'New life' as an early Christian/temple theme (and major mantic symbol), part 1

Stisa's last post reminded me of a few concepts I'd like to touch on as I continue to flesh out the "mantic versus sophic" battle of worldviews. The contest between the materialist/intellectual mindset and the 'heavenly order' mindset goes back to Cain and Abel. Abel "hearkened unto the voice of the Lord" whereas Cain "hearkened not," instead asking: "Who is the Lord that I should know him?" (See Moses 5:16-17.) 

On the surface, the differences between the brothers might have seemed trivial.  Able tended sheep. Cain tilled the ground. But there was a major difference beneath the surface.  Cain loved Satan more than God and obeyed Satan's commands.  God warned Cain against rejecting the "greater counsel which was had from God."  Cain, in response, grew angry. The following sequence of events results in Cain covenanting with Satan in exchange for worldly wealth and murdering his brother.

In this story, we see a pattern -- rejecting the word of God led Cain to "get gain" in this life but lose eternal life. (I mentioned the Hebrew connection between Cain and "get gain" in a previous post here.)  Abel, by contrast, lost his mortal life as a result of his faithfulness but found eternal life in the process. Abel honored the vision of a heavenly order by which all things must be done on earth.  Cain rejected this idea and sought to create for himself the things he desired on earth. Thus by valuing God's wisdom over his own life, Abel will never die, and by rejecting God's "greater counsel" in favor of worldly gain, Cain will never return to God's presence.

This is ancient wisdom told in the form of a simple story of two brothers, with the deeper wisdom tucked safely beneath the surface. This understanding of the need to find new life through Christ was also taught symbolically through ancient temple rituals. Stisa's post pointed out how the holy anointing oil is a temple symbol for light and life, and how Abinadi makes this same connection in Mosiah 16:8-9. He didn't choose those words randomly, either.  He is clearly preaching to these priests the things they have rejected by favoring the Law of Moses over the Doctrine of Christ.

Abinadi's experience is a nice analog to what must have been happening in Jerusalem following Josiah's temple "purge" around 621 AD. This was a battle of worldviews, and the original temple symbols which emphasized the Doctrine of Christ were suppressed.

Old becomes new

If the Doctrine of Christ was stripped from the temple a few decades before Lehi first saw his vision, many parts of the Book of Mormon suddenly make much more sense.  Nephi's obvious disdain for "the Jews" in Jerusalem (see 2 Nephi 25:2, for example) makes sense in this context -- they corrupted the holy temple.  Jacob's condemnation of the Jews for "looking beyond the mark" also makes sense (see Jacob 4:14).  Just prior to that verse, Jacob lays out in several verses what the ancient, original meaning of the Israelite religion is:

4 For, for this intent have we written these things, that they may know that we knew of Christ, and we had a hope of his glory many hundred years before his coming; and not only we ourselves had a hope of his glory, but also all the holy prophets which were before us.
5 Behold, they believed in Christ and worshiped the Father in his name, and also we worship the Father in his name. And for this intent we keep the law of Moses, it pointing our souls to him; and for this cause it is sanctified unto us for righteousness, even as it was accounted unto Abraham in the wilderness to be obedient unto the commands of God in offering up his son Isaac, which is a similitude of God and his Only Begotten Son.
6 Wherefore, we search the prophets, and we have many revelations and the spirit of prophecy; and having all these witnesses we obtain a hope, and our faith becometh unshaken, insomuch that we truly can command in the name of Jesus and the very trees obey us, or the mountains, or the waves of the sea.
7 Nevertheless, the Lord God showeth us our weakness that we may know that it is by his grace, and his great condescensions unto the children of men, that we have power to do these things.
8 Behold, great and marvelous are the works of the Lord. How unsearchable are the depths of the mysteries of him; and it is impossible that man should find out all his ways. And no man knoweth of his ways save it be revealed unto him; wherefore, brethren, despise not the revelations of God.
9 For behold, by the power of his word man came upon the face of the earth, which earth was created by the power of his word. Wherefore, if God being able to speak and the world was, and to speak and man was created, O then, why not able to command the earth, or the workmanship of his hands upon the face of it, according to his will and pleasure?
10 Wherefore, brethren, seek not to counsel the Lord, but to take counsel from his hand. For behold, ye yourselves know that he counseleth in wisdom, and in justice, and in great mercy, over all his works. (Jacob 4)

This is the mantic worldview in a nutshell. That is the religion of Adam, Abel, Seth, Enoch, Noah, Melchizedek, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, and Moses. The "Old Testament religion" we think about and read about is a corrupted version of this, not the other way around.

Margaret Barker writes about the importance of establishing what came first in the context of the early Christians. Her words apply just as aptly to thinking about the ancient Israelite religion:

There is a tendency to classify according to the categories of a later age. What became the canonical texts are the norm, and all others, together with the ideas they represent have a lower status. Instead of asking how such 'strange' texts came to be written, we should be asking how they came to be excluded. (The Great High Priest, p. 26)

If the religious reformation is successful enough in suppressing older doctrines, these will appear to be completely new when they are restored. For example, consider the following words of Jesus:

24 ¶ Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.
25 For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.
26 For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?
27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works. (Matthew 16)

It seems Jesus was reiterating suppressed truth with these words (rather than breaking new ground). He is teaching the same lesson we can learn from the story of Cain and Abel. 

"He is the light and the life of the world"

Frequent readers of the blog know that we think there is a strong case to be made for Lehi's and Nephi's faith being defined by what Margaret Barker would call temple theology. This is related to the first temple and an older sophic worldview, uncorrupted by the Deuteronomist reform and the second temple. The reform took away physical objects from the temple but also many of the associated teachings. There are many aspects of this that could be discussed. One is the holy anointing oil that I recently read about in this paper.

The temple of Nephi

Before I get into the holy anointing oil, I want to examine the temple in the land of Nephi. Details about what happened inside of Nephite temples are not given in the Book of Mormon. But we read in 2 Nephi 5 that Nephi built a temple and he built it "after the manner of the temple of Solomon" (2 Nephi 5:16). It would reflect temple worship and theology from the first temple period before the Deuteronomist reform.

I believe that this temple of Nephi is the same temple that is mentioned in Mosiah 11. I will not go into the long-winded explanation of why I think that is the case, and I may be wrong. There may have been several temples in the land of Nephi or Zeniff and his group may even have built one when they went back to the land of Nephi. But I think most likely that the part of the land that they were granted by the Lamanite King included the old temple of Nephi. 

If this is the case, Nephi's temple was in use from the time it was built in 2 Nephi 5 and until Mosiah and his group fled the land in the Book of Omni. Perhaps it was used after that too but at least by the time Zeniff and his group returned to the land, there seems to have been only Lamanites there. The temple of Nephi had remained unused for a while or perhaps used for other purposes.

Zeniff's brief account in Mosiah 9 and 10 does not mention the temple at all. But in Mosiah 11:5, we read

For he put down all the priests that had been consecrated by his father, and consecrated new ones in their stead, such as were lifted up in the pride of their hearts.

I have previously thought that the priests of king Noah were more like royal advisers or servants, but we know there was a temple in the land and at least in Old Testament times, "priest" would be associated with temple service. The temple is mentioned some verses later

And he also caused that his workmen should work all manner of fine work within the walls of the temple, of fine wood, and of copper, and of brass. (Mosiah 11:10)

So to continue my speculations, the temple of Nephi had been an integral part of Nephites religous life until Mosiah with his group had fled the land. It had been unused for a time but restored and perhaps rededicated under Zeniff upon their arrival. But his wicked son, Noah, corrupted it by consecrating new priests "lifted up in the pride of their hearts" and caring more for the "fine work within the walls" than the worship and ordinances within the walls.

The holy anointing oil

What does this heading have to do with the previous section? In the paper I linked, Margaret Barker explains:

In the seventh century BC, during the reign of King Josiah, there had been a revolution in Jerusalem, and many of the treasures of Solomon’s temple that had been kept in the holy of holies were hidden away. The ark disappeared, the manna disappeared, Aaron’s rod disappeared, and the holy anointing oil disappeared. All, they said, would all be restored in the time of the Messiah. Indeed, there could be no Messiah until the oil was restored, and no holy temple.

King Noah was not king Josiah and we don't know in what ways he could have corrupted the temple. But when his priests and himself claimed to follow the law of Moses and denied the coming of Christ (in fact, they executed Abinadi for teaching it), it bears striking resemblance to the Deuteronomist view and their corruption of the temple. In any case, I find it likely that the holy anointing oil, once used in the temple of Nephi after the manner of the temple of Solomon, among many other things, had been discarded or misunderstood. 

Barker explains what this oil originally meant. She uses many biblical and extra-biblical sources to demonstrate that the holy anointing oil was closely linked to both resurrection and light. I will refer to her paper rather than quote all her examples, but they show how the holy oil was used to anoint the person receiving a resurrected immortal body. This is exemplified by Enoch and happened in the holy of holies in the temple. The light symbolism is also prevalent in the temple. The seven-branched lamp (menorah) was to burn continually from evening to morning to ensure that there was always light in the temple. Barker explains

In the Zohar, the holy oil has two roles in the temple: it is the oil of the light, which means the heavenly source of light that never ceases, and the oil for the light, which burns in the seven branched lamp in the temple, the symbol of the tree of life. The tree of life was remembered as a tree of fire; Enoch described it as beautiful and perfumed, gold and red like fire.

I find it likely that these ancient teachings and symbols were found in the original temple of Nephi but had become corrupted with king Noah, if not before. When Abinadi is put on trial, he challenges king Noah and his priest to answer if salvation comes through the law of Moses. They answer yes. Abinadi goes on to explain about the coming of Christ that the whole law is pointing towards, something they have apparently missed. Then he says:

8 But there is a resurrection, therefore the grave hath no victory, and the sting of death is swallowed up in Christ.
9 He is the light and the life of the world; yea, a light that is endless, that can never be darkened; yea, and also a life which is endless, that there can be no more death. (Mosiah 16)

A light that is endless is symbolized by the menorah in the temple, something king Noah and his priest apparently not had understood or perhaps even removed from the temple completely. In general the light and the life (resurrection) fits the ancient holy anointing oil symbolism in the temple. Knowing that king Noah had a temple but rejected Christ that the symbolism was pointing to, I don't think it is a big stretch to assume that Abinadi was inserting temple symbolism in his sermon to get his point across. A few verses later he says:

Therefore, if ye teach the law of Moses, also teach that it is a shadow of those things which are to come (Mosiah 16:14)

Everything points to Christ, including the law of Moses, the temple and the holy anointing oil, even though king Noah and his temple priests had misunderstood. This was Abinadi's message, a message that he was willing to sacrifice his own life for. 

Parallel/inverted story arcs -- Sherem and Abinadi

My last few posts (here and here) have covered interesting ideas from a recent Interpreter paper authored by Val Larsen about cultural decline in the Book of Mormon from a prophetic worldview (the mantic) to an intellectual/materialist worldview (the sophic).  It's obvious that the Book of Mormon endorses the mantic perspective, yet over and over again we see the pattern of a mantic restoration followed by a decline to the sophic.

This post will discuss parallel themes in two well-known Book of Mormon stories: Sherem and Abinadi. Larsen lays out in specific detail how these two stories parallel each other.  Both stories take place in the context of a once-righteous people falling into wickedness involving sexual sin and material excess.

In the case of Sherem, he is the intellectual Deuteronomist challenging the prophetic tradition of the high priest (Jacob). He visits the Nephites, the spiritual survivors of the escape from wicked Jerusalem who heeded the prophetic words of Lehi (a mantic restorer). 

In the case of Abinadi, he is the prophet challenging the sophic tradition of the high priest (Amulon) of Noah, who is the king of a group of people who removed themselves from the leadership of Mosiah-1 (a different mantic restorer) and returned to the land of Nephi, which they had narrowly escaped with their lives.  They reversed course after following a prophet, and it led them back into captivity and later wickedness.

Here is a table from his paper outlining the main elements of each story:

In both cases, the interloper delivers his message and then dies, but the people eventually embrace that message.

Larsen believes it can be implied from the text of Jacob 7 that Sherem was specifically permitted by Nephi's successor to challenge Jacob. Jacob, after all, does not mention the king by name and specifically condemns the actions of the people under his reign. He also bases some of his contrast on the assumption that the descendants of Nephi gradually embraced the sophic worldview and rejected the Christ. I'm not sure I accept either of these conclusions uncritically, but they are interesting and both idea have some supporting evidence.  Regardless of how tenuous you might consider these two premises, the parallels between Sherem and Abinadi are undeniable. Here is another similarity -- Abinadi is specifically put to death for claiming that Christ will come down (the core tenet of the mantic worldview):

7 And he said unto him: Abinadi, we have found an accusation against thee, and thou art worthy of death.
8 For thou hast said that God himself should come down among the children of men; and now, for this cause thou shalt be put to death unless thou wilt recall all the words which thou hast spoken evil concerning me and my people. (Mosiah 17)

Sherem, on the other hand, is struck down by the power of God after demanding to see a sign (signs and wonders are another core tenet of the mantic worldview):

13 And it came to pass that he said unto me: Show me a sign by this power of the Holy Ghost, in the which ye know so much.
...
15 And it came to pass that when I, Jacob, had spoken these words, the power of the Lord came upon him, insomuch that he fell to the earth. And it came to pass that he was nourished for the space of many days. (Jacob 7) 

In other words, Abinadi suffered death for challenging the sophic ideas of the high priests of Noah and Sherem died for challenging the mantic principles of the high priest appointed by Nephi. 

The misguided interpretation of the law of Moses condemned Abinadi, and the power of God condemned Sherem. 

One more parallel to close this post:  Just before Sherem died, he "confessed the Christ, and the power of the Holy Ghost, and the ministering of angels" (Jacob 7:17). On the contrary, Abinadi died as a result of refusing to recall his testimony of Christ. (Mosiah 17:8-9).

More on the number 8

Even though we have addressed symbolism and ancient Hebrew frequently on this blog, we have not discussed the significance of numbers much. In ancient Hebrew, there is much meaning and symbolism connected to numbers beyond the numerical value. In fact, there are no separate numbers in Hebrew, but rather letters that also have a numerical value. Like A = 1, B = 2, etc. This is very common in ancient languages and I would guess most likely also the case among the Nephites. 

I was thinking of writing a post on the number 8, but Lord Wilmore beat me to it. (Yes, we read the same Val Larsen paper). I am still going to piggyback off of his post to add a few thoughts.

As he wrote, the number 8 represented new beginnings. On a grand scale, Israelites measured time in "worlds" or ages. There were seven days of creation. So the eighth day marked a new beginning, a new age with man in the paradisiacal garden. We know little about the time there. But from the fall we also count seven millennia, before a new heaven and a new earth. Seven is the completion of a full circle (seven itself being the number for completeness and perfection) and eight therefore the number representing a new age and a new beginning.

There are many examples of this symbolism in the scriptures. For instance:

• In Israel, boys were circumcised on the 8th day. This is connected to the covenant and a new creation. 
• In 1 Peter 3:20, Peter makes a point of there being 8 people saved in the flood, representing a new beginning for the earth
• In addition to the earth's baptism with Noah, 8 is obviously connected to baptism today as well because we are baptized at 8 years
• Jesus was resurrected on the "first day of the week", which is the day after the sabbath and can therefore be considered the eighth day

In addition to the eight generations before "new beginnings" in the aftermath of Nephite destruction, there are other uses of the number 8 fitting into this pattern. This post shows parallels between the Nephites and the Jaredites in fleeing Babel/Babylon before journeying to the promised land. Another parallel is the number 8 connected with the sea journey to a new beginning.

In 1 Nephi 17, Nephi is building a ship to sail to the promised land. Just before that, Nephi mentions that they spent eight years in the wilderness. In Hebrew, the number eight is "shemoneh" and comes from the root, "shamen", which means "to grow fat" and is therefore also linked to abundance. Notice what 1 Nephi 17:4-5 says:

4 And we did sojourn for the space of many years, yea, even eight years in the wilderness.
5 And we did come to the land which we called Bountiful, because of its much fruit and also wild honey; and all these things were prepared of the Lord that we might not perish. And we beheld the sea, which we called Irreantum, which, being interpreted, is many waters.

Bountiful certainly has that abundance and the eight years mark the new beginning. We find the number eight in the story of the Jaredites too, also connected to the sea journey (hat tip to Lord Wilmore for reminding me of that). It is mentioned in passing in Ether 3:1

And it came to pass that the brother of Jared, (now the number of the vessels which had been prepared was eight) went forth unto the mount

Things like these are always a bit speculative. Perhaps the authors simply wanted to write how many years they spent in the wilderness or how many ships they built without further meaning. But I find it likely that Nephites brought Hebrew culture with them and, just like the authors of the Old Testament, frequently used symbolism of various numbers to highlight particular points or teach deeper lessons. 

Generational decline in the Book of Mormon and the number 8

Following up on my last post, here is another interesting bit of information indicating a deeper pattern in the cycles of societal decline depicted in the Book of Mormon. Even societies founded upon the principles of revelation (the mantic worldview) decline into the intellectual, materialistic perspective which denies the Christ and even the need for the Christ (the sophic worldview). This is a major theme of the Book of Mormon. Often this theme is emphasized in quite subtle ways.

Consider the following chart from this paper by Val Larsen, depicting the generations of two sets of Nephite record-keepers:

In both cases, we see exactly 8 generations from founder to full decline/renewal (counting siblings as the same generation). Amaleki, the final keeper of the small plates, describes the narrow escape from destruction led by Mosiah-1, then later hands the plates to Benjamin. Nephi-3 witnesses the ripening of the Nephites for destruction and the arrival of Christ, and is selected as an apostle of Christ. In both series, the 8th generation experiences the new beginning, which is precisely what the number 8 signifies on Hebrew understanding: new life.

In both cases, we see evidence of a decline from the mantic worldview to the sophic worldview, then a restoration back to the mantic by means of divine intervention.  Benjamin is the son of Mosiah, who saved a portion of the Nephites from utter destruction.  Christ, of course, brought a new beginning to those who survived the destruction.

In the case of the small plates writers, we get a visual depiction of this return to Christ when we divide the number of references to Christ by the number of words generated by each writer (I generated this table from data provided in Table 2 of the Val Larsen paper linked above):

There are a few qualitative aspects of the small plates which demonstrate the underlying theme that the sophic worldview leads to death and the mantic worldview leads to eternal life.  This will be the topic of my next several posts.

"Touch not that which is unclean"

Often we read about a physical, concrete concept in the Old Testament that has an abstract or spiritual counterpart. This counterpart is typically more prevalent in other scripture. The Law of Moses is one example. It is easy to get hung up on the rituals and rules that are found in Numbers and Leviticus and miss the fact that it all points to the Savior. A couple of other examples are found here and here.

We see the same trend reading about the concept of uncleanliness. The Book of Leviticus is obsessed with it. In Leviticus 11-15, words related to (un)cleanliness and (im)purity show up almost once per verse on average. These are instructions to Moses and Aron, primarily to ensure that no one enters into the Tabernacle unclean.

Thus shall ye separate the children of Israel from their uncleanness; that they die not in their uncleanness, when they defile my tabernacle that is among them. (Leviticus 15:31)

The Priests of the tabernacle had a special duty to ensure that nothing unclean entered in and defiled it. There is much emphasis on separating the clean and holy from the unclean and unholy.

And that ye may put difference between holy and unholy, and between unclean and clean (Leviticus 10:10)

God's word to Ezekiel just before the destruction of Jerusalem contains accusations of the priests not fulfilling this duty 

Her priests have violated my law, and have profaned mine holy things: they have put no difference between the holy and profane, neither have they shewed difference between the unclean and the clean (Ezekiel 22:26)

When they do not manage to separate between the clean and unclean and when the people do not manage to rid themselves of the unclean, God needs to do the separation instead and it is much less pleasant than a ritual bath. 

18 Son of man, the house of Israel is to me become dross: all they are brass, and tin, and iron, and lead, in the midst of the furnace; they are even the dross of silver.

19 Therefore thus saith the Lord God; Because ye are all become dross, behold, therefore I will gather you into the midst of Jerusalem.

20 As they gather silver, and brass, and iron, and lead, and tin, into the midst of the furnace, to blow the fire upon it, to melt it; so will I gather you in mine anger and in my fury, and I will leave you there, and melt you. (Ezekiel 22)

Our equivalent of the Jewish ritual bath, mikveh, is baptism by water. This is followed by baptism by fire, receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost. The fire symbolism has been discussed on this blog before (see here and here). The idea is that fire can purge us by removing the dross in us. This is the second step after being cleansed with water. But if we have indulged in the unclean without washing, we are the dross, and then the purging looks very different.

Why all this emphasis on separating the clean and unclean? Avoiding to defile the tabernacle/temple could perhaps be reason enough. Israelites believed that it was the House of God in a very real sense. But perhaps there also was a spiritual counterpart to this concept that the Israelites missed? Isaiah hints on that and the Book of Mormon expands on it. Let's have a look at Isaiah first. "Unclean" is brought up twice in chapter 52

Awake, awake; put on thy strength, O Zion; put on thy beautiful garments, O Jerusalem, the holy city: for henceforth there shall no more come into thee the uncircumcised and the unclean. (Isaiah 52:1)

In this case, it is not only the temple where the unclean cannot enter, but the whole city of Jerusalem. This is describing a future state of Zion/Jerusalem, but still a place on earth (although perhaps in its millennial stage). Still speaking about this future time, Isaiah goes on to invite us to depart from Babylon in a second future exodus to Zion/the promised land.

Depart ye, depart ye, go ye out from thence, touch no unclean thing; go ye out of the midst of her; be ye clean, that bear the vessels of the Lord.

Jesus also talks about the latter-day gathering of Israel to the Nephites and quotes this verse in 3 Nephi 20:41. It also seems to be alluded to in at least two other Book of Mormon verses.

And now I say unto you, all you that are desirous to follow the voice of the good shepherd, come ye out from the wicked, and be ye separate, and touch not their unclean things; and behold, their names shall be blotted out, that the names of the wicked shall not be numbered among the names of the righteous, that the word of God may be fulfilled, which saith: The names of the wicked shall not be mingled with the names of my people (Alma 5:57)

Hinting at the admonition by Isaiah, Alma adds "be ye separate" and goes on to explain that God wants to separate the names of the wicked and the names of his people. This idea is also rooted in ancient Jewish culture. The Law of Moses contained prohibitions to mingle certain types of grain or fabric, for example. Certain things had to be separated and kept separate. See Leviticus 19:19 and Deuteronomy 22:9-11. I am not sure if I understand the reason or symbolism behind the prohibition to plow with an ox and ass together or plant two different kinds of seeds in a field, but Alma applies this idea of separation on a more spiritual level. 

Moroni 10:30 is another Book of Mormon verse alluding to Isaiah 52:11

And again I would exhort you that ye would come unto Christ, and lay hold upon every good gift, and touch not the evil gift, nor the unclean thing.

He connects it with coming unto Christ, which is the symbolic equivalent of temple entrance for ancient Israelites. 

But most Book of Mormon verses using the word "unclean", connect it with entering into the kingdom of God. The separation between the wicked and the righteous on that last day is the spiritual counterpart of all the separation issues and cleanliness before entering into the temple that we find in the Old Testament. Notice the temple reference in Alma 7:21, linking to us and our entrance into the kingdom of God 

And he doth not dwell in unholy temples; neither can filthiness or anything which is unclean be received into the kingdom of God; therefore I say unto you the time shall come, yea, and it shall be at the last day, that he who is filthy shall remain in his filthiness.

As a final example, Nephi lays it out very plainly: 

if their works have been filthiness they must needs be filthy; and if they be filthy it must needs be that they cannot dwell in the kingdom of God; if so, the kingdom of God must be filthy also. But behold, I say unto you, the kingdom of God is not filthy, and there cannot any unclean thing enter into the kingdom of God; wherefore there must needs be a place of filthiness prepared for that which is filthy. (1 Nephi 15:33-34)

400 year cycle(s) of decline in the Book of Mormon

This short post will set up a concept I am currently studying as part of the "mantic versus sophic worldview" concept I have posted about recently.

Restoration happens through mantic revelation. The prophetic tradition is the essence of the mantic worldview. In other words, a prophet is called by means of heavenly messengers. This involves visions, prophecy, and powerful spiritual experiences. 

By contrast, apostasy typically happens as a people drifts away from the mantic worldview and gradually embrace the sophic (intellectual) worldview. They de-emphasize Christ and His atonement and adopt a more materialist perspective, with a focus on wealth and status.

This is a central theme in the Book of Mormon, presented in various ways. One of these ways involves the concept of a 400 year cycle of decline, which is presented twice in the Nephite history. Recall that Mosiah-1 saved the Nephites from destruction (or at least those who would listen to him and follow him). They escaped the land of their first inheritance (Nephi-Lehi) and made their way to Zarahemla, where Mosiah became king. The second cycle ends with the complete destruction of the Nephites. The parallels between these two cycles are numerous and often subtle, but very interesting. There's a lot of material to cover on this subject, but I want to present one single common detail between the first Nephite cycle and the second.  

320 years after Lehi left Jerusalem, one of his descendants wrote the following on the small plates: 

And now I, Amaron, write the things whatsoever I write, which are few, in the book of my father. Behold, it came to pass that three hundred and twenty years had passed away, and the more wicked part of the Nephites were destroyed. (Omni 1:4-5)

Compare with these verses written about a much later time, when the people had grown very wicked:

48 And it came to pass that when three hundred and twenty years had passed away, Ammaron, being constrained by the Holy Ghost, did hide up the records which were sacred—yea, even all the sacred records which had been handed down from generation to generation, which were sacred—even until the three hundred and twentieth year from the coming of Christ. (4 Nephi 1)

What are we to make of this similarity between name of record-keeper, timing, and condition of the covenant people? Did Joseph Smith simply recycle plot points as he finished the dictation, as some critics might assume?  Or is this a clue intended to point our mind to finding common themes and apply them to our own lives?

In a future post, I'll outline some additional details that cause me to believe the latter.  Each of us is susceptible to allowing our own heavenly worldview to become corrupt and fixated on material wealth, forgetting God and the true purposes of His creation and His covenant. The Book of Mormon offers a powerful formula to help us step out of this cycle of chaos and embrace the way of life.

The strength of the Lord

Sometimes different verses of scripture can supplement each other wonderfully and there is really not much need to comment. I think this is the case with the three passages in the Book of Mormon that I will share here

And it came to pass that we did go up in the strength of the Lord to battle. Now, the Lamanites knew nothing concerning the Lord, nor the strength of the Lord, therefore they depended upon their own strength. (Mosiah 10:10-11)

But Ammon said unto him: I do not boast in my own strength, nor in my own wisdom; but behold, my joy is full, yea, my heart is brim with joy, and I will rejoice in my God. Yea, I know that I am nothing; as to my strength I am weak; therefore I will not boast of myself, but I will boast of my God, for in his strength I can do all things (Alma 26:11-12)

And because of [...] their boastings in their own strength, they were left in their own strength (Helaman 4:13)

I will just leave it at that and keep the post short and sweet. 

 

 

"The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God ... neither can he know them"

12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. (1 Corinthians 2)

My recent posts have discussed the mantic and sophic worldviews and how they are at odds with each other inside each and every human mind. Here is a quick summary to review:

The fundamental ambivalence of western civilization consists of a permanent conflict of spiritualities derived from the human condition itself. The assumptions underlying this conflict have created the mantic world view of vertical supernaturalism, a dualistic metaphysic that includes not only the natural order but also another world order which transcends it, and the sophic world view of horizontal naturalism, a monistic metaphysic that confines all realities to the natural order. (source)

The Book of Mormon offers a strong endorsement of the mantic worldview. In this post, I'd like to focus on the scripture passage above and attempt to break down what it means to "receive the spirit which is of God."

Curtis Wright, in this paper, puts it this way:

The saints of God are the holy ones (hoi hagioi), people who are sanctified by a revealed spirituality because they live by the supernatural gift of faith, whereas the natural man, who lives solely by reason and the senses, is any person whose spirituality is naturalistic.

The phrase "sanctified by a revealed spirituality" really resonates with me. This is the new birth we read about in various contexts in the scriptures.  For example, when Alma-2 experiences his miraculous conversion, he tells the people what the Lord spoke to him:

25 And the Lord said unto me: Marvel not that all mankind, yea, men and women, all nations, kindreds, tongues and people, must be born again; yea, born of God, changed from their carnal and fallen state, to a state of righteousness, being redeemed of God, becoming his sons and daughters;
26 And thus they become new creatures; and unless they do this, they can in nowise inherit the kingdom of God.
27 I say unto you, unless this be the case, they must be cast off; and this I know, because I was like to be cast off. (Mosiah 27)

Saints are those who are sanctified by receiving Christ's atoning sacrifice through covenant. Here is how British New Testament scholar James D. G. Dunn describes the "hoi hagioi":

One of [Paul's] favourite ways of referring to the members of his churches was as "saints" (hagioi), those who had been set apart and dedicated to the service of God. Here we may note that while the noun hagiasmos ("sanctification") was used for the process of salvation, the verb in Paul usually denotes the beginning action, whereby individuals were set apart to discipleship. On one occasion he uses the related image of anointing (2 Corinthians 1:21). We have already noted how important the metaphor of sacrifice is for Paul's understanding of the death of Jesus (2 Corinthians 9:2-3).  Paul also uses the imagery of priestly service for his own ministry, as indeed for all Christian commitment and other acts of service in the gospel. All the justified have "access" to the inner sanctum of the cult (Romans 5:2). Their bodies are themselves temples enshrining God's presence. (The Theology of Paul, 1998, p. 330).

Multiple layers of temple symbolism are intertwined in the concept of becoming a saint: "set apart" by anointing, sacrifice, and priestly service, all of which leads to "access" to the inner sanctum. The "new creature" is a temple of God.

As Paul teaches, it is this sanctification process which allows us to become the sons and daughters of God. This isn't something we earn through our own actions, rather, it is a process of recognizing what has already been done for us by Jesus Christ and seeing our mortal journey through spiritual eyes. Mortality is not a time to pursue idle pleasures. Rather, it is "a time to prepare to meet God" (Alma 12:24) by following His plan for mortality, the everlasting covenant.

We receive the gift by recognizing Christ's atonement

The key principle at work here is that our worldview makes all the difference.  When viewed through the sophic lens, which holds that the material world is all there is, it really makes no sense for Christ to suffer for our sins. It is "not reasonable that such a being as a Christ [should] come" (Helaman 16:18). The rational materialist mindset caused apostate Nephites to believe the doctrine of Christ was:

20 ...a wicked tradition, which has been handed down unto us by our fathers, to cause us that we should believe in some great and marvelous thing which should come to pass, but not among us, but in a land which is far distant, a land which we know not; therefore they can keep us in ignorance, for we cannot witness with our own eyes that they are true.

21 And they will, by the cunning and the mysterious arts of the evil one, work some great mystery which we cannot understand, which will keep us down to be servants to their words, and also servants unto them, for we depend upon them to teach us the word; and thus will they keep us in ignorance if we will yield ourselves unto them, all the days of our lives. (Helaman 16)

Natural eyes can never witness the reality of Christ, nor the purposes of His mortal ministry, suffering, death, and resurrection.

Conclusion

Let's finish this post with the same passage we began with (1 Corinthians 2:12-14), only this time I'll use Curtis Wright's alternative translation which explains more context in Paul's writing:

We are not animated by the natural spirit of the cosmos, but by the spirit that comes from God, so that we may distinguish God's free gifts to us [from the provisions of nature]. We speak openly of God's gifts, but not in words that generate instruction from humanly originated wisdom: we use instead the words that communicate information derived from the Holy Spirit; and we also utilize the Holy Spirit as a criterion for determining what is and is not revealed. But the man whose spirituality is naturalistic rejects as absurd everything derived from the Spirit of God: he is incapable of experiencing such things himself, and has no means of evaluating them in others in the absence of revelation.

 

"Sanctified unto us for righteousness"

Given the fact that Lehi's group left Jerusalem around 600 BC, you would think that their religious writings would read much like the Old Testament. That is only partly the case. Critics have argued that it reads too much like the New Testament. There are numerous examples on this blog showing how the Book of Mormon fits an ancient Israelite worldview. Still, it is true that the Book of Mormon "talk[s] of Christ, [...] rejoice[s] in Christ, [...] preach[es] of Christ [and] prophes[ies] of Christ" (2 Nephi 25:26), something that we don't see much of in the Old Testament in such a straight-forward manner.

There are theories postulated that our current Old Testament has been highly influenced by King Josiah and the so-called Deuteronomic reforms. Before these reforms, the ancient Israelites had a richer temple worship including a Heavenly Mother and the Son of God, among other things. King Josiah was primarily concerned with the Law (of Moses). Margaret Barker and other scholars argue that the former theology was not completely forgotten and is one of the reasons why Christianity could be accepted and spread like it did. This Deuteronomist thinking and theology is still prevalent today among orthodox Jews. They interpret the tree of life as the Torah (the Law). 

Interestingly, the Nephites actually explain why the Book of Mormon reads like an Old/New Testament hybrid themselves. Their explanation fits very well into the paradigm briefly laid out in the previous section and explained in more detail in the link I gave.

24 And, notwithstanding we believe in Christ, we keep the law (Torah) of Moses, and look forward with steadfastness unto Christ, until the law (Torah) shall be fulfilled.
25 For, for this end was the law given; wherefore the law (Torah) hath become dead unto us, and we are made alive in Christ because of our faith; yet we keep the law (Torah) because of the commandments. (2 Nephi 25)

For Deuteronomists as well as believing Jews today, the Torah seems to be considered an end goal in itself. Lehi and Nephi's views came from an older tradition, where the Torah was just the means to an end. The end was the Son of God, the Messiah, Christ who should redeem them and who the law was pointing to. They brought this tradition with them to the promised land and taught their children about it. There is a similar sentiment in Jacob 4

4 For, for this intent have we written these things, that they may know that we knew of Christ, and we had a hope of his glory many hundred years before his coming; and not only we ourselves had a hope of his glory, but also all the holy prophets which were before us.
5 Behold, they believed in Christ and worshiped the Father in his name, and also we worship the Father in his name. And for this intent we keep the law of Moses, it pointing our souls to him; and for this cause it is sanctified unto us for righteousness, even as it was accounted unto Abraham in the wilderness to be obedient unto the commands of God in offering up his son Isaac, which is a similitude of God and his Only Begotten Son.

Jacob talks about the holy prophets that lived before and their hope in Christ. This is an ancient tradition and goes all the way back to Adam as we read in the Pearl of Great Price, even though it was corrupted and lost several times throughout history. Jacob clearly also views the law of Moses as a means to a higher end. That does not mean he does not keep it. It was important for the Nephites to keep the law but the reason for doing so was completely different from the Deuteronomists. When the Nephites kept the law of Moses with the intent to have their souls pointed to Christ, the law was sanctified unto them for righteousness.

I find that phrase intriguing. The law in itself is dead according to Nephi, but it is sanctified for them when they use it as a vehicle to come unto Christ. We do not live the law of Moses anymore. It was replaced by a higher law. Does that mean we got better commandments now? Commandments that can actually bring salvation unlike the "dead" law of Moses? No. If we let any commandment be an end in and of itself, we make the same mistake as the Jews. 

8 For behold, the covenant which I have made with my people is not all fulfilled; but the law which was given unto Moses hath an end in me.

9 Behold, I am the law, and the light. Look unto me, and endure to the end, and ye shall live; for unto him that endureth to the end will I give eternal life.

10 Behold, I have given unto you the commandments; therefore keep my commandments. And this is the law and the prophets, for they truly testified of me. (3 Nephi 15)

These are the words of the Savior. My conclusion from these verses is that even though we don't follow those weird rules in Leviticus and Numbers, nothing else has changed much. We are still asked to keep the commandments in verse 10, but the reason for that is clear: They testify of Him. They bring us to Him. He is the law. If we let the commandments point our souls to the Savior, they are "sanctified unto us for righteousness". It is not only the law of Moses that point our souls to Him. 

Behold, my soul delighteth in proving unto my people the truth of the coming of Christ; for, for this end hath the law of Moses been given; and all things which have been given of God from the beginning of the world, unto man, are the typifying of him. (2 Nephi 11:4)

All things given by God point to him. Anything that we treat as an end goal instead of a gateway to Christ becomes "dead". As Nephi stated, we are made alive in Christ.

This is expressing New Testament views in Old Testament times. Testament means covenant and Christ is the mediator of the new covenant (Hebrews 9:15). Lehi and Nephi coming from an Israelite culture in 600 BC Jerusalem, having a pre-Deuteronomist belief that they passed on to their children in the Americas, explains perfectly well why the Book of Mormon is written the way it is.