   |
|
|
1 And now, Jacob, I speak unto you: Thou art my first-born in the days of my tribulation in the wilderness. And behold, in thy childhood thou hast suffered afflictions and much sorrow, because of the rudeness of thy brethren.
The discourse is directed to Jacob, but it is a convenience. It is a way Lehi can continue to teach his wayward sons important spiritual information without spending too much obvious time lecturing them, a tactic that while it might have been the real desire of father Lehi's heart, would have been too difficult for Laman and Lemuel to bear. They would have ceased listening (perhaps) had the lesson been directed to them, but might (just possibly) hear what was said to their brother, and learn from that. Lehi clearly indicates Jacob's place in the family. He is the first born in the wilderness, and was a child through the long years of the deprivations of the wilderness. As one born to that life, Jacob did not know the Jerusalem nor the wealth which Laman and Lemuel could not forget. Though there are no details, Jacob must have been more of a follower and believer in his father, as Lehi indicates that he suffered under the hand of his brothers. This would have been more likely to occur if Jacob had sided with Lehi and Nephi.
2 Nevertheless, Jacob, my first-born in the wilderness, thou knowest the greatness of God; and he shall consecrate thine afflictions for thy gain.
Many years later this same prophetic encouragement and promise was also given to the prophet Joseph Smith from the Lord: "My son, peace be unto thy soul; thine adversity and thine afflictions shall be but a small moment; and then if thou endure it well, God shall exalt thee on high; thou shalt triumph over all thy foes. . . (TEACHINGS OF THE PROPHET JOSEPH SMITH : Page 134 ). Literary Analysis: Lehi uses the afflictions of Jacob as the launching pad for his sermon, which will develop this seeming conflict between the afflictions and the results of the afflictions. Lehi doubtless wanted to preach this sermon to his sons. He chooses Jacob as the focus of the sermon precisely so that he could turn the idea of the afflictions into an explanation of how these things work in this world. Jacob's goodness also served as the clear example that Lehi was correct, and that the afflictions did not need to tear one down. Remember that this is a lecture to all, even though directed at Jacob. It is not, however, directed solely at Lehi's immediate family, but to us as well, for we are also in need of understanding both why afflictions come, and the ways in which they may be turned for our benefit.
3 Wherefore, thy soul shall be blessed, and thou shalt dwell safely with thy brother, Nephi; and thy days shall be spent in the service of thy God. Wherefore, I know that thou art redeemed, because of the righteousness of thy Redeemer; for thou hast beheld that in the fulness of time he cometh to bring salvation unto men.
The next section of this sermon is subtle, because it both defines Jacob's character, and lays another cornerstone for the discussion to come. Lehi shifts the focus slightly by moving from Jacob's character specifically to the Savior and his mission. While this flows naturally from Jacob's character, and fits precisely with Lehi's blessing of Jacob, it nevertheless also moves from the specifics of Jacob's blessing to the sermon that Lehi wants to preach.
4 And thou hast beheld in thy youth his glory; wherefore, thou art blessed even as they unto whom he shall minister in the flesh; for the Spirit is the same, yesterday, today, and forever. And the way is prepared from the fall of man, and salvation is free.
The point of Lehi's phrasing, however, is not to dwell on Jacob, but rather on the Savior and his mission, so he moves without further emphasis on Jacob's experience to the real message - Christ. His next phrasing is interesting from a literary perspective as it forms the basis of the shift in topic: "for the Spirit is the same, yesterday, today, and forever. And the way is prepared from the fall of man, and salvation is free." The object of stating that the Spirit is the same yesterday, today, and forever is most directly related to Lehi's comment about Jacob's blessing being the same as those who will in the future speak with the Savior incarnate. While that is the issue, the eternal nature of the spirit also allows Lehi to shift a focus from forward in time to backward in time. The next phrase returns to "the beginning" and couches the rest of his discourse in the events established before and after the fall of man. His preliminary indication of his topic is that there is a "way. . . prepared from the fall of man" and that this prepared way is free to all men.
5 And men are instructed sufficiently that they know good from evil. And the law is given unto men. And by the law no flesh is justified; or, by the law men are cut off. Yea, by the temporal law they were cut off; and also, by the spiritual law they perish from that which is good, and become miserable forever. 2 Nephi 2:6 6 Wherefore, redemption cometh in and through the Holy Messiah; for he is full of grace and truth.
Lehi on the Light of ChristWhile Lehi's discourse on the mission of the Savior is well argued. The introductory verse "and men are instructed sufficiently that they know good from evil" is sufficiently compact that one can only suspect that this sermon is highlighting teachings that Lehi has presented in the past. This issue of the instruction of mankind in the difference between good and evil, and the absolute assurance that such instruction is sufficient that they might know is a critical piece of information, and deserves much more attention that Lehi gives it here. The brevity of this introduction to such an important facet of the plan can only suggest that it is a reminder of a teaching that is preliminary to the main point of his discourse. Lehi will build a complex argument for the need or a redemptive Savior based on his law of oppositions. A requisite for this entire theological system, however, is this principle that man is "sufficiently instructed that they know good from evil." It would be grossly unfair of God to place us in a position where we were required to choose between good and evil, and not be given the capability to distinguish. For example, suppose a completely color blind man were required upon penalty of death to choose between red and brown. If both "colors" appeared to him to be differing intensities of gray, how would he make a distinction? It is critical, therefore, that we are guaranteed that we are capable of making this selection. Lehi states it simply. Moroni provides that same information in a larger context:
Moroni's explanation is tied to an admonition that we are to judge - at least in the context of judging good and evil. Relevant to Lehi's assertion that were are taught sufficiently to know the difference, Moroni explains that the difference is so great as to be like the difference between night and day (Moroni 7:15). Thus we are to understand that it should be an obvious distinction to us. Moroni further explains in verse 16 how that guarantee is made. The Spirit of Christ, also known as the Light of Christ, "is given to every man, that he may know good from evil...". Thus our capability to distinguish good and evil is directly related to the Light/Spirit of Christ, a gift given to all men. The Spirit of Christ is given to all men specifically because we must have an eternal measuring device whereby we are assured of being capable of understanding the difference between good and evil. Of course men on earth may decline to listen to promptings of the Light of Christ, but that does not mean that it is removed - only ignored. Much later, John would underscore the same concept:
In John we are given to understand that Christ is the light that "lighteth every man that cometh into the world" but we must correlate John's statement with that of Moroni to understand the function of this Light of Christ. Lehi on the Effect of LawLehi's presentation of the effect of the law appears to be very pessimistic:
Contrary to typical Old Testament usage, Lehi's discussion of Law does not appear to be related to the Decalogue, but rather to a conception of eternal law, a portion of which is embodied in the Law of Moses. Lehi's concern is to explain the relationship of man to that law. Remember that he is building on the basis of our guaranteed ability to choose between good and evil. In the development of Lehi's argument, we are first guaranteed the capacity to distinguish between good and evil, and then we are commanded to choose good. This is the law - the law of the gospel that intends to exalt us. Ironically, the immediate effect of the law is to condemn us, because we as mortals are incapable of living it in its entirety. Our failure before even a portion of the law condemns us. Thus "by the law no flesh is justified." The law cannot exalt us, because it is our violation of a portion of that law that places us in a position contrary to justification. Lehi explains clearly that this is his intent, for his next clause is introduced as a definition of the first: "by the law no flesh is justified; or, by the law men are cut off". The law serves to cut us off from God, not to bring us closer (again uniquely related to the fact that we will violate the law - he hasn't resolved the conflict yet). Lehi's next sentence further defines our predicament:
Lehi's use of the pronoun "they" makes this a personal statement. While he does not clearly define who "they" are at this point, it is evident that he speaks of Adam and Eve (to whom he will return later in the discourse). Placed in the context of the Garden of Eden and the law, Lehi's division into two types of separation is understandable. The "temporal law" is the physical sense in which the Fall affected their daily lives. The "spiritual law" also cuts them off, but in a much more powerful sense. The temporal Fall brought difficulties in earning their daily bread, but the spiritual Fall brought a separation from all that was good (definitionally God and his presence). Therefore the result of the spiritual Fall was being miserable forever. Modern man wants to continually exclaim "if..., but...." We want to explain that it needn't be so. Lehi also understood that important distinction, but to most dramatically set his theme, he must first describe the conditions of the world had their been no redemptive Savior. Lehi's RedeemerVerse 6 begins the turn of the stream of the discourse from the effects of a world full of agency to a world saved by Christ:
Notice that verse 6 begins with the word "wherefore", which specifically links the two verses in a complementary relationship. It is precisely because of the doom of a world without a savior that one is provided. "Wherefore, redemption cometh." Lehi explains that the need for a Savior was great - wherefore it is come, and is come in the person of the Holy Messiah, one prepared for that role, one "full of grace and truth."
7 Behold, he offereth himself a sacrifice for sin, to answer the ends of the law, unto all those who have a broken heart and a contrite spirit; and unto none else can the ends of the law be answered.
8 Wherefore, how great the importance to make these things known unto the inhabitants of the earth, that they may know that there is no flesh that can dwell in the presence of God, save it be through the merits, and mercy, and grace of the Holy Messiah, who layeth down his life according to the flesh, and taketh it again by the power of the Spirit, that he may bring to pass the resurrection of the dead, being the first that should rise.
Once again the compact nature of these verses implies that Lehi is reiterating information that they should already know, for he does not go into detailed explanations. He is rather using this information to establish the direction of his general discourse.
9 Wherefore, he is the firstfruits unto God, inasmuch as he shall make intercession for all the children of men; and they that believe in him shall be saved.
Lehi uses the word "intercession" which might be confused with the concept of saintly intercession in Catholic theology. There is a difference in concept, even though the same word is used. Christ intercedes for us because he is the one who has established the gate through which we may be reconciled with God. There is no other way for this to be done, and therefore our redemption is the result of his intercession. Our redemption is not the result of Christ's pleas for us. His actions were plea sufficient, and the rest of the journey is ours to make. Note that Lehi underscores our responsibility in this process when he indicates that salvation is only for "they that believe in him."
10 And because of the intercession for all, all men come unto God; wherefore, they stand in the presence of him, to be judged of him according to the truth and holiness which is in him. Wherefore, the ends of the law which the Holy One hath given, unto the inflicting of the punishment which is affixed, which punishment that is affixed is in opposition to that of the happiness which is affixed, to answer the ends of the atonement--
Lehi now very briefly touches on the effect of the atonement on the concept of justice. As with other topics, this one is abbreviated and compacted in this sermon. The sole information here is that the ultimate judgement by law may now be resolved. In Lehi's quick exposition, once Christ leads us back to the judgement bar, justice may now be fairly administered, and therefore the "ends of the law" are answered. His point is that judgement by law while on the earth would not have been possible, for the law served only to condemn us (verse 5) without Christ's redeeming sacrifice. Lehi's next phrase develops the wonderful artistry of this sermon. While synopsizing some of the most important and complex doctrines, Lehi neatly and quickly shifts focus once again. The transition is perfectly clean and logical, but sets up another very important lesson that he is trying to teach. Having brought us to the judgement bar, Lehi is able to discuss the concept of reward/punishment which is presumed to be part of a judgement. As he introduces this concept, however, he is less interested in rewards or punishments than he is in the conceptual distance between the two concepts. These are concepts in contrast. These are opposites. The judgement becomes a transition from the Atonement to Lehi's doctrine of opposition.
11 For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. If not so, my first-born in the wilderness, righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad. Wherefore, all things must needs be a compound in one; wherefore, if it should be one body it must needs remain as dead, having no life neither death, nor corruption nor incorruption, happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility. 2 Nephi 2:12 12 Wherefore, it must needs have been created for a thing of naught; wherefore there would have been no purpose in the end of its creation. Wherefore, this thing must needs destroy the wisdom of God and his eternal purposes, and also the power, and the mercy, and the justice of God.
Verse 11 is on of the well known verses in the Book of Mormon, but most well known in the version shortened to the first sentence. We are well aware that Lehi taught that there is an opposition in all things, but the rest of the verse is much denser language, and harder to understand. To begin the process of understanding the verse, let's examine the way it is composed. There are four sections to verse 11, two statements, and two proof sets. The first statement is that there is an opposition in all things. Following that statement is the first proof set, a series of phrases intended to demonstrate the reality of the first statement. The second statement is that without opposition all things would be compound in one, followed by the set of proof phrases intended to demonstrate the validity of that statement. Implicit in the verse is another structural "opposition." Very clearly the first statement and the second statement are also to be seen as opposites, or in this case mutually exclusive propositions. If we have the first we do not have the second, and if we don't have the first, then we do have the second. Because the concept of opposition might be the more challenging (for all that it appears to be so clear), let's begin with the second. What does Lehi mean that everything "must needs be a compound in oNephi" Lehi's explanatory text, "wherefore, if it should be one body it must needs remain as dead, having no life neither death, nor corruption nor incorruption, happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility," does not appear to be altogether that helpful. Nevertheless, we can discern somewhat his intent. In each of the proof statements, Lehi indicates that divisions that we would take for granted would not exist. There is no life nor death, there is no corruption nor incorruption, no happiness nor misery, no sense nor insensibility. In each case, Lehi holds up examples that we would understand to be clear opposites, and says that under the conditions of a "compound in one" they would no longer be opposites, but rather the same, or at least that there would be no difference between them. His exposition of concepts allows us to clarify the use of the phrase "wherefore, if it should be one body...." Lehi is not speaking of a body linked to a being, even though that phrase is linked to the life/death opposition. Lehi's reference is still the "compound in one" and it is that compound that is one body, or entity, or composite element. The import of Lehi's second statement is that there is a condition mutually exclusive to the opposition in all things in which there is no opposition, and where everything becomes as one thing, with no important distinctions between them. While there might be a life or death, there is no difference that matters. While there might be emotions that otherwise would register happiness or misery, there is nothing that gives them meaning. Perhaps the best example of this is a soundless excerpt of a movie where we see a woman crying. With no context, we see tears. However, we know from our experience that tears can be for anger, sadness, or joy (and sometimes simply an irritant in the eye). Perhaps we might see other minute facial signs that would lend the context, but the fact is that the tears themselves can easily exist and have an ambiguous context. Thus Lehi would say that they would be a "compound in oNephi" There would be tears, but there would be no meaning to them. They would be water. Understanding Lehi's "compound in one" we can now turn to the statement to which it serves as a contrast. What does Lehi mean by opposition? Lehi's proof statement is more of a statement of effect than a definition: "If not so, my first-born in the wilderness, righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad." Rather than define opposition, Lehi merely states that it is required, and that it is so essential that without it "righteousness could not be brought to pass." When elucidating that which could not come to pass, Lehi does provide examples that we consider opposites, such as holiness and misery, good and bad. However, it is important to remember that these are exemplary only of the things that could not come to pass. Lehi's point is that righteousness could not come to pass. I suggest that the real important phrase in his exposition is "come to pass," not any of the oppositions. Lehi's choice of terminology is a literary device. He is categorizing a set of conditions by the most obvious members of the set. Lehi indicates that we need opposites, because they are the most obvious ways to define the range. Lehi does not mean that we require only happiness or misery. We also require every emotion in between. Lehi does not mean that we must be either good or bad, but that we must also have good and better. Lehi's point is the availability of choice, not the specifics of the choice. Opposition is his device to make that point in a concise discourse, where the obvious example serves stands for all of the less obvious examples. Thus we have verse 12 (repeated here because the first is now so far removed from this text):
Verse 12 follows on the heels of Lehi's discourse on the "compound in oNephi" It is that compound in one that would defeat the purpose of the creation of this world. It is a violation of the will of God so severe that it "must needs destroy the wisdom of God and his eternal purposes." Thus by showing the powerful calamity of the "compound in one" Lehi underscores the absolute essentiality of the "opposition in all things." Brigham Young explains the way in which we should see Lehi's concept of opposition: "You will learn this in the Bible, the Book of Mormon, and in the revelations given through Joseph. We must know and understand the opposition that is in all things, in order to discern, choose, and receive that which we do know will exalt us to the presence of God. You cannot know the one without knowing the other. This is a true principle. [DISCOURSES OF BRIGHAM YOUNG Page 346 ] The principle of opposition is the principle of choice. We must make choices, but in order to make them, the possible choices must be made. It is this active participation in the selection of alternatives that exalts us. It is the reason that Lehi suggests that "righteousness could not be brought to pass." The principle of opposition does not in itself exalt us. It merely provides the options among which we exercise our agency, and it is the exercise of that agency that makes the difference. Bruce R. McConkie understands this verse precisely in the view of agency: " Agency underlies all things--all advancement, all progression, even existence itself. It is based on the presence of opposites between which a choice must be made. If there were no opposites, there would be nothing. [A NEW WITNESS FOR THE ARTICLES OF FAITH , Page 90 ]"
13 And if ye shall say there is no law, ye shall also say there is no sin. If ye shall say there is no sin, ye shall also say there is no righteousness. And if there be no righteousness there be no happiness. And if there be no righteousness nor happiness there be no punishment nor misery. And if these things are not there is no God. And if there is no God we are not, neither the earth; for there could have been no creation of things, neither to act nor to be acted upon; wherefore, all things must have vanished away.
The beginning sentence is a truism. If there is no law there is no sin. This seems quite logical, as sin might have one definition that makes it a violation of eternal law. Lehi purposefully begins his exposition this way because there might be some who would think that a good idea. They might think that the absence of sin would be a good thing. Certainly that concept was implicit in Satan's thinking where he would prevent the pains of the violation of law, and therefore have no sin (implied in Moses 4:1). Lehi emphatically denies that the absence of sin is of any benefit. In Lehi's equation, the absence of sin means also the absence of righteousness. To clarify the problem with the supposition that the absence of sin is beneficial Lehi continues the logic is parallel phrasings that each build on the previous idea: If no sin, then no righteousness If no righteousness, then no happiness If no happiness, then no misery nor punishment If none of these, then there is no God. If there is no God, then we are not (If there is no God,) then the earth is not (If there is no God,) then there is no creation Note that the phrases in parentheses are implied rather than explicit. This parallel set of examples is highlighting Lehi's proposition that there must be an opposition in all things, and that this opposition is so significant as to be the purpose behind all creation. The reason for its importance is specified in the last clause of verse 13. Lehi states "there could have been no creation of things, neither to act nor to be acted upon; wherefore, all things must have vanished away." the existence of opposites creates a condition where there are "...things, ... to act [or] be acted upon..." Lehi's essential teaching is not simply the existence of the opposites, but the function of the opposites in creating situations where "things" would either act or be acted upon. While we typically concentrate on the oppositions, it is really this "acting" that is the powerful argument Lehi expounds. The opposites merely set the field for the "acting upon."
14 And now, my sons, I speak unto you these things for your profit and learning; for there is a God, and he hath created all things, both the heavens and the earth, and all things that in them are, both things to act and things to be acted upon.
From a literary standpoint, Lehi's conclusion repeats the last major point of the argument he used to set up his punch liNephi While it might be tempting to see this as an incomplete chiasm, it is really a much simpler parallel structure. The tight development of Lehi's arguments and the use of paralleling structures indicates forethought and artistry in the development of this discourse. The condensed nature of the themes I have already suggested as evidence of prior teaching. I would also suggest that the terse statement of these themes and the structured development indicate that this is not necessarily an impromptu speech by Lehi, but rather one that has been carefully constructed. It is also likely that the preservation of the tight line of argument and parallel structures indicates that this is really a reasonable copy of Lehi's words, rather than a recollection and synopsis by Nephi. The absence of details would be part of Lehi's design, not Nephi's reconstruction.
15 And to bring about his eternal purposes in the end of man, after he had created our first parents, and the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air, and in fine, all things which are created, it must needs be that there was an opposition; even the forbidden fruit in opposition to the tree of life; the one being sweet and the other bitter.
Lehi establishes the two trees as opposites in the Garden, thus making the Garden the microcosm of the entire creation. Where Lehi has argued that all creation has required this opposition, Lehi focuses that entire argument on one event in the Garden of Eden, using the two trees as the symbols of all such choices. It is interesting that in normal parallel terms, Lehi establishes two trees and then two attributes. If we were to assume a normal parallel structure, we would have the following: forbidden fruit : tree of life sweet : bitter The parallelling of the themes would lead us to assign bitter and sweet to the trees, but where we might naturally assume that it was the forbidden fruit that was bitter and the tree of life that was sweet, the direct parallel would belie that, and have the forbidden fruit be the sweet oNephi Why such an alteration of our expectation? Precisely because it was the eating of the forbidden fruit that generated the conditions of opposition, and created Lehi's bitter/sweet dichotomy. It is precisely that forbidden tree that is the focus of the events of the Garden, and Lehi's argument that it was critically important for Adam and Eve to eat of it.
16 Wherefore, the Lord God gave unto man that he should act for himself. Wherefore, man could not act for himself save it should be that he was enticed by the one or the other.
In the story of the Garden there is only one opposite. All things are permitted them. All things they are free to do. Therefore, with the exception of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, they have no "opposition" in Lehi's definition. Without the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, according to Lehi, they would therefore be in a state where everything was a compound in one, where the really was no righteousness, no happiness, because there was no choice among the opposites. Thus the placement of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil was critical to the plan of God. Without that tree and the opposition it symbolizes, there was no purpose in creation, using Lehi's logic. Even the name by which we know the tree indicates that without it Eden would have been Lehi's "compound in oNephi" The Knowledge of Good and Evil is an absolute precursor to the ability to make a choice between Good and Evil.
17 And I, Lehi, according to the things which I have read, must needs suppose that an angel of God, according to that which is written, had fallen from heaven; wherefore, he became a devil, having sought that which was evil before God.
Doctrinal analysis: Lehi's understanding of the role of Satan is quite clear and consonant with the understanding aided by modern scripture. Lehi's brief exposition provides the essential information about Lucifer's career: he was an angel, he fell from heaven, and tied up in his fall were circumstances which changed him from angel to devil.
18 And because he had fallen from heaven, and had become miserable forever, he sought also the misery of all mankind. Wherefore, he said unto Eve, yea, even that old serpent, who is the devil, who is the father of all lies, wherefore he said: Partake of the forbidden fruit, and ye shall not die, but ye shall be as God, knowing good and evil.
Remember Lehi's delineation of opposition: "2 Nephi 2:11 For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. If not so, my first-born in the wilderness, righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad. Wherefore, all things must needs be a compound in one; wherefore, if it should be one body it must needs remain as dead, having no life neither death, nor corruption nor incorruption, happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility." Twice in that verse Lehi uses misery as an opposite, first for holiness and second for happiness. In the context of Lehi's concerns, holiness and happiness must be seen as transcendental states, and happiness would be more than an ephemeral earthly feeling. For Lehi, these are parts of the eternal realm promised to us. When he contrasts that with misery, once again he refers to more than a temporary unhappiness. Satan is miserable not because he is unhappy, but because he is contrary to righteousness, contrary to holiness. He is miserable in contrast to the happiness and joy that are denied him. It is interesting that it is in the context of Satan's misery and desire for our misery that Lehi places Satan's temptation of Eve. The clear implication is that Satan is tempting Eve to do something that should not be done, even though Lehi clearly understands the importance of the choice that will be made in the Garden. In Lehi's view, then Satan's misunderstanding of God's plan was sufficient than he did not understand it even so well as to understand that he was actually moving the plan forward rather than hindering it. In this Lehi follows a long tradition of seeing the Fall as bound up with sin, a viewpoint that only more modern revelation has begun to temper. It is also interesting that Lehi presents Satan as the Father of all lies, and then has him telling Eve that they should not die, but rather become as the Gods, knowing good and evil. Certainly Lehi's point in this discourse is to show the essentiality of the latter promise. In that Satan did not lie. In his first promise, however, there is prevarication. While it is true that they do not die on that day, death is part of the deal, and Satan does not make the ramifications of partaking the fruit as clear as they should be. Perhaps it is even more to Eve's credit that she was able to reason out the importance of the action with such veiled information.
19 And after Adam and Eve had partaken of the forbidden fruit they were driven out of the garden of Eden, to till the earth. 2 Nephi 2:20 20 And they have brought forth children; yea, even the family of all the earth.
21 And the days of the children of men were prolonged, according to the will of God, that they might repent while in the flesh; wherefore, their state became a state of probation, and their time was lengthened, according to the commandments which the Lord God gave unto the children of men. For he gave commandment that all men must repent; for he showed unto all men that they were lost, because of the transgression of their parents.
With this, the development of the discourse is completed, and Lehi now puts on the finishing touches.
22 And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end.
Lehi's first explanation of what would have been matches with the presumptions of most of the Christian world. Had there not been a Fall, Eden would have continued forever.
23 And they would have had no children; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin.
24 But behold, all things have been done in the wisdom of him who knoweth all things.
25 Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy.
Part of the reason that this verse has become so easily embedded in our consciousness (to the point that most can cite it even if they cannot give the location of the citation) has to do with the very tight and memorable structure of the verse. Doctrinal analysis: Just as with the "misery" of Satan, we must read "joy" in a much larger context. Adam's fall has a purpose, that we might exist (and this briefly ties to Lehi's statement that Adam and Eve would not have had children in the Garden) and then the purpose or our existence is that we might have "joy." We exist so that this process of opposition in all things might provide the way for us to move above the earthly, and receive joy in heaven. The remaining issue is to understand the nature of "joy." It is quite easy to ascribe to the term the dictionary definitions that might have similarities with happiness. While that is not outside the scope of the probably meaning here, it is entirely possible that the concept of joy is much more than happiness or pleasantness. If the word "joy" is examined in the context of Joseph Smith's scriptural vocabulary, some interesting possibilities may be uncovered. A beginning for this examination of the use of the word "joy" is the story of Ammon and King Lamoni. As the result of a simple but sincere prayer, King Lamoni falls to the ground and is thought by many to have died. Ammon knew better:
In the powerful context of king Lamoni's experience, the dictionary definition of joy pales. In this verse, joy is the result of the infusion of the light of the glory of God. So great and overwhelming is this joy that his mortal frame can barely hold it, and his physical body was temporarily immobilized. King Lamoni was not the only one to feel this overpowering joy. Ammon and his brethren were returning from their missionary labors among the Laminates, when they met their father, Alma. That reunion might have simply been joyful in an earthly sense, had not this been a meeting of a group of men who were fervent servants of the Lord. Their joy was not in the reunion, but in the Lord and the outpouring of the spirit. During that reunion:
The very next verse explains that this joy is not ordinary joy:
Alma (his father) is no less affected by the spiritual power manifest in their reunion. He exults:
These men are filled not with mortal happiness, but with an aspect of the eternal glories, the eternal burnings. That is their joy. The joy that Alma and his sons taste is a portion of the Joy of the Lord, which becomes complete only after this life. Christ so informed his twelve apostles in the New World:
The Doctrine and Covenants punctuates the nature of this type of joy.
This verse highlights an important conceptual point. While Alma and Ammon are filled with joy, they do not yet have a fulness of joy. The fulness of joy is reserved as a state attained only after this life has ended. This explains and underlines the meaning behind the verses in DC 93:
Both verses contain the important phrase fulness of joy. In the first instance, we are told that when the body and element are inseparably connected, we may receive a fulness of joy. When are body and element inseparably connected? Only after the resurrection. This verse is restating the same message Christ gave to his New World apostles. The state described by the term fulness of joy is reserved for after the resurrection. It is a state of joy in the Glory of God, it is part of the eternal joy that comes through our progression toward Godhood. The next verse highlights the key reason why our Pre-Mortal life had to end, why the earth became essential. "When separated, man cannot receive a fulness of joy" (DC 93:34). The equation is simple. "Men are, that they might have joy" (2 Nephi 2:25). Knowing the eternal context of joy, this passage becomes the exact equivalent of that other statement of God's purpose, "this is my work and my glory, to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man" (Moses 1:39). When mankind reaches the stage of eternal life, he will also be in a state of the fulness of joy. Mankind had to receive a body, so that there might come a time when the spirit and element might become inseparably connected, and therefore put us in a position to be able to receive this joy. These two verses in DC 93 are also important for the implication of the nature of a third state, which, while not mentioned, is readily deduced. If spirit and element, when separated, cannot receive a fulness of joy, and spirit and element inseparably connected can receive of the fulness of joy, there is a third possibility which describes our current existence. While on this earth, our spirit and element are separably connected. This is clearly a step above the total separation of our Pre-Mortal life, yet falls short of the qualification for the fulness of joy which requires our resurrection. What does this mean for us here? From the experiences of Alma and his sons, it is clear that we may taste of that eternal joy. In ways that we do not understand, the body appears to act as an intensifier for these spiritual feelings. While in temporary possession of our bodies, we are capable of tasting the glorious joy which awaits us. Anyone who has ever had a spiritual experience, can remember how if felt. It was not simply an emotional experience, but carried with it a real effect on the entire body. That suffusion of the light of the glory of God upon our souls is the taste of eternity which helps us keep our eyes on the goal. Like Lehi eating the fruit of the tree, we too have the opportunity to taste the eternal light, and have it fill our souls. Few have the overwhelming suffusion of joy as did king Lamoni, but the taste is none the less precious for being less intense.
26 And the Messiah cometh in the fulness of time, that he may redeem the children of men from the fall. And because that they are redeemed from the fall they have become free forever, knowing good from evil; to act for themselves and not to be acted upon, save it be by the punishment of the law at the great and last day, according to the commandments which God hath given.
27 Wherefore, men are free according to the flesh; and all things are given them which are expedient unto man. And they are free to choose liberty and eternal life, through the great Mediator of all men, or to choose captivity and death, according to the captivity and power of the devil; for he seeketh that all men might be miserable like unto himself.
Literary analysis: Lehi takes his principle of opposition to a literary level, and in short order contrasts liberty and captivity, eternal life and death, and the Messiah and Satan. It is a very tidy summation of his discourse.
28 And now, my sons, I would that ye should look to the great Mediator, and hearken unto his great commandments; and be faithful unto his words, and choose eternal life, according to the will of his Holy Spirit; 2 Nephi 2:29 29 And not choose eternal death, according to the will of the flesh and the evil which is therein, which giveth the spirit of the devil power to captivate, to bring you down to hell, that he may reign over you in his own kingdom.
30 I have spoken these few words unto you all, my sons, in the last days of my probation; and I have chosen the good part, according to the words of the prophet. And I have none other object save it be the everlasting welfare of your souls. Amen.
|
||
| by Brant Gardner. Copyright 1998 |
2
Nephi 2:1
|
|
 |