The Only Education Worthy of a Student

[As a former educator I like to read about education, commencement addresses and the like.  Inasmuch as this blog is in part at least about “living philosophies” of life, I am pleased to share with you a brief but insightful description of a “liberal education” and marry my interest in education and philosophy.  Happy thinking.]

A LIBERAL EDUCATION

Let’s be historical for a moment.  When you came here, you came voluntarily. There was no state law compelling you to go to college as there was when you were a pupil. Your pupil days were over when you became a student–a person ready and willing to learn in the true spirit of liberal education, regardless of whatever professional program you followed or plan to pursue. Now an education that is liberal is the only education worthy of a student because its goal is to enhance and enrich the freedom of choice that the student exercised by coming to college in the first place. The word liberal comes from the Latin word libera, from which we derive words like liberty and liberate and so forth.

But libera is in turn derived from the Latin word for book–liber.  The Romans apparently saw a relationship between books and liberty–words and freedom.

In brief, they believed that books put minds in motion, and, once in motion, this permitted thinking men and women to go to the right sources, to reach their own conclusions, to make up their own minds and to be free in the only way that finally matters–intellectually free.

Knowledge derived from books together with other forms of knowledge that came to you from personal experience or from sudden inspirations or insights over the past four years constitute a collective gift. And thus has given you a grounding in culture, which is the very foundation of any progressive human society. And the great educator and author Jacques Barzun has reminded us that the word culture is in turn derived from the word agriculture, which is the science of making raw land better and richer without changing its nature. This is exactly what liberal education does to students.

It enriches them from the time of matriculation until the time of commencement and hopefully makes them better than they were when they started without changing their natures. We use another agricultural term–cultivated–to describe people we consider cultured.

Samuel Hazo, “The Only Way to Be: Your Words Must Contain Justice,” address at Carlow University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 9 May 2009, in Vital Speeches of the Day 75, no. 7 (July 2009): 329-30, emphasis in original.

Let’s think together again soon.

A Latter-day Saint View of the Resurrection©

Danel W. Bachman

[On Easter Sunday, 27 March 2016, my wife and I were invited to give Easter sermons in our sacrament meeting.  We were given twenty-five minutes.  She decided she wanted 10.  Below is the fifteen minute sermon which I gave.]

Introduction

Good morning brothers and sisters. On this Easter Sunday I come in the attitude of celebration and joy. However, the Sunday morning following the Crucifixion and burial of Jesus Christ may have been a nice spring day in the Holy Land, but for the fledgling Church everything was dark. Though Jesus repeatedly told his little flock and their leaders that he would rise again after he was killed, that idea was so unique that they could not grasp it. Discouragement and gloom settled over the Christian community in Jerusalem. For the disciples it must have seemed that everything ended in tragedy. Two disciples on the road to Emmaus encountered the resurrected Jesus, but did not recognize him. He asked them “What manner of communications are these that ye have one to another , as ye walk, and are sad.” They explained to the stranger about the crucifixion of Christ and one said, “But we trusted that it had been he which should have redeemed Israel....”(1) The clear implication is that their trust was misplaced and their hopes dashed. Death was the only reality these people knew and it was grim. For the first four thousand years of earth’s history, every man, woman, child, animal and plant that died remained dead. Nobody could conceive of the physical body coming back to life again

Witnesses Ancient and Modern

Not surprisingly then, even with the early witnesses it was difficult to believe.  We all know about “doubting” Thomas. But we also have in the New Testament thirteen different verses, a few collected from each of the four Gospels, which speak about the doubt of the other disciples.(2) For example, even after Jesus visited them several times in Jerusalem, when the Twelve gathered in Galilee as instructed, Matthew 28:17 reports that when the eleven saw Jesus on the mountain in Galilee: “they worshipped him: but some doubted.” The doubt was serious enough that Mark and Luke record instances where Jesus upbraided them for their disbelief. Mark 16:14 says that after he appeared  unto  the eleven as they sat at meat he, “upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen.”

Nevertheless, there were eventually many witnesses of the Lord’s resurrection.  One well regarded minister observed that Jesus’ “resurrection was not only the greatest and most important of his miracles, but the most abundantly and variously attested.”(3) If we read the four gospels carefully we discover that there is no detailed description of the Resurrection. Rather the records are given over to personal accounts of eye witnesses of his appearances following the resurrection.

Those appearances changed the primitive Church. They put fire in the bones of the early leaders. The primary record which we have of their early preaching is the book of Acts and it reveals something very interesting. The earliest sermons of the apostles recounted therein were almost entirely concerned with Christ’s resurrection. 

But these accounts have been challenged.With the Restoration of the Gospel, however, come new and contemporary witnesses. After the “First Vision” Joseph Smith saw Jesus a number of other times. One of the most powerful is the oft repeated statement in D&C 76 which my wife has already read to you. I would add that this account was written together with Sidney Rigdon, his companion witness.  Mormonism, as far as I know, stands unique with the New Testament and Book of Mormon, where there were often one or more witnesses to Joseph Smith’s visions. We can multiply such testimonies in this dispensation. Here are two which are representative of a 54-page collection I have compiled during my life time:

In 1835, young elder Wilford Woodruff then on a mission in Tennessee was visited by an angel and shown the resurrection in vision. He did not see the First Resurrection take place, but he saw those who were in that resurrection and they were all clothed in white robes. The second resurrection, however was different.  He said, 

Vast fields of graves were before me, and the Spirit of God rested upon the earth like a shower of gentle rain, and when that fell upon the graves they were opened, and an immense host of human beings came forth. They were just as diversified in their dress as we are here, or as they were laid down. This personage taught me with regard to these things.”(4)  

He concluded: “What does this mean? It was a testimony of the resurrection of the dead. I had a testimony. I believe in the resurrection of the dead, and I know it is a true principle.”(5)

In 1980, Elder Ezra Taft Benson said to the youth of the Church: “As one of those called as special witnesses, I add my testimony to those of fellow Apostles: He lives! He lives with resurrected body. There is no truth or fact of which I am more assured, or know better by personal experience, than the truth of the literal resurrection of our Lord.”(6)

Each of us must decide for ourselves to accept or reject the evidence these ancient and modern testimonies provide.(7) Faith is always a choice–because in mortality the evidence never has and never will overwhelm man’s reason and force him to believe.(8) Only at judgment will every knee bow and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus is the Christ.

Power of the Resurrection

The Book of Mormon prophet Jacob and the Apostle Paul both speak of the “power of the resurrection.”(9) What is that power? A detailed study of this phrase would produce many different and important ideas, but the most significant relationship of the” power of the resurrection” is to the Atonement. The resurrection derives its power from the Atonement.(10) Moreover, the Resurrection is one of the crowning results of, primary witness to, and evidence for the infinite Atonement of Jesus Christ. The Resurrection confirms, ratifies, and seals the Atonement of Jesus Christ.

When you think about it, resurrection and procreation are companion processes.  They are similar in that they unite the spirit and the body to create a soul.(11) The first is temporary, the second is eternal. In procreation a physical body is created and prepared for habitation by the spirit.(12) Death is the separation of those two. The Atonement is the power of the resurrection which stands in opposition to the power of death.(13) The scriptures speak of the “redemption of the soul.”(14) The redemption of the soul is the resurrection. The spirit and body are reunited through the power of resurrection, “never to be divided,” again. They are “homogenized” if you will.(15) This redemption of the soul, the scriptures tell us, makes it possible to have a fulness of joy.(16)

Our Article of Faith number 2 tells us that we are not punished for Adam’s transgression. Yet, as descendants of Adam and Eve, we suffer it’s two major effects: physical and spiritual death. Thankfully, the resurrection reverses all the effects of the Fall. It overcomes physical death, but it also overcomes the first spiritual death which we experienced when we came out of the presence of God when were born into morality. Samuel the Lamanite taught that Christ died,

To bring to pass the resurrection of the dead ...  and redeemeth all mankind from the first death–that spiritual death; for all mankind, by the fall of Adam being cut off from the presence of the Lord, are considered as dead, both as to things temporal and to things spiritual.  But behold, the resurrection of Christ redeemeth mankind, yea, even all mankind, and bringeth them back into the presence of the Lord.(17)

All mankind will be brought back into the presence of the Lord to be judged.  But why do we need our body in order to be judged? The answer is not well understood by us as a people, and it is almost never taught to our youth. The fact is that our body is not ours! It belongs to God. Paul wrote to the Corinthians:

What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?  For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s.(18)

Our bodies are on loan, which means nothing will be ours permanently until after the resurrection. It means our bodies are a “stewardship” and the owner [God] will hold the steward accountable for what he does with and to the body. This doctrine must be so to make the judgment just. If our bodies are ours, we could argue that we can do with them what we please and it is nobody’s business including God.  This is a popular belief in the world today, even among some Latter-day Saints.  However, if it is true that our bodies are his he can and does give us instructions for its care and the proper use of its powers. The divine laws of the Word of Wisdom and of chastity are clear examples of this doctrine. I testify that our bodies are a stewardship for which we will one day render an account to God.

An interesting corollary to this idea is that nobody can do anything permanent to your body but you. The foibles of genetics and nature,  or  accidents, or intentional harm and disfigurement may appear to permanently mar, impair, or disable the body, but those things are only temporary. They will be overcome in the resurrection. We all enjoy and find hope in this wonderful statement from Alma: [He uses the word “soul” here as a synonym for the spirit.]

The soul shall be restored to the body, and the body to the soul; yea, and every limb and joint shall be restored to its body; yea, even a hair of the head shall not be lost; but all things shall be restored to their proper and perfect frame.(19)

However, the perfection of the physical body in the resurrection may not be absolute for some, nor does it imply the perfection of the soul for all. Joseph Smith also saw the resurrection in vision. He left this wonderful and thought-provoking summary: “All your losses will be made up to you in the resurrection, provided you continue faithful. By the vision of the Almighty I have seen it.”(20) Why did he add the provision, “provided you continue faithful”? For one, later revelations to him concerning the sequence of the resurrection explain, much as did Paul, that resurrected bodies will come forth with a certain degree of divine glory. One of the powers of the resurrection will be to add glory upon the physical body. But the glory given to the body will depend upon the law one chooses to live while in mortality. If we live a telestial law, our body will radiate a telestial glory, akin to the light of the stars. Those who live a terrestrial law will have glory like the light of the moon, and those who live the celestial law–the fulness of the law of the Gospel–will have bodies quickened by celestial glory which is akin to the light of the sun.(21) There will be another limitation to some resurrected bodies. Those who are not exalted in the highest degree of the celestial kingdom will remain “separate and single,” that is they will not be married for eternity and thus will not be privileged to exercise their procreative powers in eternity.(22) So, we see the necessity of the proper care and use of our body in order to enjoy the full blessings of the resurrection.

Conclusion

In conclusion, I love this quotation from Truman Madsen. He said the resurrection 

Clearly, ... is the principle presupposed in all other [gospel] principles. And it is the ordinance foreshadowed in all other [gospel] ordinances, each a stage of progressive birth and higher nourishment, each the symbol and conferral of vitalizing powers through the fundamental elements of His ...  infusing life, light, and spirit.... (23)

The resurrection is one of the greatest evidences of God’s love for we his children. The resurrection is the “sign of Jonas” given to the Jews as the ultimate seal of the legitimacy and truth of his mission and message. The resurrection was to give hope to a fallen and troubled and death-filled world. And ultimately it was intended to bring his children a “fulness of joy.” I rejoice in the resurrection of Jesus Christ and in the hope it gives of our personal resurrection. I celebrate these things on this sacred and holy day, and testify of their truthfulness in the name of Jesus Christ, Amen.

Let’s think together again, soon.

Notes:

1.   Lk. 24: 17, 21.

2.   Mt. 28:17

    Mk. 16:11, 13, 14

    Lk. 24:11, 25,

    Jn. 20:8, 25, 27, 29, 30-31

3. Charles Petit McIlvaine, “The Resurrection of Christ,” in William M. Smith, ed., Great Sermons on the Birth, Death, and Resurrection of Christ. 1-Volume Edition.  (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1996), 3: 20. 

4. Wilford Woodruff, discourse at the Weber Stake Conference, Ogden, Utah, 19 October 1896, Deseret Weekly, 7 November 1896, pp. 642-43.

5.   Wilford Woodruff, JD 22:332-33, discourse of 8 October 1881.

6.   Ezra Taft Benson, "Five Marks of the Divinity of Jesus Christ," New Era 10 (December 1980), p. 48, emphasis added.

7. On the importance of testimony as evidence, see: Romans 10:13-17; Acts 10:34-43; Moroni 7:29-32.

8.   Ether 12:6.    

9.   2 Ne. 9:6, 12; Phil. 3:10.  Mormon also uses the same phrase in  Moroni 7:41.
10.  Regarding the power of the atonement being the power of resurrection Jacob taught: “Know ye not that if ye will do these things, that the power of the redemption and the resurrection, which is in Christ, will bring you to stand with shame and awful guilt before the bar of God.” (Jac. 6:9) By speaking of both the power of redemption and resurrection, this context seems to make it clear that the power spoken of is the Atonement, which is “in” Christ.  The redemption was possible as a result of the atonement.  For Jacob the resurrection came by the same power.

11.   D&C 88:15.

12.   D&C 49:15-17.

13. 2 Ne. 9:6; Jn. 10:18; Ps. 49:15; Heb. 2:14.

14.   D&C 88:16, 26, Al. 41:2, 12-13.

15.   Al. 11:45; D&C 138:17.

16.   D&C 93:33. 

17.   Helaman 14:15-17.  See also Alma 42:23 among others in the Book of Mormon.

18.   1 Cor. 6:19-20.

19.   Alma 40:23.  See also D&C 138:17.

20. Joseph Fielding Smith, comp., Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1967), p. 296.

21.   D&C 88:18-31.

22. See D&C 131:1-4 and Joseph’s commentary thereon in Joseph Fielding Smith, comp., Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1967), pp. 300-301.  

Orson Pratt held the view that the single in the hereafter were limited in their ability to procreate as God’s way of interdicting production of additional disobedient children.  He said:

Could wicked and malicious beings, who have eradicated every feeling of love from their bosoms, be permitted to propagate their species, the offspring would partake of all the evil, wicked, and malicious nature of their parents.  It is for this reason that God will not permit the fallen angels to multiply; it is for this reason that God has ordained marriages for the righteous only; it is for this reason that God will put a final stop to the multiplication of the wicked after this life: it is for this reason that none but those who have kept the celestial law will be permitted to multiply after the resurrection...for they alone are prepared to beget and bring forth such offspring.”  Orson Pratt, The Seer, pp. 156-57. 

23. Truman G. Madsen, “Of the Garden Tomb,” New Era (April 1971): 6.

A Simple Lesson in Properly Attributing Quotations to General Authorities"©

There is an interesting quotation floating around the web attributed in blogs, editorials, and even in Book of Mormon commentaries to Elder David B. Haight.(1)  It reads:

Nobody grows old by merely living a number of years.People grow old by deserting their ideals, their faith.There is always the love of wonder, a childlike appetite for what is next, and the joy of your life. ou are as young as your faith, as old as your doubt; as young as your self-confidence, as old as your fear or despair.

In the center of our heart is a recording chamber, and so long as it receives messages of beauty, hope, cheer, courage, and faith, so long are we young.

Recently I wanted to add this to my own commentary on the Book of Mormon but the reference was incomplete. Generally it is attributed to a talk by Elder Haight in the November 1983, Ensign, p. 25. Wanting the title of the talk I went to my collection of Ensigns and was surprised to find on page twenty-five a talk by Paul H. Dunn. Elder Haight’s talk was elsewhere, but did not contain the quotation in question. I did not examine Elder Dunn’s talk, thinking the reference was in error as to date. I Googled some phrases and found it again cited, this time in a talk by Elder Jacob de Jager, “Service and Happiness,” Ensign (October 1993), p. 32, but his reference was back to the same page number in the November 1983 Ensign. So, puzzled I went back to Elder Dunn’s talk and read it.  Sure enough it was there–mostly!  He said:

To those in their golden years, age should only be hateful if it means the cessation of growth, the withering of dreams, the silencing of feelings. And these qualities, after all, have nothing to do with chronology and everything to do with the heart. Douglas McArthur [sic] once observed, “Live with enthusiasm! Nobody grows old by deserting their ideals.  Years wrinkle the skin, but to give up enthusiasm wrinkles the soul. You are as young as your faith, as old as your doubt, as young as your self-confidence, as old as your fear, as young as your hope, as old as your despair.”

So, how did this quotation become associated with Elder Haight?  Read what Elder de Jager said in 1993:

Not long ago, I had the privilege of attending a mission presidents’ seminar in San Francisco with Elder David B. Haight of the Council of the Twelve. He shared with us some thoughts from an unknown author about growing old.

“Nobody grows old by merely living a number of years. People grow old by deserting their ideals, their faith. There is always the love of wonder, a childlike appetite for what is next, and the joy of your life. You are as young as your faith, as old as your doubt; as young as your self-confidence, as old as your fear or despair.

“In the center of our heart is a recording chamber, and so long as it receives messages of beauty, hope, cheer, courage, and faith, so long are we young.  (Ensign, Nov. 1983, p. 25).”

Well now we know where Elder Haight enters in, but we have all kinds of other problems. Elder de Jager says the quotation was cited by Elder Haight, but gives reference to Elder Dunn’s talk, who attributed it to Douglas MacArthur. How did that happen? Moreover, the de Jager version has an additional paragraph of one sentence which is not in Elder Dunn’s talk. Did Elder Haight give Elder de Jager a copy of what he was sharing with the Mission Presidents which included the longer version? If so, why did Elder de Jager cite the Dunn talk when referring to it? Mystery! And Elder Haight apparently said he didn’t know where it came from, but Elder Dunn attributed it to MacArthur. What is the truth?

Well, it is common for people to attribute some version of this statement to MacArthur, but it isn’t his either. I have a trusty book in my collection of books of quotations.  It is entitled, “Respectfully Quoted: A Dictionary of Quotations from the Library of Congress.”(2) It is a compilation of quotations which congressmen and others wanted verified and the staff tracked them down.  It just so happens that this quotation is one of them. The basic story is this: A man named Samuel Ullman (1840-1924) wrote a poem entitled “Youth.” It was privately printed first, but published in 1934. The published version was longer than the private edition which did not have the “oft-quoted ‘you are as young as your faith...”(3) The book goes on to say:

General Douglas MacArthur quoted the entire poem without attribution on his seventy-fifth birthday, in a speech to the Los Angeles County Council, American Legion, Los Angeles, California, January 26, 1955.”(4)

So MacArthur quotes it but doesn’t say where he got it. Others copy, excerpt, and/or edit it and attribute it to MacArthur, such as Elder Dunn’s version. Elder Haight also used some version of it, but didn’t know where it came from. But in a comedy of slipshod errors, copying others without checking, etc., etc., etc., it is now attributed to Elder Haight himself. The entire item is cited in Respectfully Quoted, and most of the elements of the de Jager version are there, but it is a clip-and-paste edit of a longer statement.(5)

Lesson: I suppose there are many lessons to draw from this little foray into frequently cited literary quotations, especially when found on the Internet.  I would boil them down to one: do your own homework thoroughly and carefully, especially if your work will be published. What we all need is a staff like the one at the Library of Congress to track down the source of the quotations we want to use!

Let’s think together again, soon.

Notes:

1.  K. Douglas Bassett, comp., Doctrinal Insights to the Book of Mormon: Volume Two: Jacob Through Alma (Springville, UT: Cedar Fort, 2007), p. 40.  Apparently several other online Book of Mormon commentaries have copied Bassett without checking his accuracy.

There is a similar problem with the famous quotation "all putts don't drop" attributed to President Hinckley.  Actually he was quoting someone else.

2.  Suzy Platt, ed., Respectfully Quoted: A Dictionary of Quotations from the Library of Congress (Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly, 1992).

3.  Platt, Respectfully Quoted, p. 393. 

4.  Platt, Respectfully Quoted, p. 393, emphasis added.

5.  You can read the entire excerpt from Platt’s book here: www.bartleby.com/73/2099/html

Modern LDS Youth and the Attractions of Socialism

Socialism is a hot topic especially among the younger segment of our population and I am aware that a number of Latter-day Saint youth are excited about the promises of Socialism.  For some perspective here are statements from three Presidents of the Church on the subject.  It is always good to get the prophetic perspective.

I Did Not Believe The Doctrine

Wednesday, 13 [September 1843]: I attended a lecture at the Grove, by Mr. John Finch, a Socialist, from England, and said a few words in reply. 

...

I attended a second lecture on Socialism, by Mr. Finch; and after he got through, I made a few remarks, alluding to Sidney Rigdon and Alexander Campbell getting up a community at Kirtland, and of the big fish there eating up all the little fish.  I said I did not believe the doctrine.

...

Elder John Taylor replied to the lecture at some length.

Joseph Smith, HC 6:32-33, 13-14 September 1843, emphasis in original.

Sunday, 24 [September 1843].  I preached on the stand about one hour on the 2nd chapter of Acts, designing to show the folly of common stock.  In Nauvoo every one is steward over his own.

Joseph Smith, HC 6: 37-38.

As far as I know we do not have John Taylor’s remarks on that occasion (pity).  But we are not without his thoughts on the subject.  Less than a decade later he wrote the classic The Government of God, in which he said the following:

The Evil Results of Socialism

There is also another political party, who desire, through the influence of legislation and coercion, to level the world.  To say the least, it is a species of robbery; to some it may appear an honorable one, but, nevertheless, it is robbery.  What right has any private man to take by force the property of another?  The laws of all nations would punish such a man as a thief.  Would thousands of men engaged in the same business make it more honorable?  Certainly not.  And if a nation were to do it, would a nation’s act sanctify a wrong deed?  No; the Algerine [Algerian] pirates, or Arabian hordes, were never considered honorable, on account of their numbers; and a nation, or nations, engaging in this would only augment the banditti, but could never sanctify the deed.  I shall not, here, enter into the various manners of obtaining wealth; but would merely state, that any unjust acquisition of it ought to be punished by law.  Wealth is generally the representation of labour, industry, and talent.  If one man is industrious, enterprising, diligent, careful, and saves property, and his children follow in his steps, and accumulate wealth; and another man is careless, prodigal, and lazy, and his children inherit his poverty, I cannot conceive upon what principles of justice, the children of the idle and profligate have a right to put their hands into the pockets of those who are diligent and careful, and rob them of their purse.  Let this principle exist, and all energy and enterprise would be crushed.  Men would be afraid of again accumulating, lest they should again be robbed.  Industry and talent would have no stimulant, and confusion and ruin would inevitably follow.  Again, if you took men’s property without their consent, the natural consequence would be that they would seek to retake it the first opportunity; and this state of things would only deluge the world in blood.  So that let any of these measures be carried out, even according to the most sanguine hopes of the parties, they would not only bring distress upon others, but also upon themselves; certainly they would not bring about the peace of the world.

John Taylor, The Government of God, (Liverpool: S. W. Richards, 1852), pp. 23-24.

On Socialism as a Counterfeit for the Law of Consecration

Socialism--a Philosophy Incompatible with Man's Liberty

Another notable counterfeit system to the Lord's plan is collectivized socialism. Socialism derives its philosophy from the founders of communism, Marx and Engels. Communism in practice is socialism. Its purpose is world socialism, which the communists seek to achieve by revolution, and which the socialists seek to achieve by evolution. Both communism and socialism have the same effect upon the individual--a loss of personal liberty. As was said so well by President J. Reuben Clark, Jr., "The two are as two peas in a pod in their ultimate effect upon our liberties."

Why is socialism incompatible with man's liberty? Socialism cannot work except through an all-powerful state. The state has to be supreme in everything. When individuals begin to exert their God-given rights, the state has to suppress that freedom. So belief in God must be suppressed, and with that gone freedom of conscience and religion must also go. Those are the first of our liberties mentioned in the Bill of Rights.

There are some among us who would confuse the united order with socialism. That is a serious misunderstanding. It is significant to me that the Prophet Joseph Smith, after attending lectures on socialism in his day, made this official entry in the Church history: "I said I did not believe the doctrine" (Joseph Smith, History of the Church 6:33).

Socialism Disguised under Welfare State Measures

As citizens of this noble land, we have marched a long way down the soul-destroying road of socialism. If you question that statement, consider the recent testimonial from the Nobel prize-winning economist, Milton Friedman. He indicated that government spending in the United States at all levels amounts to over forty percent of today's total national income. If we continue to follow the trend in which we are heading today, two things will inevitably result: first, a loss of our personal freedom, and second, financial bankruptcy. This is the price we pay when we turn away from God and the principles which he has taught and turn to government to do everything for us. It is the formula by which nations become enslaved.

This nation was established by the God of heaven as a citadel of liberty. A constitution guaranteeing those liberties was designed under the superintending influence of heaven. I have recounted here before what took place in the St. George Temple when the Founding Fathers of this nation visited President Wilford Woodruff, who was then a member of the Twelve and not president of the Church. The republic which was established was the most nearly perfect system which could have been devised to lead men toward celestial principles. We may liken our system to the law of Moses which leads men to the higher law of Christ.

Today, two hundred years later, we must sadly observe that we have significantly departed from the principles established by the founders of our country. James Madison opposed the proposal to put Congress in the role of promoting the general welfare according to its whims in these words:

If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every state, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasure; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor. . . . Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for [and it was an issue then], it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America. [quoted in Donald L. Newquist, Prophets, Principles, and National Survival, p. 342]

That statement, given as a warning, has proved prophetic. Today Congress is doing what Madison warned about. Many are now advocating that which has become a general practice since the early 1930s: a redistribution of wealth through the federal tax system. That, by definition, is socialism!

Americans have always been committed to taking care of the poor, aged, and unemployed. We have done this on the basis of Judaic-Christian beliefs and humanitarian principles. It has been fundamental to our way of life that charity must be voluntary if it is to be charity. Compulsory benevolence is not charity. Today's socialists--who call themselves egalitarians--are using the federal government to redistribute wealth in our society, not as a matter of voluntary charity, but as a so-called matter of right. One HEW official said recently, "In this country, welfare is no longer charity, it is a right. More and more Americans feel that their government owes them something" (U.S. News and World Report, April 21, 1975, p. 49). President Grover Cleveland said--and we believe as a people--that though the people support the government the government should not support the people.

The chief weapon used by the federal government to achieve this "equality" is the system of transfer payments. This means that the federal governments collects from one income group and transfer payments to another by the tax system. These payments are made in the form of social security benefits, Medicare and Medicaid, and food stamps, to name a few. Today the cost of such programs has been going in the hole at the rate of 12 billion dollars a year; and, with increased benefits and greater numbers of recipients, even though the tax base has been increased we will have larger deficits in the future.

Today the party now in power is advocating and has support, apparently in both major parties, for a comprehensive national health insurance program--a euphemism for socialized medicine. Our major danger is that we are currently (and have been for forty years) transferring responsibility from the individual, local, and state governments to the federal government--precisely the same course that led to the economic collapse in Great Britain and New York City. We cannot long pursue the present trend without its bringing us to national insolvency.

Edmund Burke, the great British political philosopher, warned of the threat of economic equality. He said,

A perfect equality will indeed be produced--that is to say, equal wretchedness, equal beggary, and on the part of the petitioners, a woeful, helpless, and desperate disappointment. Such is the event of all compulsory equalizations. They pull down what is above; they never raise what is below; and they depress high and low together beneath the level of what was originally the lowest.

Are we part of the problem or part of the solution?

Recently a letter came to my office, accompanied by an article from your Daily Universe [BYU newspaper], on the matter of BYU students taking food stamps. The query of the letter was: "What is the attitude of the Church on taking food stamps?" The Church's view on this is well known. We stand for independence, thrift, and abolition of the dole. This was emphasized in the Saturday morning welfare meeting of general conference. "The aim of the Church is to help the people to help themselves. Work is to be re-enthroned as the ruling principle of the lives of our Church membership" (Heber J. Grant, Conference Report, October 1936, p. 3).

When you accept food stamps, you accept an unearned handout that other working people are paying for. You do not earn food stamps or welfare payments. Every individual who accepts an unearned government gratuity is just as morally culpable as the individual who takes a handout from taxpayers' money to pay his heat, electricity, or rent. There is no difference in principle between them. You did not come to this University to become a welfare recipient. You came here to be a light to the world, a light to society--to save society and to help to save this nation, the Lord's base of operations in these latter days, to ameliorate man's social conditions. You are not here to be a parasite or freeloader. The price you pay for "something for nothing" may be more than you can afford. Do not rationalize your acceptance of government gratuities by saying, "I am a contributing taxpayer too." By doing this you contribute to the problem which is leading this nation to financial insolvency.

Society may rationalize immorality, but God cannot condone it. Society sponsors Sabbath breaking, but the Church counsels otherwise. Society profanes the name of Deity, but Latter-day Saints cannot countenance it. Because society condones a dole, which demoralizes man and weakens his God-given initiative and character, can we?

I know what it is, as many of your faculty members do, to work my way through school, taking classes only during winter quarters. If you don't have the finances to complete your education, drop out a semester and go to work and save. You'll be a better man or woman for so doing. You will have preserved your self-respect and initiative. Wisdom comes with experience and struggle, not just with going through a university matriculation. I hope you will not be deceived by current philosophies which will rob you of your godly dignity, self-respect, and initiative, those attributes that make a celestial inheritance possible. It is in that interest, and that only, that I have spoken so plainly to you.

Ezra Taft Benson, “A Vision and a Hope for the Youth of Zion,” 1977 Devotional Speeches of the Year, (Provo, UT: Brigham Young University Press, 1978), pp. 76-78, emphasis in original.

Why I Believe: Evidence Forty-eight: “Zingers” in the Book of Mormon, Part 5: "Wo to the Uncircumcised of Heart.”

101 Reasons Why I Believe Joseph Smith Was a Prophet

Evidence Forty-eight:

“Zingers” in the Book of Mormon, Part 5:

“Wo to the Uncircumcised of Heart”© 

In the last part of the very doctrinal chapter of 2 Nephi 9, Jacob, Nephi’s brother issues ten wos(1) to those who have the law of God but do not live it. The fifth one, found in verse 33, is:

Wo unto the uncircumcised of heart, for a knowledge of their iniquities shall smite them at the last day.

Recently my interest in the idea of the “uncircumcised heart” resurfaced, so I decided to do a bit more study. It was rewarded with some important insights which I document below.  

In ancient Israel circumcision was a “token” of the Abrahamic covenant with God. (Gen. 17:11) A man who was uncircumcised had either not yet entered into the covenant or was breaking it. (Gen.17:11, 14.) According to the LDS Bible Dictionary, it “symbolized some aspects of separation or dedication (1) to God, to whom Israel belonged; (2) from the world, the uncircumcised with whom Israel might not mix; (3) from sin (Deut. 10:16; 30:6; Jer. 4:45; 9:25-26; Ezek. 44:7).”(2)  Later in the 9th chapter of Helaman, Nephi speaking to his opponents said, “O ye fools, ye uncircumcised of heart, ye blind, and ye stiffnecked people, do ye know how long the Lord your God will suffer you that ye shall go on in this your way of sin?” (vs. 21, this and emphasis below added.) Here we find the uncircumcised heart associated with the blind eye and the stiff neck, all of which are characterized as sin.

The idea of being uncircumcised in heart is found in both the Old and New Testaments. The Lord told Moses:

41) And that I [God] also have walked contrary to them [the Israelites], and have brought them into the land of their enemies; if then their uncircumcised hearts be humbled, and they then accept of the punishment of their iniquity; 42)Then will I remember my covenant with Jacob ....  (Lev. 26:41-42.)

Here the concept appears to be born out of pride inasmuch as it is only when the people are humbled that they will be in a state worthy to have the Lord remember his covenant with them.

Jeremiah also accused the Israelites in his day of this condition: “Egypt, and Judah, and Edom, and the children of Ammon, and Moab, and all that are in the utmost corners, that dwell in the wilderness: for all these nations are uncircumcised, and all the house of Israel are uncircumcised in the heart.” (Jer. 9:26) Ezekiel spoke in similar terms regarding those who were not to be permitted in the Temple:

7.  In that ye have brought into my sanctuary strangers, uncircumcised in heart, and uncircumcised in flesh, to be in my sanctuary, to pollute it, even my house, when ye offer my bread, the fat and the blood, and they have broken my covenant because of all your abominations.
8.  And ye have not kept the charge of mine holy things: but ye have set keepers of my charge in my sanctuary for yourselves.
9.Thus saith the Lord GOD; No stranger, uncircumcised in heart, nor uncircumcised in flesh, shall enter into my sanctuary, of any stranger that is among the children of Israel. (Ezekiel 44:7-9)

It seems both important and relevant to ask why those with uncircumcised hearts would pollute the temple?

In Acts 7, Stephen accused the Jews in the Savior's day of being “stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost as your fathers did, so do ye.”  (vs. 51)   Stephen adds “ears” to the list of heart and eyes and neck. These two latter conditions constitute the third and fourth “wo” pronounced by Jacob in verses 31 and 32.  Blind eyes, deaf ears, stiff necks, and hard (uncircumcised) hearts are the tetralogy of characteristics which so often describe and define the proud and rebellious.

Paul wrote: “But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly, and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter, whose praise is not of men, but of God.”(Rom. 2:29) Circumcision was the outward symbol of the covenant, but the outward ordinance was supposed to symbolize an inward condition.  On the other hand, uncircumcision refers metaphorically to those whose eyes and ears are covered, whose neck is iron and heart is flint, that is whose soul and senses are closed to divine instruction and admonition. Without the inner conversion, transformation, and commitment, the outward ordinance is more then meaningless, it is a form of iniquity which will stand against us at the “last day.” (2 Ne. 9:33)

Above I spoke of the rewards of my effort to study the concept of the “uncircumcised heart.”  Not the least of those is that this little zinger in the Book of Mormon is totally consistent with similar teachings found in the Old and New Testament. More importantly, it, as do the Biblical references, places the emphasis in the right place.  One must not only be a hearer of the word, but a doer of it as well. One must not only appear to be a Christian, one must love Christ, his gospel, righteousness and holiness. As important as the ordinances are, they are intended to symbolize and facilitate internal spiritual changes and transformations. The sweet spirit and Christian morality of the Book of Mormon is in this instance completely consistent with the Bible.  In this light it is difficult to say with a straight and sober face that Mormonism is not Christian or that Joseph Smith sought to lead people away from Christ.  The evidence in this case suggests just the opposite.

Thank God for Joseph Smith!

Let’s think together again, soon.

Notes:

1.  Wos or woes, are often found in groups and sometimes in contrast to a list of “blesseds.”  They are not just indicators of difficulties and judgments to follow; they can be the signal of a curse.

2.  LDS Bible Dictionary, p. 646.

Why I Believe: Evidence Forty-seven: “Zingers” in the Book of Mormon, Part 4: Keeping the Commandments and Prospering in the Land

101 Reasons Why I Believe Joseph Smith Was a Prophet

Evidence Forty-seven:

“Zingers” in the Book of Mormon, Part 4:

“Keeping the Commandments and Prospering in the Land”© 
(Revised 23 February 2016)

The Book of Mormon rewards close and careful attention every time we read it, even when reading passages, ideas, concepts, and doctrines which we may feel quite comfortable with. One such expression which provides significant insight when examined carefully is the common phrase to “prosper in the land.” It appears about thirty-five times in the Book of Mormon.(1) The refrain is frequent enough, and often in nearly the same language, so that it becomes easy to assume that we understand its meaning. Recently in my personal reading I came across a brief assessment of this expression that suggested the importance of taking a closer look.(2)

To begin with, it is useful to ask ourselves how we and perhaps the church generally understand this idea. It first appeared in the Book of Mormon in a revelation to Nephi found in 1 Nephi 2:

19) And it came to pass that the Lord spake unto me, saying: Blessed art thou, Nephi, because of thy faith, for thou hast sought me diligently, with lowliness of heart. 20) And inasmuch as ye shall keep my commandments, ye shall prosper, and shall be led to a land of promise; yea, a land which is choice above all other lands. 21) And inasmuch as thy brethren shall rebel against thee, they shall be cut off from the presence of the Lord.  And inasmuch as thou shalt keep my commandments, thou shalt be made a ruler and a teacher over thy brethren.

The refrain which is more or less constant in the entire book is the following in 2 Nephi 4:4.

For the Lord God hath said that: Inasmuch as ye shall keep my commandments ye shall prosper in the land; and inasmuch as ye will not keep my commandments ye shall be cut off from my presence.

The common understanding of this expression is that “prosper in the land” implies material success. That is consistent with the most prominent and used definitions of the word prosper. Checking several dictionaries one encounters most frequently that the term means to “succeed in material terms, to be financially successful” and I believe many Church members understand this statement in those terms. LeGrand Baker in the analysis referred to above has looked more carefully at several of the passages in the Book of Mormon which contain this phrase and suggests that it may have a much deeper meaning. For example, in the 1 Nephi 2 passage above he noticed the fact that the promise of prosperity comes prior to arrival in the promised land(3), and in fact seems to be involved in being led to that land. Here is the language of verse 20 once again: “And inasmuch as ye shall keep my commandments, ye shall prosper, and shall be led to a land of promise; yea, a land which is choice above all other lands.” Another thing which interests Baker is found in Helaman 3:20:

Nevertheless Helaman did fill the judgment-seat with justice and equity; yea, he did observe to keep the statutes, and the judgments, and the commandments of God; and he did do that which was right in the sight of God continually; and he did walk after the ways of his father, insomuch that he did prosper in the land.

Here we have the phrase “prosper in the land” in the context of a description of the spiritual strengths of Helaman. This leads Baker to write:

Even a casual reader must admit that after such a list of spiritual superlatives, it would be rather anticlimactic to suggest, as their conclusion, that the king also made a lot of money that year. It says that, of course, if one wishes to read it that way.  But it also says something much more important and much more consistent with the spiritual crescendo to which the early part of the verse is building.(4)

Both of the above passages appear to be suggesting that prospering is associated with enjoying an abundance of spiritual blessings.

Another matter Baker alerted me to is how this idea--obedience to the commandments and the promise of prospering in the land–is contrasted with those who are disobedient and told they will be cut off from the presence of the Lord. The opposite of prosper in many passages is to be cut off from the presence of the Lord.(5) To me it seems incongruous to say the obedient will become materially successful but the disobedient will be cut off from the presence of the Lord. A more nearly correct parallel would be that the obedient will enjoy access to the presence of the Lord and the disobedient will not. In this respect then Baker concludes that in the Book of Mormon sometimes the statement “prosper in the land:” 

....means to come unto Christ–either the process of doing so, or to actually have already done so.  Mormon’s narrative and the prophets he quotes use that phrase both ways.  He tells one story about what happened when the ideas of the law of consecration began to take hold in the church under king Mosiah. The people became rich in worldly things. After that, as their adherence to the law of consecration matured, “the Lord did visit them and did prosper them” (Mosiah 27:3-7; see also Alma 9:13, 38:1, 50:20).(6)

Additional uses of the phrase are connected to yet other important spiritual blessings. For example, twice  the promise of prospering in the land is linked with the blessings of having Laban’s “plates of brass” with them. The first is in 1 Ne. 4:14-16:

14) And now, when I, Nephi, had heard these words, I remembered the words of the Lord which he spake unto me in the wilderness, saying that: Inasmuch as thy seed shall keep my commandments, they shall prosper in the land of promise. 15) Yea, and I also thought that they could not keep the commandments of the Lord according to the law of Moses, save they should have the law. 16) And I also knew that the law was engraven upon the plates of brass.

Here the sequence of ideas is that Nephi remembers he was told that if his family kept the commandments they would prosper in the land of promise, but in order to do that they needed to have a written record of the Lord’s commandments. Thus their need to take with them Laban’s plates. The linkage is more direct in Mosiah 1:7:

And now, my sons, I would that ye should remember to search them [the plates of brass] diligently, that ye may profit thereby; and 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.

Here two words normally understood as economic terms–profit and prosper–are applied in a spiritual context to the spiritual benefit of searching the scriptures diligently. So it appears that having the scriptures and studying them is not only a necessary prerequisite to prospering in the land, but one of the forms that prosperity takes as well.

Yet other passages connect prospering in the land with enjoying the protection of the Lord in the land of promise. This important aspect of prospering is found in at least three passages.  The first is in Mosiah 2:31. I will highlight the relevant ideas with various forms of emphasis to facilitate grasping the connections under consideration.

And now, my brethren, I would that ye should do as ye have hitherto done. As ye have kept my commandments, and also the commandments of my father, and have prospered, and have been kept from falling into the hands of your enemies, even so if ye shall keep the commandments of my son, or the commandments of God which shall be delivered unto you by him, ye shall prosper in the land, and your enemies shall have no power over you. 

The second is in Alma 48:15:

And this was their faith, that by so doing God would prosper them in the land, or in other words, if they were faithful in keeping the commandments of God that he would prosper them in the land; yea, warn them to flee, or to prepare for war, according to their danger. 

Our last example is found in Alma 50:20-22:

20) Blessed art thou and thy children; and they shall be blessed, inasmuch as they shall keep my commandments they shall prosper in the land. But remember, inasmuch as they will not keep my commandments they shall be cut off from the presence of the Lord. 21) And we see that these promises have been verified to the people of Nephi; for it has been their quarrelings and their contentions, yea, their murderings, and their plunderings, their idolatry, their whoredoms, and their abominations, which were among themselves, which brought upon them their wars and their destructions. 22) And those who were faithful in keeping the commandments of the Lord were delivered at all times, whilst thousands of their wicked brethren have been consigned to bondage, or to perish by the sword, or to dwindle in unbelief, and mingle with the Lamanites.

In these instances prospering involves receiving guidance from the Lord which resulted in their protection and/or deliverance from their enemies.  Peace is a corollary to these ideas as is found in Mosiah 10:5:

And I did cause that the women should spin, and toil, and work, and work all manner of fine linen, yea, and cloth of every kind, that we might clothe our nakedness; and thus we did prosper in the land–thus we did have continual peace in the land for the space of twenty and two years.

Prospering in the land always depends upon keeping the commandments of God and it appears from our analysis so far that the prospering meant enjoying the Spirit of the Lord and the spiritual blessings it brings to individuals and societies. I wondered if any of the brethren had commented on the meaning of this important phrase and I was pleased to discover when I did a Google search to find that in May of 2014 Elder Quentin L. Cook of the Quorum of the Twelve and his wife addressed the annual BYU Women’s Conference. The title of their address was “The Rewards of Righteousness,” and one of the main rewards they discussed was “prospering in the land.” The address was later reprinted in the July 2015 Ensign, under Elder Cook’s name alone.  In this talk Elder Cook addressed the meaning of the phrase “prosper in the land” twice. The fact that he repeated himself on the matter may suggest the importance he placed on this issue.  He said, 

Fourth is the reward of prospering in the land. The question here is: Our family is not achieving significant material success. Is that because we are not righteous enough? Let me assure you that prospering in the land is not defined by the size of your bank account. It has a much fuller meaning than that.The scriptures are clear that living the commandments allows us to prosper in the land. The prophet Alma, speaking to his son Helaman, teaches, “Inasmuch as ye shall keep the commandments of God ye shall prosper in the land; and ye ought to know also, that inasmuch as ye will not keep the commandments of God ye shall be cut off from his presence.”Accordingly, having the Spirit in our lives is the primary ingredient in prospering in the land.(7)

And again:

In a conversation I had with President Gordon B. Hinckley on a flight to a temple dedication, he joyfully reported that the Church had the funds to increase the number of temples because the Latter-day Saints had prospered in the land. As faithful tithe payers, they had provided the resources to build temples where sacred ordinances could be performed. Prospering and being wealthy are not necessarily synonymous. A much better gospel definition of prospering in the land is having sufficient for our needs while having the abundant blessing of the Spirit in our lives. When we provide for our families and love and serve the Savior, we will enjoy the reward of having the Spirit and prospering in the land.(8)

A point about material prosperity should be made however. It is inevitable when the Saints of God keep his commandments that material prosperity accompany spiritual prosperity. But there is a danger that lurks in temporal prosperity and especially in our day. Six months before the Stock Market crashed in October 1929, in the April General Conference of that year, Elder Melvin J. Ballard uttered a prediction which must have appeared just six months later very wide of the mark. He said:

I recognize, however, with my brethren, that the sorest trials that have ever come to the Church in any age of the world are the trials of peace and prosperity.  But we are to do a new thing, a thing that never has before been done–We are to take the Church of Christ not only through the age of persecution and mob violence, but through the age of peace and prosperity.  For we must learn to endure faithfully even in peace and prosperity. 

I am not praying for the return of persecution and poverty; I am praying for peace and prosperity; but above all things for strength and power to endure this test.  For it was not the design and the intention of the Lord to have this people always in suffering in bondage and distress.  They shall come to peace and prosperity, but it is the sorest trial that will come to them.”(9)

The Great Depression was devastating and followed on hard by World War II then Korea, Viet Nam, and other conflicts. Amid it all the United States has continued to grow and prosper and along with it the Saints have also enjoyed unprecedented wealth and prosperity. But the Book of Mormon warns us that such prosperity can lead to pride which can lead to a monumental fall. So when the Washington, D.C. Temple was dedicated in November 1974, just 45 years after Elder Ballard spoke, President Spencer W. Kimball made a remarkable statement in his prayer at the dedication ceremony. Elder Marvin J. Ashton of the Twelve, related what he said and draws his own lesson from it:

I am reminded of what President Spencer W. Kimball said at the dedication of the Washington Temple:

“Bless all people, our Father, that they may prosper, but not more than their faith can stand.... Our Father, in blessing Thy people with prosperity, we pray that they may not be surfeited with flocks and herds and acres and barns and wealth which could bring them to worship these false gods.” 

Taking freedom with President Kimball’s admonition, may I, for our purpose today, say, “Oh God, do not bless us with more stocks, bonds, properties, automobiles, or credit cards than our faith can stand or more than our parents can bear.” A worthy prayer, fellow students: “Dear God, in all the days ahead, please bless me with what I need and can stand, not with what I want.” 

... 

“Bless us, O God, that we may not have more success than we can stand.” I know some say, “I would sure like to have that challenge”; but, believe me, it is real and difficult. Knowing how to cope with what happens to us, good or bad, is a continuing challenge.”(10)

I will conclude as I began. Careful study of the Book of Mormon, especially some of those things which are most familiar to us and which we may be tempted to take for granted, is always rewarded with new and important insights, light, and truth. As we have seen in this case, the phrase “prosper in the land” might be considered one of those little zingers which when studied carefully shows the Book of Mormon to be more rich and complex and profound than may at first appear. In this case we see at least four important ideas consistently connected to the phrase, each appearing more than once and sometimes from the hands of different authors. This phenomenon is difficult to explain by saying that Joseph Smith was the book’s author. Because in addition to all the matters of historical chronology, story line, and plot development not to mention thousands of details relative to culture, politics, war, religion, and theology that he would have had to track carefully; yet in the midst of all this he subtly weaves this important concept into more than thirty various contexts many of which almost imperceptibly elaborate its meaning beyond what appears to be the obvious. More importantly, that meaning is largely spiritual. And I remind the reader that this is all in a text that was produced in a single draft, without significant editing, rewriting, or polishing. I find myself frequently asking, “How did he do that?”  Of course the answer is that he didn’t do that, except as the Lord’s instrument in translating this sacred ancient record.

Thank God for Joseph Smith!

Let’s think together again, soon.

Notes:

1.  The distribution of the phrase “prosper in the land” or variants in the Book of Mormon is interesting.  It is found five times in the writings of Nephi and two more in the remainder of the small plates.  The large plates have twenty-eight or nine instances; seven in Mosiah, eleven in Alma, two in Helaman, one in 4 Nephi, and at least two and perhaps as many as four in Ether.

2.  LeGrand L. Baker, The Book of Mormon as an Ancient Israelite Temple: Nineteen Classic Temple Characteristics of the Book of Mormon.  Salt Lake City: Eborn Books, 2012, pp. 112-119.  Although I do not fully endorse the thesis of this book I would say that one of Baker’s  main strengths is that he  generally shows himself to be an attentive and close reader of the Book of Mormon text and this yields some thought provoking ideas and insights.

3.  Ibid, p. 113.  Note that all extra emphasis in scriptural passages is added by me.

4.  Ibid., p. 119.

5. Ibid., p. 114.  Several passages make this same contrast: 2 Ne. 1:20; 4:4; Al. 9:13-14; 36:30; 38:1; 50:20.

6.  Baker, The Book of Mormon as an Ancient Israelite Temple..., p. 115, emphasis added.

7.  Quentin L. and Mary G. Cook, “The Rewards of Righteousness,” address 2 May 2014, BYU Women’s Conference, internet edition, p. 9, emphasis added.  It may be accessed at:

http://womensconference.ce.byu.edu/sites/womensconference.ce.byu.edu/files/quentin_l_and_mary_cook.pdf   See also Quentin L. Cook, "Reaping the Rewards of Righteousness," Ensign (July 2015):33-39, especially 38-39.

8.  Quentin L. and Mary G. Cook, “The Rewards of Righteousness,” p. 10, emphasis added.   See also Quentin L. Cook, "Reaping the Rewards of Righteousness," Ensign (July 2015):33-39, especially 38-39.

9.  Melvin J. Ballard, Conference Report, April 1929, p. 66, emphasis added.

10.  Marvin J. Ashton, “What Shall We Do Then?” BYU Speeches of the Year: BYU Centennial Devotional and Fireside Addresses 1975, (Provo: BYU Press, 1976), p. 23.

Why I Believe: Evidence Forty-six: “Zingers” in the Book of Mormon, Part 3: “Altars, Offerings, Sacrifices, and Thanksgiving.”

101 Reasons Why I Believe Joseph Smith Was A Prophet

Evidence Forty-six:

 “Zingers” in the Book of Mormon, Part 3: 

“Altars, Offerings, Sacrifices, and Thanksgiving”© 

Attacks on the Book of Mormon began before it actually came off of the press and have continued almost unabated since that time. One issue that arose early and continues to periodically surface is the matter of Lehi and Nephi, non-Levites, exercising the priesthood in temple related ways.  In 1832 Alexander Campbell a well-known leader of a “restoration” movement and founder of what became The Church of Christ wrote one of the earliest critiques of the Book of Mormon in a pamphlet entitled Delusions.(1) His first argument under the heading of “Internal Evidence” is that early in the story Lehi builds an altar whereupon he makes offerings, sacrifices, and gives thanks.  (See 1 Ne. 2:7; 5:9; and 7:22). Campbell asserts that Joseph erred when he made Lehi a descendant of Joseph rather than of Levi and goes to some length to show how in the Old Testament the priesthood was confined to the families of Levi and Aaron. The Book of Mormon he claims, errs when Lehi builds an altar and offers sacrifices and burnt offering to the Lord, and later to have Nephi build a temple in the new world. This is compounded later in the book when high priests are consecrated.  Campbell concludes:

Although God had promised in the law of Moses, that if any man not of the tribe and family of Levi and Aaron, should approach the office of priest, he would surely die; he is represented by Smith as blessing, approbating, and sustaining another family in this appropriated office. The God of Abraham or Joseph Smith must then be a liar!! And who will hesitate to pronounce him an impostor? This lie runs through his records for the first six hundred years of his story.(2)

Campbell’s argument is the first of two issues relating to the altar and ritual practices there in First Nephi. The second is the widely held belief that Deuteronomy 12 centralized Israelite worship at the temple in Jerusalem and sacrifices and other rituals associated with temple worship were not permitted outside of Jerusalem. So, what was Lehi doing with an altar in northwestern Arabia? Did Joseph Smith make two blunders that expose his authorship of the book?

Some interesting information which helps answer these two questions has been accumulating as Latter-day Saints try to understand and defend the Book of Mormon on these points. In a 2001 article entitled “Lehi’s Altar and Sacrifice in the Wilderness,” BYU professor David Rolph Seely has effectively summarized three possible answers to these questions.(3) The first is the possibility that “Deuteronomy 12 did not intend to eliminate all sacrifice away from the main sanctuary.” The provisions found in Deuteronomy 12 do not explicitly say sacrifice may not be made except at the Jerusalem sanctuary. It apparently took on this interpretation over time, but we know from both the Old Testament and archaeology that altars, sanctuaries, and temples existed in at least a dozen places during the Old Testament period.(4) Nevertheless, Seely reports, during the time of Lehi, King Josiah initiated reforms which did interpret Deuteronomy 12 as restricting sacrifice to the Jerusalem sanctuary. He and Hezekiah are credited with centralizing Israelite worship in Jerusalem..(5) So, this leads to the second possibility–that Lehi held the Melchizedek Priesthood was “not bound by the centralization of worship as prescribed by Deuteronomy 12.”(6)  

He quotes the Prophet Joseph Smith as saying, “All the prophets had the Melchizedek Priesthood and were ordained by God himself.”(7) Through a misreading of a Seely footnote at this point I encountered a happy accident. I thought the footnote was quoting Joseph Smith to the effect that Lehi held the Melchizedek Priesthood.(8) I was not familiar with such a statement from Joseph Smith though I have spent much of my adult life studying his teachings, so I was understandably interested in finding this quotation. I did a word search but could not come up with the quotation.  After several failures I reread the Seely footnote and realized my error. But the effort was not in vain because in my word search I came across a very nice statement from Oliver Cowdery. In early 1835 he was editor of the Church’s periodical The Latter-Day Saint Messenger and Advocate. In March of that year he responded to some of Alexander Campbell’s criticisms of the Book of Mormon found in Delusions. Happily for me, he took up the issue of Lehi’s priesthood.  Cowdery wrote:

Now, as it is, and very correctly too, Lehi and his sons were blessed with the high priesthood–the Melchesedek priesthood. They never made any pretence [sic] that they were descendants of Aaron, or ever received that priesthood which was conferred upon him by the hand of Moses, at the direction of the Lord. 

How did it happen that Moses had authority to consecrate Aaron a priest? Where did he get his authority to arrange the tabernacle, ark, &c.? Who laid hands upon him? Had he authority to "come near" when the Lord was entreated by sacrifice? He was Aaron's brother, to be sure, but Aaron was the high priest. 

Should Mr. C. [Alexander Campbell] finally learn, that Moses received the holy priesthood, after the order of Melchesedek, under the hand of Jethro, his father in-law, that clothed with this authority he set Israel in order, and by commandment ordained Aaron to a priesthood less than that, and that Lehi was a priest after this same order, perhaps he will not raise so flimsy an assertion, as he does when he says the validity of the book of Mormon is destroyed because Lehi offered sacrifice; and perhaps, also, he may not be quite so lavish with his familiar titles as he was when he called brother Smith "as impudent a knave as ever wrote a book!!"(9)

This fully agrees with the Prophet Joseph, and coming from the “second elder” of the Church and amanuensis for the Prophet in the translation of the bulk of the Book of Mormon, this is strong evidence that Joseph believed that Lehi and other Book of Mormon prophets held the Melchizedek Priesthood. Therefore, from a Latter-day Saint point of view, it was not inappropriate for Lehi to build an altar or Nephi to build a temple where their people could worship according to the law of Moses.  

Seely’s third defense of Lehi’s altar and rituals brings to light an interesting potential correlation with the First Nephi account in the Book of Mormon. He said, “Deuteronomy 12 may have been interpreted anciently as applying only to the land of Israel.”(10) He points out that the famous Temple Scroll which was recovered as part of the Dead Sea Scrolls possibly supplies another part of the puzzle.  Much of the Temple Scroll is devoted to interpreting the Torah related to the temple and twice it uses the expression “three days’ journey from the temple.” The second use is in context of the Deuteronomy 12 restrictions. He tells us that the standard interpretation of the passage in question is that the Scroll “prohibits all nonsacrifical slaughter within the boundaries of three days’ distance from Jerusalem.”(11) Given about an 18-mile daily travel in Israel, this would extend the restriction to the then extent of the land of Israel, reaching nearly to the southern tip of the Dead Sea.

But the standard interpretation about “nonsacrfical” killing has been questioned by Jewish scholar Aharon Shemish. He suggests the passage was an interpretation of Deut. 12:1-5. Shemish writes:

On this basis, we can then suggest that the author of the Temple Scroll embraced the opinion that the law of centralization of worship applied only in the land of Israel in line with Deuteronomy 12:1's opening declaration: ‘These are the laws and rules that you must carefully observe in the land.’”(12)

Seely continues, speculating that the Nephites may have held the same understanding of Deuteronomy 12 that “the injunction ... concerning altars, sacrifices, and temples” applied “only to the land of Israel....”(13) This then may explain why Nephi is particular to note that it was “when he [Lehi] had traveled three days in the wilderness ... that he built an altar....”(14)

Once again we find interesting details in the Book of Mormon which are often questioned and criticized but, when more throughly investigated actually become positive evidence for it’s authenticity.(15) Of course, these are evidences only and not proof. Evidence is the point of this series of essays and the author knows that though Joseph Smith is reported to have said to a colleague in the 19th Century “if you live into the next century you will see evidence for the Book of Mormon come forth in droves,”(16) it is not the Lord’s plan to provide so much evidence that our intellects and wills are overpowered by it to the  point that we cannot disbelieve. Faith and belief are always a choice, and there will always be those who interpret the evidence negatively. Nevertheless, the Prophet’s words are continuing to be fulfilled even into the 21st Century. Here is one more evidence why I believe.

Thank God for Joseph Smith.

Let’s think together again, soon.

Notes:

1.  Alexander Campbell.  Delusions.  An Analysis of the Book of Mormon: with an Examination of its Internal and External Evidences, and a Refutation of its Pretences [sic] to Divine Authority.  Boston: Benjamin H. Greene, 1832.  Reproductions available several places on the internet.

2.  Ibid., pp. 11-12.

3.  David Rolph Seely, “Lehi’s Altar and Sacrifice in the Wilderness.”  Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 10, no. 1 (2001): 63-69, 80.

4.  Seely, “Lehi’s Altar...,” p. 65, citing Manachem Haran, Temples and Temple Service in Ancient Israel (Ocford: C\larendon, 1978), pp. 459-64.

5.  Seely, “Lehi’s Altar...,” pp. 66-67, emphasis in original.

6.  Seeley, “Lehi’s Altar...,” p. 67.

7.  Joseph Smith, in Joseph Fielding Smith, comp., Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1967), p. 181.

8.  It is footnote 6 on page 80.  It reads: “As a prophet, Lehi held the Melchizedek Priesthood and by that authority offered sacrifice (Teachings, p. 181)....”  As written I thought it was a quotation from Joseph Smith.  But unable to find it I reread it more carefully and realized that the quotation continued after the ellipses for a dozen more lines and came from a commentary on the Book of Mormon by Joseph Fielding McConkie and Robert L. Millet!  It pays to read closely and carefully. However, I view the incident as one of the tender mercies of the Lord to bring to my attention the Cowdery quotation used in the article above. 

9.  Oliver Cowdery, “‘Delusion,’” Messenger and Advocate 1, no. 6 (March 1835): 91, spelling and grammar retained.

10.  Seeley, “Lehi’s Altar...,” p. 68.

11.  Ibid.

12.  Aharon Shemesh, “Three-Days’ Journey from the Temple’: The Use of this Expression in the Temple Scroll,” Dead Sea Discoveries 6/2 (1999): 126-38, cited in Seely, pp. 68-69, emphasis in the original.

13.  Ibid, p. 69.

14.  1 Ne. 2:6-7.

15.  Melvin Thorne has written, “Interestingly enough, many examples of arguments for the authenticity of the Book of Mormon based on such complexities are times that at first appeared to be evidences against the book, because they seemed so fantastic in Joseph’s day.”   “Complexity, Consistency, Ignorance, and Probabilities,” in Book of Mormon Authorship Revisited: The Evidence for Ancient Origins, edited by Noel B Reynolds.  Provo, UT: FARMS, 1997, p. 191, n. 16.

16.  Truman G. Madsen, opening statement of the 2005 video, “Journey of Faith."