LeGrand L. Baker

Alma 9:23-25 — LeGrand Baker — the most dangerous apostasy

Alma 9:23-25
23  And now behold I say unto you, that if this people, who have received so many blessings from the hand of the Lord, should transgress contrary to the light and knowledge which they do have, I say unto you that if this be the case, that if they should fall into transgression, it would be far more tolerable for the Lamanites than for them.
24  For behold, the promises of the Lord are extended to the Lamanites, but they are not unto you if ye transgress; for has not the Lord expressly promised and firmly decreed, that if ye will rebel against him that ye shall utterly be destroyed from off the face of the earth?
25  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; (Alma 9:23-25)

It has always struck me as a bit strange that the Lord would give different promises to different people who were all descended from Lehi. But I think these sermons of Alma have helped me sort that question out. In the first place, it probably isn’t so clear-cut that all the descendants of Nephi, Sam, and Zoram would be wiped out, but all of the Lamanites would survive. The reason was that through their 1,000 year history, there were many intermarriages between the descendants of Laman and Lemuel and those of their other brothers, That would have been especially true from the time of the Lamanite conversion until about the year 230. At that time the people divided themselves into tribes again. However, it appears from the text that even though the new tribes had the names of Lehi’s sons, the division was made according to their religious beliefs rather than by tribes according to rigid genealogical family ties: the true believers in Christ were called Nephites, and those who rejected the gospel were called Lamanites. (4 Nephi 1:32-40.) Nevertheless, we are also told that about 200 years later, about 420, with the deaths of Mormon and Moroni, the Nephi’s royal birthright family were either wiped out or had apostatized. So as far as Nephi personally was concerned, the prophecy was literally fulfilled.

But the fulfillment of the prophecy doesn’t answer the question of why the Lord promised that the Lamanites would survive and the Nephites would not. The explanation of how the 230 AD division into tribes took place, probably gives us the key to the answer we are looking for. Twenty years before the division into tribes, in 210 (significantly, that’s just one generation), a religions division had preceded the tribal divisions. That religions division was based on the most severe kind of apostasy.

27  And it came to pass that when two hundred and ten years had passed away there were many churches in the land; yea, there were many churches which professed to know the Christ, and yet they did deny the more parts of his gospel, insomuch that they did receive all manner of wickedness, and did administer that which was sacred unto him to whom it had been forbidden because of unworthiness.
28  And this church did multiply exceedingly because of iniquity, and because of the power of Satan who did get hold upon their hearts.(4 Nephi 1:27-28)

There, the nature of the apostasy was not an abandonment of the ordinances and covenants, but rather a pretending to keep them, while warping them to fit their own purposes.

When one reads Alma chapters 7 through 13 as a single cohesive unit, it becomes apparent that Alma and Amulek were not trying to teach the people of Ammonihah anything new, but they were simply reminding them of the things they already know—and of the covenants that they have already made. Even the profound ideas in chapters 12-13, where Alma reminds Zeezrom that those covenants are eternal, Alma is not so much instructing Zeezrom as he is challenging him with ideas he already understands. That’s why Zeezrom is so taken aback by Alma’s pointed (but only implied) accusations.

It is apparent to me, that the same thing has happened with people of Ammonihah as would happen 300 years later with the people in Fourth Nephi. That is, those who once had the proper authority to administer the ordinances began to “administer that which was sacred unto him to whom it had been forbidden because of unworthiness.” In that case, one who lived then might not be able to tell the wicked from the righteous by what they knew or by what ordinances they had received. God alone could distinguish them by the quality of their souls. As will be shown in the story, the prime external characteristic of those differences will be that the righteous will be able to recognize the authority by which Alma speaks. That is, the Spirit will teach them to follow their prophet. Alma had come to be the catalyst that would physically separate the wicked from the righteous.

There is a sobering message here. It is that there seems to be two different kinds of apostasy. The one we usually think of is when people simply turn their backs on the Lord and his Gospel and begin living a lifestyle that is not compatible with the teachings of the prophets. But the other kind of apostasy, is the one we are seeing in this story and the one that seems to merit destruction. That is, when an individual or a group of people pretend to keep the ordinances and covenants, but pervert them to satisfy their own purposes. That kind appears in these scriptures to be the more dangerous to a group of people, and the most devastating to an individual.

Alma 9:13-24 — LeGrand Baker — ‘hand’ as a codeword

Alma 9:23
23 And now behold I say unto you, that if this people, who have received so many blessings from the hand of the Lord, should transgress contrary to the light and knowledge which they do have, I say unto you that if this be the case, that if they should fall into transgression, it would be far more tolerable for the Lamanites than for them.

Alma’s admonition in Alma 9:13-24 to the people of Ammonihah appears to be a restatement of a warning Lehi made in 2 Nephi 1:9-10. In each, the word “hand” is key to understanding the importance of what the prophets are saying. Lehi said to his sons:

10 But behold, when the time cometh that they shall dwindle in unbelief, after they have received so great blessings from the hand of the Lord—having a knowledge of the creation of the earth, and all men, knowing the great and marvelous works of the Lord from the creation of the world; having power given them to do all things by faith; having all the commandments from the beginning, and having been brought by his infinite goodness into this precious land of promise—behold, I say, if the day shall come that they will reject the Holy One of Israel, the true Messiah, their Redeemer and their God, behold, the judgments of him that is just shall rest upon them. (2 Nephi 1:10)

Because hands are such an integral part of both civil and religious ceremonies, it is not surprising that the word “hand” is often used in double entente. It can function as a code word where the subtext is making reference to an ordinances where the use of the hand is an important part of the ordinance or of covenant making

The surface text may have one or more of a number of obvious meanings: the exercise of power, strength, or authority (as in phrases like “the hands of the law,” and “the hand of justice”). Or it may be used in the affirmation of the truth of a statement, as when one takes an oath in court. The hand is an important part of the validation an oath. One makes the oath itself by simply speaking its words, but the oath is validated by what one does with one’s hands. Two examples are in court, when one swears to tell the truth, and during the inauguration of the President of the United States. The person repeats the words of the oath with the right hand raised, and the left hand on the Bible. It is the positions of the hands, not the speaking of the words, that demonstrates the truthfulness of the oath.

One gets the notion of that same sort of thing in the first chapter of First Nephi where the prophet bares his testimony and asserts, “And I know that the record which I make is true; and I make it with mine own hand; and I make it according to my knowledge.” The structure of the sentence is such that Nephi leaves open the question of whether he is saying that he is physically writing the record with his hand, or whether he is symbolically bearing testimony with his hand and therefore validating his words—thus the double entente. In other places, the hand appears even more clearly to represent ordinances, priesthood covenants, or blessings.

In ancient Israel, one would pray with hands lifted in the air. The psalms contain references to such prayer within the Temple: “Lift up your hands in the sanctuary, and bless the Lord.” (Psalms 134:2) And also outside, looking toward the Temple: “Hear the voice of my supplications, when I cry unto thee, when I lift up my hands toward thy holy oracle.” (Psalms 28:2) Sometimes, a reference to lifting one’s hands, is simply a reference to prayer, as in Psalm 63.

3 Because thy lovingkindness is better than life, my lips shall praise thee.
4 Thus will I bless thee while I live: I will lift up my hands in thy name. (Psalms 63:3-4) [“Lovingkindness” is translated from a Hebrew word, hased, that has the same meaning as philadelphia and grace in the New Testament.]

1 On occasion the same sort of symbolism is used to suggest especially meaningful prayer: “Unto thee, O Lord, do I lift up my soul.” (Psalm 25:1)

Use of the hand is also symbolic of exercising the priesthood, as in these instructions of the Lord to Moses: “But lift thou up thy rod, and stretch out thine hand over the sea, and divide it: and the children of Israel shall go on dry ground through the midst of the sea.” (Exodus 14:16) On the Day of Atonement, when Aaron and his sons transferred the sins of Israel to the scapegoat, they did so by putting “their hands upon the head of the ram.” (Exodus 29:15-22) Similarly, as the resurrected Jesus left his apostles, “ he lifted up his hands, and blessed them.” (Luke 24:50)

22 When Abraham described a covenant he had made with God, he said, “I have lift up mine hand unto the Lord, the most high God, the possessor of heaven and earth.” (Genesis 14:22)

The right hand has special significance in both blessings and covenants, as is shown by the blessing Israel gave to Joseph’s sons:

14 And Israel stretched out his right hand, and laid it upon Ephraim’s head, who was the younger, and his left hand upon Manasseh’s head, guiding his hands wittingly; for Manasseh was the firstborn.(Genesis 48:14)

8 And in the covenant described by Isaiah: “The Lord hath sworn by his right hand, and by the arm of his strength. . . .” (Isaiah 62:8)

The Lord’s hand is also a symbol of the characteristics of his eternal Kingship, also as an example of sacral kingship generally.

13 Thou hast a mighty arm: strong is thy hand, and high is thy right hand.
14 Justice and judgment are the habitation of thy throne: mercy and truth shall go before thy face.
15 Blessed is the people that know the joyful sound: they shall walk, O Lord, in the light of thy countenance.
16 In thy name shall they rejoice all the day: and in thy righteousness shall they be exalted.(Psalms 89:11-16)

That kingship, though it extends to the whole earth, always radiates from the Temple.

9 We have thought of thy lovingkindness, O God, in the midst of thy temple.
10 According to thy name, O God, so is thy praise unto the ends of the earth: thy right hand is full of righteousness.
11 Let mount Zion rejoice, let the daughters of Judah be glad, because of thy judgments. (Psalms 48:9-11)

Jehovah’s hand in the story of the brother of Jared is the classic example of God’s using his hand to fulfill a covenant, but there are also other examples, though some are carefully veiled. The criterion for man’s participation is clearly described in the psalms.

3 Who shall ascend into the hill of the Lord? or who shall stand in his holy place?
4 He that hath clean hands, and a pure heart; who hath not lifted up his soul unto vanity, nor sworn deceitfully.
5 He shall receive the blessing from the Lord, and righteousness from the God of his salvation. (Psalms 24:3-5)

When that criterion is met, the Lord extends his hand as well.

6 I have called upon thee, for thou wilt hear me, O God: incline thine ear unto me, and hear my speech.
7 Shew thy marvellous lovingkindness, O thou that savest by thy right hand them which put their trust in thee from those that rise up against them.
8 Keep me as the apple of the eye, hide me under the shadow of thy wings, (Psalms 17:6-8)

Another example is Isaiah 40:1-3, where Isaiah used some of the same code words and phrases he later used in chapter 61.

1 Comfort ye, comfort ye my people, saith your God.
2 Speak ye comfortably to Jerusalem, and cry unto her, that her warfare is accomplished, that her iniquity is pardoned: for she hath received of the LORD’s hand double for all her sins. (Isaiah 40:1-2)

These are the beginning words of Isaiah’s commentary on the temple drama which continues from chapter 40 through the end of the book. It begins with the deliberations of the Council in Heaven. We can know that because the word “ye” is plural. Frank M. Cross has shown that the persons whom God is addressing are the members of the Council.{1} In this verse, “God” is translated from the word Elohim. Cross observes that whenever Elohim is represented as speaking to a group of people in the Old Testament, that group is always to the Council in Heaven, just as it is in this instance. {2} His instructions are “Comfort ye my people.” “Comfort” is the same as in chapter 61, where Isaiah follows “comfort” with instructions to wash (one removes ashes by washing), anoint, clothe, crown and give a new name – the entire ancient coronation ceremony is there – so it appears that his instructions to the Council in Heaven are to make his people kings and priests, queens and priestesses. That meaning is made clear in the next verse.

2 Speak ye comfortably to Jerusalem, and cry unto her, that her warfare is accomplished, that her iniquity is pardoned: for she hath received of the Lord’s hand double for all her sins.

The codeword “double” is used twice in Isaiah 61 the same way it is used here. It is a reference to birthright blessings. In ancient Israel a double portion was given to the heir who had the birthright. For example, if one had four children, he would divide his property into five parts, giving the birthright son the double. That is why there is no tribe of Joseph. He had the birthright and received a double portion, so he is represented by two tribes, Ephraim and Manasseh. In terms of the priesthood, the “double” is the birthright blessings of Abraham which one receives in conjunction with other priesthood blessings. Here, in Isaiah 40, as in Isaiah 61, “double” is the double portion given to the birthright “son” (the name-title of the anointed king in Psalm 2). So in this instance it would be the priesthood birthright blessings of Abraham, which one receives from “the Lord’s hand.” If one reads that phrase to be a precise description of how one receives the “double” – the birthright blessings of Abraham – then the meaning of the instruction to “comfort” the people takes on great significance . That description could not be more explicit – but then, if one does not know how to read the code – neither could it be much more obscure.

In my opinion, the most powerful of all the ordination prayers found in the scriptures is in three short verses in a psalm that depicts the king’s foreordination at the Council in Heaven. (Here, as elsewhere in the scriptures, glory and majesty are name-designations of sacred clothing. Majesty representing the kingly garment; “glory,” his priesthood authority)

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

Job’s is similar, but in his account, the words appear as instructions prerequisite to seeing God:

6 Then answered the Lord unto Job out of the whirlwind, and said, . . .
9 Hast thou an arm like God? or canst thou thunder with a voice like him?
10 Deck thyself now with majesty and excellency; and array thyself with glory and beauty. . . .
14 Then will I also confess unto thee that thine own right hand can save thee. (Job 40:6-14)

After the Lord gave Job the instructions he sought, Job spoke in amazement:

1 Then Job answered the LORD, and said,
2 I know that thou canst do every thing, and that no thought can be withholden from thee.
3 Who is he that hideth counsel without knowledge? therefore have I uttered that I understood not; things too wonderful for me, which I knew not.
4 Hear, I beseech thee, and I will speak: I will demand of thee, and declare thou unto me.
5 I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear: but now mine eye seeth thee. (Job 42:1-5)

Job’s response is like that of the psalmist:

17 Until I went into the sanctuary of God; then understood I their end. . . .
23 Nevertheless I am continually with thee: thou hast holden me by my right hand.
24 Thou shalt guide me with thy counsel, and afterward receive me to glory.
25 Whom have I in heaven but thee? and there is none upon earth that I desire beside thee.
26 My flesh and my heart faileth: but God is the strength of my heart, and my portion for ever. (Psalms 73:17-26)

The 21st Psalm also suggests one must be dressed properly before approaching the Lord.

1 The king shall joy in thy strength, O LORD; and in thy salvation how greatly shall he rejoice! . . . .
4 He asked life of thee, and thou gavest it him, even length of days for ever and ever.
5 His glory is great in thy salvation: honour and majesty hast thou laid upon him.
6 For thou hast made him most blessed for ever: thou hast made him exceeding glad with thy countenance. (Psalms 21:1-6)

When one uses the meaning of those psalms as a gage by with to measure the meaning of others, their intent also comes into sharper focus. Here are some examples:

35 Thou hast also given me the shield of thy salvation: and thy right hand hath holden me up, and thy gentleness hath made me great.
36 Thou hast enlarged my steps under me, that my feet did not slip. (Psalms 18:35-36)

And

10 Fear thou not; for I am with thee: be not dismayed; for I am thy God: I will strengthen thee; yea, I will help thee; yea, I will uphold thee with the right hand of my righteousness. . . .
13 For I the Lord thy God will hold thy right hand, saying unto thee, Fear not; I will help thee. (Isaiah 41:10-13)

As in the blessing in Psalm 45, many of the psalms conclude with a promise of physical protection and priesthood invulnerability. The entire 139th Psalm is an acknowledgment of that blessing, with several references to God’s hand.

1 O Lord, thou hast searched me, and known me.
2 Thou knowest my downsitting and mine uprising, thou understandest my thought afar off.
3 Thou compassest my path and my lying down, and art acquainted with all my ways.
4 For there is not a word in my tongue, but, lo, O Lord, thou knowest it altogether.
5 Thou hast beset me behind and before, and laid thine hand upon me.
6 Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is high, I cannot attain unto it.
7 Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence?
8 If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there.
9 If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea;
10 Even there shall thy hand lead me, and thy right hand shall hold me.
11 If I say, Surely the darkness shall cover me; even the night shall be light about me.
12 Yea, the darkness hideth not from thee; but the night shineth as the day: the darkness and the light are both alike to thee. (Psalms 139:1-12)

Elsewhere the psalmist wrote,

6 Now know I that the Lord saveth his anointed; he will hear him from his holy heaven with the saving strength of his right hand. (Psalms 20:6)

Sometimes the hand is referred to in a very powerful way, even though it is not actually mentioned: Here are a few examples:

11 But thou, O man of God, flee these things; and follow after righteousness, godliness, faith, love, patience, meekness.
12 Fight the good fight of faith, lay hold on eternal life [if one is to physically lay hold of something, it requires the use of one’s hand], whereunto thou art also called, and hast professed a good profession before many witnesses. (1 Timothy 6:12-15)

That same concept is found in Moroni’s testimony on the last page of the Book of Mormon:

28 I declare these things unto the fulfilling of the prophecies. And behold, they shall proceed forth out of the mouth of the everlasting God; and his word shall hiss forth from generation to generation.
29 And God shall show unto you, that that which I have written is true.
30 And again I would exhort you that ye would come unto Christ, and lay hold upon every good gift, and touch not the evil gift, nor the unclean thing.
31 And awake, and arise from the dust, O Jerusalem; yea, and put on thy beautiful garments, O daughter of Zion; and strengthen thy stakes and enlarge thy borders forever, that thou mayest no more be confounded, that the covenants of the Eternal Father which he hath made unto thee, O house of Israel, may be fulfilled. (Moroni 10:28-31)

One of the most explicit (yet obscured) references to one’s hand is found in Mormon’s masterful sermon on faith, hope, and charity. If one takes faith to mean pistis, the tokens of the covenants, and hope to mean living as though those covenants were already fulfilled, and charity to mean the ultimate sealing power, then these words have great meaning:

18 And now, my brethren, seeing that ye know the light by which ye may judge, which light is the light of Christ, see that ye do not judge wrongfully; for with that same judgment which ye judge ye shall also be judged.
19 Wherefore, I beseech of you, brethren, that ye should search diligently in the light of Christ that ye may know good from evil; and if ye will lay hold upon every good thing, and condemn it not, ye certainly will be a child of Christ.
20 And now, my brethren, how is it possible that ye can lay hold upon every good thing?
21 And now I come to that faith [pistis = the tokens of the covenants], of which I said I would speak; and I will tell you the way whereby ye may lay hold on every good thing.
22 For behold, God knowing all things, being from everlasting to everlasting, behold, he sent angels to minister unto the children of men, to make manifest concerning the coming of Christ; and in Christ there should come every good thing.
23 And God also declared unto prophets, by his own mouth, that Christ should come.
24 And behold, there were divers ways that he did manifest things unto the children of men, which were good; and all things which are good cometh of Christ; otherwise men were fallen, and there could no good thing come unto them.
25 Wherefore, by the ministering of angels, and by every word which proceeded forth out of the mouth of God, men began to exercise faith in Christ {3}; and thus by faith, they did lay hold upon every good thing; and thus it was until the coming of Christ.
26 And after that he came men also were saved by faith in his name; and by faith, they become the sons of God. And as surely as Christ liveth he spake these words unto our fathers, saying: Whatsoever thing ye shall ask the Father in my name, which is good, in faith believing that ye shall receive, behold, it shall be done unto you. (Moroni 7:18-26)

– – – – – – – – – – – –

As far as I can tell, the “hand” in Isaiah and the Psalms (and therefore in the other scriptures as well) represents three main ceremonial functions. We have already discussed the first two:

The first is the one that is most obvious in the surface text. That is that God will demonstrate his strength and exercise his power to be hurtful. That is not what it means in the subtext however. As in the blessing to the king in Psalm 45:

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

In the subtext, even though the strength of God’s hand is often expressed as military aggression, it is actually a promise of protection: Many of the psalms end with a promise of spiritual and personal invulnerability, just as they are supposed to do. Examples are the conclusion of Psalm 21, which takes place at the veil; and the last verses of Psalms 25 and 27.

The second ceremonial use of the hand is to issue or to accept an invitation—either an invitation to enter the presence of God, or to learn from him. Or both. Psalm 45 is also an example of that: “and thy right hand shall teach thee terrible [awesome] things”; as is Job 40:14. “Then will I also confess unto thee that thine own right hand can save thee.” So is Isaiah 40: 1-2.

1 Comfort ye, comfort ye my people, saith your God.
2 Speak ye comfortably to Jerusalem, and cry unto her, that her warfare is accomplished, that her iniquity is pardoned: for she hath received of the LORD’s hand double for all her sins.

The third ceremonial use of the hand is to create sacred space by measurement. Such measurement is, of necessity always associated by a confirming prayer. This example is going to take a little explanation, but it is important that the following background be a part of the discussion.

– – – – – – – – – –

It is my opinion that one of the most significant passages that described the ceremonial use of God’s hand is in the 1 Nephi 20 rendition of Isaiah 48:12-14. In the Bible, that chapter is the conclusion of the Cyrus passages, asserting that Cyrus will have his way with the Babylonians. But in the Book of Mormon, this chapter is the introduction to the promise that the Prophet Joseph will restore the gospel, the temple, and the preserved of Israel. One of the most striking differences between the chapters is that the editors of the Bible version removed evidence of a conference held in the pre-mortal spirit world, at which Jehovah presided and the Prophet Joseph delivered the major address.

Because I feel that scripture is so important, I wish so take a short detour and show that “the heavens” are the members of the Council in Heaven, then I will return to 1 Nephi 20 and conclude this discussion.

– – – – – – – – – –

The plural “heavens” is used three different ways in the scriptures. One simply refers to the sky and the stars as we see them. The second is a reference to the place (Kolob) nearest to where God dwells.

26 And may the grace of God the Father, whose throne is high in the heavens, and our Lord Jesus Christ, who sitteth on the right hand of his power, until all things shall become subject unto him, be, and abide with you forever. Amen. (Moroni 9:26)

And

19 And the Lord said unto me: These two facts do exist, that there are two spirits, one being more intelligent than the other; there shall be another more intelligent than they; I am the Lord thy God, I am more intelligent than they all. . . . .
21 I dwell in the midst of them all; I now, therefore, have come down unto thee to declare unto thee the works which my hands have made, 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. (Abraham 3:19-21)

Here the Lord is said to have made the heavens and those who dwell there.

6 By the word of the Lord were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth. (Psalms 33:6)

The third use of “heaven” is to refer to the members of the council who reside there, as in this Psalm where it is used to designate both the people and the place:

5 And the heavens [members of the Council]shall praise thy wonders, O Lord: thy faithfulness also in the congregation of the saints.
6 For who in the heaven can be compared unto the Lord? who among the sons of the mighty can be likened unto the Lord? (Psalms 89:5-6)

One of the more interesting references to the singing voices of the heavens is found in both Isaiah 49 and 1 Nephi 21. It is interesting because it is another instance where the Bible editors of the post-exilic period removed references to the Council in Heaven and to the temple. The Bible’s Isaiah reads:

13 Sing, O heavens; and be joyful, O earth; and break forth into singing, O mountains: for the LORD hath comforted his people, and will have mercy upon his afflicted. (Isaiah 49:13)

However, on the brass plates, it read differently:

a. To establish one’s feet is to place them on the footstool as one sits on the thrown, as in “How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good tidings.

b. Those in the east are those who live in the direction of the rising sun. That is the home of the gods. (The Hymn of the Pearl uses the same imagery.)

c. Mountains are symbols of temples, and if they are to be smitten no more, that means there will be no more apostasy.

The editors took out both the Council and the promise. The Book of Mormon reads:

13  Sing, O heavens; and be joyful, O earth; for the feet of those who are in the east shall be established; and break forth into singing, O mountains; for they shall be smitten no more; for the Lord hath comforted his people, and will have mercy upon his afflicted.. (1 Nephi 21:13)

The members of the Council are often depicted as singing, as when Nephi described his father’s sode experience: “. . . he saw God sitting upon his throne, surrounded with numberless concourses of angels in the attitude of singing and praising their God.” (1 Nephi 1:8) Thus, when the Lord asked, Job was expected to know the answer:

4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? . . .
7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? (Job 38:4, 7)

The Prophet Joseph echoed that poetry in a letter he wrote to the Saints:

Let the mountains shout for joy, and all ye valleys cry aloud; and all ye seas and dry lands tell the wonders of your Eternal King! And ye rivers, and brooks, and rills, flow down with gladness. Let the woods and all the trees of the field praise the Lord; and ye solid rocks weep for joy! And let the sun, moon, and the morning stars sing together, and let all the sons of God shout for joy! And let the eternal creations declare his name forever and ever! And again I say, how glorious is the voice we hear from heaven, proclaiming in our ears, glory, and salvation, and honor, and immortality, and eternal life; kingdoms, principalities, and powers! (D&C 128:23)

– – – – – – – – – – – –

That quick diversion was to show that “heavens” and “stars” are often a reference to the members of the Council. I find the same kinds of references in 1 Nephi 20:9-17. It is another part of Isaiah that the post-exilic editors monkeyed around with and left wanting. Isaiah 49, in the Bible, is the conclusion of the Cyrus chapters, but in the Book of Mormon it is the introduction to the promise that the Prophet Joseph will restore the gospel, the temples, and then scattered Israel.

I begin with Jehovah’s words in verse 9:

9 Nevertheless, for my name’s sake [for the sake of the covenant and its associated name] will I defer mine anger, and for my praise will I refrain from thee, that I cut thee not off.
10 For, behold, I have refined thee, I have chosen thee in the furnace of affliction. [His affliction is the act of the atonement]

[Bible version reads:

10 Behold, I have refined thee, but not with silver; I have chosen thee in the furnace of affliction. [replacing the idea of the atonement with the visualization of metallurgy.]
11 For mine own sake, yea, for mine own sake will I do this, for I will not suffer my name to be polluted, and I will not give my glory unto another. [The Bible version reads: “for how should my name be polluted?” On the brass plates, it appears to be a clear reference to the struggle described in Moses:

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.(Moses 4:1) ]

12 Hearken unto me, O Jacob, and Israel my called [named, ie. One who has accepted a covenant] for I am he; I am the first, and I am also the last.
13 Mine hand hath also laid the foundation of the earth [a reference to the creation motif], and my right hand hath spanned the heavens. [that’s the phrase I wish to discuss below] I call unto them and they stand up together .[they stand to make covenant, as in 2 Kings 23:1-3]

14 All ye, assemble yourselves, and hear; who among them hath declared these things unto them? The Lord hath loved him; yea, and he will fulfil his word which he hath declared by them; and he will do his pleasure on Babylon, and his arm shall come upon the Chaldeans.

[Bible version removes the words, “yea, and he will fulfil his word which he hath declared by them. It reads. “All ye, assemble yourselves, and hear; which among them hath declared these things? The LORD hath loved him: he will do his pleasure on Babylon, and his arm shall be on the Chaldeans.” During Isaiah’s day, Assyria was the threat, not Babylon. But Babylon represented, as it always has, the wickedness of this world. The Prophet’s will would be to destroy those kingdoms as the little rock that rolled forth until it filled the earth. Cyrus, on the other hand, took Babylon by military conquest, so if the editors simply removed the reference to the speech, the passage could sound like a prophecy of Cyrus.]

15 Also, saith the Lord; I the Lord, yea, I have spoken; yea, I have called him to declare, I have brought him, and he shall make his way prosperous.

[Bible version reads: “I have called him,” rather than, “I have called him to declare.” Again removing the reference to the speech.

16 Come ye near unto me; I have not spoken in secret; from the beginning, from the time that it was declared have I spoken; and the Lord God, and his Spirit, hath sent me.

[Bible version reads very differently, again with the intent of removing the reference to the speech. “Come ye near unto me, hear ye this; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, there am I: and now the Lord God, and his Spirit, hath sent me.”

17 And thus saith the Lord, thy Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel; I have sent him, the Lord thy God who teacheth thee to profit, who leadeth thee by the way thou shouldst go, hath done it.

[Bible version removes the words, “I sent him,” leaving the speaker altogether out of the story.]

17 Thus saith the LORD, thy Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel; I am the LORD thy God which teacheth thee to profit, which leadeth thee by the way that thou shouldest go. (1 Nephi 20:9-17)

The reason that I paid such close attention to those verses is because the use of the Lord’s hand here is so significant, but its significance has to be understood within the context of the pre-mortal conference and those who attended it. Verse 13 reads: “Mine hand hath also laid the foundation of the earth, and my right hand hath spanned the heavens. I call unto them and they stand up together.” The word “spanned” means to measure. A span is the distance between the end of one’s little finger and thumb when the thumb is extended, “The hand with the thumb and fingers extended, especially as a means of measuring,” reads The Oxford English Dictionary. Then it references our verse in Isaiah as an example of this usage.

The first steps in creating sacred space is always to receive the measurements from God, then to measure and define the space so that it can be designated as separate from profane space. For example, the Lord gave Moses the measurements of the Tabernacle and the Ark of the Covenant; he gave Solomon the measurements of the Temple; and he gave the Prophet Joseph the measurements of the Kirtland Temple. (see also: Revelation 11:1-2)

Thus, in 1 Nephi 20, the words, “my right hand hath spanned the heavens.” are referring to the members of the Council who on whose heads the Lord places his right hand—to measure them–-to define them as sacred space—literally as temples. Thereafter, he says, “I call unto them and they stand up together.” So the sequence is: they ordained, they make a covenant, and then they assemble together to attend the meeting where Jehovah himself presides.

Apparently Isaiah chapter 40 also speaks of the Lord’s hand measuring the members of the Council in Heaven:

12 Who hath measured the waters in the hollow of his hand, and meted out heaven with the span, and comprehended the dust of the earth in a measure, and weighed the mountains in scales, and the hills in a balance? (Isaiah 40:12)

If my appraisal here is correct, then it is likely that in this world, when one who holds the Melchizedek priesthood places his hands upon the head of another, to ordain, bless, or set apart, that priesthood ordinance is in fact setting them apart—defining them as sacred space—confirming them as temples.

– – – – – – – – – – –

It seems to me that we are so far removed from the origin of our discussion that we ought to return again to our starting place.

Alma’s warning to the people of Ammonihan:

23 And now behold I say unto you, that if this people, who have received so many blessings from the hand of the Lord, should transgress contrary to the light and knowledge which they do have, I say unto you that if this be the case, that if they should fall into transgression, it would be far more tolerable for the Lamanites than for them. (Alma 9:23)

This seems to be a reaffirmation of a warning Lehi made in 2 Nephi 1:9-10. In each, the word “hand” is key to understanding the importance of what the prophets are saying. Lehi said to his sons:

10 But behold, when the time cometh that they shall dwindle in unbelief, after they have received so great blessings from the hand of the Lord—having a knowledge of the creation of the earth, and all men, knowing the great and marvelous works of the Lord from the creation of the world; having power given them to do all things by faith; having all the commandments from the beginning, and having been brought by his infinite goodness into this precious land of promise—behold, I say, if the day shall come that they will reject the Holy One of Israel, the true Messiah, their Redeemer and their God, behold, the judgments of him that is just shall rest upon them. (2 Nephi 1:10)

– – – – – – – – – – – – –

ENDNOTES

{1} Frank M. Cross, Jr., “The Council of Yahweh in Second Isaiah,” Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Jan.-Oct.1953, 12:274-277. See also Christopher R. Seitz, “The Divine Council: Temporal Transition and New Prophecy in the Book of Isaiah,” Journal of Biblical Literature, Summer 1990, vol. 109, no. 2, 229-247.

{2} See: Stephen A. Geller, “A Poetic Analysis of Isaiah 40:1-2,” Harvard Theological Review, v. 77, n. 3-4, 1984, p. 413-420.

Hanson, Paul D., Isaiah 40-66, Interpretation, A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching (Louisville, John Knox Press, 1995), p. 223 – 226.

Seitz, Christopher R., “The Divine Council: Temporal Transition and New Prophecy in the Book of Isaiah,” Journal of Biblical Literature, v. 109, n. 2, 1990, p. 229 – 247.

Westermann, Claus, Isaiah 40-66, Commentary (Philadelphia, Westminister Press, 1969) 364 – 367.

{3} “exercise tokens”

If God’s house is “a house of order,” then everything must be done correctly. That means according to prior covenant (have we read the first 14 verses of 132?) If everything conforms to prior covenant, then one must evoke the tokens of the covenants to activate the purposes of the covenant. The Ether 12:30 is a good example. We are told the brother of Jared exercised faith, and are left to understand that the way he is holding his arm and the words his is authorized to speak are the pistis.

After Moroni leads us through the temple, he tells us what comes next.

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

The phrase that is relevant to our discussion is “which is in the covenant of the Father.” The covenant he has just described is the great and eternal covenant. The Saviour is the personification of that covenant. That is, the covenant is not about him, rather, He is the covenant. The Saviour is also the fulfillment of the covenant. And his name is the only token of that covenant that acknowledged as valid by the Father. So when one prays in the name of Christ, one is evoking the token of the Father’s covanant. When one follows the directions of the Spirit, and prays as the Spirit says to pray, and in the name of Christ, then one is exercising that token (exercising faith) and the covenant will be fulfilled according to the promise of the Spirit. I think that’s what the scriptures mean when they say one must exercise faith.

Alma 9:13, LeGrand Baker, ‘prosper’ as a codeword

Alma 9:13
Behold, do ye not remember the words which he spake unto Lehi, saying that: Inasmuch as ye shall keep my commandments, ye shall prosper in the land? And again it is said that: Inasmuch as ye will not keep my commandments ye shall be cut off from the presence of the Lord.

This is one of those fun scriptures for which we have no referent. The Book of Mormon does not give us an account of the Lord’s speaking those to Lehi, though Nephi quoted them twice, once when the Lord spoke them to him, and the second time when he recited them in his psalm in 2 Nephi 4:4. In our account, what Lehi says is this:

9 Wherefore, I, Lehi, have obtained a promise, that inasmuch as those whom the Lord God shall bring out of the land of Jerusalem shall keep his commandments, they shall prosper upon the face of this land; and they shall be kept from all other nations, that they may possess this land unto themselves. And if it so be that they shall keep his commandments they shall be blessed upon the face of this land, and there shall be none to molest them, nor to take away the land of their inheritance; and they shall dwell safely forever. (2 Nephi 1:9)

The Book of Mormon is essentially the story of one family—the descendants of Nephi who were the kings and the priests throughout the book. Nephi was beginning a new dynasty, and the whole legitimacy of his dynasty is founded of the Lord’s statement in 1Nephi 2:20-22. In the ancient world, any man who claimed a crown, who had not been foreordained to that authority by God, was a usurper. The doctrine was true for the Israelites, but even among the apostate religions all the ancient kings (whether in Egypt, Babylon, or Assyria) claimed to have been chosen by their god to be king. So both in terms of his cultural correctness, and the eternal reality, Nephi had to show that he was chosen by God or he could claim that nothing he was doing was legitimate. No doubt, it was partly for that reason that Nephi begins his account by telling us:

20 And inasmuch as ye shall keep my commandments, ye shall prosper, and shall be led to a land of promise; yea, even a land which I have prepared for you; yea, a land which is choice above all other lands.
21 And inasmuch as thy brethren shall rebel against thee, they shall be cut off from the presence of the Lord.
22 And inasmuch as thou shalt keep my commandments, thou shalt be made a ruler and a teacher over thy brethren. (1 Nephi 2:20-22)

“Prosper in the land” is one of those key phrases in the Book of Mormon that was frequently employed by its authors to convey a sacred message without actually saying it. The meaning of the phrase is clarified here, where it is first used, by showing that the opposite of prospering has nothing to do with a rich harvest. Rather the opposite of “prosper” is to be cut off from the presence of the Lord. Therefore, as a code phrase, “prosper in the land”is the opposite of that, and means to be brought into the presence of the Lord. “Land” also has two meanings, one is the land of promise (America) to which the Nephites have been brought. The encoded meaning is the same as “earth” in the promise, “The meek shall inherit the earth.” That is clarified in section 88 which says that to inherit the earth means to “be crowned with glory, even with the presence of God the Father.”

17 And the redemption of the soul is through him that quickeneth all things, in whose bosom it is decreed that the poor and the meek of the earth shall inherit it.
18 Therefore, it [the earth] must needs be sanctified from all unrighteousness, that it may be prepared for the celestial glory;
19 For after it hath filled the measure of its creation, it shall be crowned with glory, even with the presence of God the Father;
20 That bodies who are of the celestial kingdom may possess it forever and ever; for, for this intent was it [the earth] made and created, and for this intent are they [the meek and the poor] sanctified. (D&C 88:17-20)

The importance of the Lord’s promise to Nephi is emphasized by its frequent use by other prophets who employed the phrase the same way. {1}

Lehi told his sons:

20 And he hath said that: Inasmuch as ye shall keep my commandments ye shall prosper in the land; but inasmuch as ye will not keep my commandments ye shall be cut off from my presence. (2 Nephi 1:20)

Alma told his son:

13 O remember, remember, my son Helaman, how strict are the commandments of God. And he said: If ye will keep my commandments ye shall prosper in the land—but if ye keep not his commandments ye shall be cut off from his presence. (Alma 37:13)

One of the most interesting uses of that phrase is in Zeniff’s short autobiography.

4 And I did cause that the men should till the ground, and raise all manner of grain and all manner of fruit of every kind.
5 And I did cause that the women should spin, and toil, and work, and work all manner of fine linen, yea, and cloth of every kind, that we might clothe our nakedness; and thus we did prosper in the land–thus we did have continual peace in the land for the space of twenty and two years. (Mosiah 10:4-5)

Its wording is remarkably like the Lord’s instructions to Moses about making the sacred temple clothing:

40 And for Aaron’s sons thou shalt make coats, and thou shalt make for them girdles, and bonnets shalt thou make for them, for glory and for beauty.
41 And thou shalt put them upon Aaron thy brother, and his sons with him; and shalt anoint them, and consecrate them, and sanctify them, that they may minister unto me in the priest’s office.
42 And thou shalt make them linen breeches to cover their nakedness; (Exodus 28:40-42)

One cannot help but contrast Zeniff’s words with the account in Ether, when the people who were engaged in civil war, each trying to get the better of the other. Moroni observed:

24 And they did have silks, and fine-twined linen; and they did work all manner of cloth, that they might clothe themselves from their nakedness. (Ether 10:24)

The difference is subtle but very real. The two closely similar statements read: “that we might clothe our nakedness” and “clothe themselves from their nakedness.” The difference is reminiscent of the story in the Garden of Eden. At first “they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons,” but later, God himself did “make coats of skins, and clothed them.” The clothing with which the Lord clothes us, is different from the clothing with which we seek to hide ourselves. Moroni quietly observed that difference. Rather that using the familiar phrase, “to cover their nakedness,” which acknowledges that the nakedness is there, notwithstanding the clothing, Moroni wrote this commentary: “ that they might clothe themselves from their nakedness,” suggesting that this clothing, like Adam and Eve’s aprons, was an attempt to disguise the fact that they were naked at all.

Thus, Zeniff’s seeming casual, “ that we might clothe our nakedness,” teaches us a great deal about the religious faith and practices of this Nephite colony.

I suspect that one of the reasons the dichotomy of”prosper in the land” and being “cut off from the presence of the Lord,” was so frequently used by the Book of Mormon prophets, was because it, and others like it, were familiar to them in the psalms they sang. {2} It seems to me that it is also an important key to our understanding the faith and practices of the Nephite people.

That phrase introduces into our discussion one the major premises upon which I personally base my understanding of the Book of Mormon. Gunkel, Mowickel, Johnson, {3} and many other great biblical scholars of the last century spent much, if not most, all of their academic lives showing that the Psalms were the liturgy of the ancient Israelite temple ceremony of the New Year festival. {4} If they were correct, and I believe they were, then one should expect to find a strong representation of the words and ideas of the Psalm’s in the Book of Mormon, especially in conjunction with its discussions of priesthood and sacral kingship. In fact, one does find that, and it begins near the beginning of First Nephi with the word “prosper.”

The psalms still show that the ancient Israelite temple ceremony included an enactment like a play, probably on a stage or in an amphitheater type setting in one of the valleys that surrounded Jerusalem. The drama showed the whole scope of human existence. It was a portrayal of a sode experience in the form of the cosmic myth. It showed events in the Council of heaven, the creation and Garden of Eden story, both good and bad experiences in this life, and ultimately being brought into the presence of God again.

Hooke has pointed out another area where the pattern of the drama of the New Year festival is evident. He has observed that apocalyptic works such as the Enoch (and he includes Revelation) reveal the same pattern as the Festival. {5} Similarly, James has found the same pattern in the story of Jesus and the Easter Drama. {6 } We can add Nephi’s vision of the Tree of Life to the list. This is to be expected, because many of those works tell of the pre-mortal existence, then talk about the events of this world, and conclude with the triumphal second coming of the Saviour, and the eternal life of those who have endured to the end. The pattern is already there, it is not surprising that it is seen in those great visions that include the full sweep of human existence, just as it is not surprising that the ancient Jewish New Year festival retold in song and drama that same story, or that it should found repeatedly in the Book of Mormon.

At least two Psalms deal directly with events in the Council in Heaven: Psalm 82 contains Elohim’s instructions to the members of the Council; and Psalm 45 is a re-enactment of the foreordination of the king and queen. It is in Elohim’s blessing to the king, in Psalm 45, that the word “prosperously” contains the promise of the earthly and eternal successes of the king’s reign. It was probably no coincidence that the Lord chose to use the word “prosper” when he spoke the blessing that promised Npehi’s eternal kingship. The 45th psalm tells the story all of the king’s foreordination at the Council in heaven. There, Elohim is represented as giving a the king a blessing.

The blessing begins with the command that the king should put on his sword and dress himself in glory and majesty. As elsewhere, these are names of clothing: “glory” representing the garment of his priesthood; and “majesty” representing his robes of kingship. {7}

The words of the prayer are these:

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

That is an extraordinary blessing with sums up in only a few words all of the criteria for sacral kingship. It says “in thy majesty ride prosperously because of truth and meekness and righteousness.” That is, because he has met the qualifications of “truth and meekness and righteousness” the king will “ride prosperously.” Truth is knowledge of things in sacred time: “as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come. (D&C 93:24) The meek are those who keep their eternal covenants. Meekness is shown to mean knowing and keeping the covenants one made Council, as is shown in the prayer that is Psalm 25.

Unto thee, O Lord, do I lift up my soul….
Lead me in thy truth, and teach me….
The meek will he guide in judgment:
and the meek will he teach his way….
All the paths of the Lord are mercy [hased] and truth
unto such as keep his covenant and his testimonies….
His soul shall dwell at ease;
and his seed shall inherit the earth.
The secret [sode] of the Lord is with them that fear him;
and he will shew them his covenant. (Psalm 25: 1, 5, 9-10,13-14)

Righteousness is zedek, which means rectitude and correctness in Temple things. That is, that the ordinances are performed the right way, using the right words with the right authority, in the right place, and dressed the right way.

In Elohim’s blessing to the king in Psalm 45, there are two promises, besides prosperity, that are associated with the king’s meeting that criteria: one is “thy right hand shall teach the terrible [awesome] things.” The other is a promise of success and invulnerability.

It is one of the most amazing blessings ever recorded. It is only three short verses, the blessing incorporates into its few words every important concept of sacral kingship and priesthood—except one—the promise of a righteous posterity. That blessing is reserved until the end of the psalm when it is given by Elohim to the king and his bride.

As this psalm was an enactment of the king’s foreordination and represented the legitimacy of his reign on earth, one may assume the that (along with every other Israelite) Nephi was familiar with the Psalm and the coronation ceremony that was enacted in conjunction with it. That being so, when the Lord conferred upon Nephi the rights of kingship and priesthood, his using the phrase “prosper in the land” would have been meaningful to the boy prophet and king.

ENDNOTES

{1} As Dil observed, “It is repeated by Lehi (2 Nephi 1:9) and by Nephi (2 Nephi 4:4). Subsequently it is quoted or stated by Enos (Enos 10), Jarom (Jarom 9-10), Amaron (Omni 6), Alma (Alma 9:13; 36:1; 37:13; 48:25; 50:20), Mormon (3 Nephi 5:22; 4 Nephi 18), and Moroni (Ether 2:7-10).

{2} Another example is Psalm 122.

{3} Hermann Gunkel, “Psalm 24: an Interpretation,” The Biblical World, new series, vol 21, Jan-June 1903, p. 366-370; The Influence of the Holy Spirit, translated by Harrisville and Quanbeck (Philadelphia, Fortress Press, 1979); The Folktale in the Old Testament, translated by Rutter (Sheffield, Almond Press, 1987); What Remains of the Old Testament, translated by Dallas (New York, Macmillan Company, 1928).

Sigmund Mowickel, The Old Testament as the Word of God, translated by Bjornard (New York, Abingdon Press, 1959);, The Psalms in Israel’s Worship, 2 Vols. translated Thomas (Nashville, Abingdon, 1962); He that Cometh (New York: Abingdon Press, 1954).

Aubrey R. Johnson, Vitality of the Individual in the Thought of Ancient Israel (Cardiff, University of Wales Press, 1964); Sacral Kingship in Ancient Israel (Cardiff, University of Wales Press, 1967); The Cultic Prophet and Israel’s Psalmody (Cardiff, University of Wales Press, 1979).

{4} See, for example, S. H. Hooke, ed., The Labyrinth, Further Studies in the Relation between Myth and Ritual in the Ancient World (London, Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1935)

{5} S. H. Hooke, “The Myth and Ritual Pattern in Jewish and Christian Apocalyptic,” in S. H. Hooke, ed., The Labyrinth, Further Studies in the Relation between Myth and Ritual in the Ancient World (London, Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1935) 213-233.

{6} E. O. James, “The Sources of Christian Ritual and Its Relation to the Culture Pattern of the Ancient East,” in S. H. Hooke, ed., The Labyrinth, Further Studies in the Relation between Myth and Ritual in the Ancient World (London, Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1935) 213-233

{7} There are always two articles of clothing, an inner one and an outer one. In the Captain Moroni story, his is called a “coat” at first, then a “garment” after that. So it was probably the outer of the two.

In Exodus, Moses is instructed to make an embroider the coat of fine linen with linen breeches “to cover their nakedness.” Above that was worn a blue robe with small golden bells and pomegranates along its hem. (Exodus 28:31-42)

In Isaiah, they are called “ the garments of salvation” and “the robe of righteousness.” (Isaiah 61:10)

In Job they are given two sets of names. The Lord instructs Job: “Deck thyself now with majesty and excellency; and array thyself with glory and beauty.” (Job 40:10)

In the “Hymn of the Pearl” they are called a coat and a toga. The poem contains a lavish description of the former. In part it reads:

82 My splendid robe adorned
Gleaming in glorious colours, …
86 And the likeness of the king of kings
Was completely embroidered all over it…
97 And my toga of brilliant colours
I drew completely over myself.
(Hdgar Hennecki (Edited by Wilhelm Schneemelcher, English translation edited by R. McL. Wilson), New Testament Apocrypha, Writings Relating to the Apostles; Apocalypses and Related Subjects, Vol. 2, (Westminster Press, Philadelphia), p. 498-504.)

 Alma 8: 29 — LeGrand Baker — the Lord’s anger

Alma 8: 29
30 And the word came to Alma, saying: Go; and also say unto my servant Amulek, go forth and prophesy unto this people, saying—Repent ye, for thus saith the Lord, except ye repent I will visit this people in mine anger; yea, and I will not turn my fierce anger away.

It is very easy to misunderstand some of the words that are attributed to God in the Scriptures, especially when those words suggest anger, violence, or retaliation. We are accustomed to overlook or discount some such statements in the Old Testament because they do not reflect the attributes off the Saviour in the New Testament. Yet, we find some of those same kinds of statements in the Book of Mormon, and the Doctrine and Covenants also.

It seems to me that they can best understood if one puts them into separate categories. The first category is those statements that are editorial comments by Old Testament authors and editors. Such statements as “the Lord in his anger brought the Egyptians to do his vengeance on the king,” are entirely editorial, and may or may not reflect the attitude of the Lord. I did not use an actual quote there, but rather an example that characterizes many places in the Old Testament. My own feeling is that they are only as true as the author was inspired.

In my view the greatest difference between the Book of Mormon and the Old Testament, in that regard, is that there is no question about whether it the author of the Book of Mormon was inspired. For example, Mormon’s frequent “and thus we see,” are editorial comments to which I give absolute credence.

The other groups are either direct quotes from God, or present themselves as being such. Of those that represent themselves as being quotes from God, those found throughout the Psalms are among the very best examples. The Psalms’ frequent statements that seem to reflect the vengeful character of God, are a form of blessing.

One of the best examples of the seeming belligerence spoken by God is in the 45th Psalm, which contains a blessing from Elohim to the king. It reads:

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

This is typical of many statements in the Psalms. If one reads it, and the others, carefully, one discovers a consistency is what is said and under what circumstances. The pattern is this: at the end of a covenant or a blessing, the Lord promises a kind of invincibility to the recipient. When the Psalms were written, the primary motive for local wars was to acquire loot—but the most important loot was the people themselves—to become slaves. Similarly, a man going from city to city, who was carrying property of any value, had better take an armed escort with him or he could expect to be robbed. In those times when the Lord promised someone spiritual or eternal invincibility, he expressed it in the language of the times. That is, in military terms. Thus at the end of Psalm 21, which is spoken as one approaches God, his plea is couched in martial terms. At the end of Psalm 25, which has the same tone as Nephi’s Psalm in 2 Nephi 4, the Lord promises invincibility in military terms. In Psalm 2, where God affirms that he has chosen the king, and the king tells his new covenant name, the chorus warns foreign kings of the danger of their not giving obeisance to God’s chosen king.

In each of these instances, the statement that sounds like belligerence is in fact a promise from God that he will support and protect the one with whom he has made the covenant. That is, that one will have sufficient strength and power to overcome whatever obstacle might be put in the way.

The other category of statements from God – those quoted by the prophet – carry the same overtone. Three examples are found in the Lord’s words to Nephi:

19   And it came to pass that the Lord spake unto me, saying: Blessed art thou, Nephi, because of thy faith, for thou hast sought me diligently, with lowliness of heart.
20   And inasmuch as ye shall keep my commandments, ye shall prosper, and shall be led to a land of promise; yea, even a land which I have prepared for you; yea, a land which is choice above all other lands.
21   And inasmuch as thy brethren shall rebel against thee, they shall be cut off from the presence of the Lord. [Those who rebel against God cannot be in his presence.]
22   And inasmuch as thou shalt keep my commandments, thou shalt be made a ruler [king] and a teacher [priest] over thy brethren.
23   For behold, in that day that they shall rebel against me, I will curse them even with a sore curse, and they shall have no power over thy seed [God will protect the righteous] except they shall rebel against me also.
24   And if it so be that they rebel against me, they shall be a scourge unto thy seed [The Lord cannot protect the Nephites if they are not righteous], to stir them up in the ways of remembrance. [Sometimes when people realize they are in physical trouble, they will repent so God can bless them again.] (1 Nephi 2:19-24)

The Lord explained that principle to the Prophet Joseph:

1   Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you whom I love, and whom I love I also chasten that their sins may be forgiven, for with the chastisement I prepare a way for their deliverance in all things out of temptation, and I have loved you—
2   Wherefore, ye must needs be chastened and stand rebuked before my face;

So Alma’s words, “Repent ye, for thus saith the Lord, except ye repent I will visit this people in mine anger; yea, and I will not turn my fierce anger away,” do not reflect God’s anger, but rather his concern. He was aware, as they were not, of the Lamanite’s plan to attack. Implicit in his words is the promise that if they will repent, he will either warn them, assist them, or otherwise protect them from their enemies. But if they do not repent he can not help the because they will neither listen to him, nor accept his help. He says that in terms that express their own attitudes and their own language. One cannot help, as one reads Alma’s words, to remember the Lord’s tears when he showed Enoch the destruction of his people.

We are not substantially different from that sometimes, President Hinckley does not always relay the Lord’s instructions to us in words that only evoke promises of blessings. Sometimes we, like the ancients, need to hear about the consequence of disobedience rather than the blessings that would accompany obedience.

So whenever I read a statement couched in words of anger or retribution, that are attributed to the Lord, I consider the audience to whom that those words are addressed, and conclude that the words are in their language—expressed in terms that they can understand—and not really an expression of God’s anger at all.

I believe the best statement ever made about the personality of God comes from a sermon by Heber C. Kimball, delivered in the Tabernacle, February 8, 1857. He said,

     I am perfectly satisfied that my God is a cheerful, pleasant, lively, and good-natured Being. Why? Because I am cheerful, pleasant, lively, and good-natured when I have His Spirit. That is one reason why I know; and another is— the Lord said, through Joseph Smith, “I delight in a glad heart and a cheerful countenance. That arises from the perfection of His attributes; He is a jovial, lively person, and a beautiful man. (Journal of Discourses, 4: 222.)

Alma 8:18-20 — LeGrand Baker — Alma at the Gate

Alma 8:18-20
18  Now it came to pass that after Alma had received his message from the angel of the Lord he returned speedily to the land of Ammonihah. And he entered the city by another way, yea, by the way which is on the south of the city of Ammonihah.
19  And as he entered the city he was an hungered, and he said to a man: Will ye give to an humble servant of God something to eat?
20  And the man said unto him: I am a Nephite, and I know that thou art a holy prophet of God, for thou art the man whom an angel said in a vision: Thou shalt receive. Therefore, go with me into my house and I will impart unto thee of my food; and I know that thou wilt be a blessing unto me and my house.

This story contains an important principle that teaches how the Lord deals with his children. The lesson is repeated many times in the scriptures, but usually not as dramatically as it is here.

Alma has been driven from town, and was told never to come back. After he leaves, the angel comes to him, compliments him on how he has lived his life since the last time they met, and tells him to go back to Ammonihah again.

Alma obeyed, but he did not walk belligerently up to the gate from which he had been expelled. Instead, he went through another gate. Prophets are rarely belligerent, unless that is also part of their instructions: “Be as wise as serpents [i.e. don’t let somebody step on your head], and harmless as doves,” the Lord had instructed his Twelve at Jerusalem.

So Alma returned, as instructed, and found Amulek waiting for him. An angel had told Amulek to care for Alma. Amulek also obeyed, explaining to Alma, “I know that thou art a holy prophet of God, for thou art the man whom an angel said in a vision: Thou shalt receive. Therefore, go with me into my house and I will impart unto thee of my food; and I know that thou wilt be a blessing unto me and my house.”

Alma accepted Amulek’s hospitality and they became life-long friends.

The principle is this: The angel who spoke to Alma didn’t tell him Amulek would be there to help. He didn’t make any promises at all. He only told Alma to return. Alma obeyed and the Lord made the necessary arrangements so that Alma would get something to eat and would have help in fulfilling his assignment.

That is probably the most important principle by which we can guide our lives: It is our responsibilities to keep our covenants, and if we live worthily, the Lord will teach us what we must do so we can keep those covenants. A covenant and a promise are not the same thing. A promise is something just one person does. A covenant is something that two people do together. When we made covenants, he made covenants with us also. He promised that he would arrange that we could keep our parts. (Ephesians ch. 1) So now, as we struggle in the darkness of this world, it is his responsibility to make sure nothing gets in the way that is so heavy that it precludes our keeping our covenants. He does that. If we do our part, there will be no power in earth or in hell that can prevent us from doing what we promised Him we would to do. But it requires that we quietly obey the instructions of the Spirit, and when necessary, unobtrusively find another way, rather than going belligerently through the unfriendly gate.

Alma 8:17 — LeGrand Baker — American Constitutional principles as a key to understand Alma chapters 9 to 14

Alma 8:17
14  And it came to pass that while he was journeying thither, being weighed down with sorrow, wading through much tribulation and anguish of soul, because of the wickedness of the people who were in the city of Ammonihah, it came to pass while Alma was thus weighed down with sorrow, behold an angel of the Lord appeared unto him, saying:
15  Blessed art thou, Alma; therefore, lift up thy head and rejoice, for thou hast great cause to rejoice; for thou hast been faithful in keeping the commandments of God from the time which thou receivedst thy first message from him. Behold, I am he that delivered it unto you.
16  And behold, I am sent to command thee that thou return to the city of Ammonihah, and preach again unto the people of the city; yea, preach unto them. Yea, say unto them, except they repent the Lord God will destroy them.
17  For behold, they do study at this time that they may destroy the liberty of thy people, (for thus saith the Lord) which is contrary to the statutes, and judgments, and commandments which he has given unto his people. (Alma 8:14-17)

Alma 8:17 is one of those frequently overlooked keys that gives us insight into our understanding other important parts of the Book of Mormon. In chapters 9 through 14, we have a some of the most profound explanations of religious and political doctrines found anywhere in the Book of Mormon. Often, a readers inclination is to divide long sections and isolate their parts as though they were individual entity.(Their division into chapters and verses help us do that.) But they are often better understood when seen as an interconnected part of the whole. In selecting this conversation between Amulek, Alma, and Zeezrom, Mormon has chosen to focus our attention on one of the most important aspects of the ancient Israelite temple ceremony of the New Year festival. It has to do with the eternal relationship between the one’s foreordination at the Council in Heaven, and one’s priesthood and sacral kingship responsibilities in this world. I hope to discuss all of that in some detail as we work our way through those six chapters, but as an introduction, I think it is important to note that the conversations quoted in those chapters all focus on the Lord’s instructions to Alma that he is to return because “they do study at this time that they may destroy the liberty of thy people.” Consequently, the most accurate way to describe these chapters seems to me to be that they are an explanation to Zeezrom (and therefore to us) that God could not support his political coup because Zeezrom had not been chosen at the Council to be a Nephite king. Another way of saying that is that these six chapters are primarily about the legitimacy of priesthood and sacral kingship.

I intended to write that note and let it go at that. But then I asked the scripture this question, What IS God’s role in civil government. As I pondered, I thought you might ask that same question, so I set out to try to answer it. The following is the result:

The beginning of the answer may be found in this statement by Wilford Woodruff. It is his explanation about why he did vicarious temple work for the Founding Fathers.

Wilford Woodruff, September 16, 1877, Journal of Discourses, 19:229

I will here say, before closing, that two weeks before I left St. George, the spirits of the dead gath­ered around me, wanting to know why we did not redeem them. Said they, “You have had tile use of the Endowment House for a num­ber of years, and yet nothing has ever done for us. We laid the foundation of the government you now enjoy, and we never apostatized from it, ­but we remained true to it and were faithful to God.” These were the signers of the Declaration of Independence, and they waited on me for two days and two nights. I thought it very singular, that notwithstanding so much work had been done, and yet nothing had been done for them. The thought never entered my heart, form the fact, I suppose, that heretofore our minds were reaching after our more immediate friends and relatives. I straightway went into the baptismal font and called upon brother McCallister to baptize me for the signers of the Declaration of Independence, and fifty other eminent men, making one hundred in all, including John Wesley, Columbus, and others; I then baptized him for every President of the United States, except three; and when their cause is just, somebody will do the work for them.

I have felt to rejoice exceedingly in this work of redeeming the dead. I do not wonder at President Young saying he felt moved upon to call upon the Latter-day Saints to hurry up the building of these Temples. (Wilford Woodruff, September 16, 1877, Journal of Discourses, 19:229)

The part of that statement that seems most relevant to our discussion is his quote from those who came to him: “We laid the foundation of the government you now enjoy, and we never apostatized from it, ­but we remained true to it and were faithful to God.” Apparently they did not actually ask him to do their temple work. Rather, they demanded it on the grounds that they had never “apostatized” from the principles of freedom.

One of those men—my hero of them all—was George Washington. As I have studied his life, I have become convinced that he knew his foreordained mission, long before he sorted out all its details. I am aware of no place where he actually wrote that he had learned it by revelation. This statement, made two years before the Declaration of Independence , in a private letter to a personal friend, is about as close as one can get.

      … I am sure I have no new lights to throw upon the Subject, or any arguments to offer in support of my own doctrine than what you have seen; and could only in general add, that an Innate Spirit of freedom first told me, that the Measures which Administration hath for sometime been, and now are, most violently pursuing, are repugnant to every principle of natural justice; whilst much abler heads than my own, hath fully convinced me that it is not only repugnant to natural Right, but Subversive of the Laws & Constitution of Great Britain itself; (Papers of George Washington, Washington to Bryan Fairfax, 24 August 1774)

Washington had not been convinced by the arguments of his friends, until after “an Innate Spirit of freedom first told” him that the principles were true.

While it is true that the validity of participatory government rests on the general conscience of the people, it is also true that, at lest to some degree, conscience is a product of culture. For that reason we must be very wary of political issues that are founded on prejudice and intolerance

The challenge to the framers of the Constitution was to create a govern­ment that was so strong that it could protect its citizens, and yet so very weak that it could impose itself upon their private lives.

The object was to prevent the minority from dictating to the majority, however to some degree, they over-corrected. Since then, enough egalitarianism has been introduced into the system that the majority cannot harm the minority. In a free society political issues move like a pendulum, ever seeking stability in the upright position. It seems to me that we are about to the place where the pendulum will begin to swing back the other way again.

Actually, Deism is the answer to the question. Deism has had a bad press for years. That is because the only book that tried to define it was written by Tom Paine who was mad at Jefferson and tried to get even by writing a book saying that Jefferson was a Deist and that all deists were atheists. What Paine wrote was simply not true.

The best way to understand Deism is to look at the lives of the men and women who called themselves Deists—Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and most of the Founding Fathers. Deism insisted there is a God (“Providence” they often called him), who cared about people because he had created them to be the best that they could possibly be. That could only be realized if they were individually free to become fully themselves. That could not happen under an oppressive government. Therefore, the Deists reasoned, God did not want people to live under an oppressive government, and it was his desire and intension that they should live under a system that gave them maximum freedom to be the best they could be. A practical example of what that meant is this: I have never seen any evidence that George Washington prayed for the Lord to look after Mt. Vernon. Mt. Vernon, was, after all, Washington’s responsibility. However, there were many times when Washington urged the Continental Congress to declare special days for fasting and prayer that the Lord would sustain the army in their fight for freedom. And after a successful military engagement, Washington usually issued a general order to his men to setting aside a day for prayers of thanksgiving to the Lord—because, after all, the survival of the fledgling nation, its army—and ultimately of their freedom—were God’s responsibility.

They called what they were doing “the glorious experiment.” No one before had ever tried to create a government whose object was to make people free enough that they could secure their own individual success and happiness.

There are only three fundamental forms of government. 1) that described in Machiavelli, The Prince where the most powerful people assume the authorities of government. 2) That described by Rousseau, where a self-defined moral elite assume the authorities of government. 3) and that 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 power of The Prince is the same whether the control is exercised by tribal chiefs, medieval landowners, or military dictators. 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 both politics and the economy. They control politics because the law is what they say the law is. They control the economy because they own all the real property, and often also the serfs or slaves who work the land. In most instances (Medieval Europe; ancient Rome, Egypt, Greece; apostate times in ancient Israel, Ancient China and Japan where the emperor was a god, or Communism where the state was god), religion is a major means of keeping the masses in check, because the major gods support the king and validate his actions. Civil and criminal laws are established to reinforce and legalize the power of the king.

2) Rousseau said people are intelligent animals whose primary motivation is avarice: greed, self preservation, and self aggrandizement. He said because this is so, all governments tend to be tools by which the powerful control and take advantage of the weak. He used the dark ages in Europe as a primary example. He said, however, 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, if they have the power to do it. He said it is the responsibility of this self-defined, self-appointed moral elite to obtain political power by whatever revolutionary means are necessary, and 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 they didn’t have to worry about ways to get more). He organized the Fabian Society of England, which is still the thinktank of the British Labor Party. (When the Labor Party got power in England they nationalized railroads, coal mines, and other theretofore private businesses.) His program was that he would establish discussion groups in universities among students who were going into teaching, writing (plays, fiction, etc.), broadcasting, and other fields 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, married FDR, and became very involved in the United Nations.

Rousseau-inspired governmental systems vary markedly in their applications of his principles. In America they are largely espoused by “liberals,” but countered by “conservatives,” so American movement toward implementing his philosophy has been slow. In Europe it has been faster. In Russia, China, and a few other places it has been quick and complete. The theory looks good, but the practice is, by its nature, severely flawed. Its premise is that people, because of their selfish nature, are not able to make decisions that are in their own collective best interest, so participatory government cannot be good government. Therefore only a self-appointed moral elite is capable of making correct governmental decisions for the masses. That necessarily creates a two-cast social, political, and economic system. That it creates a two cast social and political system is obvious, but so is it obvious that its political system must create a two cast economic system.

There is no such thing as wealth in the abstract. Wealth consists of a successful sequence – of first production and then distribution. One can own a mountain full of gold, and it means nothing unless he can refine the gold and get it on the market. The same is true of a field of wheat. Unless it is harvested and marketed, it is not much different from a field of weeds. In Rousseau’s egalitarian system, the same people who make political decisions also make decisions about what should be produced and how it should be marketed. 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. Civil and criminal law are established to ensure the continuance of the system and the power of the individuals who control the state. The opportunities for corruption are enormous, and, as happened in the case of Russia, it is destined to implode.

3) The system based on the notions of Deism was begun as the English Common Law and Parliamentary system. It matured in the American colonies, and was best described in the Declaration of Independence. The best discussion of the Declaration’s philosophy is Gary Wills’ Inventing America. In it he 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.” Jefferson and his contemporaries did not believe equality meant sameness, as is implied in Rousseau’s egalitarian ideals. Jefferson compared human society to a bucket of fresh milk. As time passes the cream in the milk will rise to the top of the bucket, and the ordinary milk will settle to the bottom. He said people are like that: those with natural talents will rise to the top, while those with less ability will move toward the bottom. He believed government ought not to be used to artificially raise untalented people, or to artificially keep afloat the untalented children of talented people. But that government should get out of the way and let people seek their own levels – according to their ability or their inclination. In his use of the word “created” one also finds a fundamental difference between the two philosophies. Both use the word “freedom,” but with different meanings. In Rousseau’ philosophy, the fundamental purpose of the government is to grant freedom to the people. That means freedom is a gift from the government, and the extent of the freedom is as it is defined by the government.

In Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence, God made men free, and the fundamental purpose of government is to keep them free. That gives government a four-fold responsibility: to protect the people from international aggression (military and diplomatic power), to protect them from their neighbors (police and some regulatory powers), to give them freedoms they would not otherwise have (freedom of communication by providing post office and roads are examples), and to leave them alone and let them be the best they can be. In a word: to prevent external restraints on their freedom and to otherwise keep out of the way.

Gary Wills’s Inventing America convincingly shows that what Jefferson meant by “all men are created equal,” is that all people have an innate and equal sense of right and wrong – they all have the same built-in conscience that gives everyone the same universal standard of moral excellence – and on that idea he rested the whole legal justification for the American political and economic system, and for participatory government.

In Rousseau’s thinking, there is not 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 will naturally 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 would share the common values of the overwhelming majority of the citizens. If the people discover their leaders do not share their values, they replace them with others who will enact and enforce laws that are consistent with the common sense of right and wrong. Criminal law is necessary, but it only applies to those who act contrary to the laws of nature.

In drafting our Constitution and Bill of Rights, the Founding Fathers demonstrated unparalleled wisdom in defining the principles of free government and the delicate balance of powers needed to achieve them.

For the members of the Second Con­tinental Congress, The Declaration of In­dependence was not so much a state­ment of what they were doing as it was a justification of what they had already done. More than three months before, on April 6. 1776, they had removed themselves from the British Empire by severing the economic ties that had bound them to England. The next steps were to define that economic severance as a political departure, and then to exert sufficient military prowess to consum­mate that definition. After that, the great­est challenge would be, in the words of the Declaration of Independence, “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.”

The initial step, though traumatic, was relatively easy. The British Empire was theoretically an economic, rather than a military empire. In April they withdrew from the Empire by closing American ports to all British shipping, and then de­clared dared those same ports open to trade with all other nations. The question of whether Congress had the authority to do that was answered by the outcome to the Revolutionary War. The questions of why they chose to do it, and the legality of their actions were addressed by the Dec­laration of Independence.

The legal premises on which they acted were “the laws of nature and nature’s God.” For Jefferson and his contem­poraries, a simple reference in the Decla­ration to those political doctrines was suf­ficient to establish the point, but for people of the 21st century, the ideas expressed by that phrase are indistinct, obscured by time and disuse. Yet, those two ideas, originating with European thinkers but matured to fruition in the minds of Jefferson, Washington, Adams, Madison, and other Americans, are the theoretical bases for the legitimacy of a free government

The “laws of nature” referred to the concept of government by covenant, and was based on this scenario: In the beginning, before man had established a polit­ical structure for his society, there were essentially two sorts of people: those whose lives and pocketbooks were en­riched by what they produced or created, and those who exercised themselves only enough to steal or extort the fruits of other men’s labors. The former, finding they were expending too much of their other­wise productive energies defending themselves and their property from the latter, contrived a system whereby they could delegate to “government” the police and military responsibilities of de­fence. This would free the citizens at large to pursue their private affairs in peace and security.

They designated one among them to be king, covenanting with him that they would provide him sufficient income and adequate power to secure “their safety and happiness” but not enough to re­structure their private affairs. In return he covenanted with them that he would never abuse his authority by turning that power against them. The object of the covenant was to establish a system whereby the people could be protected but not dominated. Given the nature of the covenant, it followed that if the king violated his office by usurping additional powers and using it to oppress the people, his tyranny would automatically release them from further moral or legal obliga­tions to keep their half of the bargain. Calling upon this rationale, the Declara­tion of Independence asserts that the En­glish King had “abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his protection, and waging war against us.”

The “laws of… Nature’s God” is the claim of the supremacy of higher law. There are some things, such as rape and theft, that are wrong by their own na­ture, and no act of a legislature or edict of a king can make them not wrong. The purpose of participatory government is so that civil and criminal law will ­consist with natural law—so that which is inherently wrong will be legally wrong also.

With “the Laws of Nature and of Na­ture’s God” as their premises, the Found­ing Fathers believed that all governments had four legitimate functions: First, to protect its citizens (i.e., military and police power); Second, to provide equality be­fore the law while protecting the innocent from its misapplication; Third, to enhance freedom by helping individuals function more easily and equitably within society (i.e., postal and highway systems to en­hance communication, even-handed tariffs and sanctity of contract); Fourth, to leave individuals alone, so, through the exercise of their freedoms, they might be­come the best they are capable of being. To discover one’s potential, and mature it to fruition, Jefferson reasoned, is the purpose of life (if it is not, there is no over-riding purpose), so it is a necessary function of legitimate government to stand aside and let people be their best In this, government functions as an um­brella, protecting each from unaccept­able external disquietudes, while leaving him free to walk where he will.

Madison, perhaps more than Jefferson, understood it was easier to use those ideas for the rationale of revolution than it was to incorporate them into a working government But, as Washington had so eloquently pointed out at Newburg, if these were the principles for which Amer­icans had been willing to sacrifice their lives, they must also be the undergirding of any government founded upon that sacrifice.

To appreciate the complexity of the problem as the Framers appreciated it, we must understand that there is no such tangible thing as “government” What we call “government” is the interaction of select individuals and their uses of coer­cive power. Since the single characteristic which makes these individuals different from other citizens is their access to such power, it is not simplistic to define govern­ment as the power to coerce. That defini­tion holds true whether one is speaking of a dictatorship or the home of doting grandparents, whether the power is threat of violence or threat of disapproval. The fact remains, if there is no power to coerce, there is no government A free society is not anarchy. The exercise of those four legitimate functions of govern­ment are necessary to the preservation and enhancement of freedom. Therefore, the coercive powers that constitute a polit­ical structure must be legitimized so they may be brought to bear – but in a way to minimize their propensity to be abused.

One way that suggested itself by their experience was to give people access to the power through representative govern­ment, but even that was fraught with danger. The scenario of the covenant did not lend itself so readily to representative government, for the idea of representa­tion seemed to preclude the need for the covenant Yet, as Madison pointed out in the Tenth Federalist, corrupt and power-hungry men will gravitate to government because it is the seat of power, and such men would, by their nature, seek to ob­viate or circumvent the objects of the cov­enant

The problem for the authors of the Constitution was how to retain the framework of the covenant within the structure of representative government without abandoning the powers to smiling demigods who could convince the people to vote away their own freedom. Again the answer is alluded to in the Declaration of Indepen­dence. The key is found in the organiza­tional relationships of the powers. They must be balanced so delicately that the energy that may be used by govern­ment to protect its citizens is rendered inoperative when employed to violate the sanctity of individual incentive.

That the Founding Fathers were able to take that key, and create a workable answer to their dilemma is, one of the greatest miracles of human history.

Their solution was “dual sovereignty” that incorporated separate layers of government, and recognized the people as citizens of each layer. In this two-tiered sys­tem, the weaker level—the state and local govern­ments—had the authority to deal with the personal lives of their citizens and suffi­cient police power to be effectual. It was to the stronger—the federal government—that they assigned the ultimately coercive powers of the military—but limited its jurisdiction to providing for “the common defense,” and promoting “the general welfare.” (They read that “general wel­fare,” not “general welfare.” In both in­stances where this phrase is used in the Constitution its intent is to define, and thereby limit, federal jurisdiction to mat­ters that concerned the whole of the American nation.) In this balanced, stratified system, the Founding Fathers achieved the seemingly impossible by separating the potentially dangerous military powers from the authority to deal with individual citizens.

The first principle of freedom is that people govern themselves. This does not only mean that they are governed by representatives of their own choosing, but it also means that in almost everything they do, they actually make the decisions that govern and regulate their own lives. Even though there was much dissension about many things, among the delegates at the Constitutional Convention there was no disagreement about that. Indeed it is probably true that it was the dele­gates’ mutual belief in that principle that kept them together and caused them to be wiling to compromise on other questions where there was not so much unanimity.

The challenge to the framers of the Con­stitution was to create a government that was strong enough to protect its citizens, and yet too weak to impose itself upon their private lives. They achieved this by separating the govern­ment into two major jurisdictions. The federal government was given authority over matters of a “general” or national concern, and the state and local govern­ments, but more especially the individual citizens, retained authority over every­thing else. When the final draft of the Con­stitution was presented to the states for ratification, it presumed that separation, but did not actually say it. Many Amer­icans felt ill at ease about the omission and wanted their own powers spelled out in the document itself. Consequently, when the Bill of Rights was added, two of those amendments, the 9th and 10th, focused on that idea. They read:

IX. The enumeration in the Con­stitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or dis­parage others retained by the people.

X The powers not delegated to The United States by the Constitu­tion; nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Under this system the jurisdiction of the federal government included such matters as national defense, international and interstate commerce, and diplomatic dealings with other nations. It had nothing whatever to do with private citizens in mat­ters such as how they use their property, parental responsibility, or the myriads of other cultural and legal relationships that are a part of living in a community. All such matters were left to state and local governments, or left alone entirely to be regulated on an individual basis.

The real power that sustains such a government can only be the individual goodness of the people—their willing and wilful adherence to what the Romans called “natural law” and Jefferson called “the laws of nature.” The Roman orator, Scipio, defined natural law in a speech before the Roman Senate. He explained that there are some things which are wrong by their very nature. He used burglary and adultery as examples, saying that such things are wrong whether the Senate defined them as legally wrong or not. No government, no matter how powerful, he asserted, can alter the rightness or wrongness of certain human acts. It is the first function of government to recognize natural law and make actions that are in­nately wrong, legally wrong as well. Under such a legal system the victim of a moral wrong can have a legal recourse.

That argument was accepted as an eternal principle by most of the members of the Constitutional Convention. It is the undergirding of the system they created. It is also the rationale on which the legiti­macy of representative government is based. Jefferson and many of his contemporaries believed that a representative government, whether national or local, can succeed because the overwhelming majority of people are “equal” in that they have an equal innate sense of what is right and wrong. When a gov­ernment truly represents the will and thinking of the people, that government will be the functional expression of the people’s innate moral sense. As such, its primary objective will be to guarantee its people that they may live their lives in a society that recognizes rightness and wrongness the same as they do. The Con­stitution’s leaving so much power to state and local governments and to the people was intended to expedite that guarantee.

The Constitution pre­sumes that most people are bright enough and wise enough to govern their own actions and that they are honest enough and have enough integrity to re­frain from imposing themselves on their neighbors. Because of that presumption, the document leaves the great bulk of the powers to govern with the individual citi­zens themselves. Americans like that. For the most part we get on quite nicely with­out government telling us what and when to do. Except for paying taxes, obeying traffic regulations, and the like, most Americans live their day-to-day lives as though there were no government at all to get in the way of their being themselves. That, after all, is what freedom is all about Without that, freedom has neither reason, nor purpose, nor attendant blessing.

Freedom is that one may be one’s Self. That notion presupposes every person’s innate ability to recognize right and wrong, and the ability of the enormous majority of the people to conduct their lives according to their best feelings. It assumes that only a small minority, those who cannot or do not choose to live according to the dic­tates of their own conscience, need ever become subject to the coercive powers of law and government. The entire notion and structure of American individual free­dom is based on the belief that individual citizens will recognize, and will have the integrity to obey “the Laws of Nature and of Na­ture’s God.”

The system was never designed to work in a society where people permitted themselves to rationalize away their sense of right and wrong.

In a system where the people are not free, the will of the ruling minority holds the government and its culture together. But in a free society, the cohesive power that makes it all work is the integrity and rectitude of its individual citizens. But there is the rub. Even though honesty and integrity are necessary to the survival of a free government, that government, by its very nature, lacks the power to im­pose either honesty or integrity upon its citizens, unless they breach the legal code.. Consequently, if the people choose to violate their own sense of what is right and wrong and “call evil good, and good evil,” the system will self-destruct. In its place must necessarily come one of only two possible options: 1) anarchy and chaos, or 2) some variety of dictatorship in which government is not only strong enough to protect its citi­zens, but also strong enough to impose its own standards of excellence and mor­ality upon their private lives.

The people of the city of Ammonihah had abandoned “the laws of nature and of nature’s God” and were contriving to destroy the freedoms of the Nephite people. So Alma, like Washington so many years later, was called upon to intervene. In that, God is entirely justified, because if the people seek to live by the “laws of nature and of nature’s God,” he will help them establish a government based on covenant. Then, if they continue to be righteous, the ultimate protection of their political freedom is, after all, God’s responsibility.