LeGrand L. Baker

Mosiah 7:26-28 — LeGrand Baker — Jesus is God of the Old Testament

Mosiah 7:26-28
26    And a prophet of the Lord have they slain; yea, a chosen man of God, who told them of their wickedness and abominations, and prophesied of many things which are to come, yea, even the coming of Christ.
27    And because he said unto them that Christ was the God, the Father of all things, and said that he should take upon him the image of man, and it should be the image after which man was created in the beginning; or in other words, he said that man was created after the image of God, and that God should come down among the children of men, and take upon him flesh and blood, and go forth upon the face of the earth–
28    And now, because he said this, they did put him to death; and many more things did they do which brought down the wrath of God upon them. Therefore, who wondereth that they are in bondage, and that they are smitten with sore afflictions?

It is interesting to me that King Limhi remembered Abinadi’s speech a little differently from the way Alma remembered it. (Mosiah 15) The doctrine Abinadi taught is one of the most significant in the Book of Mormon. I made passing mention of it once and Dil asked me to explain fuller. I shall do that, but I’ll wait until we get to Mosiah 15.

As I have studied, I have observed how completely the Prophet Joseph’s teachings are being vindicated by Christian scholars—not Christian preachers, that’s a different thing altogether.

I am now reading Henry M. Shires, Finding the Old Testament in the New (Philadelphia, Westminister Press, 1974). This author takes it for granted that in Hebrews, Paul taught that Jesus and Jehovah are the same person, and therefore that Jesus had a pre-mortal existence. (Well that’s not quite true. For one thing, he doesn’ t believe Paul wrote Hebrews, and for another, he probably doesn’t believe the things that “the author of Hebrews” wrote about Jesus’ pre-mortal existence, but at least he sort of understands what was written.)

What follows is a quote from Shires’ book, pages 61-63. Notice how close this is to what Abinadi taught.

Hebrews displays a marked reverence for the words of the O.T. It is the author’s firm belief that Scripture has been written by God and that its words are those which God has spoken in the past and still speaks. In Heb. 1 :6-9 citations of Deut. 32:43 (LXX) and Ps. 104:4; 45:6~ are introduced by a single formula, “God says,” even though the verse from Deuteronomy is in the song of Moses and the verses from Psalms are not ascribed to God. The third-person description in Gen. 2:2 of God’s rest on the seventh day from his work of Creation is in Heb. 4:4 presented as God’s own speech. Because he regards the words of Scripture as the utterance of God, the author of Hebrews can occasionally attribute personal attributes to an O.T. verse. In some cases the Greek can be equally well translated: “it [the scripture] says,” or “he [God] Says.” In Heb. 2:11-13 the words of Ps. 22:22; 2 Sam. 22:3 (LXX); and Is. 8:18 are attributed to Christ. Likewise, in Heb. 10:5-7, Ps. 40:6-8 is repeated as the speech of Christ when he came into the world. In Heb. 3:7-11, also, Ps. 95:7-11 (LXX) is cited as the utterance of the Holy Spirit. And in Heb. 10: 15-17 two verses of Jeremiah (Jer. 31 :3~4) are quoted as the words of the Holy Spirit. Yet these expressions of Christ and the Holy Spirit are also those of God himself. (Cf. Heb. 4:7; 8:8.) In all these cases the present tense is employed because the divine speech is timeless in its relevance. In the introductory formulas that precede O.T. quotations in Hebrews there are two references to Moses and one to David, as God’s servants; but otherwise all Q.T. citations are thought of as God’s words and so make no reference to any Jewish author, contrary to N.T. usage generally. The unity of Scripture is thus maintained. All the O.T. books that are cited in Hebrews are treated as Law and so are viewed as of the same authority and position.

Some sections of Hebrews are mainly a series of O.T. quotations with a minimum of interpretation or discussion. In chapter 1, seven O.T. passages are quoted in order to describe the person of Jesus Christ, God’s Son.

Shires has mentioned that sequence before in his book. In that place he said he doesn’t know why in the world “the author of Hebrews” strung those scriptures together like that. But they are a wonderful sequence of kingship scriptures which Paul used to show that Christ is – and always has been – King of Israel. The other brackets in this quote are inthe original.

In chapter 11, a review of Jewish history is built upon references to about 30 sections of historical narrative from Genesis to 2 Chronicles; and Abraham and Moses emerge as the most important leaders. Altogether, at least 28 O.T. passages are cited, and 21 of these are not quoted elsewhere in the N.T. Dependence on the O.T. is extremely heavy throughout, and its interpretation involves ingenuity and creativity. Even though the O.T. is revered as the continuing word of God, it is nevertheless seen as a record of incomplete revelation. The contrast between the old and the new is presented at the start (Heb. 1:1-2): ‘In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets; but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son.” In fact, the O.T. cannot present the full truth (Heb. 10:1), “since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities.” The function of the O.T., therefore, is to predict and prepare for the coming of Christ, who is seen as in preexistent form active in O.T. history. Moses’ acceptance of his role as leader of the oppressed Jews in Egypt entailed (Heb. 11:26) “abuse suffered for the Christ.” For the author of Hebrews the O.T. is filled with symbols and types of the Son, in whom alone O.T. beginnings reach their successful conclusion.

Mosiah 7:12-18 — LeGrand Baker — meaning of ‘comfort’

As I suggested last week, there must have been something other than Ammon’s claim that he had come out of the land of Zarahemla that inspired the complete confidence of king Limhi. I speculated that it might have been their use of a sacral language. But I wonder if, in place of, or in addition to their conversing in priestly/royal language, some other token of recognition might have been exchanged between Ammon and Limhi.

12   And now, when Ammon saw that he was permitted to speak, he went forth and bowed himself before the king; and rising again he said: O king, I am very thankful before God this day that I am yet alive, and am permitted to speak; and I will endeavor to speak with boldness;
13   For I am assured that if ye had known me ye would not have suffered that I should have worn these bands. For I am Ammon, and am a descendant of Zarahemla, and have come up out of the land of Zarahemla to inquire concerning our brethren, whom Zeniff brought up out of that land.

Ammon approaches king Limhi with courtesy, but not deference. He defines himself as an equal, and king Limhi acknowledges him as such. In fact, turning tables on him, Limhi pays deference to Ammon, suggesting that he, Limhi, should be the slave. Whether he meant that is hard to say, because his statement is typical of the kind of self-depravation one finds in ancient Near Eastern diplomatic correspondence. What is certain is that in this conversation Limhi has defined himself as being subservient to the Nephite king, if not to Ammon himself.

14   And now, it came to pass that after Limhi had heard the words of Ammon, he was exceedingly glad, and said: Now, I know of a surety that my brethren who were in the land of Zarahemla are yet alive. And now, I will rejoice; and on themorrow I will cause that my people shall rejoice also.
15   For behold, we are in bondage to the Lamanites, and are taxed with a tax which is grievous to be borne. And now, behold, our brethren will deliver us out of our bondage, or out of the hands of the Lamanites, and we will be their slaves; for it is better that we be slaves to the Nephites than to pay tribute to the king of the Lamanites.
16   And now, king Limhi commanded his guards that they should no more bind Ammon nor his brethren, but caused that they should go to the hill which was north of Shilom, and bring their brethren into the city, that thereby they might eat, and drink, and rest themselves from the labors of their journey; for they had suffered many things; they had suffered hunger, thirst, and fatigue.
17   And now, it came to pass on the morrow that king Limhi sent a proclamation among all his people, that thereby they might gather themselves together to the temple to hear the words which he should speak unto them.
18   And it came to pass that when they had gathered themselves together that he spake unto them in this wise, saying: O ye, my people, lift up your heads and be comforted; for behold, the time is at hand, or is not far distant, when we shall no longer be in subjection to our enemies, notwithstanding our many strugglings, which have been in vain; yet I trust there remaineth an effectual struggle to be made.

The phrase “lift up your heads and be comforted” needs a closer look.

Our use of the word “comfort” is different from the way the word was used when the King James Bible was translated, and also different from the use of the word in Joseph Smith’s day.

A case in point: The US Constitution defines treason as “giving aid and comfort to the enemy.” That does not mean that treason is giving the enemy as aspirin or patting him on the head and saying “There, there.”

Oxford English Dictionary has two first definitions: COMFORT (verb) “Strengthening; encouragement, incitement; aid, succour, support, countenance.” (substantive) “To strengthen, (morally or spiritually); to encourage.”

So when “the voice of the Lord came to them [Alma and his people in the wilderness] in their afflictions, saying: Lift up your heads and be of good comfort, for I know of the covenant which ye have made unto me; and I will covenant with my people and deliver them out of bondage.” (Mosiah 24:13) the Lord was not just encouraging them, he was promising them strength to overcome.

That sheds an interesting light on “comfort” in Psalm 23, Isaiah 40:1-2, and Isaiah 61:1-3. In the latter case, the phrase “to comfort” is shown to refer to receiving the enthronement rites: wash (remove ashes), anoint, clothe, new name, crown. In all three of those scriptures, to comfort means to give royal/priestly power – to strengthen, to empower.

It also sheds an interesting light on the Holy Ghost’s being called “the comforter,” and on a possible meaning of the phrase, “Second Comforter.”

In our Book of Mormon story, then, the king’s command “lift up your heads and be comforted” apparently means, “Lift up your heads and take strength.” It is apparently a command to get ready.

The kings words are reminiscent (and may have been deliberately so) of the 27th Psalm: “And now shall mine head be lifted up above mine enemies round about me: therefore will I offer in his tabernacle sacrifices of joy; I will sing, yea, I will sing praises unto the Lord.”

The phrase “lift up your heads” is interesting also. Its most famous use is in Psalm 24, in what some people have called a temple recommend. After declaring that those who enter the temple must have clean hands and a pure heart, the psalm commands: “Lift up your heads, O ye gates; and be ye lift up, ye everlasting doors; and the King of glory shall come in.”

Jacob seems to have had the 24th Psalm in mind (His ideas certainly carry the same message) when he told the people: “Behold, my beloved brethren, I speak unto you these things that ye may rejoice, and lift up your heads forever, because of the blessings which the Lord God shall bestow upon your children.” (2 Nephi 9:3) (the similar ideas being Kingship and heirship/kingship)

The phrase is also used by an angel (one who appears to have been Alma’s guardian angel) when he said,

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. (Alma 8:15)

And the Lord himself said to Nephi,

13    Lift up your head and be of good cheer; for behold, the time is at hand, and on this night shall the sign be given, and on the morrow come I into the world, to show unto the world that I will fulfil all that which I have caused to be spoken by the mouth of my holy prophets. (3 Nephi 1:13)

It is interesting to me that our present notion of “comfort” – that is to make one feel better – is associated with lifting the head in each of these last scriptures, but the word “comfort” is not used in any of them. That suggests to me that when king Limhi said to the people at the temple, “lift up your heads and be comforted,” he was evoking all of his authority as king: that is, he was officially functioning as priest and commander. “Lift up your heads” seems to be a formal sacred promise that they would be blessed; and the “be comforted” seems to be a command to take strength from the encouragement which Ammon brought. It was a command to prepare for battle.

Mosiah 7:8-11 — LeGrand Baker — King Limhi

There are some things about the story of Ammon’s meeting king Limhi that cause me to wonder what is really happening. In fact it is the things that are out of place or odd which tend to re- enforce the historicity of the account. The story sounds very plausible, but only if the king is not telling the truth. What king Limhi said is this:

9   …Behold, I am Limhi, the son of Noah, who was the son of Zeniff, who came up out of the land of Zarahemla to inherit this land, which was the land of their fathers, who was made a king by the voice of the people.
10   And now, I desire to know the cause whereby ye were so bold as to come near the walls of the city, when I, myself, was with my guards without the gate?
11    And now, for this cause have I suffered that ye should be preserved, that I might inquire of you, or else I should have caused that my guards should have put you to death. Ye are permitted to speak. (Mosiah 7:9-11)

There are a number of things out of place with both his speech and his actions. First of all, he introduces himself. He would not have done that unless he knew his prisoners were strangers to his realm.

Second, He says he would have killed them for getting too close to his royal person, but then he treats them like ambassadors, rather than like common criminals. If he took them captive simply because they had broken protocol and “were so bold as to come near the walls of the city, when I, myself, was with my guards without the gate,” it would not follow that they would be treated with dignity when they “were again brought before the king, and their bands were loosed; and they stood before the king, and were permitted, or rather commanded, that they should answer the questions which he should ask them.”

It is apparent that the king is posturing. He is afraid. People who are afraid either act cowed or they act the part of the bully. He is doing the latter. He puts the men in prison for two days, brings them out, unties them, gave them permission to stand, introduces himself – not in terms of his authority, but in terms of the legitimacy of his authority – then “commands” that they answer his questions.

He is sending a double message: One is that he is boss around here, the other is that he is afraid.

So, why should he be afraid? Because he recognized who they were – or at least he recognized they were somebody important – and that they represented either the external help he had been seeking, or else that they represent some new external threat. It would have been easy for him to discover that much. Ammon was a prince, a descendant of that Zarahemla who was king only three generations before, when Mosiah I came into the land. He was a trained warrior, “a strong and mighty man.” No doubt he carried himself like a prince, had the manners of a prince, dressed like a prince, and spoke like a prince. Unless he had taken to wearing the clothes of a commoner, his dress would have given him away, but the thing that would have been most telling would have been his speech. The Lamanites had apparently lost much of their original language. (Mosiah 24:4) But in the land of Nephi, the Lamanites were the dominant culture. After three generations, the transplanted Nephites in Limhi’s kingdom would have adopted some Lamanite words and pronunciations. So even though Ammon spoke the same language as Limhi, the accent was probably different, and Ammon’s diction would have been perfect – that in itself would have been enough to give him away. It would have been easy for Zeniff to know he was dealing with a prince.

What would really be interesting for us to know is in which language Limhi addressed Ammon when he spoke.

The question of language is this: Zeniff, Limhi’s grandfather, began his short autobiography by declaring his royalty: “I, Zeniff, having been taught in all the language of the Nephites…” (Mosiah 9:1 ) Knowing ALL the language of the Nephites was possibly reserved to Nephite royalty. One of the first things we learn about King Benjamin’s family is that “he caused that they should be taught in all the language of his fathers, that thereby they might become men of understanding; and that they might know concerning the prophecies which had been spoken by the mouths of their fathers, which were delivered them by the hand of the Lord.” (Mosiah 1:2) They had to know Egyptian or they could not read the Brass Plates. As far as we know, Egyptian was not spoken as the common language of the Nephites. Their names tend to be Hebrew even though Mormon later calls their language “reformed Egyptian.” In Limhi’s time, more than 400 years after they left Jerusalem, it is likely that they spoke some kind of mixture (like English is a mixture of German, French, Latin and the languages native to the British Isles). It is also likely that classic Egyptian had become the sacral – priestly – royal language – like Latin was the sacral and cultural language of medieval Europe.

Abinadi’s reference to Isaiah suggests that Limhi took copies of the sacred records with him. But given ancient people’s inclination to write sacred things in sacred script or sacred language, it is certainly possible that Limhi’s scriptures were in Egyptian. And it is equally possible that Ammon, the prince, also could read and speak classic Egyptian.

All this round about reasoning is to try to fit some pieces into the picture so it will make sense.

This is what I am guessing: Limhi found these non-local people, threw then in prison while he investigated where they came from, and also so he could impress them that he was king and not to be messed with. While they were in prison, he learned, perhaps from their clothes, but more likely from their accent and the conversations among themselves while they were in prison, that he was dealing with Nephite/Mulikite royalty. He then brought them into the throne room, treated them with dignity, and perhaps confirmed their identity by addressing Ammon in Egyptian – which he knew to be the sacred language of the Nephites and which language he knew the Lamanites could not possibly have known. If Ammon responded in Egyptian, and that was the key Limhi needed to know Ammon really was the person he represented himself as being.

If that is what happened, and Ammon could understand and converse in Egyptian, that would account for Limhi’s sudden change of attitude and total trust in these strangers.

I thought that was interesting comparing histories and realizing how much time has passed. In the history, we have only glimpsed the 476 years we have sped through in the history of the Book of Mormon peoples. I thought you might find it interesting also.

In the simplest of LDS terms, then, the “cosmic myth” is a literary or theatrical depiction of the plan of salvation: it either tells the story of the plan from the point of view of the Saviour himself, or from the point of view of the members of the Council in Heaven (as does the book of Abraham, for example), or from the point of view of every single individual. So when you read the word “myth” in the following quotes, think “temple drama” and you will be pretty close to understanding what the scholar is trying to say – but you will understand more than the scholars understand because you know things which they cannot know.

The modern father of the scholarship of the ancient Israelite temple worship is a personal hero of mine. His name was Sigmund Mowinckel. In his monumental book, The Psalms in Israel’s Worship (translated by D. R. Ap-Thomas: 2 vols, Nashville, Abingdon, 1979, pages 168-169) he notes:

:Of whether the temple rites of Jerusalem included recitations of such poetic and epic festal myths, and what may have been their form and place in the ritual, we know nothing directly. That the laws in the Pentateuch say nothing about it is of no consequence; for neither do they mention the singing of psalms. But analogies from Babylonia and Egypt, as well as all the allusions in the psalms to the festal myths, make it likely that such epic features would have a part in the festal rituals….This applies, for instance, to the creation tales in Gen. 1 and 2 and to the saga about the Exodus in Ex. 1-15. In the form known to us now, they are meant to be part of a saga, not a festal myth or legend. But they are derived from earlier form evidently connected with the festal cult. [that word only means that there were ordinances performed during the religious ceremonies.]

The creation drama seems to have been a part of the cultic worship of all ancient peoples. It was the story that gave their lives meaning and a sense of place. It was about how the gods brought order (cosmos) from chaos and how the gods will ultimately succeed in bring order into the chaos which is individual human life and universal society. [ Mowinckel, Psalms in Israel’s Worship, 1: 146-147.]

Soon after the drama began, it portrayed a war in heaven which resulted in the expulsion of those gods whose purpose is not the betterment of man. These rebellious ones, were cast out of heaven and to the earth where they became “the protector deities of the heathen empires, and those who lured men into sin. [Mowinckel, Psalms in Israel’s Worship, 1: 394.]

After that, there followed an act which depicted the organization of matter, the creation of the earth with its plant and animal inhabitants. Creation is salvation from Chaos. Thus the creation of the earth, of mankind, of the nation of Israel, of the temple, and the life experiences of each individual, are all acts of salvation.

So, at the conclusion of the Feast of Tabernacles, after the king was anointed as the NEW king, he sat on the throne of his Fathers (Adam and God) in the Holy of Holies. The throne in the temple was the throne of God, and the king had just been adopted as the the legitimate heir – the son of God. But the throne was also the throne of the first king, who was also the first son of God – that is, of Adam. For the new king to be a legitimate king, he must be the son of God (as was Adam) and also the legitimate heir of the first earthly king, Adam. One of the purposes of the drama of the New Year festival was to show that the king was a legitimate heir to the ancient priesthood and kingship of Adam. That is, he becomes the Adam to the present generation, or at least Adam’s representative. [See Frederick H. Borsch, The Son of Man in Myth and History (London, SCM Press Ltd., 1967), p. 152]

In ancient Israel, Adam and Eve were not the world’s first sinners as they became in the theology of medieval and modern Christianity. Rather they were considered to be mankind’s first royalty: the king and priest, queen and priestess to all of their descendants. Mowinckel explains,

There Adam is definitely a divine being, who came into existence before creation, as a cosmogonic principle (macrocosm), as the Primordial Soul, as the original type of the godly, righteous fulfiller of the Law. [Sigmund Mowinckel, He that Cometh (New York: Abingdon Press, 1954), 426.]

Representing Adam, the king was anointed twice. The first time was when he was anointed to become king; the second was when he was anointed as king. Weisman describes “two biblical patterns in the employment of the anointing for different purposes.” He likens the early nominating anointings of Saul and David as king-designate to a “betrothal,” and their later anointings as kings as the marriage itself. [Ze’eb Weisman, “Anointing as a Motif in the Making of the Charismatic King,” in Biblica (57 no 3:378-398)]. During the New Year festival, the anointing to become king probably happened during the first two or three days of the drama of the Feast of Tabernacles. The final anointing as king happened on the seventh day of the Feast in the Holy of Holies of the Temple.

The Bible records the anointings of six Israelite kings: Saul: 1 Samuel 10:1, David: 2 Samuel 5:3, Solomon: 1 Kings 1:39, Jehu: 2 Kings 9:6, Josh: 2 Kings 11:12, Jehoahaz: 2 Kings 23:30. Absalom was also anointed to be king: 2 Samuel 19:11. [For a discussion of the king’s anointing, see: Donald W. Parry, “Ritual Anointing with Olive Oil in Ancient Israelite Religion,” in Stephen D. Ricks and John W. Welch, eds., The Allegory of the Olive Tree (Salt Lake City, Deseret Book and F.A.R.M.S, 1994), 266-271, 281-283. For a discussion of the olive tree as the Tree of Life and of the tree and its oil as symbols of kingship see, Stephen D. Ricks, “Olive Culture in the Second Temple Era and Early Rabbinic Period,” in Ibid., 460-476.]

The anointed king is a “son of Man” – the son of thee Man, Adam – the king is an Adam. He is also, by virtue of his anointing, a son of God, but he was not a god in the sense that the Mesopotamian and Egyptian kings were gods. [ See: Sigmund Mowinckel, He that Cometh (New York: Abingdon Press, 1954), 34; Ivan Engnell, Studies in Divine Kingship in the Ancient Near East, (Oxford, Basil Blackwell, 1967, 12-15, 17-18; Henri Frankfort, Kingship and the Gods (Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1948), 299-301.]

The main theme of the festival drama is Jehovah’s dealings with mankind. To demonstrate that, the drama of the New Year festival has focused on two main characters – but both characters are really the same person. The story was about Adam and his legal heirs, specifically the person of the king, and throughout the play the king has had the lead part and played all the lead character. Therefore, in the drama of the Feast of Tabernacles, the king’s personal history is the cosmic myth. On the stage, he played himself in the Council, then played Adam in the Garden. Then Abraham, Joseph, Moses, David, then he plays himself as a young, inexperienced king. The part of himself as the young king is the most difficult.

He loses his immortality, suffers under the sentence of God and is left to wonder homeless on the earth until death. Yet at the resurrection the Messiah will come to awaken Adam first.” [Frederick H. Borsch, The Son of Man in Myth and History, SCM Press Ltd., London, 1967, p. 169.]

Finally, at the conclusion of the drama, the king still plays the role of himself, who has been rescued from death by Jehovah. He leads the procession around the city to redefine it as sacred space, leads the congregation into the temple, and there, as himself, he is dressed and anointed son and king. Thus, still playing himself at his own coronation he emerges as the triumphant hero of the whole symbolic production.

During this cultlic dramatic production, as the king goes through this whole panorama of his existence, the entire story was acted out. The first acts are probably performed on the side of a hill near the city, where the whole congregation could watch and participate.

All of that is in the background of our King Benjamin story. It is apparent that almost all of that has already happened before Mormon introduces us to what he considers the most relevant part of the experience. He picks up on that part of the ceremony when the old king told his heir apparent that the next day he would be proclaimed king. So the stage was set for an important, but otherwise traditional day of the festival. Then things got changed, and that’s where Mormon brings us into the story. The angel appeared to King Benjamin and told him things which he was instructed to tell the people. So the next day turned out not to be as traditional as they expected. King Benjamin had a different lecture to deliver, and the people needed to be able to hear his words in order to respond correctly.

Mowinckel reminds us,

Through the acts and words of the festal cult, laid down in fixed, sacred ritual, the reality which is to be created…is portrayed (‘acted’) in visual and audible form. The actualization takes place through the representation….. “The representation may be either, more or less realistic, or, more or less symbolic–more often the latter, i.e. The rites stand for something; they symbolize and represent that for which they stand. “Their inner meaning is that the powers of death are overcome by the powers of life, by the Life-giver himself, by Yahweh, the living and life-giving God. Thus they symbolize a struggle…. “Hence the festival cult invariably has a more or less dramatic character; it is a sacred drama, representing the salvation which takes place. This dramatic character tallies with the fact that the cult is a mutual act on the part of God and of the congregation, with address and answer, action and reaction.” [Mowinckel, Psalms in Israel’s Worship, 1: 19]

Bentzen tells how, during the drama, the king not only played the part of Adam, but at his coronation is as though he were Adam. This was necessary to the legitimization of the office of the king, for as Adam was the first king, so the new king must be an Adam. Bentzen writes,

The king, then, is Primeval Man. The first man of Genesis 1:26-28 is described as the first ruler of the world. In the first Creation Story, the ‘gospel’ of the New Year, we hear the blessing spoken by God at the enthronement of the first Royal Couple of the world. Man is to ‘rule’ over all living creatures. Man and Woman, like the Babylonian kings, are ‘images of God’, i.e. the Royal Couple is Divine, as in the famous apostrophe to the king in the oracle for the Royal wedding (Psalm 45:7). The same idea is developed in Psalm 8, in the description of the ‘Son of Man’, who is ‘little lower than God’, ‘nearly a God’. This ‘Son of Man’, according to the evident dependence of the psalm on the ideas behind the first chapter of Genesis, is the First Man and the First King…. The enthronement of the king in Primeval Time is also described in the second psalm….” [Aage Bentzen, King and Messiah (London, Lutterworth Press, 1955), 117-18.]

Mosiah 4:5,11 — LeGrand Baker — human ‘nothingness’

At first reading, King Benjamin’s words seem to be an exercise in contradiction, or at least in confusion. This is the way he describes the people:

5    For behold, if the knowledge of the goodness of God at this time has awakened you to a sense of your nothingness, and your worthless and fallen state.
….
11 And again I say unto you as I have said before, that as ye have come to the knowledge of the glory of God, or if ye have known of his goodness and have tasted of his love, and have received a remission of your sins, which causeth such exceedingly great joy in your souls, even so I would that ye should remember, and always retain in remembrance, the greatness of God, and your own nothingness, and his goodness and long-suffering towards you, unworthy creatures (Mosiah 4:4,11).

What a strange dichotomy: Those who are said to have an amazingly powerful testimony “which causeth such exceedingly great joy,” are described with words like, “nothingness,” “worthless,” “fallen state,” and “unworthy creatures.”

One would think that neither the King nor God liked the people at all. Yet he address them as “My friends and my brethren, my kindred and my people.” All apparently terms of endearment.

It is the clash of ideas in this address which makes it one of the most powerful sermons in the Book of Mormon. King Benjamin’s object is not to condemn the people who are to him most beloved. His object is to call attention to the strength of their faith and testimonies, and to point out that even with that, they are wholly dependent on the Saviour’s atonement for redemption. His comments are not about how bad the people are, but how unfathomably wonderful are the Saviour’s atonement and the power of his love.

I can almost understand how he feels. I will write about most things as comments in this Book of Mormon Project. But there are two things I am reluctant to write about. One is the concept of who and what and how big is Christ, the Only Begotten Son, the Creator God. Everything I know about the gospel goes round about those questions about Christ. But a direct approach to the answers is so overwhelming that I lack the language to even begin to write.

The second concept has to do with the question: “What is the atonement, and how, by its power, does one return to the presence of the Father.” And the answer, of course, is: I do not know! It is somewhat like reading the second page of D&C 88 and then asking “what is light.” One reaches one’s mind as far as it will go – to before the beginning, through this world’s experience, the spirit world, and to the celestial world. – then shaking one’s head and replying with the only possible answer: I do not know!

I KNOW that Jesus is God! I KNOW that the atonement is real. But WHAT they are, how big, how expansive, how eternal, the power of love and light – these things my time-bound mind cannot begin to fathom. That I may be embraced by the joy and peace of that love, is something I can experience, but cannot comprehend.

But there are some things I do begin to understand about the atonement. It is the Father’s power of creation, personified in the person and love of Christ. Before the beginning, “All things were made by him, and without him was not anything made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of man.” Thus the first sparks of creation were the products of Christ’s creative power – bringing cosmos out of chaos to produce light and life. I presume that justice required that chaos remain chaos, but mercy liberated chaos to create cosmos. Therefore the very beginnings of life (we ‘re talking cognitive intelligence here) were created and justified by the powers of charity which are expressed in the atonement. By that same charity, matter was organized to become the celestial temple which is Kolob. By virtue of the atonement intelligences were made pure so they could become spirit children of God and participate with him in the Council in Heaven. By virtue of the atonement matter was organized to become the spirit world on which spirit children could live. By virtue of the atonement those spirits where given the option of learning through experience, then having their mistakes wiped away so we could come into this would without bringing any baggage with them – as pure and innocent little babies. By virtue of the atonement, matter was organized to create this world, so we could inhabit with physical bodies, experience both the sorrow and the joy of being here, and then be cleansed so we can return to our Father as pure as we were when we left. By virtue of the atonement those who die without that privilege may receive it in the next world, so every person who is born here may become as pure and as clean as he is willing to be – but not by his own power – but by the power of mercy and justice, which are sustained by the Saviour’s atonement. And when it is all over, nothing will change. “Wherefore, as it is written, they are gods, even the sons of God – Wherefore, all things are theirs, whether life or death, or things present, or things to come, all are theirs and they are Christ’s and Christ is God’s.” [ Both words are possessive. We will become and remain the children of God because we have first become the children of Christ.] (76:58-59) Whatever we are to become in the eternities will be both realized and sustained by the continued power of the Saviour’s atonement.

Presently, we are in the course of creation. That course is a kind of dual creative and maturation process which moves us from intelligences, spirits, physical people, resurrected people, and beyond. We sometimes put the Saviour’s role as Creator God in the past tense by saying he created us and gave us life. That concept is true, but inadequate. The Saviour did not [past tense] create us, he is creating us and by so doing, is giving us increased light and more life. This world is only a phase, not anything like the conclusion of the creative process. The conclusion will come, if it ever does, after we are again initiated into the Celestial world. But I don’t understand about that either.

Having written that, I must write again that I have no viable concept of who, what, or how big Christ is; or of what his atonement is; or the power of his love. I only have a glimpse of how much he loves us and what his atonement does. In that context I can most easily understand why King Benjamin should put such emphasis on our utter helplessness and unworthiness, and our total dependance on the merits of the Saviour’s love.