Episode 14: In Hearts, to Heads, from Towers (Mosiah 1-2)

A kick in the pants: that's what society needs sometimes.  Through-out the scriptures and throughout history we see examples of great reformers who take a moment to bring their head up, look around, and really see where everyone is...and where they should be.

The succession of Nephite kings in this portion of the Book of Mormon all fit that description.  King Mosiah I led his people to a new land where they made an alliance with the inhabitants of that new land, forming a new people in the new land--although for the people already there it was actually an old land, and so the people of the old land mixed with the new people to make a newer hybrid people in the new-old land of the old-new people.  Then!  King Mosiah's son, King Benjamin, solidified that alliance through active social and religious campaigns aimed at bringing order and cohesiveness to this new, hybrid nation.  Then!  His son, King Mosiah II, oversaw the continuation and realization of his father's efforts, eventually implementing a new system of government to meet the needs of this new people in the new land (that to some was an old land)--a system of government that would remain in place until their eventual national demise.

Hugh Nibley makes an interesting point that the name "Mosiah" is a combination of the names of two great reformers in Judaism: Moses and Josiah.  Moses was, of course, the prophet who led the children of Israel out of captivity in Egypt and not only reminded them of, but also renewed the covenant between them and God.  He also oversaw the implementation of a new form of government, as well as new laws and other social reform, amongst his people.  King Josiah was a righteous king of Jerusalem who brought in a number of sweeping reforms that ousted the idol gods that had by then infected almost the entire kingdom of Judah, as well as reinstated the traditional religious practices given their people by Moses and other prophets.

Among the most famous examples of cultures being
eclipsed by other cultures is that of the collision between
Europeans and the native inhabitants of the Americas.

Being a prophet-king, it's only fitting that Mosiah should bear a name that reflects a prophet and a king who were each great reformers among their people.  Nevertheless, as anyone familiar with the history of the United States knows all too well, it is not always easy to create true cohesion between differing cultures.  The most common outcome is that one culture feels threatened by extinction (and not infrequently on a valid basis), fearing that their way of life will be eclipsed and eventually erased by the presence and influence of the other.

Even if the two cultures trying
to coexist share the same skin-
color and have similar roots, it
is by no means guaranteed they
will get along: this sign, a com-
mon sight in the 19th century in
the U.S., illustrates that.  In fact,
these signs were so common that
they gained their own moniker:
"NINA signs" (No Irish Need
Apply). 

So, it's no surprise that, after King Mosiah I came into the land of Zarahemla and attempted to unite the Nephites and Zarahemlites, his son and successor had to spend his life trying to "make it stick."

There are a lot of parallels that can be drawn here between the story of the Nephites/Zarahemlites and the Israelites/Canaanites.  I first found and explored this parallel through a side-by-side comparison of Mosiah chapters 1-2 with Deuteronomy chapter 6. (Later, when we get to Alma 5, I'm going to bring this parallel up again, because it works there as well).  Here are a few of them:

The Israelites' wilderness...

...and (possibly) the Nephites'
wilderness.

In both cases--in Mosiah and Deuteronomy--you had a people who had recently gone through much hardship, spent time in the wilderness, were being reminded of their covenants, and were on the
cusp of a new era in their history.




Deuteronomy 6 contains a great address given by Moses to his people;

and beginning in Mosiah 2, King Benjamin likewise crowned the administrations and ministries of he and his father through a great, national address.

An example of a "yoke": a crossbeam that rests
across one's shoulders, used to carry heavy loads.

In Deut. 6:4, Moses began by saying, "Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord." That word, "hear," is "shema" in Hebrew, and "Shema Yisrael" is "the title of a prayer that serves as a centerpiece of the morning and evening Jewish prayer services" (Wikipedia: "Shema Yisrael"). The recitation of the first two lines of this prayer (which are found in Deut. 6:4) is known as the "acceptance of the yoke of the Kingdom of Heaven." I think the Savior was tapping into this when he said in Matt. 11:29-30, "Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me (because His yoke is the yoke of the Kingdom of Heaven); for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.  For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light."  And what, exactly, is this yoke?  In 1 John 5:3, the apostle explained: "For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments; and his commandments are not grievous" (or, in other words, His "yoke is easy, and [His] burden is light").  John knew of what he was speaking because he was present when, during the Savior's earthly ministry, we find another example of Christ using the powerful context of the Shema:

The first commandment has always been
to love God: additional commandments
come up because of transgression and
man's chronic refusal to be led by the
Spirit (or, in other words, we "ask" for
more commandments).  We also add to
our burden through an over-reliance
on our own perceived righteousness
rather than Christ's atonement.  A gos-
pel focused only on "works" is a two-
legged stool.  And this load only gets
heavier until we must conclude that we
are not strong enough to carry it on our
own: then, we are finally ready to ask for
help.  When that happens, our natures
change so that we are not "asking" for
more commandments quite as much, but
rather, we ask for God's help.  Thus led by
the Spirit, rather than the law, we become
"agents to act" (through the Spirit), rather
than "to be acted upon" (by the law), and
our burden truly becomes light.

"And one of the scribes came, and...asked him, Which is the first commandment of all?  And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord: And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength ... And the scribe said unto him, Well, Master, thou has said the truth: for there is one God; ...And to love him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the soul, and with all the strength...is more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices. [And] Jesus...said unto him, Thou art not far from the kingdom of God" (Mark 12:28-34).

This scribe had truly taken upon himself the "yoke of the Kingdom of Heaven" because he understood that "to obey is better than sacrifice," and obedience--true obedience--comes from love.  Thus, if the yoke of the Kingdom of Heaven is accepting God's commandments, and the first of the commandments is to love God, and the love of God leads to the keeping of commandments, well...it may seem like a "chicken-or-the-egg" puzzle but who cares--the point is, if you worry more about loving God than about simply keeping His commandments, you're headed in the right direction.  A change of behavior results from a change of heart.

King Benjamin likewise came out of the gate swinging in the opening of his speech: "My brethren, all ye that have assembled yourselves together, ...I have not commanded you to come up hither to trifle with the words which I shall speak unto you this day, ...but that you should hearken unto me, and open your ears that ye may hear (shema!), and your hearts that ye may understand, and your minds that the mysteries of God may be unfolded to your view" (Mosiah 2:9).

It would also be beneficial to take note of King Benjamin's tax policies.  I'm sure you're scratching your head right now, but I'll explain.  Throughout the Book of Mormon we see the phrase, "that which is grievous to be borne," used to describe heavy tax burdens.  This phrase often accompanies the descriptions of wicked kings, such as the case in which Limhi discussed the heavy tax burden placed on he and his people by the Lamanite king.  He asked rhetorically: "Is not this grievous to be borne"(Mos. 7:23)? The opposite example is seen in King Benjamin's statement that he had labored with his own hands to serve his people, rather than the usual attitude we associate with kings (that their people serve them). King Benjamin said he did this that "there should nothing come upon you which was grievous to be borne" (Mos. 2:14).  His example of Christlike leadership brings greater depth to John's words cited above concerning God's commandments: "[A]nd his commandments are not grievous." The Savior--the King of Kings--came to earth to minister, and not to be ministered to.

Let's go back to Moses.  He next told the children of Israel, "love the Lord thy God with all thine heart" (just like we saw above when Christ cited these very words). Then, Moses illustrated how to love the Lord in the very next verse: just as King Benjamin encouraged his people to open their hearts that they might understand, Moses said, "And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart."  I've noticed on more than one occasion Pres. Eyring saying of the doctrine on which he is expounding, that it "must go down into [our] hearts."

In the temple, we are taught through the symbolism of a compass how the desires and passions of our

Geometry compass

hearts must be kept within the bounds set by the Lord.  These are not bounds set by laws or commandments--those are the things of the mind, or of the intellect (and don't forget, they are the "training wheels"); rather, these are bounds we set ourselves through our love of the Lord.  How often are we shown in the scriptures that the Holy Ghost communicates to man in his bosom (or, in his heart), and not his head?  The Spirit goes straight to our core--to our passions and wills--and speaks to us there.

The concept used in a compass (i.e. using a fixed point
to create, in essence, a tiny orbit) has done more than
simply help mankind make really nice circles.  We see
this concept everywhere in nature, and it has helped man
explain the universe.  Planetary orbits are held together
through gravity: "a natural phenomenon by which all
physical bodies attract each other."  Think about that:
planetary orbit is maintained through mutual attraction.
Both parties are investing in their orbit; and even if a
larger, more powerful party like the sun is able to invest
an exponentially larger amount than a smaller, weaker
party, like the earth, it is still enough.  Regardless of how
little the earth can contribute to the gravity of its orbit in
comparison with the sun's contribution, it is still enough
to maintain that orbit.  The sun makes up the rest...   

And, if we are told in D&C 121 that the priesthood "rules" through persuasion and long-suffering, then we know that that is how Heavenly Father works as well: through guidance that leads to self-governance in his children.  We get beyond the "reward and punishment" dogma that so many people perceive as being the essence of religion.  We arrive at a state of becoming.

(Stop for a moment and go back to re-read that last paragraph--it's important).



Okay, once again, getting back to Moses...

In Deut. 6:7, 20-25, we see some counsel on teaching one's children.  Moses encouraged his people to teach their children about God's commandments and covenants; and in doing so, they should teach their children (I'm gonna paraphrase here): "we were in captivity (vs. 21), but God showed us miracles and mercy (vs. 22), and He delivered us (vs.23), and He commanded us to obey Him so that He could continue to protect us (vs.24), and if we obey, it is counted unto us for righteousness" (vs. 25).

King Benjamin lived up to this counsel.  We are told in Mos. 1:2-5 that he taught his children about the covenants of God through the lessons, prophecies, and ordinances discussed in the scriptures.  He made a point to them that, "were it not for these things (their records, or scriptures), we must have suffered in ignorance," and again, "were it not for these things, which have been kept and preserved by the hand of God, that we might read and understand of his mysteries and have his commandments always before our eyes, that even our fathers would have dwindled in unbelief."

Those words he uses right there, "always before our eyes," are an obvious reference to Moses' words in Deut. 6:8: "And they (the commandments and miracles of God) shall be as frontlets between thine eyes."  This was the counsel that led to the creation of phylacteries--tiny boxes strapped to one's forehead...









...inside of which is a tiny piece of paper, on which is a tiny prayer written in tiny letters...

...and became such an indelible part of Jewish culture and tradition that it is still practiced to this day:

This also reminds me of the line in D&C 4 that I rehearse with the Aaronic Priesthood of our ward every week: "with an eye single to the glory of God."  Some may think that wearing a little box to one's forehead, as well as another box strapped about one's arm (as seen in the picture to the left) is kind of weird.  But, then again, it's kind of weird to go to some far off place and walk around for two years in a white shirt and tie with a black name tag telling people about a book from God given to a farm boy in 19th century rural America.

I can't help but respect that "I don't care" attitude in people who are willing to demonstrate their faith in ways that might even bring ridicule from others.


If we move to the next portion of counsel that Benjamin gave his sons, he tells them in Mos. 1:7, "I would that ye should keep the commandments of God, that ye may prosper in the land according to the promises which the Lord made unto our fathers."

This idea of spiritual blessings tied to something temporal, like one's land of inheritance, is a huge part of Judaism.  If we look back at Deut., Moses admonishes: "And it shall be, when the Lord thy God shall have brought thee into the land which he sware unto thy fathers...to give thee great and goodly cities...and houses full of all good things... And thou shalt do that which is right...that thou mayest go in and possess the good land" (6:10-11, 18).  But he accompanies the promise with this warning: "then beware lest thou forget the Lord."  Or, as Mosiah put it (in vs. 7 again): "And I would that ye should remember."

With this injunction, Moses told the children of Israel: "Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God, and serve him, ... ye shall not go after other gods, or the gods of the people around you, ... ye shall diligently keep the commandments" (Deut. 6:13-14,17).

King Benjamin told his sons, concerning God's commandments and the scriptures: "search them diligently, that ye may profit thereby" (Mos. 1:7).  A few verses later, he demonstrated to his sons the results of such diligence when he told them, "I shall give this people (the Nephites/Zarahemlites) a name, that thereby they may be distinguished above all the people which the Lord God hath brought out of the land of Jerusalem; and this I do because they have been a diligent people in keeping the commandments of the Lord" (vs. 11).  This was an important step--don't forget that he was given the unenviable task of uniting two peoples into a single nation.  Having a single, unified, national identity was a crucial step for them.  And what was this name he gave them?  The best possible name for uniting any group of people: the name of Christ!  A few chapters later, in the midst of his speech to his people, and after they had all indicated to him their willingness to renew their covenant as God's people by entering into a covenant that day to serve and obey Him, King Benjamin said, "And now, because of the covenant which ye have made ye shall be called the children of Christ ... And under this head ye are made free...; therefore, I would that ye should take upon you the name of Christ, all you that have entered into the covenant with God that ye should be obedient unto the end of your lives.  And it shall come to pass that whosoever doeth this...shall be called by the name of Christ" (Mos. 5:7-9).  And then he brings it all back nicely into one, eternal round, by once again touching on the imagery he'd used at the beginning of his speech: "I say unto you, I would that ye should remember to retain the name written always in your hearts."

Now the people understood what Mosiah meant when he told them at the beginning of his speech to "open" their hearts that they "might understand"; now they knew what Moses meant when he said, "love the Lord thy God with all thine heart," and, "these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart."  Remember that one of the names for Christ is, "the Word."

Episode 13: The Omnibus of Omni (Omni 1)

The book of Omni is probably one of the most overlooked books in the Book of Mormon.  It's roughly three pages long, but it has five different authors who contributed to it, plus it contains the account of a mass Nephite exodus, plus the discovery of another people who had likewise been led out of Jerusalem not long after Lehi split town, plus the first mention of an even older civilization that had been brought from the Old World to the New by the hand of God centuries before, plus the first references to political and/or cultural divisions within the Nephite people themselves!  *Phew!*

Pretty much all we hear about from the end of Enos through Jarom and on through Omni is "war, war, war...".  The "land of promise" wasn't exactly a land of peace.  Then again, we're not getting "even a hundredth part" of their story, so maybe there wasn't as much war as it seems; I'm inclined to believe that these really were perilous times for them, however.

We have the first mention of any Nephite kings by name since the death of Nephi himself.  At the time Nephi died, the record says that the people decided to call all kings by the name of "Nephi."  This was actually a common thing in ancient times.  Egyptian pharaohs, for example, had their own given name, as well as their "Horus name," which was their royal name, or king name.  And even the term "pharaoh" itself comes from the name of an even more ancient Egyptian ruler: Pharaoh Johnson.

Okay, I made up the "Johnson" part, but "Pharaoh" really was the name of a very early Egyptian ruler.  It should also be noted that he was a righteous man and beloved by his people--just like Nephi (Abraham 1:25-26).

The responsibility of kings as keepers
of sacred things (including records) is
of ancient date; this picture shows a few
of the items that may have been passed
down from ruler to ruler by the Nephites;
it's significant that the sword of Laban
and the Liahona were among the sacred
items: the sword as symbol of a king's
duty to protect his people is as old as
kingship itself; and the crown--perhaps
the most famous symbol of kings--is it-
self a symbol of a halo, suggesting the
king's divinity, or his ruling by divine
right, which is similar to the symbolism
of the Liahona when it was held and
operated first by Lehi, and then by
Nephi, who used it to lead their group
by divine instruction and injunction.
It is significant that these items were
eventually passed from prophet to pro-
phet, rather than from king to king: in
essence, the Nephites had rejected the
Lord's guidance for their government.

However, in the book of Omni, the writer refers to the kings by what I'm assuming were their personal names, "Mosiah" and "Benjamin," rather than something like "Nephi XVI" and "Nephi XVII" (or whatever the Nephite equivalent to Roman numerals would be).  I don't know if this means the tradition of calling the king "Nephi" went out of practice, or if the writers simply omitted the kings' "Nephi names" for the sake of clarity.  But we know the record had been passed down through direct descendants of Nephi, and we know that the Nephite monarchy followed family lines as well, so it's possible that Amaleki--the last contributor to the Small Plates--and King Mosiah--to whom he entrusted the plates--may have been related.

Again, these are all such tiny and insignificant questions in comparison to the ocean of doctrinal information contained in the Book of Mormon that maybe they're not even worth asking.  But I really do believe it's helped my own, personal, appreciation and understanding of this book to really dive in and explore the world in its pages as much as possible.  Being a history buff, I love reading books about ancient civilizations, and I enjoy studying the process by which historians and archeologists try to reconstruct the worlds of the people and cultures that they are studying.  To understand a person's environment is to understand their perspective; and I really want to know the perspective of these men and women I'm reading about in the Book of Mormon.  I think they're worth my time and effort.

Anyway, getting back to the story:

The fall of Jerusalem: the Book of Mormon begins with
destruction and ends with destruction; and throughout
the record, there's plenty of destruction along the way.
It should be noted that much of this destruction happened
in the "promised land" of each of these peoples (Israelites,
Nephites, Jaredites, etc.); this tells us that we never really
"arrive" anywhere in this life: the struggle between the
"spiritual man" and the "natural man" never ends.

Like I said, I'm inclined to believe these were perilous times to be a Nephite.  Otherwise, you wouldn't read in Omni 1:12 about King Mosiah being warned by the Lord to "flee out of the land of Nephi."  I had always read into this passage that they were fleeing because of the Lamanites' antagonism.  However, in the book of Jarom, we read about how the Nephites "were a stiffnecked people... And there was nothing save it was exceeding harshness, preaching and prophesying of wars, and contentions, and destructions, and continually reminding them of death, and the duration of eternity, and the judgments and the power of God...stirring them up continually in the fear of the Lord...[that] would keep them from going down speedily to destruction" (Jarom 1:22-23).

And in Omni 1:13, where King Mosiah leaves the land of Nephi, it says of him and those who followed him: "And they departed out of the land into the wilderness, as many as would hearken unto the voice of the Lord."

The Waters of Mormon - The pattern of right-
eous leaders inspired to lead their people in-
to the wilderness in order to flee destruction
is often accompanied by water of some kind:
the Red Sea; the River Jordan; the Lehites'
ocean-crossing; the Jaredites being brought
across "the great deep"; and Alma leading his
followers to the Waters of Mormon.  All of this
represents the role of baptism in life: as the
"gate by which ye should enter" to obtain the
path to the Tree of Life; there we are offered
Eternal Life--and this is the way in which
we are able to flee spiritual destruction.

So, not all Nephites left with King Mosiah.  Maybe he was commanded to leave on account of Nephite persecution as much as Lamanite antagonism?  Can we see King Mosiah as a type of "Lehi"?  This pattern of a righteous leader being inspired to flee a place of wickedness happens all over the place.  In the book of Ether, chapter 9, we read about the Jaredite king, Omer, who was likewise inspired by the Lord to get out of town and travel to another place; the story of Alma, the reformed priest of King Noah, in which he created an underground movement of Christian believers, demonstrates this same pattern when he, too, was warned of the Lord to take his fellow believers and travel into the wilderness; then, of course, there's the most famous example: Moses and the children of Israel; we can see Abraham's story as fitting this pattern as well; a more recent occurrence of this was when Brigham Young led the saints westward, through the American "wilderness," to Utah (though, being a resident of Hawaii, I'm reluctant to ascribe "land of promise" to Utah...); and of course, there are two more examples of this pattern that we'll be looking at later in this post: Mulek fleeing from the Babylonian sacking of Jerusalem, and the brother of Jared leading a group from the fall of the Tower of Babel.

I could keep going--there are more examples of this pattern (and, honestly, one could write a book on it) --but let's move on by getting back to where we left off in Omni.  (Sort of a funny way to "move on" isn't it: by turning around and going back to where you were?)

But like I mentioned before, concerning the Nephites' "stiffneckedness" that we read about in Jarom, and the fact that the account in Omni specifies that only "those who would hearken to the voice of the Lord" went with Mosiah, it begs the question: was there speedy destruction awaiting the Nephites?  Could it be that Mosiah was told to leave--just like Lehi--right before the axe fell?

It's a speculative question, like many others I've asked in this post, so I'll move quickly past it into more concrete territory, but whatever the reasons for Mosiah and his party to relocate (and I'm sure there were many of them), there's no doubting the Lord's intended outcome: the next part of the story introduces us for the first time to the "Mulekites" and the land of Zarahemla (the future Nephite capital). This was a pivotal event in the history of both Nephites and Lamanites.

One thing that's fun to point out here: if you look closely in verse 12, it appears as if the writer makes a goof-up and has to shift gears in his narrative to make up for it.  Amaleki says that he is going to tell us about Mosiah, "who was made king over the land of Zarahemla."  But then he realizes that this is the first time the reader is even hearing of Zarahemla in this record--it dawns on Amaleki that he's not presenting the story in a completely linear manner.  So he amends it by quickly adding in the account of Mosiah's exodus in the form of a parenthetical statement.  Not the best way to present a crucial bit of history ("Oh yeah, and by the way, I should mention that the colonists on North America had revolted from England and formed their own country..."), but when you're writing this stuff on gold plates, you can't exactly erase your mistakes or hit "backspace."

I'll point out more of these little "glitches" in the narration as S.T.O.M.P. continues, but I'd like to point out that it's these little "mistakes" throughout the Book of Mormon, in which you see the narrator have to backtrack or quickly redirect in order to address an oversight, that make it that much more real to me; they solidify my testimony in this book that much more.  After all, if Joseph Smith really did write this whole thing as a complete work of fiction, he could have taken the time to edit, revise, and repair any of these mistakes (and even if one argues that perhaps he added these "mistakes" on purpose just for the illusion of what problems may arise with using metal plates for record-keeping, you gotta admit that it's a pretty remarkable "illusion."  You'd have to ascribe a brilliant I.Q. and college-level English skills to a "hick from the sticks."  Most of Joseph Smith's critics are reluctant to assign him such honors, though.  But you can't have it both ways...)

This is the power of hanging on every word in this book.  There are other little nuances we can pick up from the text besides writing errors.  Upon the discovery of the land of Zarahemla, Amaleki uses terminology similar to that which people used for traveling to and from Jerusalem.  Something I mentioned in one of my earlier posts was, one of the things that really adds to the authenticity of Nephi's account is the fact that he says "go up to Jerusalem" and "go down from Jerusalem." The city of Jerusalem sits on a high plateau.  Thus, because one has to climb a hill to get to it, and descend that same hill upon leaving, the common language for the city's comings and goings was "up" and "down."

"Welcome to sunny Zarahemla:
home of the 'Fighting Cureloms'!"

Thus, when Amaleki says in verse 13, "they came down into the land which is called the land of Zarahemla," I wonder if Zarahemla was located in a valley of some sort--or maybe it lay at the foot of a mountain: a pass through which Mosiah had traveled in order to arrive at Zarahemla.

Another thing that is interesting to note is, despite Mulek being the forefather of these people in Zarahemla (they were called "Mulekites," weren't they...?), it says in verse 14 that they "were called the people of Zarahemla."  And then, we see something that intimates that Zarahemla was in fact also a personal name, and this person, Zarahemla, was still alive at the time of Mosiah's arrival: "Now, there was great rejoicing among the people of Zarahemla; and also Zarahemla did rejoice exceedingly, because the Lord had sent the people of Mosiah with the plates of brass which contained the record of the Jews."

Okay, so let first me answer my not-as-rhetorical-as-you-think question posed in parentheses up there: the term "Mulekite" is nowhere in the Book of Mormon.  In fact, it's nowhere in the scriptures.  "Mulekite" is a term that has come about in extra-scriptural discussion (or rather, it's scriptural terminology that's nowhere in the scriptures).  A more appropriate appellation for them might be "Zarahemlites." But what I wonder is, perhaps the main body of the Mulekite people were located elsewhere, just like a portion of the Nephite population who hadn't followed Mosiah; and perhaps Zarahemla was a righteous man warned of the Lord to leave and establish a new city and a new people, just like Mosiah had been.

For we do read later on, in Helaman, of a city and land of Mulek.  What's interesting is that this city and land of Mulek is essentially a "border town" to the Nephite and Lamanite territories, appearing to straddle the point at which their two spheres of influence butt heads; and the land of Mulek trades hands between Nephite control and Lamanite control at least a few times.  Maybe the land of Mulek was the Mulekites' land of inheritance from which Zarahemla and a few others fled to establish a new city elsewhere?

The record specifically states that the people of Zarahemla rejoiced because Mosiah brought with him the plates of brass, which means they were a people who were interested in their heritage.  It seems to me, as well, that perhaps they were a people aware of the fact that they were missing something.  Amaleki tells us that by this point in time the people of Zarahemla had strayed from the faith of their fathers when it says, "and they denied the being of their Creator."  Nevertheless, this does not necessarily discount Zarahemla being a man led by the Spirit.  After all, if Heavenly Father can convince the Persian king, Cyrus, to let the Jews return to Jerusalem, I think He can convince just about anyone of anything, be they believers or atheists.

We are also told that the language of the people of Zarahemla "had become corrupted."  John L. Sorenson points out that there has to be another reason for this other than simple "drift" (i.e., the subtle changes that happen in a people's language over time).  Sorenson argues that there had not been enough time that had passed since either people had come from their common point of origin--with or without written records--for their languages to become incomprehensible to one another.  He proposes that either the Nephites or the Mulekites had switched from using Hebrew to using another language.  After all, Aramaic and Egyptian had both been common languages throughout Palestine before Lehi and Mulek fled Jerusalem.  And we know for a fact that the Nephites were using Egyptian in their written records as a sort of "short hand" to compile a ton of information on the limited space provided by the gold plates (and whatever other surfaces they were writing stuff down on).

Technically he wasn't the last Kryptonian: there
was also General Zod, Kara Zor-El, and...
Hey!  Don't call me a nerd!

Another option is, we know that the Mulekites (or Zarahemlites, or whatever you want to call them) had come in contact with the "tail end" of the Jaredite civilization.  I put "tail end" in quotes because I tend to agree with those out there who believe the Jaredites were still around and still a large part of the story throughout the Book of Mormon.  This is despite assumptions commonly drawn from the book of Ether that Coriantumr was the last of the Jaredites (like Superman was the "Last Son of Krypton" or something).  Before going deeper into that vein of thought, however, I'll finish what I started with the Mulekites' language: it could be that part of the reason their language had become "corrupted" was they had begun to assimilate the Jaredites' culture and language into their own, which accelerated the "drift" that Sorenson talks about (I suppose I should provide the reference source for Sorenson: "Images of Ancient America: Visualizing Book of Mormon Life," pg. 25 [it's not exactly the Chicago Manual Style for endnotes, but it'll do for a blog]).

After all, as Hugh Nibley and so many others have pointed out, it's from this point on in the Book of Mormon that we begin to see Jaredite names cropping up all over the place.  And what's of particular interest is that almost every place they appear, it's in conjunction with the Mulekite component of the Nephite population.

Take the name "Coriantumr," for example (our "last of the Jaredites").  In Omni 1:21, it says that he was discovered by the people of Zarahemla and "dwelt with them for the space of nine moons." And yet, in Helaman 1:15, we read of another man named Coriantumr, and we are told that "he was a descendant of Zarahemla." So there's an obvious overlap of Jaredite and Mulekite culture.

Despite being an ill-fated prophet among a splinter colony
of Nephites, Abinadi's influence would stretch beyond
the walls of King Noah's chambers and permeate the entire
Nephite nation.  What was a passing statement in Omni
1:27 would turn out to be one of the most crucial events in
the Book of Mormon.

There are other examples to which I could point right now, but I want to save the Jaredite/Mulekite discussion for another post.  The last thing I want to point out before I wrap this up is that apparently not everyone who went with Mosiah was happy with how things were in Zarahemla.  In Omni 1:27 we read about "a certain number who went up into the wilderness to return to the land of Nephi; for there was a large number who were desirous to possess the land of their inheritance."  These people also become an important part of the story: from them we get the prophets Abinadi and Alma, the miraculous stories of deliverance from Lamanite oppressors for both Alma's little community as well as Limhi's people; we also get the origin story for the antagonistic fugitive priests of wicked King Noah, who later become a very influential component within the Lamanite political structure.  It is from these former priests that we see the ignition of some of the worst conflicts between Nephites and Lamanites.

And that brings me to my last point: as one reads the Book of Mormon, it doesn't take long to notice how often the wars between Nephites and Lamanites are started by "former Nephites." These dissenters include any of those who were at one time a part of the Nephite culture or territory and rejected it, whether they were ethnically Nephite, or only politically/culturally Nephite (such as the Mulekites, Jaredites, or whatever).  I'm going to forego discussion on what may have been the political and cultural reasons for these dissensions (for now, anyway) and focus on the doctrinal lesson that can be learned from this:

One of the primary themes of the Book of Mormon is about those who have once had the truth and then rejected it; of how they often become worse than they had ever been before.  It makes this point not only with the stories of the many Nephite dissenters, but especially with the Nephites themselves!  Today, some of these former fellow flock-members (say that three times fast) become the most vehement enemies of the Church.  And along with this, the Book of Mormon consistently points out the heavy responsibility that comes with hearing, understanding, and receiving testimony of the truth.  This is why the gravest sin we hear of in the scriptures is that of rejecting the Holy Ghost.  To coin the famous phrase of Ben Parker (Spider-Man's uncle): "With great power comes great responsibility."

And likewise, with great truth comes equally great responsibility.  And when that truth is confirmed in one's heart by the power of the Holy Ghost, it is a greater, deeper knowledge than anything gained through the physical senses--one of the great lies in this life is that of trusting our physical senses over anything else; that it is those things which are felt, or perceived spiritually, that must be doubted.

I'm sure many of you may be thinking right now of the Savior's warnings about leaning "on the arm of flesh," but again, don't hop into your "I-don't-have-that-problem barcalounger" just yet: we struggle with this in the Church more than most people realize.

What I'm about to say is going to sound strange and even heretical at first, but please, stay with me and hear this out:

An over-reliance on commandments and policies can lead to a dimming of sensitivity to the Spirit.  Here's why: God's commandments are spiritual guidelines that can set up general boundaries and point us in the right direction; and Church policies are administrative guidelines to a physical organization of God's kingdom on earth (which, don't forget, His "kingdom on earth" refers to the priesthood--not the Church; "policy" and "priesthood" are not synonymous).  And yet, everyone who has ever played sports knows that simply being aware of where the lines are on the field or court does not mean they will win the game.  Good athletes do not set their eyes on the "out-of-bounds": they set their eyes on the goal--the place where they will score points that will lead to victory.  Likewise, Heavenly Father wants all of us to go by the promptings of the Spirit.  The commandments are the training wheels; living by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God (directly to your ear) on the other hand, is the "big leagues."

I'll demonstrate what I mean.  One of the youth in my ward asked my advice about whether or not she should go to an end-of-the-year party for her school's volleyball team.  The party, of course, was being held on a Sunday.  In posing her question, I could tell she wanted a solid, "black-and-white" answer to her dilemma: she wanted a policy or a commandment to solve her quandary for her.

Now, let me quickly point out that I never take lightly when someone else's kids ask me for advice.  So when she came to me, I was by no means being cavalier in my response.  That being said, I simply told her that she needed to pray about it and do what she felt was the right thing to do.  She was a little surprised.  She even said, "You're one of the youth leaders: aren't you supposed to tell me to not go to the party and to stay home and read my scriptures or something?"  I laughed and told her what my own personal, general guidelines for Sabbath-appropriate activities are, but then made it clear that these were guidelines that I had come up with for myself, over time, through prayer and experience.  (Sorry, there were a lot of italics in that paragraph, but this is an issue I'm passionate about).

Somewhat deflated, she thanked me for my advice and we moved on to something else in our conversation.  However, about a week later, I found out that she didn't go to the party.

Of course, she probably didn't stay home and read her scriptures, either, but she did tell me that her decision to forego attending the part was a decision she came up with by herself.  She would have learned nothing of communicating with her Heavenly Father had she simply looked up a set of rules in "For the Strength of Youth" and stopped there.  Instead, she learned something about receiving personal revelation regarding a dilemma in her life.  One less intermediary between her and God; one step closer to Father--one step closer to the Tree.

Of course, this is all sounding like an article out of the New Era or something you hear about in a conference talk (in fact, just a few conferences ago this was addressed in a talk by Larry Y. Wilson).  But this scenario captures perfectly this battle we all have within ourselves: a battle between comfortable boundaries that are spoon-fed to us through others--whom we set up as intermediaries between us and God--and the boundaries the Lord sets for us.  And when I speak of boundaries the Lord sets for us, I am talking about boundaries established through direct revelation from Him, received in prayer and through the constant whisperings of the Spirit.  The commandments that we read about in the scriptures and that are presented to us by Church leaders are often the least we should be doing.  But Heavenly Father does not need blind acolytes who simply ask, "How far can I go before I get in trouble?"  Rather, He needs thoughtful, inspired disciples who ask, "How can I get closer to the Spirit?"  And don't mistake Church policies for commandments: they are also not always synonymous.  Sometimes policies are established in the Church simply because someone had an idea of how to address a certain issue.  It's not exactly doctrine: it's just an idea of how to run things.

And isn't our whole religion founded on the act of someone who went directly to the Lord for guidance?  For Joseph Smith, the Bible provided the least he could do.  He took things to the next level and prayed to God directly for help.  Our entire religion is built on personal revelation.  A love of commandments more than a love of the Spirit is what led to the blindness that crucified our Savior.

Thankfully, we are moving in that direction as a Church: the teachers' manuals for Sunday School, Aaronic Priesthood, Young Women's, Seminary, and training for full-time missionary service have all moved away from a concrete outline from which a teacher stands at the head of the class and moves through bullet-points like a checklist.  I've been serving as an advisor to the Deacons Quorum in my ward for the past three years, and I can tell you the greatest lessons we've had in quorum have been the ones in which we used the manual less and the scriptures more.  Also, when I do less talking and more listening--and when the deacons do more engaging and less "enduring"--we are all edified.  During my preparation for each Sunday's lesson, when I've stepped outside the manual and knelt down and really prayed to know what I should teach my deacons (and yes, I feel to call them "my deacons" just as Helaman thought of the 2,000 stripling warriors as "his sons"), I've received real answers that have helped me address their needs and concerns.

We can learn a lot...

More than that, when I've made the Deacons Quorum President a part of this process--when I've accessed his priesthood keys to revelation for the quorum lessons--we've been able to see miracles.  It's extraordinary to see how the quorum discussion begins: it starts to move in one direction--the direction that I am thinking it should go--but then somehow we all end up exploring the material together, and then in perfect we unison move in a completely different direction!  This happened just a couple Sundays ago in which, in the middle of the lesson, I felt prompted to take our discussion in another direction.  However, the Deacons Quorum President beat me to it (and notice that it was the President who was the one to lead us in that direction).  Immediately after, the other deacons all chimed in and they each covered

...from twelve-year-old boys...

perfectly every last bullet point that had come to my mind and which I had felt we needed to discuss.

We were all inspired; the lesson was a communal experience (or, dare I say, it was an experience in communion?); we were all students and teachers at the same time.

I was very cool.

...or fourteen-year-old boys...

...or even sixteen-year-old boys.

Episode 12: "Llama face!" (Enos 1:21)

"Llama faaaaaaaace!"

Anyone who has seen Disney's "The Emperor's New Groove" will instantly recognize where the title of this post comes from.

However, "llama face" has nothing to do with today's post.  But llamas do!


And now, with that somewhat shaky segue...


As you may have noticed, today's post is only about one, single verse--Enos 1:21.  This may lead to the assumption that perhaps this verse is packed with tons of deep and poignant doctrine, like the scriptural equivalent of a "zip file."

But no; it's just a simple verse about animals and farming.

Animals are something that have been a curiosity for me in the Book of Mormon, though.  I often wonder what the Nephites and Lamanites had in mind when I read various passages that mention animals--I know what I have in mind, but is it the same as these ancient people?

I'll illustrate what I mean with an example: sheep.  I rarely hear about sheep outside of church (and even then, it's usually used in a derogatory way to describe a "group mindset" amongst a population).  When I hear people in church talk about shepherds and sheep, I can picture in my mind what they are talking about, even though I haven't grown up around shepherds or sheep (and in fact, I've only seen real, live sheep maybe a handful of times in my life).

Yet, when I've researched the history of sheep in the Americas (yes, believe it or not, I've researched the history of sheep in the Americas--I really am that nerdy) I haven't found anything solid that demonstrates the presence of sheep before European presence.

So, this begs a few questions; and these questions may seem pedantic or even trivial--and, to be honest, they are pedantic and trivial in some respects--but the reason I ask myself these questions is, I just really want to get into the heads of the people I'm reading about.  Were there some species of sheep anciently that went extinct before the Europeans showed up?  Or, were there never sheep in the Americas before Europeans, and thus, in the Book of Mormon, when various prophets and even the Savior Himself spoke of sheep and shepherds, the Nephites and Lamanites had to do something similar to me: conjure up an image that they associated primarily with a religious context and nothing else?  Did Nephites and Lamanites even know what sheep look like?

To illustrate that vein of possibilities--that sheep were perhaps borderline mythical to Book of Mormon peoples --I'll share something I found while researching the word "lamb" in the Book of Mormon.  The word "lamb" occurs 62 times in the Book of Mormon:

• a whopping 56 of them are references to Christ (and yes, these are numbers I came up with myself, doing word-searches on my digital scriptures on lds.org and categorizing every single search result.  Hey! Scripture-study can't all be fun and games!) 
• one occurrence of "lamb" is referring to the Children of Israel (2 Ne. 15:17) 
• two occurrences are talking about the last days when lambs and lions will become roommates (2 Ne. 21:6 and 30:12)   
• there were also two occurrences of the word "lamb" in which the escape of God's servants from death-by-wild-beast came about because these servants were protected and played with the wild beasts, the narrative in their stories using "lamb" as a symbol of innocence and safety 
• and then finally, the last occurrence of "lamb" is in 3 Ne. 4:7 where the Gadianton Robbers wore over their armor "lamb-skin dyed in blood."  Considering the war with Gadianton Robbers at this time was a "holy war" as much as it was secular, it comes as no surprise that their leader, Gaddianhi, would choose such a symbolic device for his warriors' appearance--he wanted to send a very clear message to the Christian believers among the Nephites.

Thus, all but one of these occurrences are instances of "lamb" being used symbolically.  And even that last reference, in which they were wearing lambskin dyed in blood, it is very possible that the Nephites ascribed Old World terms to New World creatures, and the lambskin was really the hide of some other animal that perhaps resembled a sheep.  

In my research, I found a few candidates for "sheep" within the Book of Mormon setting (i.e. the ancient Americas).  I put "sheep" in quotes because something we run into in history with colonist populations is the tendency for colonizers to take words or terminology familiar to them, and use those words to describe objects that are foreign to them, but which resemble a familiar object.  There's a term for this phenomena but I can't remember what it is and I'm too lazy to look it up.  Maybe I'll put it on here later when it finally comes to me.

Anyway!  One example of this is, in fact, with early European visitors to South America, who compared llamas to sheep--and in fact, they kept llamas for wool, as well as for hides ("lamb-skin" perhaps?), and for food, and as beasts of burden (Wikipedia: "Llama").  Another example from European contact is found with the bison, or buffalo, which some European groups called a "cow" (albeit a funny-looking cow).

Sketches of some local wild-
life in S. America done by
European colonists.  You
can't read it in this picture,
but the one in the upper
righthand corner is labeled,
"chilihueque".

Then there's the now-extinct "chilihueque" (or "hueque"), which existed in central and south central Chile in pre-Hispanic and early colonial times.  One hypothesis about them is that they were domesticated llamas brought from the north (where some people believe would have been the stomping grounds of the Jaredites; this has led some to also believe that perhaps the chilihueque were in fact these mysterious animals called "cureloms" and/or "cumoms" mentioned in Ether 9:17-19).

But the point of this post isn't to quibble over the finer details of terminology and animal husbandry in the Book of Mormon: I couldn't imagine a duller topic of discussion, nor a more pointless topic of discussion.  Desperate efforts to "prove" scientific or archeological facts in the Book of Mormon are, in my opinion, missing the point.  If one feels threatened whenever they see something in scripture that doesn't add up with the canon of knowledge in the scientific or academic community, then their faith in the book is rooted in the wrong things.

That being said, I feel no compunction about exploring these peoples' world and getting into their heads as much as possible.  Thus, when someone says "sheep" in the Book of Mormon, I wonder what they had in mind.  I know what Nephi had in mind: he grew up in the land of Jerusalem, so I know he was very familiar with the image of sheep that I myself have.  But what about someone born and raised in the promised land, several generations removed from their forefathers who came out from Jerusalem?

Maned wolf

Consider, on the other hand, occurrences of the word "wolf." In several places in the Book of Mormon it mentions "ravening wolves" and wolves that enter into the sheepfold and wreak havoc.  Assuming that all the events in the Book of Mormon really took place where most people assume they did (we really don't know for certain where all this stuff happened: it could've been in Canada for all we know...), the only candidate for "wolf" in South America is the maned wolf.  The maned wolf has a fairly limited territory on the continent, though, and is actually pretty shy; and, though this is no large obstacle, the maned wolf actually looks more like a fox (though it's not related to the fox...nor the wolf... nor any other canid--it's basically the "lone wolf" of wolves).  So, "ravening wolf" may not really match the maned wolf, but if we can stretch our imagination to calling llamas "sheep," then perhaps this, too, can pass.  

Nevertheless, I wonder, again, if it was a solid or an abstract picture in their minds when someone spoke to them about wolves and sheep.  There are only 5 occurrences of "wolf" or "wolves," and all of them are used symbolically in conjunction with sheep.  This leads me to believe that there were no actual wolves living in or around where the Book of Mormon took place, because all references to them in the record are in purely abstract terms.

But, again: pedantic and trivial.  When the Nephites spoke about "flocks" and "herds," who knows what they were referring to?

Flocks of turkey were kept, anciently;

"horse" might refer to deer;

                                                                                               the peccary is a relative of the wild pig;

some species of small, hairless dogs were fattened and eaten in various cultures of ancient South America (take that, "Beverly Hills Chihuahua"!);

tapir were the largest animals we know of and look a little bit like cattle (but maybe that's stretching it).

Somehow, though, when we read of Ammon defending the king's flocks in Alma 17, the story doesn't seem so romantic when we picture him defending "flocks of turkey."

So, maybe in this one instance, I would prefer ignorance...

Episode 11: Sherem and "Righteous Bad Guys" (Jacob 7)

I hope no one minds if we revisit the Great and Spacious Building in this post.  In fact, it should be pointed out: we'll be revisiting the vision of the Tree of Life throughout the rest of S.T.O.M.P.  When I mentioned a couple of posts back that the groundwork for the duality discussed throughout the whole Book of Mormon is laid in the Tree of Life vision, I really meant the whole Book of Mormon.  This view of mine is rooted in two things: to whom the vision was given, and when they received it.

So, if you'll indulge a quick list...

There are several reasons, I believe, why both Lehi and Nephi had the vision of the Tree of Life: they were forefathers of the Nephite and Lamanite peoples (so I assume their posterity had access to at least some parts of the vision for guidance, warning and instruction); their experiences with the vision are near the beginning of their journey so that we, today (for whom the book was written) get the account of the vision near the outset of the record (like "foreshadowing"); and the vision is presented in layers: Lehi's account, as it's recorded by Nephi, sticks very closely to the basic symbolism, whereas Nephi's account has symbolism and the events being symbolized, plus we get a "bonus" interpretation when Nephi comes down out of the mount and expounds on the vision even more to his brothers.  Thus, from the "layered" presentation of the vision, we are able to see in it personal application, communal/cultural/ global application, and we can also see it as "straight up" prophecy.

To illustrate, I'll use today's STOMP reading: an occasion arises in Jacob chapter 7 where we can use both cultural and personal application of the Tree of Life vision (and even a little bit of prophecy).

Okay, picture this: a guy name Sherem comes riding into town on a horse with no name...

Okay, okay, I couldn't help myself.  I don't know why "Spaghetti Westerns" come to mind when I think of Sherem (or even the one-hit-wonder band, "America"), but they do.  I think it's the way Jacob describes Sherem's appearance in the Nephite record: "[T]here came a man among the people of Nephi..."  For some reason I picture a dusty Nephite town; Sheriff Jacob sees this stranger riding in

Sheriff Jacob

with a six-shooter at his hip loaded with false doctrine; he strides out onto the middle of the road directly in front of the stranger, ready to mete out justice with all the diplomacy of a three-legged badger (I've always assumed a three-legged badger would be much grumpier than a four-legged one).


But fine, I'll stick to the script--no more cowboy stuff.

Hugh Nibley says that the name "Sherem" means "snub nosed or pug nosed" (in Book of Mormon Lecture 26).  This definition may draw quizzical or even comical mental images of the guy (I hear "pug" and I think of the dog), but I believe it's a very fitting name.  To me, in addition to the literal, physical imagery, the epithet "snub nosed" also conjures up the character profile of someone who is arrogant, or a "know-it-all."  And that describes what I think was Sherem's big problem (and lest any of you sit back in the cool and detached comfort of the ol' "I-don't-have-that-problem-barcalounger", I will be connecting Sherem's shortcomings with myself and [I'm assuming] the rest of

This is the "I-don't-have-that-problem-barcalounger."  It's
fun to sit in, but you don't really get anywhere while sitting
in it...

us as well; when Nephi said he likened the scriptures to his people so that they could be edified and instructed, he didn't just liken the "warm and fuzzy" righteous stuff, but also the "Get Your Act Together!" stuff, too).

What's important to note here is that this first of many "anti-Christs" mentioned in the Book of Mormon was not an atheist, but rather a very pious advocate for the Law of Moses.  Indeed, somehow, some way, someone from the Old World brought with them the philosophies of the people at Jerusalem: the idea that by simply "going through the motions" (I think I talked about that in "Episode 2" of this blog) would be enough to save them.  You remember how Jeremiah--a contemporary of Lehi--told the Jews, "You guys say, 'The temple of the Lord!  The temple of the Lord!  The temple of the Lord!' But that's not enough.  Having the temple and going through the motions are not enough: you have to live this stuff in order to be saved!" (I paraphrased, of course; see Jeremiah 7:4 for the original).  And we see this same philosophy slither its way into the showboating religiosity of wicked King Noah's equally wicked priests.  They used their status as clergy and the stage of ritual as a foil to get away with a depraved lifestyle--a lifestyle that was "depraved" not only because of "partying," but also because they eschewed the poor and contributed to envy, greed and materialism within their culture.


So, getting back to Sherem: I believe we shouldn't read the story as, "the prophet Jacob vs. an outsider named Sherem"; rather, we should see it as, "the prophet Jacob vs. a [self-]righteous church member named Sherem."

Sherem tells Jacob he's been seeking an opportunity to have this little duel of words because, he says, "I have heard and also know that thou goest about much, preaching that which ye call the gospel, or the doctrine of Christ."

Therein lies Mistake #1: Sherem didn't seek the prophet to learn the word of God.  He sought the prophet so that he, Sherem, might counsel the prophet.  Sherem was not a man to seek instruction, but rather to give his own instruction.  Do we do the same at church, when we look at some other members?  Do we look at them and think only of how they are doing things wrong, and how we need to "set them straight," rather than seeing in them an opportunity to learn?


Then, Sherem goes on to say, "And ye have led away much of this people that they pervert the right way of God, and keep not the law of Moses which is the right way; and convert the law of Moses into the worship of a being which ye say shall come many hundred years hence."

Mistake #2: Sherem sees salvation in the commandments of God, rather than the commandments being something that can lead him to where the true source of salvation comes from: Jesus Christ.  No man can be saved according to his deeds alone, "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God" (Rom. 3:23).


This is where the Great and Spacious Building comes in.  We are told in Nephi's account that it represents the "pride of the world."  However, when Nephi is shown the building, he sees its downfall in conjunction with the future downfall of his own progeny: the Nephite nation.  He also sees the building's downfall in conjunction with the rejection of the Messiah by the Jews.  The "pride of the world" doesn't refer to who we, in the church, might term as "non-believers"; the "pride of the world," rather, refers to anyone guilty of that pride which says, "I don't need Christ." That's the worst pride of all. And even Christians (including Mormons) have that kind of pride.

Many Jews rejected Christ because they saw for themselves a path to salvation through the Law of Moses.  Because they felt the Law was what saved them, they felt no need for a Savior.  And because the Law is full of things that are physical, temporal, "earthly": their concept of the Messiah was an earthly one--someone who would save them from their physical bondage; someone who would establish a physical kingdom on the earth.

The Nephites likewise began to believe in themselves more than their God.  Within a handful of generations after being visited by the resurrected Christ, the Nephites began to divide into socio-economic classes, political and ideological sects--all the signs of people succumbing to their own self-importance.  Their gaze became less heavenward and more earthbound.

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten
Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but
have everlasting life" (John 3:16)

Thus, in the church today, it is dangerous to teach a gospel only of commandments and consequences (of "works" without "grace").  The commandments can act as guidelines and safeguards, true; but by no means is a man saved by obedience alone (or, as Christ put it, "Man shall not live by bread alone [i.e. the physical stuff, such as the many outward things that convey an image of righteousness], but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God" [or, the spiritual stuff, which is really the essence of a man]).  When the Savior was asked which was the greatest of all God's commandments, he didn't say "obedience." Slaves and servants can be very obedient and yet hate their masters.  No, Christ said, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God."  It was love that motivated Christ's atonement for the sins of all mankind--not just "duty."

"Greater love hath no man than this, that
a man lay down his life for his friends"
(John 15:13)

So this now broadens the scope of who it is occupying the Great and Spacious Building.  Those who wrap themselves in a warm blanket of self-righteousness are fooling themselves into thinking that it is that very "righteousness" which saves them--they forget about Christ and about the need for his atonement.  This is why sometimes we see those whom we would term as the "super righteous" completely turn away from the gospel.  If they have convinced themselves that it is their obedience that will save them, then why should they bother praying to God in the name of a Savior they don't need, or reading the words of prophets whose lessons don't apply to them?  Thus, they put less effort into growing their faith, which withers until it dies completely.  At that point, they feel nothing when they attend church or even during the few, scattered times they may read the scriptures.  It is then that they decide "all that church stuff" was a hoax to begin with--because faith requires humility, and you can't have faith if you think you've got all the answers.

We see this sort of thing happen (though in a slightly different way) with some of our full-time missionaries.  A young man may think, "I've never broken the Law of Chastity or the Word of Wisdom: therefore, I'm worthy to serve a mission."  But isn't being a missionary more about who a young man is, rather than what he hasn't done?  Can this young man tell others about the Book of Mormon if he's never read it?  Can this young man testify of another's need to accept Christ if he hasn't truly done so himself?  Can this young man expect new converts to sacrifice their old dogmas and habits if he himself has not yet sacrificed his own pride?

I didn't go on my mission until I was almost twenty-one years old.  This is despite cultural pressures within the church (many of which I acknowledge are unintentional and often self-induced) that young men should leave the second they turn the minimum age for full-time missionary service (sometimes we mistake "minimum age" as being synonymous with "time to go right now!").  However, embarking on my mission almost two years after the age at which most young men leave was due to nothing less than a whole lot of stupidity on my part.  I was prideful to the point that I slackened in my efforts to cultivate my faith in recent years; this led to small sins, followed by larger ones, followed by much larger ones until I was literally at the point where I thought I was beyond help (you can see how I misunderstood the Atonement: I was so wrapped up in my guilt for breaking God's commandments that I had forgotten the infinite power of Christ's atonement).  When I met with my bishop at the time, and he told me that I could still turn things around--that I could still go on a mission if I really got my act together--then it was like a switch had been flipped inside of me.  I realized two things: that there was yet hope in what I saw as a hopeless situation, and, because I had almost not been able to go, it became painfully apparent that a mission was a privilege that could be revoked.

There's that old saying about never really appreciating something until you lose it.  When I almost lost the opportunity to serve a mission (which, by that point I had finally realized it really was an "opportunity" and not a "right")--then I was suddenly willing to sacrifice everything to make it happen.  Like the Lamanite king in Alma 22:18, I was finally willing to "give away all my sins to know [God]."  I would do anything for a mission call (rather than my attitude beforehand which had been a little more cavalier, as if it were merely a routine rite-of-passage available to anyone off the street).

By the time I was in the mission field, I had not only re-read (and this time really studied) the Book of Mormon cover-to-cover, but I had also read and studied much of the other Standard Works, immersing myself in my old seminary scriptures like never before; I also read much of the so-called "mission library" (non-canon books that every missionary is encouraged to read while serving in the mission field): James E. Talmage's books, Jesus the Christ and The Great Apostasy, as well as A Marvelous Work and a Wonder; I even read that painful-yet-beautiful book, The Miracle of Forgiveness; I had established a strict routine of constantly pouring my heart out to God, praying throughout the day while I was at work and trying to engage in thoughtful prayer each morning and night as I sought to consecrate my day to the Lord and then report back to Him on how well I had done, what I had learned, and, of course, seeking forgiveness; I received and diligently studied my patriarchal blessing, began writing [more] regularly in my journal (though that's still something I'm a little sporadic at) --essentially, I was doing everything I could think of that would create for me the lifestyle of a full-time missionary before I had even officially been called as one.

Now, being as how this is a post on "pride" and "self-righteousness," I pray that none of this comes across as "prideful" or "boastful."  What I am trying to convey is that through that difficult, painful-yet-beautiful process of repentance, I had truly become converted.  I hit the ground running when I entered the mission field and I had a vision of my purpose out there that some of the other missionaries--from my perspective --had not yet received.

But if only I could have learned such a lesson without gaining alongside it the regret that comes with sin!

The Apostle Paul said of his weaknesses: "Most
gladly therefore will I rather glory in my in-
firmities , that the power of Christ may rest up-
on me" (2Cor. 12:9).  If we allow the Lord to
sculpt us--if we learn from our mistakes--then
will He "make weak things become strong"
(Ether 12:27)

I guess that last sentence is moot, though.  Experience--good and bad--is part of this life.  I know my sins are forgiven, and we are promised that the Lord will remember them no more if we sincerely repent: if He can move past them, so can I.  But also, my past and my regrets are all a part of the package that is "me."  Like I've said before, I can't speculate on who I would be without my mistakes--I am who I am today because of what I have learned from my mistakes; but such speculation doesn't matter because I know I am in a good place, spiritually, now.  And of course, I am sooooo very far from perfect, but I can say that where I'm at today in comparison to where I was then: "[T]here could be nothing so exquisite and so bitter as were my pains.  Yea, and again I say unto you...that on the other hand, there can be nothing so exquisite and sweet as [is] my joy" (Al. 36:21).  I've partaken of God's love and finally accepted the Atonement: I no longer think that righteousness has anything to do with me; but rather, I finally stepped aside, got out of the way, and let the Master take over--I submitted my will to His.

That's why Elder Bednar's talk from a couple conferences ago ("Converted unto the Lord") was so powerful: we need converts in this church--not members.  ("Membership" is for places like Costco...)

This is the very thing that I kick myself about all the time, though.  When I know I've goofed up and I need to repent, you can be sure I'm praying like crazy and reading the scriptures and trying to reconnect with Heavenly Father.  Too often I'm creating the sort of relationship with God I should be having all the time when I'm desperately trying to say, "I'm sorry."  Maybe I wouldn't have to say "I'm sorry" so much if I would put that sort of energy into our relationship outside of repenting.

Nevertheless, I feel that, because I know that about myself, and because it has been made known to me that the behavior I exhibit during contrition is a pattern for me to follow at all times in life, I am at least headed in the right direction.  But none of this is anything I have learned on my own, with my own efforts.  My weaknesses have always been made known to me after a ton of prayer.  Generally speaking, the pattern is: I feel that something is wrong but am too much of a blockhead to realize what it is; so I pray and I pray and I pray and I pray; Heavenly Father shows me my weaknesses; I'm given time to ponder over them and pray some more for further guidance; then I'm shown what I can do to change and grow from my mistakes; then I pray for help to do it--because I know I'm too weak to do it on my own, and, just like Nephi, I know that the Lord will "prepare a way for [me] that [I] may accomplish the thing which he commandeth [me]."

And that's why the people in the Great and Spacious Building are pointing their fingers and mocking those who are partaking of the fruit.  Those tenants don't think they need that fruit: they don't think they need Christ's atonement.  And they are not "non-believers" (not exclusively, anyway): no, they are you and me every time we've fooled ourselves into thinking we can do any of this on our own; you and I occupy that building when we think we're more righteous than someone else because we do our home teaching more frequently, or we've read the Book of Mormon more times, or we have a greater intellectual grasp on the doctrines of salvation (and you can watch a great video about Brigham Young's conversion called "A Man Without Eloquence" that reinforces that last point).

I'll close my post with King Benjamin's approach to this same subject:

King Benjamin opened his address with a prophecy of the Savior's earthly ministry and subsequent atonement.  He makes it painfully clear that the Law of Moses was not given to the people because of righteousness, but rather, "the Lord God saw that his people were a stiffnecked people, and he appointed unto them a law, even the law of Moses."  Thus, the Law of Moses was nothing to boast of; King Benjamin reminds them of the Fall of Adam and ties this in to the need for a redemption from that Fall.  He points out, however, that in order to receive this redemption, we all must humble ourselves and "become as little children... For the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit."  Notice that word "yields" right there: it's a passive term.  Men do not obtain the Holy Spirit; when we are confirmed members of the church and we are given the gift of the Holy Ghost, we are not told in the blessing, "I say unto you, grab the Holy Ghost"!  No, we are instead commanded: "I say unto you, receive the Holy Ghost."

Once the people listening to King Benjamin's words realized their true need for a savior, it says that "they had fallen to the earth, for the fear of the Lord had come upon them.  And they had viewed themselves in their own carnal state, even less than the dust of the earth."

This is just like when Adam and Eve saw they were naked: at last, recognition for the need for a Savior became perfectly clear.  And so, what King Benjamin's people did is a pattern for us as well: "And they all cried aloud with one voice, saying: O have mercy, and apply the atoning blood of Christ that we may receive forgiveness of our sins, and our hearts may be purified; for we believe in Jesus Christ, the Son of God." Here would be an event comparable to when the Lord placed coats of skin on Adam and Eve: "apply the atoning blood of Christ" and "for we believe in Jesus Christ" are the very events symbolized by the coats of skin given to Adam and Eve.  These are ideas to be worn close to our hearts at all times and on all days--there is never a time when we do not need to be clothed in Christ's atonement.

And when King Benjamin realized his people had become sufficiently humble (the ground was tilled and fertile, ready for the seed to be planted), he continued: "I say unto you...that as ye have come to the knowledge of the glory of God, or if ye have tasted of his goodness (or tasted the fruit of the Tree of Life), or if ye have known of his goodness and have tasted of his love (again, the fruit of the Tree of Life), ... even so I would that ye should remember, and always retain in remembrance, the greatness of God, and your own nothingness (in other words, don't get cocky), and his goodness and long-suffering towards you, unworthy creatures, and humble yourselves..., calling on the name of the Lord daily, and standing steadfastly in the faith."  This is exactly why we are told in the sacrament prayer every week to remember ("...that they may do it in remembrance of thee..."), because otherwise, we do not have the promise that is given in that very same prayer: "[T]hat they may always have Thy Spirit to be with them."  And King Benjamin likewise asserts this when he says that those who remember God's goodness and their own poopiness (yes, I just said "poopiness"), "shall always rejoice, and be filled with the love of God (which reminds us of those who were likewise "filled" when they partook of the sacrament at Christ's coming in 3 Nephi 18) and always retain a remission of [their] sins"--or, in other words, they will "always have His Spirit to be with them."

This is why the prophet Alma encouraged his son, Helaman, to:

"Counsel with the Lord in all thy doings, and he will direct thee for good; yea, when thou liest down at night lie down unto the Lord, that he may watch over you in your sleep; and when thou risest in the morning let thy heart be full of thanks unto God; and if ye do these things, ye shall be lifted up at the last day" (Al. 37:37).

Or, in other words (again), Alma was saying that if Helaman did all these thing--things that would help him to "remember" and to rely on God--he would "always retain a remission of [his] sins": he would "always have [God's] Spirit to be with [him]" (which are both essential components to being "lifted up at the last day").


Okay, I've blathered on long enough.  It's amazing this much stuff can come out of simply reading a few verses about Sherem trying to convince Jacob that the Law of Moses is more important than the doctrine of the gospel of Christ.  I could've kept going, too--I really could have!  Isn't it amazing how much there really is in every little word in this book of scripture?  The Book of Mormon is the Word of God--if we hold onto its teachings, pressing forward through its pages with steadfastness, it truly draws us closer to Christ.  And we can dive into its teachings as deep as we want, as long as we are willing to sacrifice the time and our own preconceptions (or arrogance).  Just get out of your own way and let the Spirit do the teaching: it's His job--and He's a lot better at it than you or I.