the quality of love that makes it possible to think of them as being willing to sacrifice themselves—to empty themselves in sacrifice to bring to pass the welfare of others whom they may esteem to be the undeveloped intelligences of the universe? And may they not be capable of giving the last full measure of sacrifice to bring to pass the higher development of the “lowly” when no other means of uplift can be serviceable? Is the great truth operative among these untold millions of intelligences that greater love hath no intelligence for another than this, that he would give his life in the service of kindred intelligences when no other means of helpfulness is possible? {3}

Alma teaches that “in the first place” they had priesthood “after the order of the son.” He also explains the differences between those who had priesthood and those who did not. About the first group he says:

3 And this is the manner after which they were ordained—being called and prepared from the foundation of the world according to the foreknowledge of God, on account of their exceeding faith and good works; in the first place being left to choose good or evil; therefore they having chosen good, and exercising exceedingly great faith, are called with a holy calling, yea, with that holy calling which was prepared with, and according to, a preparatory redemption for such.
4 And thus they have been called to this holy calling on account of their faith, …

About those who did not have priesthood he explains

4 … while others would reject the Spirit of God on account of the hardness of their hearts and blindness of their minds, while, if it had not been for this they might have had as great privilege as their brethren.
5 Or in fine, in the first place they were on the same standing with their brethren; thus this holy calling being prepared from the foundation of the world for such as would not harden their hearts, being in and through the atonement of the Only Begotten Son, who was prepared (Alma 13:3-5).{4}

So the differences between the noble and great ones and the others were self-imposed differences resulting from their own choices. There was nothing arbitrary about it and nothing caused by any force except the exercise of their own wills.

President J. Reuben Clark, Jr. also drew an important distinction between intelligences and spirit persons. He wrote:

Now, if we are going to know life at its best, we ought to know, or to appreciate, or have in view, not only what life is, but what is the purpose of life, why are we here. And in that connection I thought I might call your attention to some passages that will take us rather far back and give us some idea of what this spirit, this life and soul of ours, is—its antiquity.
I am reading first from the Doctrine and Covenants, Section 93:
And now, verily I say unto you [this is the Lord speaking], I was in the beginning with the Father, and am the Firstborn.
That which I have just read is the 21st verse; now, dropping to the 23rd verse:
Ye were also in the beginning with the Father [speaking to Joseph and others]: that which is Spirit, even the Spirit of truth.
And now the 29th verse:
Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be.
Now I want to read from Abraham:
I dwell in the midst of them all [said God, speaking of the intelligences]. I now, therefore, have come down unto thee to deliver unto thee the works which my hands have made [he is speaking to Abraham], wherein my wisdom excelleth them all, for I rule in the heavens above, and in the earth beneath, in all wisdom and prudence, over all the intelligences thine eyes have seen from the beginning; I came down in the beginning in the midst of all the intelligences thou hast seen.
Now the Lord had shown unto me, Abraham, the intelligences that were organized before the world was; and among all these there were many of the noble and great ones;
And God saw these souls that they were good, and he stood in the midst of them, and he said: These I will make my rulers; for he stood among those that were spirits, and he saw that they were good; and he said unto me: Abraham, thou art one of them; thou wast chosen before thou wast born (Abraham 3:21-23).
Now, there seems to be a difference between the spirit of intelligence, the spiritual body, and the mortal body, and that is well to have in mind. {5}

In his mild, unassuming way, President Clark made an extremely important observation: “Now, there seems to be a difference between the spirit of intelligence, the spiritual body, and the mortal body.” There, he identifies the first three phases of our eternal existence, then adds, “and that is well to have in mind.”

When discussing the organization of the people in the premortal spirit world, President Joseph Fielding Smith wrote:

It is reasonable to believe that there was a Church organization there. The heavenly beings were living in a perfectly arranged society. Every person knew his place. Priesthood, without any question, had been conferred and the leaders were chosen to officiate. Ordinances pertaining to that pre-existence were required and the love of God prevailed. Under such conditions it was natural for our Father to discern and choose those who were most worthy and evaluate the talents of each individual. He knew not only what each of us could do, but also what each of us would do when put to the test and when responsibility was given us to accomplish our respective missions. Paul writes to the Ephesian Saints:

Blessed be the God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:
According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love. (Ephesians 1:3-4).{6}

————————-

The Council in Heaven  {7}

The next verse in Abraham 3 moves us from the world of intelligences to the world of spirits, where the intelligences have received bodies made of spirit matter.

23 And God saw these souls that they were good, and he stood in the midst of them, and he said: These I will make my rulers; for he stood among those that were spirits, and he saw that they were good; and he said unto me: Abraham, thou art one of them; thou wast chosen before thou wast born.

We learn a number of important things from this verse. The first is that Heavenly Father presided at this meeting. “He stood among those that were spirits.” So we are assured that these intelligences have been born spirit children of heavenly parents and have received their spirit bodies. He “saw these souls that they were good,” suggesting that there had been a preliminary judgement. That is, the persons who were there were there by invitation. “He stood in the midst of them, and he said: These I will make my rulers.” If he stood in “the midst off them” they were all around him and he was in the center of what may have been a circle. This appears to be an ordinance or covenant-making ceremony where they were designated as “my rulers.” I understand that to mean, during this ceremony they were made kings and priests. Again, “he saw that they were good.” That is not a redundancy, it is a testimony of their continued worthiness after the ceremony. “He said unto me: Abraham, thou art one of them; thou wast chosen before thou wast born.” The question is “Which ‘born’—spiritual or physical?” The answer has to be both.

Abraham was told that he was present at that council. The Prophet Joseph said he was also there.

Every man who has a calling to minister to the inhabitants of the world was ordained to that very purpose in the Grand Council of heaven before this world was. I suppose I was ordained to this very office in that Grand Council. {8}

The Council apparently continues to be operative. President Joseph F. Smith, in his vision of the redemption of the dead, tells us the names of a number of those who were in attendance at a similar meeting, and identified them as “the noble and great ones.” An abridgement of his statement might read:

In this vast congregation of the righteous were Father Adam, Mother Eve, with many of her faithful daughters, Seth, Shem, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Elias, Malachi, Elijah, the prophets who dwelt among the Nephites and testified of the coming of the Son of God, Joseph Smith, Hyrum Smith, Brigham Young, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, and other choice spirits who were reserved to come forth in the fulness of times to take part in laying the foundations of the great latter-day work. I observed that they were also among the noble and great ones [That is, those who are identified in Abraham 3:22-23 as members of the Council] 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 (summary of D&C 138:38-56).

We learn from the Prophet Joseph’s poem, A Vision, that the Council met in Kolob.

For thus saith the Lord, in the spirit of truth,
I am merciful, gracious, and good unto those
That fear me, and live for the life that’s to come:
My delight is to honour the Saints with repose,

That serve me in righteousness true to the end;
Eternal’s their glory and great their reward.
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. {9}

We also learn in Psalm 82 that at least part of that or another ceremony included their covenanting to live a law that is remarkably similar to the law of consecration. While discussing that psalm I wrote:

The original scene depicted by Psalm 82 can more readily be understood by inserting it into the account recorded in Abraham 3, where it fits so perfectly that it does not even break the cadence of the story. Please note, by putting the two scriptures together in this way, we do not wish to imply that they were ever written as a single unit. Rather, they are combined to illustrate an interesting—perhaps insightful—picture of how things might have been in the Council in Heaven, and how they might have been portrayed on the stage:

Now the Lord had shown unto me, Abraham, the intelligences that were organized before the world was; and among all these there were many of the noble and great ones; And God saw these souls that they were good, and he stood in the midst of them. God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods. [He asked,] How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked? Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy. Deliver the poor and needy: rid them out of the hand of the wicked. They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course. I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High. ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes. Arise, O gods, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations. [After the covenant, God said,] These I will make my rulers; for he stood among those that were spirits, and he saw that they were good; and he said unto me: Abraham, thou art one of them; thou wast chosen before thou wast born (Abraham 3:22-23 & Psalm 82). {10}

The next verses in Abraham 3 are a report of a planning meeting which Jehovah conducted.

24 And there stood one among them that was like unto God, and he said unto those who were with him: We will go down, for there is space there, and we will take of these materials, and we will make an earth whereon these may dwell;
25 And we will prove them herewith, to see if they will do all things whatsoever the Lord their God shall command them;
26 And they who keep their first estate shall be added upon; and they who keep not their first estate shall not have glory in the same kingdom with those who keep their first estate; and they who keep their second estate shall have glory added upon their heads for ever and ever.

The language is not sufficiently clear for us to know whether this was in the same meeting as the preceding ceremony, or if it was later but with the same people present. However, the Prophet seems to suggest that it was held after the Council had already been organized.

The head God called together the Gods and sat in grand council to bring forth the world. The grand councilors sat at the head in yonder heavens and contemplated the creation of the worlds which were created at the time. {11}

One of the most relevant bits of information in Abraham’s account of this planning meeting is found in the tense of the verbs. Everything they discussed was to be accomplished in their future.

24 And there stood one among them that was like unto God, and he said unto those who were with him: We will go down, for there is space there, and we will take of these materials, and we will make an earth whereon these may dwell;
25 And we will prove them herewith, to see if they will do all things whatsoever the Lord their God shall command them;
26 And they who keep their first estate shall be added upon; and they who keep not their first estate shall not have glory in the same kingdom with those who keep their first estate; and they who keep their second estate shall have glory added upon their heads for ever and ever.

During this planning meeting, both the first and the second estate were in their future. The first estate is our premortal spirit world and the second estate is our physical world. The Lord told Moses, “For I, the Lord God, created all things, of which I have spoken, spiritually, before they were naturally upon the face of the earth (Moses 3:5).” Since this planning meeting was held before the creation of the first estate, and an account of the creation of the world follows almost immediately after, it appears the creation story told in Abraham 3 is about the spirit earth. (That could help answer some of the questions that may arise from the wording in chapter 5.)

Another intriguing thing about Abraham’s account is that not all premortal beings were involved in the creation process. Notice the use of “we” and “these/they” as the members of the Council plan their creations:

24 And there stood one among them that was like unto God, and he said unto those who were with him: We will go down, for there is space there, and we will take of these materials, and we will make an earth whereon these may dwell;
25 And we will prove them herewith, to see if they will do all things whatsoever the Lord their God shall command them;
26 And they who keep their first estate shall be added upon; and they who keep not their first estate shall not have glory in the same kingdom with those who keep their first estate; and they who keep their second estate shall have glory added upon their heads for ever and ever.

Now the question is this: If “we” are members of the Council, then who are “they”? The answer seems to be they were the intelligences who were yet to enter their first estate, and would receive their spirit bodies on that spirit earth. (If all the intelligences already had spirit bodies, then that presuppose that they already lived somewhere. It seems there would not be much point in building first estate spirit world for them to move to.)

In the next verses in Abraham 3 we are introduced to the “war in heaven.” But the account begins in mid-conversation: “And the Lord said: Whom shall I send?” We are not made privy to the discussion or the events that preceded it. Again, we cannot tell whether this is the same meeting or a different one. However, Moses’s account suggests it was a later event.

1 And I, the Lord God, spake unto Moses, saying: That Satan, whom thou hast commanded in the name of mine Only Begotten, is the same which was from the beginning, and he came before me, saying–Behold, here am I, send me, I will be thy son, and I will redeem all mankind, that one soul shall not be lost, and surely I will do it; wherefore give me thine honor.
2 But, behold, my Beloved Son, which was my Beloved and Chosen from the beginning, said unto me–Father, thy will be done, and the glory be thine forever. (Moses 4:1-2)

( I get a bit bothered whenever I hear someone refer to “Satan’s plan.” It was not a plan, it was a rebellion and, I believe it should never be given the dignity of being called anything else! )

Joseph also described the event. Thomas Bullock was present and took the following notes:

—I know the Scriptures I understand them—no man can commit the unpardonable sin after the dissn. of the body but they must do it in this World—hence the Saln. of J. C was wrought out for all men to triumph over the devil—for he stood up for a Savior—J. contd. that there wod. be certn. souls that wod. be condemned & the d[evi]l sd. he cod. save them all 84—as the grand council gave in for J. C. so the d I fell & all who put up their heads for him. {12}

When B. H. Roberts compiled the 7 volume History of the Church, he used Bullock’s notes to produce this quote which he attributed to the Prophet:

I know the Scriptures and understand them. I said, no man can commit the unpardonable sin after the dissolution of the body, nor in this life, until he receives the Holy Ghost; but they must do it in this world. Hence the salvation of Jesus Christ was wrought out for all men, in order to triumph over the devil; for if it did not catch him in one place, it would in another; for he stood up as a Savior. All will suffer until they obey Christ himself.
The contention in heaven was—Jesus said there would be certain souls that would not be saved; and the devil said he could save them all, and laid his plans before the grand council, who gave their vote in favor of Jesus Christ. So the devil rose up in rebellion against God, and was cast down, with all who put up their heads for him. {13}

The account given in Abraham 3 says simply:

27 And the Lord said: Whom shall I send? And one answered like unto the Son of Man: Here am I, send me. And another answered and said: Here am I, send me. And the Lord said: I will send the first.
28 And the second was angry, and kept not his first estate; and, at that day, many followed after him (Abraham 3:22-28).

From John the Beloved we learn that Michael/Adam commanded the forces that expelled Satan, and that the weapon they used in this war was their testimonies of the Savior’s Atonement. That war is still going on. The battleground has shifted to this world but the weapon we still use is our testimonies of the Savior’s Atonement. John wrote:

7 And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,
8 And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven.
9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.
10 And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night.
11 And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death.
12 Therefore rejoice, ye heavens, and ye that dwell in them. Woe to the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time (Revelation 12:7-12).

In Abraham’s account, it was immediately after Satan’s rebellion that the work of creation began.

v.1 And then the Lord said: Let us go down. And they went down at the beginning, and they, that is the Gods, organized and formed the heavens and the earth (Abraham 4:1).

The story we have just read is the biographical sequence of the progression and assignments of the members of the Council in Heaven. It, no doubt, also shows their growth in faithfulness and ability. Initially there was a group of intelligences called “the noble and great ones.” As spirits, they met in Council where Heavenly Father had chosen them as his “rulers.” We next see them in Council planning the works of creation. Then Satan and his followers are expelled. And finally, “they, that is the gods, organized and formed the heavens and the earth.”

After that, they come to this earth to get a physical body and the opportunity to ultimately be exalted as celestial beings. It is a wonderful story of eternal growth and eternal progression, and of eternal fidelity in their relationships with the Savior.

It now seems appropriate to me to conclude this study by repeating the Prophet’s assurance:

Every man who has a calling to minister to the inhabitants of the world was ordained to that very purpose in the Grand Council of heaven before this world was. I suppose I was ordained to this very office in that Grand Council.

—————————–

FOOTNOTES

{1} Joseph Smith, History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 7 vols., introduction and notes by B. H. Roberts (Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1932-1951), 5: 1-2.

Wednesday, May 4, 1842 —I spent the day in the upper part of the store, that is in my private office …. in council with General James Adams, of Springfield, Patriarch Hyrum Smith, Bishops Newel K. Whitney and George Miller, and President Brigham Young and Elders Heber C. Kimball and Willard Richards, instructing them in the principles and order of the Priesthood, attending to washings, anointings, endowments and the communication of keys pertaining to the Aaronic Priesthood, and so on to the highest order of the Melchisedek Priesthood, setting forth the order pertaining to the Ancient of Days, and all those plans and principles by which any one is enabled to secure the fullness of those blessings which have been prepared for the Church of the First Born, and come up and abide in the presence of the Eloheim in the eternal worlds. In this council was instituted the ancient order of things for the first time in these last days. And the communications I made to this council were of things spiritual, and to be received only by the spiritual minded: and there was nothing made known to these men but what will be made known to all the Saints of the last days, so soon as they are prepared to receive, and a proper place is prepared to communicate them, even to the weakest of the Saints; therefore let the Saints be diligent in building the Temple, and all houses which they have been, or shall hereafter be, commanded of God to build; and wait their time with patience in all meekness, faith, perseverance unto the end, knowing assuredly that all these things referred to in this council are always governed by the principle of revelation.

{2}B. H. Roberts, “Immortality of Man,” Improvement Era 10, 6 (April 1907): 401-23. This introduction was also included on the first page of the priesthood manual. Roberts spells it “intelligencies,” and Roberts, Seventy’s Course in Theology, 2:8-11. See also: Orson Pratt, “Great First Cause, or the Self-Moving Forces of the Universe,” Series of Pamphlets by Orson Pratt (Liverpool: R James, 1851).

{3} B. H. Roberts, The Truth, The Way, The Life, ed. John W. Welch (Provo, Utah: BYU Studies, 1994), 98.

{4} For a more complete explanation of premortal priesthood in Alma 13 see the following chapters in Who Shall Ascend into the Hill of the Lord (the first page references are to the first edition, the second are to the paperback edition):
“Alma 13: The Quest for Self: to Know the Law of One’s Own Being,” 801, 564.
“The Nature of Intelligences,” 806, 567.
“Alma 13:1-9, Premortal Responsibilities and Opportunities to Bless Others,” 815, 579.
“Alma 13, Alma Teaches about the Eternal Nature of Priesthood and Kingship,” 826, 583.

{5} J. Reuben Clark, Jr., Immortality and Eternal Life: A Course of Study for the Melchizedek Priesthood Quorums of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 2 vols. (Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1969-1970): 2:154-55. All the brackets within the quotes are President Clark’s.

{6} Smith, Way to Perfection, 50-51. Italics are in the original. See also my discussion of Ephesians 1 in this website.

{7} For discussions of the Council in Heaven see the following chapters in Who Shall Ascend into the Hill of the Lord (the first page references are to the first edition, the second are to the paperback edition):
“Act 1, Scene 1: The Council in Heaven,” 223, 159.
“Psalm 82, The Father’s Instructions to the Council,” 227, 162.
“Psalm 82: Instruction and Covenant,” 233, 165.
“The King as Judge and Prophet,” 245, 174.
“Act 1, Scene 2: The Royal Wedding,” 255, 181.

{8} Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, selected and arranged by Joseph Fielding Smith (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1976), 365.

{9} “A Vision by The Prophet Joseph Smith” a poem patterned after Section 76 published in the Times and Seasons, February 1, 1843.
For comparison, D&C 76:7 reads, “And to them will I reveal all mysteries, yea, all the hidden mysteries of my kingdom from days of old, and for ages to come, will I make known unto them the good pleasure of my will concerning all things pertaining to my kingdom.”

In Abraham 3, the next verses tell about a planning meeting where they discussed building both the first and second estate worlds. That would be confusing if we did not know the Council met in a different place from the spirit world of the first estate.

{10} Who Shall Ascend into the Hill of the Lord, 1172-73.

{11}  Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith,  348.

{12} Joseph Smith, The Words of Joseph Smith: The Contemporary Accounts of the Nauvoo Discourses of the Prophet Joseph, compiled and edited by Andrew F. Ehat and Lyndon W. Cook (Provo: BYU Religious Studies Center, 1980), 353.

{13} Joseph Smith, History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,  6: 314.
Joseph Fielding Smith quoted Roberts in Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 357.

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

Posted in Abraham | Comments Off on Abraham 3:22 – 4:1 — A History of Our Premortal Experiences — LeGrand Baker

2 Peter 1:1-10 — LeGrand Baker — for Ben

Posted on September 17, 2012 by LeGrand Baker

2 Peter 1:1-10 — LeGrand Baker — for Ben

October 8, 2007

My Dear Ben,

Thank you for your email. I am deeply honored that you would include me among your two “most trusted friends.” I love you very much.

The scripture that first ran through my mind as I read your email is the very famous one from the prophet Samuel, “Behold to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams.” (1 Sam. 15:22) That is one of the most misunderstood scriptures in the canon. In the ancient Near East, when people sat down to a meal, they did more than give a blessing on the food, they dedicated the food to their god and invited him to join them in the meal. That is why the Jews could not eat with gentiles. To share a meal with a heathen would be to acknowledge their god. In that light, the context of Samuel’s statement is this: the Lord had promised victory to King Saul and his armies, but had instructed him to kill the people and also their animals. The battle was successful, but they did not kill and waste the food. Rather they saved “the very best” of the animals to sacrifice to the Lord. When one made a peace offering, only some blood and fat were put on the fire, and the meat was eaten—symbolically in the presence of God, who was also at the table. It was when Samuel got there, and found that Saul and his armies couldn’t wait to have their picnic, that he said “to obey is better than to sacrifice.” Obedience is not better than a legitimate sacrifice done in righteousness (zedek), it is only better than a picnic.

Sacrifice means the same as sacral, sacred, sacrament. It does not mean to give something up. It means to set something apart from the profane, and make it sacred. We are required to make only two sacrifices. One is tithing, which we set apart to be used for sacred purposes. The other is ourselves—a broken heart and contrite spirit—to make one’s Self sacred, so we can return to be with God.

As I read Abraham 3, this is the conversation that took place among the Council of the gods.

24 And there stood one among them that was like unto God, and he said unto those who were with him: We will go down [future tense] , for there is space there, and we will take [future tense] of these materials, and we will make [future tense] an earth whereon these may dwell;

25 And we will prove [future tense] them herewith, to see if they will do [future tense] all things whatsoever the Lord their God shall command [future tense] them;

26 And they who keep their first estate shall be [future tense] added upon; and they who keep not their first estate shall not have [future tense] glory in the same kingdom with those who keep their first estate; and they who keep their second estate shall have [future tense] glory added upon their heads for ever and ever. [“who keep their first estate” and “who keep their second estate” are both written the same way and are both a projection in the future. English majors have a name for that kind of future tense, but I don’t know what it is.] (Abraham 3:24-26)

If all of that is in the future tense, then their first estate, and the world they were about to build to test their obedience was the pre-mortal spirit earth on which we lived before we came here

As I understand that, the “them” and “they” are intelligences for whom the spirit world was built. There, in our pre-mortal spirit world, the question was “will you obey?” Those who obeyed were then invited to come to this earth—to our second estate—where a different question would be addressed. Before we came here, there were two reasons that one might obey. One was because we could see the advantages, and knew which side our bread was buttered on. The other was that we loved the Lord and his children, and our obedience was a product of that love.

So we came here where we can neither fully understand nor remember. If this world was devised to test whether Heavenly Father’s children would obey, it was poorly designed. Most people have no idea what to obey, and those who try go against their cultural norms and get burned to the stake. It was in the previous world that we demonstrated that we would obey. This world was designed to ask, “Why did you obey?”

If back then, it was because we understood it would be to our advantage, then we seek self aggrandizement here. If we obeyed there because we loved our Father and his children, then that will be our motive for obedience here. We will obey because we choose to obey. That kind of obedience is technically not obedience at all, because, rather than being subservient to another, it is an exercise of one’s own will.

On the mountain, when Jehovah gave Moses the Ten Commandments, he described himself as “shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.” (Exodus 20:6) Jesus paraphrased that to his disciples when he said,

15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.
16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; (John 14:15-16)

In both versions, obedience is a product—a natural consequence—of love. That is also consistent with another commandment the Jehovah gave to Moses. He said,

5 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might. (Deuteronomy 6:5)

Later, he expanded that commandment when he said,

18 Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the Lord. (Leviticus 19:18)

When a lawyer confronted Jesus with the question, “Master, which is the great commandment in the law?” Jesus combined the two to make them one.

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 22:35-40.)

Ben, as I read your email, I detected buried not very far beneath the surface of your question, “Help me understand what the Lord wants me to do?” a far more urgent question: “Help me understand what the Lord wants me to do to fulfill my covenants and make my calling and election sure?”

It is easier for me to answer that question than the one about missionary rules. The reason it is easier is because the Apostle Peter has done it for me. At the beginning of Second Peter (his final instructions to the Saints when he knew he was going to be killed) he gave the answer. He wrote a simple formula about how to make one’s calling and election sure:

1 Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ [this is official from the President of the Church], to them that have obtained [past tense] like precious faith [pistis = making and keeping covenants. He is writing to people who have received their endowments] with us through the righteousness [zedek = correctness in temple things] of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:

2 Grace [lovingkindness, hesed] and peace [as in Moroni 7:2-4 — He is writing to the same kind of Saints that Moroni was writing to] be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord, [peace comes through knowledge because peace is a power that transcends sorrow]

3 According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, [“all things” means ALL things] through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue: [the call has already been issued. Again the audience is the same as in Moroni 7]

4 Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises [another reference to the temple]: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature [he says “might be” because he is about to tell us how], having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust. [lust is an excessive desire for anything]

5 And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith [pistis = making and keeping covenants] virtue [the Greek word means manliness or vigor] ; and to virtue knowledge [Define knowledge as “And truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come (D&C 93:24). The Savior said to Nicodemus, “he that doeth truth cometh to the light” (John 3:21). One can not DO truth, if one does not KNOW truth];

6 And to knowledge temperance [being moderate, doing nothing in excess]; and to temperance patience [not just with other people, but also with ourselves and with God. After all, sometimes God doesn’t do things as quickly as we think he ought to.] and to patience godliness [the footnote in our Bible says that word is “reverence.” We can’t hurt anything we revere];

7 And to godliness brotherly kindness [the special kind of love that people in the church share for each other]; and to brotherly kindness charity [the kind of love that the Saviour has for us. When we love him as he love us, then we will love others as we love him].

That isn’t a list, it’s a sequence. Let me show you.

1 faith = pistis = something that we are given, a power that we may exercise

2 virtue = something we have = the integrity to do what must be done

3 knowledge = something we are given and expected to act upon

4 temperance = the way we conduct our own lives

5 patience = attitude and actions toward other people

6 godliness = reverence = attitude and actions toward other people

7 brotherly kindness = attitude and actions toward other people, especially those

with whom we serve in the church.

8 charity = attitude and actions toward other people.

The law of consecration is what one does when charity is what one is.

The first four steps Peter outlines are about what one has to do for one’s Self enable us to serve. The second four are the steps that qualify us for eternal life. Even though they are a sequence, each of them must be developed in cycles, somewhat simultaneously with the others, because they build on each other. Peter continues,

8 For if these things be in you, and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.
9 But he that lacketh these things is blind, and cannot see afar off, and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins.
10 Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall: (2 Peter 1:1-10)

As far as I know, to make our calling sure is simply to fulfill the covenantal responsibilities we were called to perform, that is to keep the covenants we made at the Council in Heaven, before we came here. When we have done that, our election will have become absolutely sure.

Now, my beloved friend, there is a very good reason I showed this to you. It is that there is nothing in that sequence that suggests anyone else has to even notice what you are doing, what you have done, or who you are. The qualities of greatness have nothing to do with what the world (or even many members of the church) calls being “great.” True greatness has only to do with the qualities of one’s soul. That greatness shines from your eyes and illuminates your whole person. It is the single thing that defines who and what you are.

If love is the engine that drives our actions, and if we obey because we choose to, then both love and obedience are—together—the single expression of the eternal law of our own beings. They define who Ben was at the Council, who Ben is just now, and who Ben will always be. It is that light that causes me to love you so much.

I suspect that the ultimate answer to both of your questions is simply this: Relax; be truly Ben; be happy and laugh a lot; and seek to be like the Savior who used up his life because he loves us, and who performed the atonement to make us free—so we can be whatever we choose to be.

I do love you,

LeGrand

Posted in 1 & 2 Peter | Comments Off on 2 Peter 1:1-10 — LeGrand Baker — for Ben

John 3:1-22, LeGrand Baker, the Saviour and Nicodemus

Posted on September 17, 2012 by LeGrand Baker

John 3:1-22, LeGrand Baker, the Saviour and Nicodemus

Last week we read Alma 33:19-22 and observed that the Old Testament does not give an explanation of the meaning of the brass serpent Moses made, with the promise “that if a serpent had bitten any man, when he beheld the serpent of brass, he lived (Numbers 21:1-13).”

However, the ways the story is used in the Book of Mormon leave no doubt that Moses understood that symbolism, and that its explanation was found on the brass plates. The Nephite prophets knew the story and explained that it was a representation of the Saviour’s atonement. In Helaman, Nephi shows that the symbolism of the serpent on the pole foretold “the coming of the Messiah… the Son of God,” and was about the Saviour’s atonement and his dying on the cross (Helaman 8:12-19).

In the New Testament, the Saviour uses the story as part of his conversation with Nicodemus, and thereby helps us understand that dialogue which was so sacred that John gives us only just enough detail that we can know what was discussed, without knowing just what was said.

I would like to review that conversation, not to elaborate but to open a window just wide enough that you may see for yourselves what is there.

This is one of my favorite stories in the New Testament because it lets us watch Jesus and Nicodemus become friends.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

John’s introduction to the story is in the last part of the previous chapter, so lets start there.

23 Now when he was in Jerusalem at the passover, in the feast day, many believed in his name, when they saw the miracles which he did.
24 But Jesus did not commit himself unto them, because he knew all men,
25 And needed not that any should testify of man: for he knew what was in man.

His reluctance was based on the very simple fact that he knew in advance how they would respond to him and to his testimony(John 2:23-25).

That’s the key to the whole story. The footnote in our Bible says that “commit” might have been translated “entrust.” I just learned that the Greek word is a form of pistis, and so implies a covenant. That is, it says that Jesus was willing to let the people see his miracles, but if that’s all they were interest in, then he was not willing to let them know who he was, or by what authority he did those miracles. President McKay explained how the Saviour knew what he could say and to whom:

Every man and every person who lives in this world wields an influence, whether for good or for evil. It is not what he says alone; it is not alone what he does. It is what he is. Every man, every person radiates what he or she really is. Every person is a recipient of radiation. The Saviour was conscious of that. Whenever He came into the pres­ence of an individual, He sensed that radiation — whether it was the woman of Samaria with her past life: whether it was the woman who was to be stoned, or the men who were to stone her; whether it was the statesman, Nicodemus, or one of the lepers. He was conscious of the radiation from the individual. And to a degree so are you. and so am I. It is what we are and what we radiate that affects the people around us (President David O. McKay, “Radiation of the Individual” The Instructor, October, 1964, 373).

With the background information that the Saviour never revealed himself except to those whom he knew he could trust, John tells the story of Nicodemus.

JOHN, CHAPTER 3

1 There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews:
2 The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him (John 3:1-2).

So Nicodemus appears to have introduced introduces himself to Jesus by saying the very thing that would have disqualified him from receiving Jesus testimony. But Jesus knew his heart, so the words he spoke was not the thing that mattered. After that introduction, John writes, “Jesus answered and said unto him…” John does not give us the question that evoked that answer, nor, indeed, does he tell us most of what was said. Leaving us to ask, why did John give us these parts of the conversation and leave out so much else of what must have been said?. I’m convinced John’s primary purpose was to let us know us the true depth of what was said, and show us the beginnings of Jesus’s friendship with Nicodemus, but he also was determined not to tell those who could/would not understand. So he gives us just enough of the conversation that we can know what ideas were discussed, but only just enough that we can understand. Therefore John wrote it in code.

Much of the New Testament is written in a temple code, and its authors tell us so over and over again. The phrase the Saviour uses is “He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.” (Matthew 11:15, 13:9-17; Mark 4:9; Mark 7:16; Luke 8:8; Luke 14:35.) The gospel of John does not use that phrase, but it quotes the Saviour as saying: “they that hear shall live (John 5:25-31)”; “He that is of God heareth God’s words (John 8:47)”; and “My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me (John 10:27).” However, in Revelation chapters 2 and 3, John uses a variant of the Saviour’s phrase many times. In the surface text, those chapters are seven unrelated letters to seven churches. But in the encoded sub-text they are a colophon in which John identifies himself as one who really knows. If we read only the first half of each of John’s letters, he walks us through an encoded version of the New Testament temple drama. If we read only the second half of each, tells us why it is important. He alerts us to what he is doing by repeating over and over again, “He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith to the churches.”

John’s report of the conversation between Jesus and Nicodemus contains a similar sub-text. It is to be understood only by those who already know, and therefore have ears to hear. So the first thing we hear Jesus saying is answering a question that is unspoken in our text.

3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God (John 3:3).

Borsch explains at least part of what Jesus really said:

Of much more interest to us is the water imagery of the Gospel along with some of its associations. Let us look first at Jesus’ meeting with Nicodemus in John 3:1ff. and the discussion there about entering the Kingdom of God. Here one of the key words is [words written in Greek]. This adverb has two primary meanings, ‘from above’ and ‘anew’, but the former has predominance. This is true in the New Testament as well as in other literature, and, more importantly, in John, where, outside this passage, ‘from above’ is the meaning. The whole force of the culmination of this passage (3:13) along with the use of the word in 3:31 strongly suggest that ‘being born from above: is the primary sense intended in 3:3, 7. Yet it is probably just as obvious that Nicodemus, understands it as ‘anew’ when he asks Jesus, ‘How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?’ Almost surely, then, we are dealing with Johannine irony. Not only does Nicodemus misunderstand [words written in Greek]., but he fails to understand the mode of the birth which Jesus is describing. (Frederick Houk Borsch, The Son of Man in Myth and History [London, SCM Press, 1967, 270])

Nicodemus was a scholar, therefore he understood what Jesus said. However the adoption/kinship ordinances of Solomon’s temple had not been performed for 600 years, not since Solomon’s temple was destroyed. Nicodemus’s next question reflects his amazement that the notion that those ordinances might be performed again. So he asks for clarification, and does it in a silly way whose intent is to challenge Jesus to see if that really knows what he is talking about

4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born? (John 3:4)

There are two ways to read that. The usual way is to assume that Nicodemus thought that was a stupid thing to say, and was trying to bate Jesus. The second way – the one I think is a necessary introduction to the rest of the story – is that Nicodemus did understand and wanted to know what, how, and why. The reason I think that, is that the ideas of sonship and birthright were central to Jewish legal and theological thought. In Psalm 2, in Jesus’ baptism, and on the Mt. of Transfiguration, “You are my son” is a designation of royal birth and kingship. The Jews had lost the ancient temple rites suggested in Psalm 2, but the scriptures talk about those rites, and Nicodemus, who was a scholar, must have known about them. If he did, he also knew that the Jews had not practiced those ceremonies for 600 years — not since Solomon’s temple was destroyed.

Jesus answer addresses Nicodemus’ question precisely: He explained there is another birth that introduces one into the kingdom of God – if it is a birth, then, by definition, it makes the person both son and heir.

5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

I suspect this statement is, as it implies, about kingship and the Kingdom. If it is then that is further evidence that the conversation is about ancient kingship rites.

6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit (John 3:5-6).

There are two ways of understanding that verse. The first, which we use all the time in missionary work, is correct because it is a legitimate introduction to the second. The first is that the Saviour is talking about baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost. However, if John’s report of the conversation is sub-textually about the ancient temple rites, then the second meanings are about the coronation ceremony that follows baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost. In that case, to be born of water would imply a different washing, and to be born of the Spirit would be a reference to an anointing to be king. There are two important examples of this understanding in the Old Testament.

When David was only a boy, “Samuel took the horn of oil, and anointed him in the midst of his brethren: and the Spirit of the Lord came upon David from that day forward” (1 Samuel 16:13). Johnson referred to that story, and called the experience an “endowment of the Spirit” whereby the king received extraordinary religious authority, as well as wisdom in government and military matters. Mowinckel understood that the “Ideas about the fruits of this endowment with the spirit are, naturally, strongly influenced by older biblical conceptions of the gifts of the spirit in the Messiah.” (Who Shall Ascend into the Hill of the Lord, 253-4)

During the coronation ceremony which was part of the Feast of Tabernacles temple drama, the king (representing every man in the congregation) was washed in preparation to receiving the anointing. Then he went into the temple where he was clothed in kingly robes, anointed, crowned, and given a royal king name. The anointing during that ceremony was a dual ordinance. It made him king, and it also adopted him as a son of God who could sit on the Lord’s throne and not be a usurper. We learn the new king-name in Psalm 2. It is “son.” (Who Shall Ascend into the Hill of the Lord, 461-571)

Even though those ceremonies were no longer performed after Solomon’s Temple was destroyed, there is evidence in the New Testament that the memory of them was not entirely lost by the Jews. After the Saviour established his church, the Saints in New Testament times understood that a similar adoption ceremony was necessary to make one a son and heir of God. Thus, Paul wrote,

5 [The Father] Having [foreordained] us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,
6 To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved. (Ephesians 1:5-6)

If this sonship and adoption ceremony is what Christ meant when he told Nicodemus that he must be born again, and if Nicodemus understood that. It is little wonder that this learned Jew was amazed. To that amazement, the Saviour said,

7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again [from above] (John 3:7).

Then he explained what it was that Nicodemus was feeling. The translation of the next verse is interesting. Because Nicodemus asked, “How can these things be?” the translators of the King James Bible believed he was simply dumbfounded at the Saviour’s answer. So they have Jesus say to him:

8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit (John 3:8).

The word that they translated as “spirit” in the second instance, is the same the Greek word that they translated as “wind” in the first. It would be more correct, then, if they had Jesus saying , “The Spirit moves as it will.” Nicodemus is experiencing something he has probably never felt before, or at least that he has never identified, and Jesus is simply explaining to the same thing our missionaries tell new investigators: “The feeling you are feeling just now is the Holy Ghost.” To which Nicodemus responds much like the new investigator:

9 Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be?
10 Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things? (John 3:9-10)

If Jesus was chiding (as many interpretations suggest), his words mock Nicodemus’s scholarship. But that does not fit the rest of the situation. If Jesus was smiling (as I believe he was), then his words would have meant: “lets look into the depth of your knowledge so I can show you.” Where he takes Nicodemus mind from here, insists that he was smiling. Jesus is about to open his own soul and let Nicodemus know who he really is, However, before he does that, knowing that Nicodemus’s first impulse will be to help others also understand, Jesus explains that it won’t do any good to try to teach those who do not want to know. He tells him that he must not share what he is about to learn. He says:

11Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye [plural] receive not our witness.
12 If I have told you earthly things, and ye [plural] believe not, how shall ye [plural] believe, if I tell you of heavenly things? (John 3:11-12)

The word “ye” is plural. (It is roughly equivalent to the Southern “y’all.”) So when Jesus says “ye believe not,” he is talking about an entire group of people and is not talking about Nicodemus personally. He is not accusing Nicodemus, but rather is reminding him that the Pharisees who do not then, and will not ever, believe what he says.

I am absolutely convinced that the next lines would never have been spoken by Jesus to anyone whom he distrusted. In the Inspired Version, Joseph Smith helps us understand that and the next verse by adding the words, “I tell you,” which I take to mean, “I am telling only you, and therefore you are not to tell those Pharisees who will not believe.” What he tells him must have been both amazing and wonderful to Nicodemus.

13 And [I tell you] no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven (John 3:13).

Jesus had just finished saying, “We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen.” Now he confides to Nicodemus that what he has seen is the sode. Telling him that was necessary, because it would have been the only evidence that Nicodemus (a learned Jew) could have accepted that Jesus was a true prophet. I have no doubt that Nicodemus knew the same criterion of what is a true prophet as Jeremiah understood it. This is what Jeremiah wrote (I added the italics):

18 For who hath stood in the counsel [ the word is sode] of the Lord [had a sode experience], and hath perceived and heard his word? who hath marked his word, and heard it?19 Behold, a whirlwind of the Lord is gone forth in fury, even a grievous whirlwind: it shall fall grievously upon the head of the wicked.
20 The anger of the Lord shall not return, until he have executed, and till he have performed the thoughts of his heart: in the latter days ye shall consider it perfectly.
21 I have not sent these prophets, yet they ran: I have not spoken to them, yet they prophesied.
22 But if they had stood in my counsel (sode), and had caused my people to hear my words, then they should have turned them from their evil way, and from the evil of their doings. (Jeremiah 23:1-40.) (For a discussion of a sode experience, see Who Shall Ascend into the Hill of the Lord, 195-208)

Jeremiah wrote that a false prophet is one who has not had a sode experience and therefore can only speak from his own imagination. In contrast, he identifies a true prophet as one who has had a sode experience, and who has then returned to the people to deliver the words which God commissioned him to speak. I suspect that the reason Nephi begins the Small Plates by saying he had a “great knowledge of the … mysteries [mysterion = sode] of God,” and then by telling us about Lehi’s sode experience immediately thereafter, was to clearly identify to his readers that he and his father had been to the Council, received instruction, were delivering the message they had received, and were, therefore, true prophets. For the same reason, the First Vision is both the beginning and the most critical part of the Joseph Smith story.

The next part of Jesus statement is a necessary conclusion to the first: “And [I tell you] no man hath ascended up to heaven [had a sode experience], but he that came down from heaven.

To “come down from heaven” is the necessary conclusion of a sode experience, for the prophet id to return to his people and warn or instruct them, according to the instructions he received at the Council.]

Then the Saviour tells Nicodemus the great secret: Not only was Jesus at the Council in Heaven, but it was he who conducted the meetings there, he is Jehovah, and it was he who gave the assignments to the other prophets and kings. He said “

“…even the Son of man which is in heaven.”

“Son” is the royal king-name, so by declaring himself to be “the Son of Man,” he is declaring his position in the Council. He has just explained to Nicodemus that not only did he attend the Council, but that he conducted the affairs of the Council over which his Father presided.

(By this time, it is evident to me that what John is telling us is only the barest outline of a conversation that may have lasted many hours, or more likely, may have continued over several days.)

As a confirmation that Jesus, Jehovah, and Messiah are the same person, Jesus added,

14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up [This is the same doctrine taught by the Book of Mormon prophets]:
15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life (John 3:14-15).

The explanation of that incident is not given in the Old Testament, but it is in the Book of Mormon. When Nephi referred to it, he did not explain it, but used it as evidence – suggesting that the people had a full understanding of its meaning.

14 Yea, did he not bear record that the Son of God should come? And as he lifted up the brazen serpent in the wilderness, even so shall he be lifted up who should come.
15 And as many as should look upon that serpent should live, even so as many as should look upon the Son of God with faith, having a contrite spirit, might live, even unto that life which is eternal.
16 And now behold, Moses did not only testify of these things, but also all the holy prophets, from his days even to the days of Abraham. (Helaman 8:14-16)

Nicodemus might have understood that because he had access to ancient sacred records that were later lost when the Romans destroyed Jerusalem and burned the Temple. It is possible that some of those records contained the same interpretation of Moses’s brazen serpent as was on the brass plates. If so, Nicodemus’s study would have helped him to understand that the Saviour’s reference to Moses’s serpent was a way for Jesus to identify himself as the Messiah who will perform the atonement.

Or else Jesus might simply have explained it to him. In that case, it is clear that Nicodemus understood what Jesus was saying.

John does not explain that to his readers, just as he does not explain many things. But John does tell us about its implications for the atonement, and what Jesus told Nicodemus about it:

16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

The title, Only Begotten Son, is frequently used in the scriptures as a title for Jehovah who will be the Saviour. By using that title, Jesus identifies himself as Jehovah, and then he adds that he is also the Son of God:

17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God (John 3:16-17).

So far in this conversation, Jesus completely entrusted himself to his friend. He has not only told Nicodemus that he is a true prophet, but he has explained that he is Jehovah/Messiah, the Son—heir— of the Eternal Father. Having done all that, Jesus now tells his new friend everything else there is to tell.

19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God (John 3:19-21).

Jesus just identified himself as the personification of the Father’s “Light”, that is, the power of creation and of life, “the light and life of the world.” Jesus has now told Nicodemus almost all there is to say. He has defined himself the same way John defines him at the beginning of the gospel — not only as the Son of God, but also as the very source of light, truth, and life—the origin of all things.

The next verse tells us how Nicodemus responded to what Jesus told him.

22 After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized (John 3:22).

The usual reading of that verse is that it was Jesus who was doing the baptizing, However this cannot be, for in the next chapter John explains:

1 When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John,
2 (Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples,) (John 4:1-54)

If Jesus did not personally baptize anyone, than verse 22 must not say it was he who baptized. Therefor, it must read:

22 After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he [Nicodemus] tarried with them, and baptized (John 3:22).

Showing that after their very intimate conversation, Nicodemus became one of Jesus’s disciples.

Later, John shows us what a true friend Nicodemus was. He defended Jesus against the Pharisees (John 7:45-53.), and after Jesus was crucified, he and Joseph of Arimathaea attended to Jesus’s burial. (John 19:38-42.)

I love the story of Jesus and Nicodemus because it is one of the very few accounts where we can actually watch Jesus making a new friend. He does it, not by chiding or admonishing, but simply by making himself visible to one whom he could trust. We watch as he “entrusted” himself — made himself vulnerable— to Nicodemus. The Saviour virtually exposed his own soul and let his friend see who he was. I cannot envision that conversation without imagining that it concluded with a hug— a long and very meaningful hug.

Posted in John | Comments Off on John 3:1-22, LeGrand Baker, the Saviour and Nicodemus

2 Peter 1-11 – LeGrand Baker – Making your calling and election sure

Posted on September 12, 2012 by LeGrand Baker

2 Peter 1-11 – LeGrand Baker – Making your calling and election sure

This analysis of 2 Peter 1 was written as a part of:

Alma 38:12 – LeGrand Baker – “that you may be filled with love”

We are still in Alma 38 where uses one short clause to describe a remarkable concept.

12 …see that ye bridle all your passions, that ye may be filled with love.

In that verse, the word “that” is a very powerful conjunction. Other ways of saying it (“so that,” “in order that”) are weaker because the word is modified. Simply using “that” creates an unqualified relationship between the cause and the effect. (To see the power of the conjunction, try reading the sacrament prayers without the word “that.” You will find that without the conjunction the prayers become only disconnected ideas.)

Alma said to his son: “see that ye bridle all your passions, that ye may be filled with love.”

It is difficult for people in our culture to put those words into their proper perspective because in our vernacular language “passions” are often equated with lewdness, lasciviousness, and sexuality and seem to be the driving power behind much of the music, entertainment, and advertisements that bombard our lives.

A sidenote to Alma’s charge to “bridle all your passions” Paul’s explanation:

15 Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled (Titus 1:15).

True love is a passion: the way both our bodies and our minds express love through tenderness, affection, and the desire to make another happy and secure.

The best commentary I know on Alma’s meaning is the words of Peter (1 Peter 1:1-19). They begin with an almost poetic description of the intent of the early Christian’s temple drama, followed by step by step instructions about how to make one’s calling and election sure, then conclude with Peter’s testimony about his experience on the Mount of Transfiguration.

As we read closely, verses 1-7 their focus sharpens on the specifics of the path one must follow to ascend to those heights. He presents us with very succinct instructions about how to bridle our passions, “that ye may be filled with love.” He begins,

1 Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith [pistis] with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ (2 Peter 1:1).

Pistis is a powerful Greek word that incorporates the ideas of both making and keeping covenants. Here it is something one receives “through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ .” Righteousness describes the correctness of authority and procedure in priesthood ordinances and covenants. (See the chapter “Meaning of ‘Faith’– pistis” and “Meaning of ‘Righteousness’–zedek and Zadok”in Who Shall Ascend into the Hill of the Lord).

Is short, Peter has used pistis and righteousness to represent the entire early Christian temple services. Then he gives a beautifully insightful description of what that temple experience meant.

2 Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord,
3 According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue:
4 Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust (2 Peter 1:2-4).

In Peter’s summation, the blessings of the temple are just two promises: “that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.” There, “having” calls attention to a condition in the past “Having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust” has already happened and creates the situation of the present: “that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature.”

“Lust” means wanting something to the exclusion of wanting other thins. It, like anger, can become addictive because it produces an adrenalin high. It may be the appetite to possess something or someone. It may be the need of attention, praise, wealth, or power. For example such needs may cause a wealthy man to run for political office or a poor woman to try to use gossip to control the neighborhood. These are different in extent of the power, but not in the quality of the soul.

Then Peter teaches us how to overcome lust and enthrone charity as our dominant personalty characteristic, just as Alma teaches that we must “bridle all your passions, that ye may be filled with love.”

Peter’s 8 steps to doing that are these:

And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith [pistis] virtue.”(2 Peter 1:5)

To many Mormons, “virtue” has come to mean chastity, but it means much more than that. It is the sum of manly perfection: of integrity (no gap between what one says and what one does); of rectitude (doing the right things for the right reasons); of physical, emotional, and intellectual excellence. It is the qualities of manliness that is personified in George Washington.

and to virtue knowledge; (2 Peter 1:5)

Inspired scriptures all teach the same thing because the ideas come from the same source. I think is not a stretch to say that Peter, the first President of the ancient Church of Christ, should mean by “knowledge” the same thing that the Lord taught Joseph Smith.

24 And truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come (D&C 93:24).

That is, truth is knowledge of reality in sacred time, and is the only knowledge that has eternal value.

6 And to knowledge temperance; (2 Peter 1:6)

Temperance is moderation that is a product of self control. It is not doing anything in excess, but moving through life with an even keel, acting according to one’s own will, not being acted upon by excess of any kind.

and to temperance patience (2 Peter 1:6).

Patience is most beautifully described in Psalm 25. Patience with whom? With ourselves, with God, with other people, and with difficult circumstances.

and to patience godliness [reverence](2 Peter 1:6).

The Bible footnote and Strong (# 2150) both say the Greek word means “reverence.” We cannot hurt anyone or anything that we revere. It is recognizing and acknowledging the worth of another. It precludes the possibility of anger, contempt, and prejudice.

7 And to godliness brotherly kindness (2 Peter 1:7).

In this verse, the King James Version uses the phrase “brotherly kindness,” but elsewhere in the New Testament that same Greek word is always translated as “brotherly love” which has a somewhat stronger connotation. Strong: Greek 5360 [first edition, 1890] reads: “philadelphia; fraternal affection: brotherly love (kindness), love of the brethren.” [Emphasis is in the original).

Righteous masculine virtues include extended and focused brotherly love. The Prophet Joseph emphasized this when he said, “Friendship is the grand fundamental principle of Mormonism, to revolution civilize the world.—pour forth love.” {1}

True love and eternal friendships originate and continue in sacred space and sacred time.

and to brotherly kindness charity.(2 Peter 1:7)

While “brotherly love” is a focused love, charity is a universal love. It is as broad as “reverence” and also as focused as philadelphia. It is the maturation and culmination of both. The law of consecration is what one does when charity is what one is. In the New Testament that combination of God’s love and his loving kindness is called “grace.” The Hebrew word hesed is the equivalent and is often translated as “mercy” or “lovingkindness..”

The Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament shows the power of that friendship/relationship:

We may venture the conjecture that even in cases where the context does not suggest such mutuality it is nevertheless implicit, because we are dealing with the closest of human bonds. {2}

An explanation and clarification of the phrase, “dealing with the closest of human bonds,” is found in a new edition of Strong’s Concordance:

hesed, unfailing love, loyal love, devotion. kindness, often based on a prior relationship, especially a covenant relationship. {3}

Another definition says: “Hesed has in view right conduct in free kindness within a given relation. … [as in] Psalm 50:5, where Yahweh calls for a gathering of His hesedim [translated ‘saints’] who have made a covenant in sacrifice. It seems that the term hesed has a special place at the conclusion of a covenant.”{4}

The hesed relationship described in Psalm 25 evokes the terms of the premortal covenant between Jehovah and his children in this world. Elsewhere that same hesed relationship also exists as an eternal, fraternal bond among men. Consideration of the this-world continuation of those fraternal relationships brings us brings us back to Peter’s assurance that “brotherly kindness” (philadelphia) and charity are prerequisite to making one’s calling and election sure. Peter continues:

8 For if these things be in you, and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.
9 But he that lacketh these things is blind, and cannot see afar off, and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins.
10 Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall:
11 For so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ (2 Peter 1:8-11).

And that bring us back to Alma’s instruction to his son Shiblon.

See that ye bridle all your passions, that ye may be filled with love (Alma 38:12).

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – ENDNOTES

{1} Joseph Smith, The Words of Joseph Smith: The Contemporary Accounts of the Nauvoo Discourses of the Prophet Joseph, compiled and edited by Andrew F. Ehat and Lyndon W. Cook [Provo: BYU Religious Studies Center, 1980], 234.

{2}G. Johannes Botterweck and Helmer Ringgren, eds., trans. Davod E. Green, Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, 15 vols. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1986), article about hesed, 5:45-48). The Greek equivalent is Philadelphia, fraternal love, as explained in fn 905, p. 680.

{3} John R. Kohlenberger III and James A. Swanson, The Strongest Strong’s, Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001), Hebrew dictionary # 2617.

{4} Gerhard Friedrich, ed. (Translator and editor

Geoffrey w. Bromiley), Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Miciugan,Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1981), 9:386-7.

Posted in 1 & 2 Peter | Comments Off on 2 Peter 1-11 – LeGrand Baker – Making your calling and election sure

D&C 132:1-15 — LeGrand Baker — New and Everlasting Covenant

Posted on September 11, 2012 by LeGrand Baker

D&C 132:1-15 — LeGrand Baker — New and Everlasting Covenant

The analysis of D&C 132:1-15 is included in this examination of Mosiah 27: 8-17

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The other was told by President Heber J. Grant.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

– – – – – – – – – – – – –

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1) baptism – D&C 22

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

3) the “law” spoken of in section 132

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

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

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

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

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

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

Then the Lord explains why that is so.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

—————

ENDNOTE

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

Posted in Sec 94-Official Declarations | Comments Off on D&C 132:1-15 — LeGrand Baker — New and Everlasting Covenant