LeGrand L. Baker

Alma 5:1-7 — LeGrand Baker — spiritual life and death

There is a fun bit of information given by Alma in v. 4 and 5. Speaking of the people who followed his father Alma, he says:

they were delivered out of the hands of the people of king Noah,
they were brought into bondage by the hands of the Lamanites
they were in captivity, and again the Lord did deliver
we were brought into this land
we began to establish the church of God throughout this land also.

Bible scholars who analyze that same sort of language in Acts, conclude that when Luke writes, “they traveled” he was giving second hand information, but when he writes “we traveled” that indicates Luke was traveling with Paul and his party. If we can use that same criterion here, then it is apparent that Alma II was not with is father at the Waters of Mormon, or when they were held captive by the priests of Noah, but was with him when the Lord delivered them from the Lamanites the final time. That indicates to me that Alma II was born just a short time before his father’s people came to Zarahemla.

6a.    And now behold, I say unto you, my brethren, you that belong to this church,

An important key to reading the Book of Mormon is to know the audience to whom a sermon is addressed. An example is that in a sermon, the repetition of the phrase “my beloved brethren” indicates the speaker is in a formal priesthood gathering. Jacob’ sermon at the temple (ch. 2) uses that phrase repeatedly, as does Alma 7, and Mormon’s sermon in Moroni 7.

In contrast, King Benjamin, in Mosiah 8, addresses “My friends and brethren, my kindred and my people,” then he doesn’t use the word “brethren” again. The Saviour’s sermon at the temple in 3 Nephi 9 to 17 is spoken to families — “men, women, and children.” In 3 Nephi 27 the Saviour is speaking to his disciples who “were gathered together and were united in mighty prayer and fasting.” That information is important when one reads the sermons. The fact the Saviour’s sermon at the temple was spoken to and about families is very important in understanding that sermon’s temple connotations.

In Alma 5, the prophet was talking to both members and non-members of his church, but this was not primarily an instructional sermon to the non-members. The first part of his sermon is directed to wayward members of the church — and even though he doesn’t beat around the bush, he is careful not to speak too clearly. Much of what he writes is in code. If one assumes that Alma’s audience understood the code and were not just hearing pretty poetic phrases, then that also tells us a great deal about his audience. Let me show you what I mean.

6b.   have you sufficiently retained in remembrance the captivity of your fathers? Yea, and have you sufficiently retained in remembrance his mercy and long-suffering towards them?

This may be read as an historical reference to the trouble they had with the Lamanites, as he had just reminded them. But his next sentence suggests he was referring to something far more important than that.

6c.   And moreover, have ye sufficiently retained in remembrance that he has delivered their souls from hell?

In a quick read, an easy way to deal with that statement is to observe that the words “he has delivered their souls from hell,” might be that he was talking about people who were then dead, but that isn’t what he said he was talking about.

His words can be read as Hebrew poetry where he simply repeats his same idea in different ways. And when it is read that way it is very beautiful. But, as is often true with Hebrew poetry, the second statement is not a repitition of the first idea, but an expansion of it. What Alma says is:

6b-7a.   have ye sufficiently retained in remembrance that he has delivered their souls from hell? Behold, he changed their hearts; yea, he awakened them out of a deep sleep, and they awoke unto God.

Alma was describing the power of their conversion — “he changed their hearts.”

As I’ve mentioned before, in the ancient world the heart was understood to be the seat of both one’s intellect and one’s emotions. So to change their hearts did not mean just to change their feelings and attitudes, it meant to change their thought patterns and their systems of belief. Changes in one’s academic thinking are as much a part of the conversion process as are changes in one’s sense of kindness and compassion. He explains:

7b.   Behold, he changed their hearts; yea, he awakened them out of a deep sleep, and they awoke unto God.

The notion of awakening has an important meaning in the scriptures. It is often found in a couplet: “Awake and arise,” as in 2 Nephi 1:1, and Moroni 10:31.

This is not just a poetic couplet, the words “awake” and “arise” have different meanings. That difference was emphasized by Paul, who wrote, “Wherefore he saith, Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light.” (Ephesians 5:14.) There, Paul was not writing to people who were physically dead and in the grave. The symptoms of the death he was talking about will melt away as one assimilate’s the light that shines from the presence of the Saviour.

To “awake” suggests becoming fully cognizant of that light, while to “arise” suggests becoming physically alive in it.

Isaiah equated “awake” with the notions of kingship and priesthood when he wrote, “Awake, awake; put on thy strength, O Zion; put on thy beautiful garments.” (Isaiah 52:1)That is quoted twice in the Book of Mormon (2 Nephi 8:24-25.)(3 Nephi 20:36-38.), and paraphrased by Moroni who emphasize that same connotation but extended it to include the idea of eternal families. (Moroni 10:31 & Isaiah 54:1-3)

The same idea is expressed a bit differently by Isaiah where, just a few verses before that, he says: “Awake, awake, stand up.” (Isaiah 51:17, In 2 Nephi 8:17-24 it is quoted without a chapter break.)

The words, “stand up,” are significant, for in Old Testament times one stood to make a covenant. (2 Kings 23:1-3) And that practice may help one understand the significance of Alma’s words:

7b.   Behold, he changed their hearts; yea, he awakened them out of a deep sleep, and they awoke unto God.

Alma continues by describing what he meant when he says “they awoke unto God.”

7c.   Behold, they were in the midst of darkness; nevertheless, their souls were illuminated by the light of the everlasting word;

That reads as an extension of the previous sentence, rather than a repetition of the same idea.

It is universally understood that when one’s eyes are closed, as in sleep, one is in darkness. An interesting aside is that if one is asleep and dreaming, part of the dream is that there is enough light to see. But the light by which one sees in a dream is a fantasy, just as the dream is. The actual darkness from having one’s eyes closed is not perceived in the dream even though it is the reality. Walking in darkness without the light of the gospel is like that. To awaken is to open one’s eyes and to be in a world of real light.

Alma says, “their souls were illuminated by the light of the everlasting word,” but words, by themselves, are not luminous. And whereas the words in the previous sentence (heart, sleep, awake) have a physical connotation, this has a spiritual meaning. It says “their souls were illuminated.” Steve Stay suggested to me that it might more accurately reflect Alma’s meaning if it read: “by the light of the Everlasting Word.” I suspect he is correct, for Alma seems to be expressing the same idea as John’s:

1   In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2   The same was in the beginning with God.
3   All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
4   In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
5   And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. (John 1:1-5)

The idea is the same as quoted above from Paul: “Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light.” (Ephesians 5:14.)

Alma continues:

7d.   yea, they were encircled about by the bands of death, and the chains of hell, and an everlasting destruction did await them.

The death Alma was talking about was not physical death, nor was the hell one that would follow mortal life. Both the death and the hell he was talking about were experienced during this life. Fortunately we have Alma’s own words to tell us precisely what he meant. When he was speaking to Zeezrom, he explained that the phrase, “chains of hell,” meant not knowing the mysteries of God.

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

The scary thing is that for Alma, “the chains of hell” are not a condition of those who have never known the gospel, but are a condition of those who have forgotten — who once knew, or who once might have known, and have chosen not to know.

It seems to me that it is safe to assume that the people whom Alma was speaking to in Zarahemla understood the connotations of Alma’s words, and therefore understood the full impact of his message. If that is so, then it seems to me that it is safe to assume he was addressing a temple worshiping people. If that is so, then knowing who his audience was sheds an important light on what he was saying to them — and to us — and why he was saying it.

Alma 3:26-27 — LeGrand Baker — meaning of ‘works’

26    And in one year were thousands and tens of thousands of souls sent to the eternal world, that they might reap their rewards according to their works, whether they were good or whether they were bad, to reap eternal happiness or eternal misery, according to the spirit which they listed to obey, whether it be a good spirit or a bad one.
27    For every man receiveth wages of him whom he listeth to obey, and this according to the words of the spirit of prophecy; therefore let it be according to the truth. And thus endeth the fifth year of the reign of the judges (Alma 3:26-27).

This is one of those problematic passages that it is easier to ignore than to deal with. But to ignore it creates multiple problems in understanding the Book of Mormon.

The difficulty is that it seems impossible to square this concept of afterlife with our understanding of the three degrees of glory, or even with the doctrine of a post-life spirit world that is divided into a prison and a paradise. We understand that as soon as the dead repent and have their temple work done for then, they can get out of spirit prison and to go to paradise. Mormon’s appraisal (these are Mormon’s words, not Alma’s) may suggest a paradise and a spirit prison, but because there is no suggestion about a way out of the spirit prison, the ancient BofM doctrine appears to be different from ours. Thus giving rise to an idea that I have heard since my youth, that the people of the Book of Mormon did not understand all the “higher” principles of the gospel. That list usually included temple work, eternal marriage, salvation for the dead, and the three degrees of glory. I believe they understood the gospel in its fullness. So this little essay is an attempt on my part to say that Mormon and the Book of Mormon prophets who taught the same thing knew exactly what they were talking about, and what they wrote is very serious indeed.

For example, the idea that one who is dead can repent and will receive all the blessings the repentant can receive is clearly taught in the Old Testament, Especially in Psalms and Isaiah. Both books are quoted in the Book of Mormon. The last third of Psalm 22 is about the Saviour’s going to “the great congregation” where he taught in the spirit world. Isaiah 61 is about the principle of salvation for the dead. (It is paraphrased extensively in D&C 138, and quoted in verse 42) The Saviour also paraphrased it in the Beatitudes (“Blessed are they that mourn for they shall be comforted.). His doing so presupposes that his audience understood his reference. I think that is sufficient evidence that the doctrine was understood by the authors of the Book of Mormon.

So that presents the dilemma: “If Mormon understood the post-earth life spirit world and the doctrine of salvation for the dead, why didn’t he say so in this passage?” I suppose the answer is this: “That doctrine is not what Mormon was talking about.” If that answer is correct, then we are left with the question: “Then what was Mormon talking about.”

26    And in one year were thousands and tens of thousands of souls sent to the eternal world, that they might reap their rewards according to their works, whether they were good or whether they were bad, to reap eternal happiness or eternal misery, according to the spirit which they listed to obey, whether it be a good spirit or a bad one.
27   For every man receiveth wages of him whom he listeth to obey, and this according to the words of the spirit of prophecy; therefore let it be according to the truth. And thus endeth the fifth year of the reign of the judges (Alma 3:26-27).

In the Oxford English Dictionary, the first definition of “list” as a verb uses “lust” as a synonym. The second is “listen.” The third is to put a border around, or to enclose. The fourth is that the verb “list” is the same word as enlist. It also further clarifies the meaning of “enclose.” It reads, “In senses 3 and 4 the word is now taken chiefly as an aphetic form of enlist and is written ‘list.” In every instance, it represents a studied desire possess or to actively belong. Mormon’s phrase, “the spirit which they listed to obey,” fits with all of those definitions.

It establishes a relationship between a master and a subordinate. That relationship is further emphasized by the entire clause, “For every man receiveth wages of him whom he listeth to obey”

The idea of being employed by a superior is further clarified by the clause, “that they might reap their rewards according to their works.” So Mormon is not talking about people who are acting on their own volition, but about people who are employed by someone who they are willing to obey.

What they are employed to do is only defined as their “works.” So the entire passage pivots on the meaning of the word “works.” Strong does not help much here. The Greek noun translated “works” simply means “that with which any one is occupied,… that which one undertakes to do…, any thing accomplished…, an act, deed, thing done…” So if one is going to discover its meaning one has to examine the way it is used. When one does that, then its meaning becomes much more explicit. In many places in the scriptures, “works” is a reference to either priesthood ordinances or to keeping covenants.

“Works” as ordinances is most apparent when Alma is explaining that Adam and Eve were taught by angels how to pray and how to enter the presence of God.

29   Therefore he [God] sent angels to converse with them, who caused men to behold of his glory.
30   And they began from that time forth to call on his name; therefore God conversed with men, and made known unto them the plan of redemption, which had been prepared from the foundation of the world; and this he made known unto them according to their faith [the tokens of the covenants] and repentance and their holy works [ordinances]. (Alma 12:29-30)

But it is apparent that it is not limited to the ordinances we receive, but seems to apply to any act associated with the power and authority of God. Moroni uses it that way.

17   And now, as I, Moroni, said I could not make a full account of these things which are written, therefore it sufficeth me to say that Jesus showed himself unto this man in the spirit, even after the manner and in the likeness of the same body even as he showed himself unto the Nephites.
18   And he ministered unto him even as he ministered unto the Nephites; and all this, that this man might know that he was God, because of the many great works which the Lord had showed unto him. (Ether 3:17-18)

Three passages from the gospel of John make that meaning very clear.

3   Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works [exercise of priesthood power] of God should be made manifest in him.
4   I must work the works [exercise of priesthood power] of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work.
5   As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world.(John 9:3-5)

and

25   Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works [exercise of priesthood power] that I do in my Father’s name, they bear witness of me. (John 10:25)

and

10   Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works [exercise of priesthood power].
11   Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works’ [exercise of priesthood power] sake.
12   Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works [exercise of priesthood power] that I do shall he do also; and greater works [exercise of priesthood power] than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.
13   And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. (John 14:10-13)

Perhaps the most conclusive evidence of that is the way “works” is used by James. There he shows the relationship between faith and works. The word translated “faith” is pistis, which is, as Paul says, “the evidence” of things unseen. It means an evidence of fidelity, or the token of a covenant.

17   Even so faith [Here James uses the Greek word, pistis – the tokens of the covenants], if it hath not works [the ordinances], is dead, being alone.
18   Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.
19   Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.
20   But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?
21   Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?
22   Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? (James 2:17-22.)

Alma certainly used it that way. In the phrase “works of righteousness,” “Righteousness” was, no doubt, zedek which means correctness, especially in temple things.

16   I say unto you, can you imagine to yourselves that ye hear the voice of the Lord, saying unto you, in that day: Come unto me ye blessed, for behold, your works have been the works of righteousness upon the face of the earth?
17   Or do ye imagine to yourselves that ye can lie unto the Lord in that day, and say—Lord, our works have been righteous works upon the face of the earth—and that he will save you?
18   Or otherwise, can ye imagine yourselves brought before the tribunal of God with your souls filled with guilt and remorse, having a remembrance of all your guilt, yea, a perfect remembrance of all your wickedness, yea, a remembrance that ye have set at defiance the commandments of God?
19   I say unto you, can ye look up to God at that day with a pure heart and clean hands? I say unto you, can you look up, having the image of God engraven upon your countenances? (Alma 5:16-17)

and

24   And see that ye have faith, hope, and charity, and then ye will always abound in good works.
25   And may the Lord bless you, and keep your garments spotless, that ye may at last be brought to sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and the holy prophets who have been ever since the world began, having your garments spotless even as their garments are spotless, in the kingdom of heaven to go no more out. (Alma 7:24-25)

Alma gives the qualifications of those who were ordained by Heavenly Father at the Council in Heaven as having “exceeding faith and good works.”

And this is the manner after which they were ordained—being called and prepared from the foundation of the world according to the foreknowledge of God, on account of their exceeding faith and good works; in the first place being left to choose good or evil; therefore they having chosen good, and exercising exceedingly great faith, are called with a holy calling, yea, with that holy calling which was prepared with, and according to, a preparatory redemption for such. (Alma 13:3)

Throughout the Book of Mormon, “works” is also used to denote the proper exercise of priesthood power. The Lamanite queen is quoted as having used the word in that way.

And she said unto him: The servants of my husband have made it known unto me that thou art a prophet of a holy God, and that thou hast power to do many mighty works in his name; (Alma 19:4)

Samuel the Lamanite used it the same way.

And may God grant, in his great fulness, that men might be brought unto repentance and good works, that they might be restored unto grace for grace, according to their works. (Helaman 12:24)

As does the Saviour at the conclusion of the Beatitudes.

14   Verily, verily, I say unto you, I give unto you to be the light of this people. A city that is set on a hill cannot be hid.

15   Behold, do men light a candle and put it under a bushel? Nay, but on a candlestick, and it giveth light to all that are in the house;
16   Therefore let your light so shine before this people, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father who is in heaven.
17   Think not that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets. I am not come to destroy but to fulfil; (3 Nephi 12:14-17)

King Benjamin uses the phrase “good works” to mean the things one must do to have eternal life.

Therefore, I would that ye should be steadfast and immovable, always abounding in good works, that Christ, the Lord God Omnipotent, may seal you his, that you may be brought to heaven, that ye may have everlasting salvation and eternal life, through the wisdom, and power, and justice, and mercy of him who created all things, in heaven and in earth, who is God above all. Amen. (Mosiah 5:15)

However, the Book of Mormon also uses the word “works” to mean the criterion for going to hell. The word is used to refer to the most unrighteous covenantal relationships.

And it came to pass as he was thus pondering—being much cast down because of the wickedness of the people of the Nephites, their secret works of darkness, and their murderings, and their plunderings, and all manner of iniquities—and it came to pass as he was thus pondering in his heart, behold, a voice came unto him saying: (Helaman 10:3)

The Saviour explained,

10   And if it so be that the church is built upon my gospel then will the Father show forth his own works in it.
11   But if it be not built upon my gospel, and is built upon the works of men, or upon the works of the devil, verily I say unto you they have joy in their works for a season, and by and by the end cometh, and they are hewn down and cast into the fire, from whence there is no return.
12   For their works do follow them, for it is because of their works that they are hewn down; therefore remember the things that I have told you.
13   Behold I have given unto you my gospel, and this is the gospel which I have given unto you—that I came into the world to do the will of my Father, because my Father sent me.
14   And my Father sent me that I might be lifted up upon the cross; and after that I had been lifted up upon the cross, that I might draw all men unto me, that as I have been lifted up by men even so should men be lifted up by the Father, to stand before me, to be judged of their works, whether they be good or whether they be evil—
15   And for this cause have I been lifted up; therefore, according to the power of the Father I will draw all men unto me, that they may be judged according to their works.….
32   But behold, it sorroweth me because of the fourth generation from this generation, for they are led away captive by him even as was the son of perdition; for they will sell me for silver and for gold, and for that which moth doth corrupt and which thieves can break through and steal.
33   And in that day will I visit them, even in turning their works upon their own heads. (3 Nephi 27:1-33)

That prophecy is shown to have been fulfilled by Mormon’s description of the Nephite 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. (4 Nephi 1:27)

Given this understanding of “works,” that is, that is that “works” means the Satanic activities of humans, then a whole series of scriptures in the Book of Mormon takes on an entirely new meaning.

10   Even this mortal shall put on immortality, and this corruption shall put on incorruption, and shall be brought to stand before the bar of God, to be judged of him according to their works whether they be good or whether they be evil—
11   If they be good, to the resurrection of endless life and happiness; and if they be evil, to the resurrection of endless damnation, being delivered up to the devil, who hath subjected them, which is damnation—(Mosiah 16:10-11)

And Alma’s famous discussion of justice and mercy.

2   I say unto thee, my son, that the plan of restoration is requisite with the justice of God; for it is requisite that all things should be restored to their proper order. Behold, it is requisite and just, according to the power and resurrection of Christ, that the soul of man should be restored to its body, and that every part of the body should be restored to itself.
3   And it is requisite with the justice of God that men should be judged according to their works; and if their works were good in this life, and the desires of their hearts were good, that they should also, at the last day, be restored unto that which is good.
4   And if their works are evil they shall be restored unto them for evil. Therefore, all things shall be restored to their proper order, every thing to its natural frame—mortality raised to immortality, corruption to incorruption—raised to endless happiness to inherit the kingdom of God, or to endless misery to inherit the kingdom of the devil, the one on one hand, the other on the other—
5   The one raised to happiness according to his desires of happiness, or good according to his desires of good; and the other to evil according to his desires of evil; for as he has desired to do evil all the day long even so shall he have his reward of evil when the night cometh. (Alma 41:2-5)

The Book of Mormon makes little or no distinction between one whose works are overtly wicked and those who pretend to righteousness. That is shown in this famous passage spoken by the Saviour.

22   Many will say to me in that day: Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name, and in thy name have cast out devils, and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23     And then will I profess unto them: I never knew you; depart from me, ye that work iniquity. (3 Nephi 14:22-23)

But it is reiterated in Mormon’s great discourse on faith, hope, and charity.

4   And now my brethren, I judge these things of you because of your peaceable walk with the children of men.
5   For I remember the word of God which saith by their works ye shall know them; for if their works be good, then they are good also.
6   For behold, God hath said a man being evil cannot do that which is good; for if he offereth a gift, or prayeth unto God, except he shall do it with real intent it profiteth him nothing. (Moroni 7:4-6)

Without using the word “works” the Prophet Joseph taught the same principle.

34   Behold, there are many called, but few are chosen. And why are they not chosen?
35     Because their hearts are set so much upon the things of this world, and aspire to the honors of men, that they do not learn this one lesson—
36  That the rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and that the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness.
37   That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man. (D&C 121:34-37)

Conclusion.

Given the consistency in the use of the word “works,” and the widespread consistency in the Book of Mormon doctrine about our being judged by our works, I think it is reasonable to assert that our passage in Alma does not imply that Mormon did not understand either the doctrines of salvation for the dead or of the three degrees of glory. What it does imply is that people who, with full understanding of what they are doing, toy with sacred ordinances and covenants are in permanent and very serious trouble.

Alma 1:20-33 — LeGrand Baker with Tyson Hill – meaning of equality

These verses, in the first chapter of Alma, contain another of those amazingly profound statements that Mormon passes over as though there was nothing extraordinary about it. This time it is his definition of equality.

The notion that somehow all people are equal comes from very deep roots within our western culture. But it always sits in juxtaposition to the cold reality that people are not really equal at all. Let me give you a quick review of the ideas of equality that are a part of our western heritage. George Orwell’ phrase in Animal Farm, may not be an eternal truth, but it is certainly an accurate appraisal of this world’s reality: “All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.

1. From our present Jewish version of the Law of Moses, we are taught that Jehovah is the God of everybody, but that he loves some much more than he loves others. That was not only true between Israelites and Gentiles, but between Israelites as well. For example, the Law, as we have it, provided that in ancient Israel, if a man were unable to pay his debts, he and his family could be enslaved by his creditor.

2. From the ancient Greeks we have inherited the tradition of participatory government. But the ancient Greek democracy was limited to the elite.

3. From the Romans we inherited our notion of equality before the law, but that was also a selective equality, based on wealth and political status.

4. The New Testament teaches us that we should love one another and submit to authority, and those doctrines were soon turned into a rationale for oppression.

5. Observing the almost universal use of religion to oppress the masses, the philosopher/historian, Will Durant, believed that religion was an invention of the aristocracy to control and weigh down the masses. He used the Christianity of the Dark Ages to make his point. He wrote that the poor were taught that if they would endure their poverty and be subservient in this world, then they would have glorious mansions in the next world. He believed that this tactic had been used by the elite of every ancient culture, and noted that the upper classes were always eager to guarantee to the lower classes every wealth and pleasure they could hope for in the next world – in exchange for their willingness to tolerate poverty in this world.

6. Modern egalitarianism is based on that same assumption. Rousseau taught that equality was impossible because the natural human motivation is avarice and self-aggrandizement. He insisted that the best that could be hoped for was an imposed equanimity, with a self-defined and self-appointed moral elite controlling government, and the powers of both production and distribution. Communism and socialism are variations of his thinking. The problem is that when the same group controls government, production, and distribution, a two-cast system is established that belies the whole notion of a self-appointed moral elite.

7. As I observed two weeks ago, Jefferson believed equality meant that all people had the same innate sense of right and wrong, and upon that principle he justified a government created and elected by the people – believing that a government elected by the masses would have the same sense of right and wrong as the masses who created and elected it. There was nothing in Jefferson’s beliefs that suggested that all people had the same aptitudes or abilities. (See: Gary Wills, Inventing America, Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence). He left it to American rugged individualism to sort out the practical implications of that equality.

8. Since Jefferson’s time, our society has invented several new slogan-like definitions of equality. They sound good, but have little practical meaning. “Equal opportunity,” and “equal rights” are concepts written into our laws, but not clearly defined; fought over in the courts, but never resolved; and thus they have become great political footballs.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

Into that maze of conflict between philosophy and reality, Mormon quietly introduces the only fully rational definition of equality I have ever found.

26   And when the priests left their labor to impart the word of God unto the people, the people also left their labors to hear the word of God. And when the priest had imparted unto them the word of God they all returned again diligently unto their labors; and the priest, not esteeming himself above his hearers, for the preacher was no better than the hearer, neither was the teacher any better than the learner; and thus they were all equal, and they did all labor, every man according to his strength.
27  And they did impart of their substance, every man according to that which he had, to the poor, and the needy, and the sick, and the afflicted; and they did not wear costly apparel, yet they were neat and comely.
28  And thus they did establish the affairs of the church; and thus they began to have continual peace again, notwithstanding all their persecutions.
29  And now, because of the steadiness of the church they began to be exceedingly rich, having abundance of all things whatsoever they stood in need—an abundance of flocks and herds, and fatlings of every kind, and also abundance of grain, and of gold, and of silver, and of precious things, and abundance of silk and fine-twined linen, and all manner of good homely cloth.
30  And thus, in their prosperous circumstances, they did not send away any who were naked, or that were hungry, or that were athirst, or that were sick, or that had not been nourished; and they did not set their hearts upon riches; therefore they were liberal to all, both old and young, both bond and free, both male and female, whether out of the church or in the church, having no respect to persons as to those who stood in need.
31  And thus they did prosper and become far more wealthy than those who did not belong to their church. (Alma 1:20-33.)

The key words are these: “and the priest, not esteeming himself above his hearers, for the preacher was no better than the hearer, neither was the teacher any better than the learner; and thus they were all equal, ”

“And thus they were all equal!” The “equality” they experienced was the product of their esteem for each other.

The only true equality between two humans is their mutual esteem. No social, economic, or political situation can alter that reality. For example, a Greek scholar might be captured and made that slave of a wealthy Roman. If the slave is contemptuous of the master’s harshness, the master, in the slave’s estimation, is lesser than the slave, and can never be the slave’s equal. It would make no difference how much authority the master exercised over the slave, in the eyes of the slave, the master can never be the slave’s equal until the slave esteems him as such. The college professor can never be the equal of the old farmer, until the farmer esteems him as such. Conversely, the farmer can never be equal to a professor until the professor appreciates the goodness and wisdom of the fine old man. And the cost of a lack of such esteem is subtracted from the richness of the life of the one who withholds it.

Our human condition being what it is, governments are necessary to enforce some sort of equanimity in our legal and economic systems, but “charitable” condescension or patronization are poor substitutes for esteem. Neither the powers of government, its laws, nor the courts can impose an equality of esteem upon any society. It is a product of the individual soul.

Similarly, it is impossible to create a Zion society, by proclaiming it “zion” and inviting people to come in. Rather “Zion is the pure in heart,” which I understand to mean people who esteem others as themselves, and who conduct their lives in accordance to that mutual esteem. A collection of that kind of people becomes a Zion society. But the individuals must be Zion, before a Zion society can become a reality. I can discover no difference between that concept of mutual esteem, and the law of consecration. And I can discover no difference between the law of consecration and love that is called charity. Obedience to the law of consecration is what one does – but only when charity is what one is.

The natural consequence is, “And they did impart of their substance, every man according to that which he had, to the poor, and the needy, and the sick, and the afflicted….And now, because of the steadiness of the church they began to be exceedingly rich, having abundance of all things whatsoever they stood in need….”

Thus these people had established and maintained Zion as a subculture withing a culture that was not Zion at all. And their Zion remained viable until the mutual esteem began to disintegrate:

Yea, he [Alma] saw great inequality among the people, some lifting themselves up with their pride, despising others, turning their backs upon the needy and the naked and those who were hungry, and those who were athirst, and those who were sick and afflicted. (Alma 4:12.)

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

This week, Tyson asked me something that caused me to send him a draft of what you just read. After that, as the week progressed, I realized that our conversation was becoming a necessary conclusion to what I had written. I hope you don’t mind my sending you reports of our conversations. I thought the last time I did that  it would really be the last time, but since he is responsible for my thinking some good thoughts, I don’t think it would be quite honest if I just turned them into a little essay and did not give him the credit. It also occurs to me that you will like to know him. Another consideration is that I understand that you understand that you are getting this email because I love you, and many of you know and love each other also. So I don’t suppose you will mind if you hear me tell Tyson that I love him too. This week Tyson and Tenay are on their way to Seattle where he will soon begin law school.

– – – – – – – –

— T: —

I have another question that I was pondering on last night. How does one develop true charity (especially since it’s so important)? I understand the importance of serving others, and I know that we have briefly discussed knowing and understanding the entire plan in order to appreciate others, but how do I develop charity for everyone, perhaps even those who I barely meet or have no real opportunity to serve?

– – – – – – – –

— L: —

I suspect the reason identifying how to have charity is such a difficult question is that we don’t have a concrete sense of what charity is. Therefore one has nothing one can grab hold of and say, “this is it.” I just finished writing what I’m going to send out next week in the BofM Project. Let me send it to you, and then I’ll try to help you answer your question. [I sent Tyson the first draft of the today’s comment.]

– – – – – – – –

— T: —

I enjoyed the political tie that you put into your analysis of charity. However, you have only partially answered my question. I now understand more fully what charity is, or even how it can be understood. I do, not, however, yet know how to obtain it. How do I esteem others as myself? I know that sounds incredibly, stupidly, and embarrassingly prideful, but I see this flaw in myself. How can I really esteem others: my co-workers, random people on the subway, my enemies…as myself

– – – – – – – –

— L: —

Tyson, in your email you wrote, “I do, not, however, yet know how to obtain it. How do I esteem others as myself?” I think the problem you describe is in the reality of the meaning of loving one’s Self. So the initial question is: HOW -by what criterion – does one esteem one’s Self.

– – – – – – – –

— T: —

I really liked what you wrote on charity. I don’t know how I esteem myself. That’s a tricky question. I’m prone to pride at times and at other times, negative humility.

– – – – – – – –

— L: —

I appreciate our conversations. You are a wonderful stimulus for my thinking. I thought my BofM Project for next week was finished, but you have shown me that it is not –– thanks. One tends to define one’s Self in terms of one’s wants and needs. And therefore defines one’s esteem for others in terms of acknowledging that they have similar wants and needs. But what if one defined oneself in terms different from that. What if one believed this: “I am a person whom the Saviour loves, and the best evidence that I have that I exist is that I know he loves me and that I love him in return.” I love and feel love – therefore I am.

– – – – – – – –

— T: —

Obviously I love and believe that answer. Does that mean that having charitable Christ-like love for others starts by understanding and feeling Christ’s love for ourselves?

– – – – – – – –

— L: —

I think that is exactly where it begins – I suppose it ends there as well. To the degree that one can identify and define one’s Self in terms of the Saviour’s love, to that degree one runs out of other alternative ways of identifying and defining other people

– – – – – – – –

— T: —

How do you recommend one being able to recognize and most importantly feel Christ’s love for us?

– – – – – – – –

— L: —

I suspect the answer to that is the standard answer to all things. But because the answer is so easy to come by, its depth is difficult to discover – because it rolls off the tongue so easily it appears trite. The formula given in the Sermon on the Mount is the same as the formula one learns in the temple. “Ask, and it shall be given unto you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you.” As far as I can tell: Asking happens in prayer, seeking happens in the way one reads the scriptures and the way one lives. I suppose knocking has something to do with, “that they do always remember him.” But in the end none of those things are sufficient in themselves. They only affirm one’s willingness to receive a gift. The fulfillment is in the gift.

– – – – – – – –

— T: —

Thanks LeGrand. I agree with what you have said and have been actively seeking and praying for charity. I thought of the two great commandments that Christ gives, both of which define true charity and apparently are the only way to keep the commandments.

– – – – – – – –

— L: —

You are a remarkable young man Tyson. Lots of people think they want to know the deep things of the gospel. But you want to know the greatest mystery of them all. I love you.

– – – – – – – –

— T: —

I love you too LeGrand. Thanks for always helping me to be a better person.

– – – – – – – –

— L: —

I don’t think you need much help.

– – – – – – – –

Conclusion:

Without ever mentioning it – probably without being aware of it – Tyson put his finger squarely on the central point of the whole issue. His comments are remarkably candid and honest. And it is that kind of honesty that is the key. One can neither love others nor oneself unless one is comfortable with one’s Self. That requires faith, which leads to repentance, which leads to an even increasing sensitivity to the voice of the Spirit, which promotes a self-honesty. It is, as Bruce observed, a never-ending spiral, whose object is to lead one so closely to discovering who and what one is, that one may again, in this world, be true to the law of one’s own being.

Tyson won the chess game, by the way.

Alma 1:3-5 — LeGrand Baker — fallacies of human reasoning

3   And he [Nehor] had gone about among the people, preaching to them that which he termed to be the word of God, bearing down against the church; declaring unto the people that every priest and teacher ought to become popular; and they ought not to labor with their hands, but that they ought to be supported by the people.
4  And he also testified unto the people that all mankind should be saved at the last day, and that they need not fear nor tremble, but that they might lift up their heads and rejoice; for the Lord had created all men, and had also redeemed all men; and, in the end, all men should have eternal life.
5  And it came to pass that he did teach these things so much that many did believe on his words, even so many that they began to support him and give him money.

With this short narrative, Mormon has exposed one of the greatest fallacies of human reasoning. And, as is typical of Mormon’s writing, when he makes a profound observation that does not relate directly to his immediate message, he passes over it without a great deal of elaboration.

People are so eager to be saved without repentance that they are willing to give anyone money who can convince them that repentance is not necessary.

That attitude is so widespread that it appears in a great variety of forms, Their core is all the same, even though the particulars look very different on the surface.

Let me give you a few quick examples

It is apparent from the Book of Mormon that the purposes for sacrifices in the law of Moses was to teach the people about the atonement–which would imply an understanding of the need of repentance. Yet much of the evidence of that is lost in our present version of the law of Moses. In our version (edited during the apostasy after the Babylonian captivity), one is required to make peace offerings, but they seem to be in lieu of repentance, rather than a part of it. That was certainly true of the religions elsewhere in the ancient Near East. Nephi’ emphasis on faith, repentance, baptism, and the gift of the Holy Ghost is sufficient evidence that those principles were understood by the ancient Jews, so the exclusion of those principles in the edited version of the Books of Moses are also sufficient evidence that those principles were replaced by a theology that permitted sacrifice in lieu of repentance.

The idea certainly caught in later Christianity. During the crusades the popes promised the soldiers that went to reclaim the Holy Land, that whatever sin they did while on the crusade would be automatically forgiven. Thus giving the soldiers carte blanche to rape and pillage as they chose without any eternal consequence, and without any need to repent. That’s a strong incentive to volunteer to go to war in behalf of the church.

Much of today’s terrorism is based on that same principle.

It works with non-religion as well as with religions. If one denies that there is a God, one is also denying any need for any kind of morality except those which society imposes on one, and in any case there is no such thing as repentance, because there is no such thing as sin.

Throughout history–and certainly in our own time–any preacher–whether his doctrines are religious, political, or sociological–who can convincingly teach that repentance is not necessary to earthly or happiness, has always been able to gather an enthusiastic following, and turn his message into a source of money, or power, or both.

The story told in 4^th Nephi is symptomatic of the problem.

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. (4 Nephi 27)

It was a lot easier to get a temple recommend in this new church than it was in the original one! 

28   And this church did multiply exceedingly because of iniquity, and because of the power of Satan who did get hold upon their hearts.
29   And again, there was another church which denied the Christ; and they did persecute the true church of Christ, because of their humility and their belief in Christ; and they did despise them because of the many miracles which were wrought among them….
34   Nevertheless, the people did harden their hearts, for they were led by many priests and false prophets to build up many churches, and to do all manner of iniquity. And they did smite upon the people of Jesus; but the people of Jesus did not smite again. And thus they did dwindle in unbelief and wickedness, from year to year, even until two hundred and thirty years had passed away. (4 Nephi 28-34)