LeGrand L. Baker

Alma 9:30-32 – LeGrand Baker, God and government

Alma 9:30-32 –
17 Now they knew not that Amulek could know of their designs. But it came to pass as they began to question him, he perceived their thoughts, and he said unto them: O ye wicked and perverse generation, ye lawyers and hypocrites, for ye are laying the foundations of the devil; for ye are laying traps and snares to catch the holy ones of God.
18 Ye are laying plans to pervert the ways of the righteous, and to bring down the wrath of God upon your heads, even to the utter destruction of this people.
19 Yea, well did Mosiah say, who was our last king, when he was about to deliver up the kingdom, having no one to confer it upon, causing that this people should be governed by their own voices—yea, well did he say that if the time should come that the voice of this people should choose iniquity, that is, if the time should come that this people should fall into transgression, they would be ripe for destruction.
20 And now I say unto you that well doth the Lord judge of your iniquities; well doth he cry unto this people, by the voice of his angels: Repent ye, repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.
21 Yea, well doth he cry, by the voice of his angels that: I will come down among my people, with equity and justice in my hands.
22 Yea, and I say unto you that if it were not for the prayers of the righteous, who are now in the land, that ye would even now be visited with utter destruction; yet it would not be by flood, as were the people in the days of Noah, but it would be by famine, and by pestilence, and the sword.
23 But it is by the prayers of the righteous that ye are spared; now therefore, if ye will cast out the righteous from among you then will not the Lord stay his hand; but in his fierce anger he will come out against you; then ye shall be smitten by famine, and by pestilence, and by the sword; and the time is soon at hand except ye repent.

Alma’s warning to the Nephites about the need for good government rings as true to us today as it did to the people to whom Alma was talking.

There are only three fundamental forms of governmental systems. 1) Those that are described in Machiavelli’s The Prince, where the most powerful people assume the authorities of government and use power to retain power. 2) Those that are described by Rousseau, where a self-identified moral elite assume the authorities of government. 3) And those that are based on the principles of Deism, described in theory in the Declaration of Independence, and in function in the American Constitution. Let me point out the differences.

1) The coercive powers described in The Prince are the same whether the control is exercised by a king, tribal chiefs, medieval landowners, military dictators, or department chairmen. This is a very simple form of government. It rests on the theory that there are casts of people, and their status can easily be defined by whether they are or are not a part of the dominant aristocracy. Those who are, control politics, religion, and economy. They control politics because the law is what they say the law is. They control the economy because they own the real property, and often also the serfs or slaves who work the land. They control religion because religious doctrines, rituals, and festivals are a major means of keeping the masses in check. In these cultures the major gods support the king and validate his actions. Criminal law is established to reinforce and legalize both the religion and the power of the king. In ancient Rome, Persia, China and Japan the king or emperor was a god. In ancient Egypt, Greece, medieval Europe, and apostate Israel, the king was the ultimate representative of the god.

2) Rousseau rejected the idea of class based on land ownership, and devised a method of creating a different, but equally ridged class system. He argued that people are intelligent animals whose primary instincts, and motivations are avarice, greed, self preservation, and self aggrandizement. He said that because this is so, all governments tend to be tools by which the powerful can control and take advantage of the weak. He used the European dark ages as an primary example. He said, however, that not all people are like that. There is a small minority—a moral elite—who are capable of understanding and therefore of dispensing equanimity in society—that is, they would be if they had the powers of government at their disposal. He reasoned that it is the responsibility of this self-defined, self-appointed, elite to obtain political power by whatever revolutionary means are necessary, and then to use government to impose equity upon society. Marks’s Communism picks up on that idea and assumes the working class would constitute that moral elite. George Bernard Shaw saw it differently. He believed the moral elite would be the well educated property class of Britain (people who already had enough money and education that they didn’t have to worry about ways to get more). He organized the Fabian Society which is still the think tank of the British Labor Party. (When the Labor Party got power in England they nationalized railroads, coal mines, and other theretofore private businesses.) He implemented his program by establishing discussion groups at universities among students who were going to become teachers, writers of plays and novels, newspaper reporters, broadcasting, and other professions that had the power to change public opinion. Shaw also started private schools in England. One young woman who attended one of his schools was Eleanor Roosevelt. She returned to America, helped establish Fabian discussion groups at universities here, and married FDR who implemented many of Shaw’s ideas in the United States. Mrs Roosevelt also became very involved in the United Nations.

Rousseau-inspired governmental systems vary markedly in their applications of his principles. In Russia, China, and a few other places it has been rather complete. After World War II, European nations like France and Italy adopted it within their established political systems. In America, Shaw’s version of Rousseau’s philosophy was espoused by the Roosevelt’s Democratic party, but countered by the Republicans, so American movement toward implementing this philosophy has been slowed by political compromise.

In practice the philosophy is called Communism, Socialism, and several other names. In theory it looks good, but it is severely flawed. Its flaws cause it to evolve into Machiavelli-like system where the philosophy itself takes the role of religion. Its premise is that because people are corrupt and selfish by nature, they are not capable of making decisions that are not in their own self interest, so participatory government, where the masses make political decisions, must be as corrupt as the masses who participate in those decisions. Rousseau asserts that since neither an aristocracy nor a democracy can govern equitably, a self-identified and self-appointed moral elite must displace the old system and make governmental decisions for the masses. The flaw is that even though it pretends to establish a single cast economic system, it cannot do so. Rather, it creates a two-cast social, political, and economic system that is as oppressive as Machiavellian dictatorships. The underlying problem is that there is no such thing as wealth in the abstract. Wealth consists of a sequence of events—the first involves production, then distribution, then accessibility. For example, one can own a mountain full of gold ore, but it means nothing unless he can refine the gold, influence its value, and get it on the market. The same is true of a field of wheat. Unless it is harvested and marketed, it is no greater source of wealth than a field of weeds. In Rousseau’s egalitarian system, the same people who make political decisions also make decisions about what should be produced, how it should be marketed, and who has access to it. If their decisions are not correct, the wheat does not get planted; or if planted, not harvested; or if harvested, not marketed; or if marketed, to the wrong people for the wrong price. Criminal law is established to ensure the continuance of the system and to sustain the power of the individuals who control the state. The opportunities for corruption are enormous, and, as happened in the USSR, when it is pushed to its logical conclusion, the government that implements it is destined to implode.

3) The system based on the notions of Deism has its origins back as far as the Protestant Reformation with the ideas of John Calvin. Calvin’s rationale went like this: God is perfect; what he does is perfect; and God created men and women, some of whom will go to heaven but others will go to hell. That presents a logical dilemma: if some go to hell that means either God’s creation is not perfect or else that he created them to go to hell. Calvin’s conclusion was that God created some to go to heaven and others to go to hell. That philosophy is called predestination. His followers accepted it as truth but were frustrated by it. They asked, “If I live a good life and am destined to go to heaven, well and good; however, if I live the good life but am destined to go to hell, then I will miss out on all the fun things and my life will have been wasted. They wanted Calvin to tell them how they could tell if they were destined to go to heaven. He responded with this argument: If one is honest, industrious, lives frugally, teaches others his trade, and is generous to the poor, then one is the kind of person who will go to heaven. That is, if one wishes to be in good with God, one must be productive. I submit that if that doctrine were taught in any culture, at any time, and in any religion, there would only be one consequence: the people would get rich. And that is what happened. Calvin’s philosophy became the foundation of our free enterprise economic system. It was transported to England where it merged with British Common Law and the Parliamentary system.

That fusion of philosophies migrated to America with the British colonists. It matured in the colonies, until it became the established fact of American political and economic reality. The Americans were comfortable with it until after the French and Indian war, when the British Parliament began to pass laws that imposed political and economic change upon their American colonies. The Americans rebelled, but the rebels were not revolutionaries. They were constitutional conservatives who were determined to retain their rights as Englishmen even if they had to get out on the Empire to do it.

The colonists were Christians: the most widely read book in America was the Bible, and their formal and informal education included a study of both the old and New Testaments. Along with the evolution of their political and economic philosophy, there had also been an evolution in their religion—not in their organized religion, that remained the same—but in their fundamental thinking about the nature and personality of God. Their new religious philosophy was called Deism. Because Deism was not a formalized religion it never had a published creed. (The only nearly contemporary analysis of its principles was written by Tom Paine as a seething attack against Thomas Jefferson. Paine had a caustic personality and mis-defined Deism as atheism, then used his definition to try to show that Jefferson was an atheist.) The best way to discover what Deism really meant is to ignore Paine and read the papers of the Founding Fathers to see how they understood God and religion, and to observe their actions to learn the impact the philosophy had upon their lives. The fundamental premises of Deism are these: 1) There is a God in Heaven who is capable of thought and feeling. His existence and his personality are evinced by the nature of his creations, and the greatest all of those creations are men and women. The fact that people think and feel is sufficient evidence that God also can think and feel. God loves his creations and desires them to be the very best that they are capable of being. People are innately capable of being their best, but only when they lived in a society with a government that encourages individual human success. Since God wants people to have the advantages afforded by a free government, he also wants them to have a government under which they can be free. Therefore it is in God’s self interest to help humans create governments that will augment their individual success and happiness. Perhaps the very best living exponent of this philosophy was the greatest man of them all, George Washington.{1}

Washington once confided to a friend that “an innate spirit of freedom” first taught him to recognize the principles and value of liberty. {2}

Washington was a devout Christian. That is evinced by his frequent letters to the Continental Congress requesting that they declare national fast and prayer days in behalf of his military success. When the army was approaching a battle, Washington would give general orders that his men pray for divine sustenance. At the conclusion of a successful battle Washington issued general orders that the men fast and pray in thanks to God. Consistent with his Deistic philosophy, Washington believed that because it was in God’s best interest to provide his children with a government in which they could be free to be the best they could possibly be, God would hold himself responsible for the Army’s military success. However, also consistent with Washington’s Deistic philosophy, he believed that it was he, not God, who was responsible for his own personal success and for the care of Mt. Vernon. Consequently, even though there is much evidence that Washington prayed for his country, there is little or no evidence that he prayed for Mt. Vernon.

In short, Deism was a Christian-based belief that God cares about the freedom of his children, and that for that reason he takes an active part in their political, and if necessary military, welfare.

In America, the generation of the Revolutionary War and the creation of the Constitution saw the birth of an entirely new political philosophy. It was founded on the economic principles of the Protestant work ethic, mingled with the system of British parliamentary system and common-law, sustained by the Christian belief that people have individual worth, and empowered by the Deistic understanding that God will intervene to make his children politically free. All of these ideas matured together, and flowered in the words of Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence.

The best discussion of the Declaration’s philosophy is Garry Wills’ Inventing America. {3}

In his book, Wills carefully examines the philosophical background of Jefferson’s “all men are created equal.” He shows that Jefferson’s “equality” was fundamentally different from Rousseau’s egalitarian “equality,” and also different from John Locke’s “life, liberty, and property.” In the first place Jefferson and his contemporaries did not believe equality meant sameness, as is implied in Rousseau’s egalitarian ideals, and they did not believe that inherited property conveyed inherited rights to political power.

In his personal writings, Jefferson compared human society to a bucket of fresh milk. He observed that as time passes the cream in the milk will separate and rise to the top of the bucket, while the ordinary milk will settle to the bottom. Jefferson believed people are like that: those with natural talents will rise to the top, others will not. He believed government ought not to be used to artificially raise untalented people, or to artificially keep afloat the untalented children of talented people. He wrote that government should get out of the way, but let people seek their own levels—according to their individual abilities and inclinations—and according to their own definitions of “the pursuit of happiness.”

Jefferson wrote,

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

With those words he lay the entire legal foundation for the legitimacy of participatory government.

Machiavelli’s system is based on the notion that people are not equal, Therefore, any rights the masses have are given to them by their government.

Rousseau’s system assumed people are, and should be required to remain, equal—and that equality means sameness. Also under that system, any rights the masses have are given them by their government.

Jefferson’s “equality” is nothing like either of those. Wills has shown that Jefferson ’s meaning of equality was the same as that taught by Scottish philosophers who believed that human equality is about our universal sense of right and wrong. The rationale for participatory government is this: If we share a sense of right and wrong, and if we are governed by people elected by the masses, then the representatives in government will have the same sense of right and wrong as the people who elected them. Such a government would make laws that are consistent with the universal conscience. That is, the government would make things that are morally wrong illegal, and use the laws to support things that are good. Under this system, any rights the masses have are given by to them God, and the function of government is to preserve those inalienable rights.

In Jefferson’s system, God made men free, and therefore there are only four fundamental purposes of government. They are: 1) to protect the people from international aggression (military and diplomatic power), 2) to protect them from their neighbors (police and some regulatory powers), 3) to make them freer than they would be if there were no government (good roads and an efficient political system), and 4) to leave the people alone and let them be the best they can be. In a word: to prevent external restraints on individual freedom and otherwise to keep out of the way.

In the context of his “all men are created equal,” Jefferson was not talking about “equality under the law,” neither was he talking about “equality of opportunity” (that’s a 20^th century phrase that suggests egalitarianism. It is a handy political phrase—and like the very best of political catch-phrases it has no concrete meaning because the opportunity humans want are as variant as human interests.). and as such was not a part of Jefferson’s thinking. Wills convincingly shows that what Jefferson meant is that all people have an innate and equal sense of right and wrong – they all have the same built-in conscience—a universal standard of moral excellence—and on that idea rests the whole legal justification for the American political and economic system.

In contrast, in Rousseau’s thinking, there is no standard of right and wrong, therefore any government that might be elected by the masses would share their inability to distinguish the common good from the common evil—therefore the need of a dictatorship of the moral elite. However, in Jefferson’s system, because there is a universal conscience, the people in a government elected by the masses would share their innate sense of personal (therefore universal) right and wrong. In Rousseau’s system, participatory government must necessarily be corrupt because people are selfish; but in Jefferson’s system participatory government must necessarily be in the best interest of everyone, because the people who run the government share the common values of the overwhelming majority of the citizens. Criminal law is necessary, but it only applies to those who act contrary to those commonly held values.

There are also other fundamental differences between the two philosophies. Both use the word “freedom,” but with entirely different meanings. In Rousseau’ philosophy, the purpose of the government is to grant freedom to the people. That is, freedom is a gift of government, and the extent of the freedom is as it is defined by the government.

In Jefferson’s system, freedom means one can do whatever he wishes as long as he does not impinge on the freedom of other people. A free enterprise economic system is the necessary consequence of a free political system—or else, a free political system is the necessary consequence of a free enterprise economic system – it’s a chicken or egg kind of proposition. In this system wealth is still defined by production and distribution, but people are free to invent better products and create more efficient ways of distribution, and as long as they are free to do that, they and the consumers are in a mutual win-win situation.

Enter modern capitalism: The Founding Fathers left matters of personal affairs to state and local governments, but did not envision the time when businesses would actually get bigger than the states. The railroad was the first to do that, so the federal government invented a bureaucracy to cope with interstate transportation. Eventually egalitarians used similar bureaucracies to further invade state and local governments’ prerogatives, like the environmental protection agency for example. All one has to do is define a problem as being bigger than any state government and one has also created the rationale for creating a federal bureaucracy to handle the problem.

Now there are businesses that are bigger and richer than states and nations, like Standard Oil, and Microsoft, so the UN and other ultra-governmental organizations are using the same rationale to establish extra-governmental world wide bureaucracies to control them.

Consequently, there is now developing a 4^th political philosophy competing with the three I have just described. In theory, it looks like a kind of combination of all the other three, and its object is the establishment of a one-world government with a one-world economy. In the meantime, Jefferson’s system has not been doing badly: free and democratic governments are being established all over the world at an amazing rate – more than 100 in the last 100 years, and seems to be winning over the old Rousseau-like egalitarian systems like in Russia and China. But now there has entered a new self-defined moral elite competing with both the ideas of Jeffersonian participatory government, and the old Rousseauian egalitarianism. This is the power of the people who control the international conglomerates. Their object is to establish world peace—not a millennial reign, but a modern version of a militarily enforced Pax Romana.

– – – – – – – – – –

In the Book of Mormon, the Nephites also lived under a participatory government. It’s form was different from ours, but it also was a reflection of the moral standards of the people. It is apparent that the founders of their government believe, as did the founders of ours, that God would defend them in their liberty as long as they exercised their freedom in righteousness. The principal is universal. God wishes his children to be free to be the very best that they can possibly be.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

God will sustain a government for as long as it permits the righteous to worship under the umbrella of the freedom it provides. But when the majority of people turn from God, and use the powers of government to persecute the righteous—to limit freedom rather than augment it—the government and its people are in bad trouble. God cannot continue to support such a government, just as he cannot support individuals unless they obeyed the laws upon which blessings are predicated.

That was Alma’s warning to his people, and it is equally applicable to the nations of our world today.

Footnotes:

{1} I’ve published a couple of articles about Washington with co-authors. They are: Frank W. Fox and LeGrand L. Baker,”Wise Men Raised Up,” Ensign. June 1976, 27-32. And: Matthew F. Hilton and LeGrand Baker, “George Washington, a Man of Unfailing Personal Integrity,” Sons of the American Revolution Magazine, Winter, 1987, 16-18.

{2} Washington to Bryan Fairfax, 24 August 1774, in G. W. Fitzpatrick, ed., The Writings of George Washington (printed by the U.S. Government from 1931-1944 in commemoration of Washington’s 200th birthday), 3: 240.

{3} Garry Wills, Inventing America, Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence (New York, Vintage Books, 1979).

Alma 10:1-11, LeGrand Baker, Amulek’s autobiographical testimony

Amulek’s autobiographical testimony asks many more questions than it answers. The first question is “Who was Amulek?”

Another is: “Was Zeezrom and his group trying to overthrow the government at Zarahemla, or was their first intent to overthrow the local ruling class, of which Amulek was a part?”

The answers begin, as Amulek would have it begin, with his genealogy. He was at least a distant cousin of Alma and a member of the royal family, but he lived in an area geographically remote from Zarahemla. (The way I envision that is something like the Duke of York living a long way from London.) My evidence for making that assertion is the phrase, “descendant of Nephi.” The phrase has a very specific meaning for Mormon

The entire Book of Mormon is the story of a single family. There are only two gaps in the single genealogical thread. One is the connection of Alma with the royal family and the other is the connection of Mormon with the line of Nephis that precede and follow the Saviour’s ministry. Mormon closes both of those gaps with the phrase “descendant of Nephi.” Mormon identifies himself this way:

5  I, Mormon, being a descendant of Nephi. . . .I am the son of Mormon, and my father was a descendant of Nephi. (Mormon 1:5, 8:13)

When he introduced Alma for the first time, he did so by establishing Alma’s ultimate right to rule both the church and the state by writing, “Alma, he also being a descendant of Nephi.” (Mosiah 17:2) “Also” is the operative word. It suggests to me that Alma had the same rights to the throne as Noah had—That would mean that Alma was Noah’s younger brother.

Mormon reiterated that when he introduced the book of Third Nephi with a statement of Nephi’s royal ancestry:

1  The book of Nephi the son of Nephi, who was the son of Helaman. And Helaman was the son of Helaman, who was the son of Alma, who was the son of Alma, being a descendant of Nephi who was the son of Lehi, who came out of Jerusalem in the first year of the reign of Zedekiah, the king of Judah. (3 Nephi 1)

It is apparent that his phrase “a descendant of Nephi” did not simply mean that the person could trace his genealogy back to Nephi. That is made clear by his differentiating the “descendants of Nephi” from the “people of Nephi.” Here he clarifies his meaning when he puts the people in four groups: the two royal families and the two groups of commoners:

1  And now king Mosiah caused that all the people should be gathered together.
2  Now there were not so many of the children of Nephi, or so many of those who were descendants of Nephi, as there were of the people of Zarahemla, who was a descendant of Mulek, and those who came with him into the wilderness.
3  And there were not so many of the people of Nephi and of the people of Zarahemla as there were of the Lamanites; yea, they were not half so numerous. (Mosiah 25:1-3)

When Amulek identifies himself as “a descendant of Nephi” and traces his ancestry to Manasseh and Joseph, he is asserting an authority that his listeners could not match (If it were common to everyone there would have been no point in his saying it). For example, virtually everyone who can trace their genealogy back to Europe in the 15 or 1600’s, finds that we are all descended from the royal families. That royal ancestry doesn’t give any of us Americans much status, but those who remain in Europe, who can trace their genealogy through the birthright children to those same royal families still have the titles of nobles and kings. I assume that Amulek is asserting a dignity that everyone recognizes is his right by birth.

The fact that Amulek has to introduce himself does not diminish that argument. We live in a world where pictures, even instantaneous moving pictures, are a common place. So we recognize the faces of the President of the United States, the queen of England, and the Prophet. But in a world where photographs simply did not exist, such recognition by anyone who was not intimate with the leaders would have been impossible. The most usual way the people had of recognizing such people was by their clothing. Kings wore rich clothing with special insignia so they would be recognized as kings.

Judging from the way Mormon uses the phrase “descendant of Nephi,” and from his including it in this abridged version of Amulek’s speech, I would suppose that his intent is to let us understand that Amulek is more powerful than his words suggest. He said simply, “ I am also a man of no small reputation among all those who know me; yea, and behold, I have many kindreds and friends, and I have also acquired much riches by the hand of my industry.”

Is there significance in that? Yes, because he knowingly threw it all away when he said,

9   And the angel said unto me he is a holy man; wherefore I know he is a holy man because it was said by an angel of God.
10  And again, I know that the things whereof he hath testified are true; for behold I say unto you, that as the Lord liveth, even so has he sent his angel to make these things manifest unto me; and this he has done while this Alma hath dwelt at my house.
11  For behold, he hath blessed mine house, he hath blessed me, and my women, and my children, and my father and my kinsfolk; yea, even all my kindred hath he blessed, and the blessing of the Lord hath rested upon us according to the words which he spake.

That doesn’t do much to answer the question about the object of the Zeezrom’s intended coup d’etat, but I suspect it sheds a great deal of light on Mormon’s motive. I suspect the reason Mormon quoted Amulek’s introductory autobiography was to help us know how great was the social and (probably) political cost to Amulek when he defended Alma— and therefore, that Mormon intended us to understand the integrity of Amulek’s testimony.

Alma 9:30-32 — LeGrand Baker — pattern of apostasy

Alma 9:30-32
30  And now, my beloved brethren, for ye are my brethren, and ye ought to be beloved, and ye ought to bring forth works which are meet for repentance, seeing that your hearts have been grossly hardened against the word of God, and seeing that ye are a lost and a fallen people.
31  Now it came to pass that when I, Alma, had spoken these words, behold, the people were wroth with me because I said unto them that they were a hard-hearted and a stiffnecked people.
32  And also because I said unto them that they were a lost and a fallen people they were angry with me, and sought to lay their hands upon me, that they might cast me into prison.

This story is so typical of the actions of apostates of every age.

To one who knows the truth, but is not living the truth he knows, true prophets can be very obnoxious, and even their presence can be extremely disconcerting. True prophets do not speak in neutral, wishy-washy terms like false prophets do. Many people are willing to pay a lot of money to be able to believe an eloquent, smiling preacher who can speak convincingly to the subject: “The mercy of God will enable you get into heaven if you do your best, so you don’t actually need to repent.”

The people who pay those salaries, and the people who receive them, don’t like true prophets who teach: “You actually need to repent and love your neighbor as your self, or you won’t qualify to be where God is.”

Paying a preacher to say what one wants to hear is a whole lot easier and often much cheaper than repenting, but that doesn’t make a true prophets any the less obnoxious to an apostate. For some reason, one who has known the truth and apostatized cannot simply ignore the prophet and get on with life. Such a person is in a tight bind. Ether he has to repent or else he must prove the prophet isn’t telling the truth after all. The easiest way to prove a true prophet is really a false prophet is to show that he does not have the physical power to defend himself. Consequently, such people make it a point to persecute, imprison, or kill the prophets. It is as though such people see defeating—even killing—the prophet is the most efficient way for one to be assured of getting into heaven. The Saviour understood that, and warned the Twelve,

1  These things have I spoken unto you, that ye should not be offended.
2  They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service.
3  And these things will they do unto you, because they have not known the Father, nor me. (John 16:1-3)

So what Alma writes about his antagonists is entirely consistent with apostates’s attitudes and actions in every age.

Alma 9:30-32 — LeGrand Baker — persecuting a prophet seems easier than repenting

Alma 9:30-32
30  And now, my beloved brethren, for ye are my brethren, and ye ought to be beloved, and ye ought to bring forth works which are meet for repentance, seeing that your hearts have been grossly hardened against the word of God, and seeing that ye are a lost and a fallen people.
31  Now it came to pass that when I, Alma, had spoken these words, behold, the people were wroth with me because I said unto them that they were a hard-hearted and a stiffnecked people.
32  And also because I said unto them that they were a lost and a fallen people they were angry with me, and sought to lay their hands upon me, that they might cast me into prison.

This story is so typical of the actions of apostates of every age.

To one who knows the truth, but is not living the truth he knows, true prophets can be very obnoxious, and even their presence can be extremely disconcerting. True prophets do not speak in neutral, wishy-washy terms like false prophets do. Many people are willing to pay a lot of money to be able to believe an eloquent, smiling preacher who can speak convincingly to the subject: “The mercy of God will enable you get into heaven if you do your best, so you don’t actually need to repent.”

The people who pay those salaries, and the people who receive them, don’t like true prophets who teach: “You actually need to repent and love your neighbor as your self, or you won’t qualify to be where God is.”

Paying a preacher to say what one wants to hear is a whole lot easier and often much cheaper than repenting, but that doesn’t make a true prophets any the less obnoxious to an apostate. For some reason, one who has known the truth and apostatized cannot simply ignore the prophet and get on with life. Such a person is in a tight bind. Ether he has to repent or else he must prove the prophet isn’t telling the truth after all. The easiest way to prove a true prophet is really a false prophet is to show that he does not have the physical power to defend himself. Consequently, such people make it a point to persecute, imprison, or kill the prophets. It is as though such people see defeating—even killing—the prophet is the most efficient way for one to be assured of getting into heaven. The Saviour understood that, and warned the Twelve,

1  These things have I spoken unto you, that ye should not be offended.
2  They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service.
3  And these things will they do unto you, because they have not known the Father, nor me. (John 16:1-3)

So what Alma writes about his antagonists is entirely consistent with apostates’s attitudes and actions in every age.

 Alma 9:25-28 — LeGrand Baker — kingdom of heaven is nigh at hand

And now for this cause, that ye may not be destroyed, the Lord has sent his angel to visit many of his people, declaring unto them that they must go forth and cry mightily unto this people, saying: Repent ye, for the kingdom of heaven is nigh at hand; And not many days hence the Son of God shall come in his glory . . . . Therefore, prepare ye the way of the Lord, for the time is at hand that all men shall reap a reward of their works, according to that which they have been—if they have been righteous they shall reap the salvation of their souls, according to the power and deliverance of Jesus Christ; and if they have been evil they shall reap the damnation of their souls, according to the power and captivation of the devil.

The phrases that caught my attention in these verses were: “the kingdom of heaven is at hand,” and “for the time is at hand .” The latter may be read as simply a restatement of the former, or it may be read quite differently. It was the different reading that caught my attention.

The phrase (but not always in these exact words), “the kingdom of heaven is at hand,” seems to have three separate meanings. All of them carry the same sense of urgency, but the urgency is not related to linear time.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – –

The first meaning projects the Kingdom of God deep into our future.

Beginning with Isaiah the prophets tell us that the kingdom of heaven is at hand and then describe the events that will occur immediately before the second coming of the Saviour. They predict the collapse of governments and cultures, and say that not only will conditions on the earth be in turmoil, but the very heavens will seem to be dislodged: the stars will fall from heaven; the sun will be darkened; and the moon will be turned to a blood. It is apparent that when Isaiah predicted that such a time was near at hand, he was describing nearness from God’s perspective of time, rather than from our own.

6   Howl ye; for the day of the Lord is at hand; it shall come as a destruction from the Almighty….
10   For the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof shall not give their light: the sun shall be darkened in his going forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to shine. (Isaiah 13:6-10 and 2 Nephi 23: 6-10; see Joel 3:15)

In a revelation given to Oliver Cowdery, also about the millennium, the Lord said that the time was “nigh at hand,” but then he also said that he thinks about time very differently from the way we do.

51   Wherefore, children shall grow up until they become old; old men shall die; but they shall not sleep in the dust, but they shall be changed in the twinkling of an eye.
52   Wherefore, for this cause preached the apostles unto the world the resurrection of the dead.
53   These things are the things that ye must look for; and, speaking after the manner of the Lord, they are now nigh at hand, and in a time to come, even in the day of the coming of the Son of Man.(D&C 63:51-53)

The Saviour gave the parable of the fig tree to suggest that even though no one—not even the angels—knows when the time is coming, the righteous will be able to recognize its approach by the conditions of the earth and among the people. He said,

36  And, as I said before, after the tribulation of those days, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken, then shall appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven, and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn; and they shall see the Son of Man coming in the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory;
37   And whoso treasureth up my word, shall not be deceived, for the Son of Man shall come, and he shall send his angels before him with the great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together the remainder of his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.
38   Now learn a parable of the fig-tree—When its branches are yet tender, and it begins to put forth leaves, you know that summer is nigh at hand;
39   So likewise, mine elect, when they shall see all these things, they shall know that he is near, even at the doors;
40   But of that day, and hour, no one knoweth; no, not the angels of God in heaven, but my Father only….
48   Therefore be ye also ready, for in such an hour as ye think not, the Son of Man cometh. (Joseph Smith-Matthew 1:36-38. see: Luke 21:25-38; D&C 45:1-75, 49:5-10)

In his introduction to the Doctrine and Covenants, the Lord assured the Saints, “the hour is not yet, but is nigh at hand,” (D&C 1:35) Later, using the same code he used in the Beatitudes and in section 88: 17-18, the Saviour explained who these people are who will understand the unspoken signs.

15   And the poor and the meek shall have the gospel preached unto them, and they shall be looking forth for the time of my coming, for it is nigh at hand—
16   And they shall learn the parable of the fig-tree, for even now already summer is nigh. (D&C 35:15-16)

Even though none but God knows the precise day and time, yet the prophets alert us to the signs is so we can anticipate it when it comes. The righteous will not know just which day it is going to be, but neither will they be surprised when it happens. (D&C 45:37-44) The irrelevance of linear time in the Lord’s strategy for success is emphasized in John’s Revelation. It begins and ends with the phrase, “the time is at hand.” In the first chapter the time referred to is the present—not only the then-present, but also the now-present for anyone who reads with understanding:

3   Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand. ( Revelation 1:3) . . . .

Then, in the last chapter, the angel projects the message of the Revelation to the very ending of the earth:

10   And he [the angel] saith unto me, Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book: for the time is at hand.
11   He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still.
12   And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.
13   I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.
14   Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city. (Revelation 22:10-14)

In Revelation, the words “the time is at hand” represents a continuum that extends from the day John received the revelation until the end of time when the Saints live in the holy city and, by right, may feast upon the fruit of the tree of life.

Notwithstanding the fact that the prophecies are indistinct as to our measurement of time, they still carry a strong sense of urgency—even in these long-term prophecies. For that reason, the phrase “soon at hand” remains relevant as an immediate warning.

9    For the hour is nigh and the day soon at hand when the earth is ripe; and all the proud and they that do wickedly shall be as stubble; and I will burn them up, saith the Lord of Hosts, that wickedness shall not be upon the earth;
10   For the hour is nigh, and that which was spoken by mine apostles must be fulfilled; for as they spoke so shall it come to pass;
11   For I will reveal myself from heaven with power and great glory, with all the hosts thereof, and dwell in righteousness with men on earth a thousand years, and the wicked shall not stand. (D&C 29:9-11)

This sense of urgency reminds one of Paul’s statement in the first chapter of Ephesians. There he tells the Saints of his day that their keeping their covenants would eventually have an impact on the ultimate fulfillment of God’s purposes, 2000 years later, to restore the gospel, the Temple, and gather Israel: “That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him.” (Ephesians 1:10)

In much the same way, the prophets and the Savior have taught that people must live their lives as though those future events were imminent. The application of that principle to Saints in past dispensations is difficult for us to see because our history’s are poorly written and our information is inadequate. For example, we can only guess how individual martyrs of first and second century Christianity influenced the events of the restoration. But it does not take very much imagination for us to realize that if it were not for those great men and women who sacrificed their all for the gospel, we would have neither the Scriptures nor even the tradition of ancient Christianity.

I suppose that in a similar way it will be true in the winding up of all of human experience on this beautiful earth – that what we do here during our dispensation will have a greater effect on the final winding up of human history than any of us can foresee or even imagine.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

The second use of the phrase, “the kingdom of God is at head” means precisely what it says. These were the declarations made by the Book of Mormon prophets immediately preceded the coming of the Savior.

7    For behold, I say unto you there be many things to come; and behold, there is one thing which is of more importance than they all—for behold, the time is not far distant that the Redeemer liveth and cometh among his people….
9    But behold, the Spirit hath said this much unto me, saying: Cry unto this people, saying—Repent ye, and prepare the way of the Lord, and walk in his paths, which are straight; for behold, the kingdom of heaven is at hand, and the Son of God cometh upon the face of the earth. (Alma 7:7-9)

Later, Alma added that his testimony was based on the sure knowledge that the event was pending, but not upon his knowledge of when it would happen..

24   For behold, angels are declaring it unto many at this time in our land; and this is for the purpose of preparing the hearts of the children of men to receive his word at the time of his coming in his glory.
25   And now we only wait to hear the joyful news declared unto us by the mouth of angels, of his coming; for the time cometh, we know not how soon. Would to God that it might be in my day; but let it be sooner or later, in it I will rejoice. (Alma 13:23-26)

Another example is far more dramatic than Alma giving a speech, and much closer to the time when the Saviour actually came. It shows that not only does the Lord warn people about things to come, but he has his own way of preparing us for them. In this instance he called 300 prominent Lamanites to preach to their own people. Like Paul, the 300 were not expecting the call,

26   And it came to pass that Nephi and Lehi did stand forth and began to speak unto them, saying: Fear not, for behold, it is God that has shown unto you this marvelous thing. . . . they heard this voice . . . . saying: Repent ye, repent ye, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand; and seek no more to destroy my servants. And it came to pass that the earth shook again, and the walls trembled. (Helaman 5:26-33)

After the Saviour’s birth, John the Baptist bore testimony with that same message: “Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” (Matthew 3:2) Jesus taught the same thing in the same words: “Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.”(Mark 1:14-15)

That same message was delivered by the Saviour to the early Saints through the Prophet Joseph: “Yea, open your mouths and they shall be filled, saying: Repent, repent, and prepare ye the way of the Lord, and make his paths straight; for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (D&C 33:10) “Wherefore, go forth, crying with a loud voice, saying: The kingdom of heaven is at hand; crying: Hosanna! blessed be the name of the Most High God.(D&C 39:19)

6   And ye shall go forth in the power of my Spirit, preaching my gospel, two by two, in my name, lifting up your voices as with the sound of a trump, declaring my word like unto angels of God.
7   And ye shall go forth baptizing with water, saying: Repent ye, repent ye, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” (D&C 42:6-7)

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

The third use of the prophetic phrase, “the Kingdom of God is at head” is the one that is most relevant to each of us, just as it was most relevant to all the Saints in past dispensations. It is the Lord’s promise to individuals who understand that they are teetering on the edge of their own future eternity. For us, the decisions we are making in this life literally do introduce us into the Kingdom of God, or else they preclude our entering there altogether. For us it is true: the Kingdom of God is at hand—in the immediacy of our own present, as well as in the future fulfillment of our hope for eternal life. In God’s understanding, the only difference between our linear time and his eternity is that we can’t see as far in either direction as he can. Other than that, there is no difference. The scriptures call the bridge that spans that gap for us “hope.” Hope is that

59   …. ye must be born again into the kingdom of heaven, of water, and of the Spirit, and be cleansed by blood, even the blood of mine Only Begotten; that ye might be sanctified from all sin, and enjoy the words of eternal life in this world, and eternal life in the world to come, even immortal glory; (Moses 6:59)

25   My son…. may Christ lift thee up, and may his sufferings and death, and the showing his body unto our fathers, and his mercy and long-suffering, and the hope of his glory and of eternal life, rest in your mind forever. (Moroni 9:25)

This is the meaning of “hope”: to live and understand as though the covenants of the Father were already fulfilled.

When Alma was in Zarahemla, speaking to both members and non-members of the Church, he urged them to reflect on the impermanence of everything in this life except the promises of eternal love that we receive from God. Without using the word “charity,” Alma taught that charity is the criteria by which we may be included in—or be excluded from—the Kingdom of Heaven.

Have ye walked, keeping yourselves blameless before God? . . . sufficiently humble? . . . garments have been cleansed and made white through the blood of Christ. . . . stripped of pride? I say unto you, if ye are not ye are not prepared to meet God. Behold ye must prepare quickly; for the kingdom of heaven is soon at hand. . . ., stripped of envy? . . . should prepare quickly, for the hour is close at hand. . . . make a mock of his brother, or that heapeth upon him persecutions? Wo unto such an one, for he is not prepared, and the time is at hand that he must repent or he cannot be saved!. . . . repent, for the Lord God hath spoken it! Behold, he sendeth an invitation unto all men, for the arms of mercy are extended towards them, and he saith: Repent, and I will receive you.Yea, he saith: Come unto me and ye shall partake of the fruit of the tree of life . . . the time is at hand that whosoever bringeth forth not good fruit, or whosoever doeth not the works of righteousness, the same have cause to wail and mourn. . . . Repent, all ye ends of the earth, for the kingdom of heaven is soon at hand; yea, the Son of God cometh in his glory, in his might, majesty, power, and dominion. (Alma 5:27-34, 50)

Here, as in the scripture in chapter 9 that we are considering, Alma was speaking of two different things which are, if fact, the same. The first is one’s personal preparedness to be in the presence of the Saviour. The second was that the Saviour would soon visit the people of Nephi. The standards are constant: the qualities of those who saw the Saviour when he visited America were not different from the qualities of those who see him under other circumstances. The ultimate fulfillment of these promises to those who have charity is what Alma calls “the Kingdom of Heaven.”

This meaning is not unique with Alma. It is taught throughout the scriptures. For example, speaking of the last days, the Lord explained to Moroni,

16   And then shall my revelations which I have caused to be written by my servant John be unfolded in the eyes of all the people. Remember, when ye see these things, ye shall know that the time is at hand that they shall be made manifest in very deed.
17   Therefore, when ye shall receive this record ye may know that the work of the Father has commenced upon all the face of the land.
18   Therefore, repent all ye ends of the earth, and come unto me, and believe in my gospel, and be baptized in my name; for he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned; and signs shall follow them that believe in my name.
19   And blessed is he that is found faithful unto my name at the last day, for he shall be lifted up to dwell in the kingdom prepared for him from the foundation of the world. And behold it is I that hath spoken it. Amen. (Ether 4:1-19)

Here again, the Lord speaks in an enormous sweep of time, ranging through covenants made “from the foundation of the world,” to the supreme fulfilment of John’s prophecy: “for he shall be lifted up to dwell in the kingdom.” In God’s eyes, these covenants and their fulfillment are as a single event. We would do well if we could understand them that way too. For us, an evidence that God sees them as a single event is the promise he reiterates in section 34 when he instructs the Saints:

6   To lift up your voice as with the sound of a trump, both long and loud, and cry repentance unto a crooked and perverse generation, preparing the way of the Lord for his second coming.
7   For behold, verily, verily, I say unto you, the time is soon at hand that I shall come in a cloud with power and great glory.
8   And it shall be a great day at the time of my coming, for all nations shall tremble.
9   But before that great day shall come, the sun shall be darkened, and the moon be turned into blood; and the stars shall refuse their shining, and some shall fall, and great destructions await the wicked.
10   Wherefore, lift up your voice and spare not, for the Lord God hath spoken; therefore prophesy, and it shall be given by the power of the Holy Ghost.
11   And if you are faithful, behold, I am with you until I come—
12   And verily, verily, I say unto you, I come quickly. I am your Lord and your Redeemer. Even so. Amen.(D&C 34:6-12)

The promise, “And if you are faithful, behold, I am with you until I come,” is a fulfilment of the covenants in sacred time.