The Tree of Life and the flesh and blood of Jesus

In my post "The white blood of Jesus" (June 18) on my other blog, I explored the idea that the flesh and blood of Jesus is, at least at a symbolic level, identical with the fruit of the Tree of Life. I posted it there and not here because much of the reasoning was drawn from synchronicity and from Wendy Berg's book Red Tree, White Tree rather than from the Book of Mormon itself. Here I want to take a more Book-centered look at the same idea.

⁂

1. The fruit of the Tree of Life is Jesus

I think this identification is made several times in 1 Nephi 11. First, we have this little exchange:

And the Spirit said unto me: Behold, what desirest thou?

And I said: I desire to behold the things which my father saw.

And the Spirit said unto me: Believest thou that thy father saw the tree of which he hath spoken?

And I said: Yea, thou knowest that I believe all the words of my father.

And when I had spoken these words, the Spirit cried with a loud voice, saying: Hosanna to the Lord, the most high God; for he is God over all the earth, yea, even above all. And blessed art thou, Nephi, because thou believest in the Son of the most high God; wherefore, thou shalt behold the things which thou hast desired.

And behold this thing shall be given unto thee for a sign, that after thou hast beheld the tree which bore the fruit which thy father tasted, thou shalt also behold a man descending out of heaven, and him shall ye witness; and after ye have witnessed him ye shall bear record that it is the Son of God (1 Ne. 11:1-7).

Here the Spirit seems to equate belief in the Tree with belief in the Son of God. While it's true that Nephi makes a blanket statement that he believes "all the words" of Lehi, the only question the Spirit asks him -- the qualifying question, which will determine whether or not he is granted the vision he seeks -- is whether he believes Lehi's account of the Tree. The Spirit then states that Nephi will receive that vision because he believes in the Son of God.

Nephi is then told that he will see "the tree which bore the fruit" and then "a man descending out of heaven," who is the Son of God. This is somewhat puzzling, since the account we have of Nephi's vision doesn't actually include a man literally descending out of heaven. Instead he sees the Tree and then the Mother of God, the two images being linked by their superlative whiteness.

And it came to pass that the Spirit said unto me: Look! And I looked and beheld a tree; and it was like unto the tree which my father had seen; and the beauty thereof was far beyond, yea, exceeding of all beauty; and the whiteness thereof did exceed the whiteness of the driven snow.

And it came to pass after I had seen the tree, I said unto the Spirit: I behold thou hast shown unto me the tree which is precious above all.

And he said unto me: What desirest thou?

And I said unto him: To know the interpretation thereof . . . .

And it came to pass that he said unto me: Look! . . .

And it came to pass that I looked . . . . And I beheld the city of Nazareth; and in the city of Nazareth I beheld a virgin, and she was exceedingly fair and white.

And it came to pass that I saw the heavens open; and an angel came down and stood before me; and he said unto me: Nephi, what beholdest thou?

And I said unto him: A virgin, most beautiful and fair above all other virgins. . . .

And he said unto me: Behold, the virgin whom thou seest is the mother of [the Son of] God, after the manner of the flesh (1 Ne. 11:8-15, 18).

Nephi sees an exceedingly white Tree and then, when he asks for the interpretation, he sees an exceedingly white Virgin, whom he is told is the Mother of God (or, in the second and subsequent editions of the Book, the Mother of the Son of God).

If the Tree is the Mother of God -- "You, Lady, are the Tree," as Rilke put it -- the identity of the Fruit follows logically. Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus.

And it came to pass that I beheld that she was carried away in the Spirit; and after she had been carried away in the Spirit for the space of a time the angel spake unto me, saying: Look!

And I looked and beheld the virgin again, bearing a child in her arms.

And the angel said unto me: Behold the Lamb of God, yea, even [the Son of] the Eternal Father! Knowest thou the meaning of the tree which thy father saw?

And I answered him, saying: Yea, it is the love of God, which sheddeth itself abroad in the hearts of the children of men; wherefore, it is the most desirable above all things.

And he spake unto me, saying: Yea, and the most joyous to the soul (1 Ne. 11:19-23).

Note that the Virgin is seen "bearing a child in her arms," echoing the earlier reference to "the tree which bore the fruit."

The reference to the Virgin being "carried away in the Spirit" refers not to a trance state but rather to being actually carried away to a different place -- cf. the later reference to the Twelve being "carried away in the Spirit from before my face, and I saw them not" (1 Ne. 11:29). We might speculate that she was carried away to "Heaven," that Jesus was conceived and perhaps born there, and that this is the answer to the Jews' question, "Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?" (John 6:42).

⁂

2. The Tree of Life is a source of both food and drink

Nephi's vision implicitly identifies the Fruit specifically with the flesh of Jesus, since the Tree that bears the Fruit is identified with "the Mother of God according to the flesh." The vision also says that the Tree is the source of living waters.

And it came to pass that I beheld that the rod of iron, which my father had seen, was the word of God, which led to the fountain of living waters, or to the tree of life; which waters are a representation of the love of God; and I also beheld that the tree of life was a representation of the love of God (1 Ne. 11:25).

Commentators often have difficulty reconciling this with what is said in the next chapter:

And the angel spake unto me, saying: Behold the fountain of filthy water which thy father saw; yea, even the river of which he spake; and the depths thereof are the depths of hell (1 Ne. 12:16).

I don't think this can be the same fountain. Rather, the first reference is saying that the Tree of Life is the fountain of living waters, that it provides both fruit and "water." Jeremiah, a prophet we know Nephi knew and read, twice refers to the Lord as "the fountain of living waters" (Jer. 2:13, 17:13). In the Fourth Gospel, Jesus promises "living water" to the Samaritan woman:

If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink; thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water. . . . whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life (John 4:10, 14).

Two chapters later, he implies that those who drink his blood "shall never thirst," thus equating that blood with the promised living water:

And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst. . . .

I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. . . .

Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed (John 6:35, 51, 54-55).

The Tree of Life is a white tree that bears white fruit. If it is also the fountain of living waters, we would expect those waters (identified with the blood of Jesus) to be white as well. This is borne out by the many references to garments being washed white in the blood of the Lamb.

because of their faith in the Lamb of God their garments are made white in his blood. . . . and their garments were white even like unto the Lamb of God. And the angel said unto me: These are made white in the blood of the Lamb, because of their faith in him  (1 Ne. 12: 10-11).

there can no man be saved except his garments are washed white; yea, his garments must be purified until they are cleansed from all stain, through the blood of him of whom it has been spoken by our fathers, who should come to redeem his people from their sins. . . . Could ye say, if ye were called to die at this time, within yourselves, that ye have been sufficiently humble? That your garments have been cleansed and made white through the blood of Christ, who will come to redeem his people from their sins? (Alma 5:21, 27)

Therefore they were called after this holy order, and were sanctified, and their garments were washed white through the blood of the Lamb (Alma 13:11).

their garments should be made white through the blood of the Lamb (Alma 34:36).

perhaps ye may be found spotless, pure, fair, and white, having been cleansed by the blood of the Lamb (Morm. 9:6)

 it is they whose garments are white through the blood of the Lamb (Ether 13:10)

This language makes no sense is the "blood of the Lamb" is a red substance. It must be either white or else a colorless "living water." In fact, the biblical parallel to the above passages, in the Revelation of John, closely associates the whitening "blood" with the living waters:

And one of the elders answered, saying unto me, What are these which are arrayed in white robes? and whence came they?

And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. 

 

And he said to me, These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.

Therefore are they before the throne of God, and serve him day and night in his temple: and he that sitteth on the throne shall dwell among them.

They shall hunger no more, neither thirst any more; neither shall the sun light on them, nor any heat.

For the Lamb which is in the midst of the throne shall feed them, and shall lead them unto living fountains of waters: and God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes (Rev. 7:13-17)

Those who have washed their robes in the blood of the Lamb neither hunger nor thirst -- just like those who eat the flesh of Jesus and drink his blood. They will not hunger because "the Lamb . . . shall feed them," presumably with his flesh, and they will not thirst because he "shall lead them unto the living fountains of waters," again implicitly identified with his blood.

We can see a fortuitous echo if this imagery in the modern LDS practice of using water rather than wine in the sacrament. I'm not sure how or when this got started. The Word of Wisdom, which generally forbids wine, specifically makes allowance for sacramental wine (D&C 89:5-6), and even if a non-alcoholic Communion were desired, grape juice (as used in many Protestant churches) would be a more logical wine-substitute than water. Anyway, however the practice arose, it turns out to be symbolically apt.

Since the robe or garment is symbolic of the physical body, washing one's robes in the blood of the Lamb could be the same thing as purifying one's physical body by eating the fruit of the Tree of Life and drinking the living waters that flow therefrom. The sacrament of bread and wine (or water) is a symbolic pre-enactment of actually partaking of the Tree of Life, which confers immortality.

⁂

3. Eating and drinking unworthily is damnation

Jesus, anticipating Paul (1 Cor. 11:29), teaches that taking his flesh and blood "unworthily" causes damnation:

And now behold, this is the commandment which I give unto you, that ye shall not suffer any one knowingly to partake of my flesh and blood unworthily, when ye shall minister it; for whoso eateth and drinketh my flesh and blood unworthily eateth and drinketh damnation to his soul; therefore if ye know that a man is unworthy to eat and drink of my flesh and blood ye shall forbid him (3 Ne. 18:28-19).

It's not really clear why this should bring damnation -- or why, given the stakes, Jesus didn't elaborate on what constitutes "worthiness" to partake -- but given the connection we have established with the Tree of Life, we can cross-reference this with the teachings of Alma Jr.:

Now we see that Adam did fall by the partaking of the forbidden fruit, according to the word of God; and thus we see, that by his fall, all mankind became a lost and fallen people.

And now behold, I say unto you that if it had been possible for Adam to have partaken of the fruit of the tree of life at that time, there would have been no death, and the word would have been void, making God a liar, for he said: If thou eat thou shalt surely die.

And we see that death comes upon mankind, yea, the death which has been spoken of by Amulek, which is the temporal death; nevertheless there was a space granted unto man in which he might repent; therefore this life became a probationary state; a time to prepare to meet God; a time to prepare for that endless state which has been spoken of by us, which is after the resurrection of the dead. . . .

And now behold, if it were possible that our first parents could have gone forth and partaken of the tree of life they would have been forever miserable, having no preparatory state; and thus the plan of redemption would have been frustrated, and the word of God would have been void, taking none effect (Alma 12:22-24, 26).

Here it appears that the Fall had rendered Adam and Eve unworthy to partake of the Tree of Life, and if they had done so they "would have been forever miserable," which sounds a lot like damnation. Why this should be so is not really made clear, but apparently certain "preparations" must be done while in a mortal state and are no longer possible after partaking of the Tree of Life.

Coming back to the question of who is "worthy," Alma elsewhere implies that no one is. After commending his son Shiblon for his "steadiness and . . . faithfulness unto God" in "keeping his commandments" (Alma 38:2), he exhorts him to "acknowledge your unworthiness before God at all times" (Alma 38:14).

A hint as to how this "unworthiness," resulting from the Fall, can be overcome is perhaps provided by the Brother of Jared. When he prays to the Lord, he acknowledges that he is unworthy because of the Fall:

Now behold, O Lord, and do not be angry with thy servant because of his weakness before thee; for we know that thou art holy and dwellest in the heavens, and that we are unworthy before thee; because of the fall our natures have become evil continually; nevertheless, O Lord, thou hast given us a commandment that we must call upon thee, that from thee we may receive according to our desires (Ether 3:2).

Later in the same chapter, the Lord pronounced the Brother "redeemed from the fall," and thus presumably no longer "unworthy." The reason given for this redemption is somewhat surprising:

And the Lord said unto him: Believest thou the words which I shall speak?

And he answered: Yea, Lord, I know that thou speakest the truth, for thou art a God of truth, and canst not lie.

And when he had said these words, behold, the Lord showed himself unto him, and said: Because thou knowest these things ye are redeemed from the fall; therefore ye are brought back into my presence; therefore I show myself unto you (Ether 3:11-13).

The Brother is redeemed not because of repentance or anything else that we would expect, but because of his knowledge that God cannot lie. It is particularly paradoxical that this would appear to be an instance of the knowledge of good and evil, which is supposedly what brought about the Fall in the first place. It's interesting to note, though, that Alma, in the passage quoted earlier, emphasizes how by partaking of the Tree of Life prematurely, Adam and Eve would be "making God a liar" (Alma 12:23).

There's obviously a lot here that I still don't understand, but I think some things are starting to come into focus.

Nephi's teachings about baptism were intended for future generations

The strongest evidence against the proposition that "Alma introduced baptism to the Nephites" is to be found in 2 Nephi 31. This post will deal with that chapter and attempt to reconcile it with that theory.

This chapter is part of an extended discourse by Nephi, beginning in Chapter 25, where he explains that he is writing not to his contemporaries but "unto all those that shall receive hereafter these things which I write" (2 Ne. 25:3). That this anticipated "hereafter" is specifically in the Christian era is implied by his statement that he writes "that our children may know . . . after the law is fulfilled in Christ, that they need not harden their hearts against him when the law ought to be done away" (2 Ne. 25:27).

As further evidence that Nephi is writing to an anticipated audience that will live after the prophecies of Christ have already been fulfilled, he repeatedly refers to Jesus and his baptism in the past tense, even though he himself is writing in the 6th century before Christ:

And now, I would ask of you, my beloved brethren, wherein the Lamb of God did fulfil all righteousness in being baptized by water? Know ye not that he was holy? . . . Wherefore, after he was baptized with water the Holy Ghost descended upon him (2 Ne. 31:6-8)

This is a strange way of speaking of events that are predicted to happen in the distant future, but he clearly is talking about what are from his own point of view future events. He goes on to tell his "beloved brethren" of the importance of "following your Lord and Savior down into the water" (2 Ne. 31:13), but how are they "following" him if they go down into the water hundreds of years before he does? Clearly the instruction to be baptized is addressed to future readers in the Christian era, not to people in Nephi's own time.

However, there are parts of this chapter where Nephi seems to include himself among those who need baptism:

And now, if the Lamb of God, he being holy, should have need to be baptized by water, to fulfil all righteousness, O then, how much more need have we, being unholy, to be baptized, yea, even by water! (2 Ne. 31:5)

My interpretation of this would be that by we Nephi means "we ordinary mortals" -- everyone other than the prophesied Lamb of God -- rhetorically including himself because otherwise it would sound like he was accusing his future readers of being particularly unholy. He doesn't actually mean that he, Nephi, needs to be baptized centuries before that rite has been introduced.

Another passage also seems to imply that Nephi himself was commanded to be baptized:

And he said unto the children of men: Follow thou me. Wherefore, my beloved brethren, can we follow Jesus save we shall be willing to keep the commandments of the Father?

And the Father said: Repent ye, repent ye, and be baptized in the name of my Beloved Son.

And also, the voice of the Son came unto me, saying: He that is baptized in my name, to him will the Father give the Holy Ghost, like unto me; wherefore, follow me, and do the things which ye have seen me do (2 Ne. 31:10-12).

When Nephi reports that Jesus "said unto the children of men: Follow thou me," his use of the past tense is again referring to events which are future to him but will be past to his readers. "Follow thou me" is something Jesus says to Simon Peter in John 21:22; it is never addressed broadly to "the children of men" because thou is a singular pronoun. If we omit the word thou, Jesus says "Follow me" some 18 times in the Gospels.

We have no account of the Father saying anything like, "Repent ye, repent ye, and be baptized in the name of my Beloved Son," but this may also be something Nephi foresees the Father saying in the future and believes he will already have said before the time of his anticipated readers.

In v. 12, though Nephi says, "the voice of the Son came unto me" -- that is, unto Nephi in the 6th century BC -- saying "follow me, and do the things which ye have seen me do" -- meaning baptism -- and promising that the gift of the Holy Ghost would follow.

If this is what it seems at first glance to be -- the voice of Jesus Christ speaking directly to Nephi and telling him to be baptized -- we would expect Nephi to go on to tell us of how he was baptized and received the Holy Ghost. Instead, the next thing he says is this:

Wherefore, my beloved brethren, I know that if ye shall follow the Son, with full purpose of heart, acting no hypocrisy and no deception before God, but with real intent, repenting of your sins, witnessing unto the Father that ye are willing to take upon you the name of Christ, by baptism—yea, by following your Lord and your Savior down into the water, according to his word, behold, then shall ye receive the Holy Ghost (2 Ne. 31:13).

What Nephi gets from this message from Jesus is not that he himself should be baptized, but that his "beloved brethren" in the future should do so. He twice refers to this as following the Son -- which, as I have already said, cannot logically mean doing something centuries before the Son. A few verses later, Nephi says, again addressing future generations:

Wherefore, do the things which I have told you I have seen that your Lord and your Redeemer should do; for, for this cause have they been shown unto me, that ye might know the gate by which ye should enter. For the gate by which ye should enter is repentance and baptism by water; and then cometh a remission of your sins by fire and by the Holy Ghost (2 Ne. 31:17).

Here Nephi clearly states that the reason he was shown a vision of the future baptism of Christ was not so that he, Nephi, would know that he needed to be baptized, but so that he could tell future generation that they needed to be baptized. Granted, Nephi is addressing future generations and is thus focused on them rather than on himself, but if he and other early Nephites had been practicing baptism, he would surely have mentioned it. But we have not the slightest hint that any Nephite was baptized until Alma centuries later.

How did Nephi know what Jesus would do and say in the future? The information was given to him in visions and locutions. When he says in v. 12 that "the voice of the Son came unto me," he may just mean that -- not that Jesus addressed him directly, but that he perceived paranormally what Jesus would say to others in the future.

If v. 12 were addressed to Nephi, telling him to be baptized so that he could receive the Holy Ghost, that would imply that Nephi had not yet received the Holy Ghost. However, in 1 Ne. 10 -- presumably recounting events that happened before those of 2 Ne. 31 -- we have references to both Lehi and Nephi operating by the power of the Holy Ghost:

And it came to pass after I, Nephi, having heard all the words of my father, concerning the things which he saw in a vision, and also the things which he spake by the power of the Holy Ghost, which power he received by faith on the Son of God -- and the Son of God was the Messiah who should come -- I, Nephi, was desirous also that I might see, and hear, and know of these things, by the power of the Holy Ghost, which is the gift of God unto all those who diligently seek him, as well in times of old as in the time that he should manifest himself unto the children of men (1 Ne. 10:17).

Lehi received the power of the Holy Ghost "by faith on the Son of God" -- no mention of baptism. Nephi goes on to say that this power "is the gift of God unto all those who diligently seek him" -- again no mention of baptism -- including those "in times of old." It appears that there have always been ways of receiving the Holy Ghost, but that this did not always involve baptism. Just as King Benjamin's people were able to make the baptismal covenant without being baptized, Lehi and Nephi were able to receive the Holy Ghost without doing so.

In conclusion, I think that, like Jacob, Nephi did not teach that baptism was necessary in his time. His prophecies about baptism were for the benefit of future generations.

Jacob did not teach that baptism was required in his day

In my last post, I argue that "Alma introduced baptism to the Nephites" -- meaning the actual practice of baptism; clearly they were aware of the concept of baptism prior to Alma, but I think I've made a pretty strong case that the Nephites at Zarahemla at least did not practice baptism before Alma and did not consider baptism as such to be strictly necessary, since those who had already made Benjamin's non-baptismal covenant were not expected tp be baptized. See that post for the evidence.

At the end of that post, though, I wrote this:

Against this conclusion, we have 2 Ne. 9 and 2 Ne. 31, where the need to be baptized is taught by Jacob and Nephi, long before Alma. This, too, will be a subject for another post.

This is that promised follow-up post -- or rather the first of them, as I've decided to address the two problematic chapters separately. Here is the relevant portion of Jacob's sermon:

O how great the holiness of our God! For he knoweth all things, and there is not anything save he knows it.

And he cometh into the world that he may save all men if they will hearken unto his voice; for behold, he suffereth the pains of all men, yea, the pains of every living creature, both men, women, and children, who belong to the family of Adam.

And he suffereth this that the resurrection might pass upon all men, that all might stand before him at the great and judgment day.

And he commandeth all men that they must repent, and be baptized in his name, having perfect faith in the Holy One of Israel, or they cannot be saved in the kingdom of God.

And if they will not repent and believe in his name, and be baptized in his name, and endure to the end, they must be damned; for the Lord God, the Holy One of Israel, has spoken it.

Wherefore, he has given a law; and where there is no law given there is no punishment; and where there is no punishment there is no condemnation; and where there is no condemnation the mercies of the Holy One of Israel have claim upon them, because of the atonement; for they are delivered by the power of him.

For the atonement satisfieth the demands of his justice upon all those who have not the law given to them, that they are delivered from that awful monster, death and hell, and the devil, and the lake of fire and brimstone, which is endless torment; and they are restored to that God who gave them breath, which is the Holy One of Israel.

But wo unto him that has the law given, yea, that has all the commandments of God, like unto us, and that transgresseth them, and that wasteth the days of his probation, for awful is his state! (2 Ne. 9:20-27)

Notice that Jacob begins by prophesying things that Jesus Christ will do in the future, expressing these future events in the present tense (with -eth). God "cometh into the word" in the future, "suffereth the pains of all men" in the future, and "commandeth all men that they must repent, and be baptized in his name" -- and this command, implicitly, is also to be given in the future. It would be strange for Jacob to suddenly jump back in time at this point and mention a commandment that had already been given centuries before Christ.

Those who refuse baptism "must be damned; for the Lord God, the Holy One of Israel, has spoken it, wherefore he has given a law." That wherefore indicates that the "law" spoken of is the requirement to repent, believe, and be baptized. It is not the Law of Moses, in force in Jacob's time, but a new "law" that would be given by Christ in the future. Just as Jacob has been using the present tense to describe Christ's future actions, we must understand "has spoken it" and "has given a law" in the same way. Christ will command baptism, and so those who refuse baptism will be damned for breaking the law Christ has given (i.e., will, at that future time, have given).

Jacob immediately follows this with an explanation that "where there is no law given . . . there is no condemnation" -- meaning that those who have not yet received the command Christ will give in the future will not be damned for failing to do what that future law will require.

Against this interpretation we have v. 27, where Jacob speaks of "him that has the law given, that has all the commandments of God, like unto us." Taken literally, this implies that Jacob and his listeners have all the commandments of God -- including, implicitly, the commandment to be baptized. In context, though, I think it is clear that he means they have the current law of God (i.e. that given by Moses) in its entirety and are thus expected to obey it, not that they have all the commandments God  has ever given or will ever give. In what follows, Jacob speaks against lying, murder, whoredoms, etc. -- but never does he directly tell his listeners to be baptized.

So I think this chapter is fairly easy to reconcile with the hypothesis that the Nephites did not practice baptism before Alma. 2 Ne. 31 presents more of a challenge and will be addressed in another post.

Alma introduced baptism to the Nephites

The first account of Nephites practicing baptism is at the Waters of Mormon, where Alma baptized himself and his followers. Alma had fled from the Lehi-Nephi group founded by Zeniff and later led by Noah and then Limhi. This group had broken off from the main Nephite-Mulekite group in Zarahemla c. 200 BC, and the two groups had no contact until c. 120 BC, when both Alma's group and the main Lehi-Nephi group under Limhi went to Zarahemla and united with the main Nephite-Mulekite group ruled by Mosiah II.

It was during this 80-year separation that the both the baptisms at the Waters of Mormon (c. 147 BC) and King Benjamin's address at Zarahemla (c. 124 BC) occurred.

The estimated dates I'm using are those provided by the CJCLDS in their current edition of the Book. I'm not vouching for their accuracy; I include them only to establish the sequence of events. Here's a simple diagram of that sequence, without dates and not to scale:

For convenience, I will refer to the groups that came together under Mosiah II as the Nephites (the main Zarahemla group, a mixture of Nephites proper and Mulekites), the Zeniffites, and the Almaites.

With this background in mind, we return to Alma at the Waters of Mormon. When Alma performed his first baptism, he also baptized himself (Mosiah 18:14-15), which implies that he had not been baptized before. Alma was a Zeniffite priest, and if priests were not baptized it seems unlikely that anyone was. Another possibility is that Alma had been baptized but no longer considered a baptism performed by the corrupt priests of Noah to be valid and therefore had to do it again. Against this we have the fact that Alma claims to baptize "having authority from the Almighty God" (Mosiah 18:13), and it would seem that this declaration of authority could only refer to his status as an ordained Zeniffite priest. He apparently considered Zeniffite priests to have legitimate authority to perform religious ceremonies, even though their teachings and practices had become corrupt. From all this we conclude that the Zeniffites almost certainly did not practice baptism. Alma was either innovating or else restoring an earlier Nephite practice which the Zeniffites had abandoned.

While Joseph Smith would later make it an article of the Mormon faith that baptism is "for the remission of sins" (A of F 4), Alma says nothing about that. His baptism had two functions. First, it marked a covenant with God to "serve him and keep his commandments" (Mosiah 18:10) "until you are dead as to the mortal body" (Mosiah 18:13). Second, baptism was a way to "come into the fold of God, and to be called his people" (Mosiah 18:8), and those who were baptized "were called the church of God, or the church of Christ, from that time forward. And it came to pass that whosoever was baptized by the power and authority of God was added to his church" (Mosiah 18:17). 

Some decades later, King Benjamin in Zarahemla, with no knowledge of Alma or the Zeniffite group from which he had come, would do with his people something very similar to what Alma had done at the Waters of Mormon. After listening to Benjamin's address, his subjects say that they

are willing to enter into a covenant with our God to do his will, and to be obedient to his commandments in all things that he shall command us, all the remainder of our days (Mosiah 5:5)

This is the same covenant that was made by baptism at the Waters of Mormon -- to obey God's commandments until death. If Alma's baptism was an existing Nephite practice and not an innovation, we would expect that Benjamin would at this point instruct his subjects to be baptized. Instead, he says

Ye have spoken the words that I desired; and the covenant which ye have made is a righteous covenant. And now, because of the covenant which ye have made ye shall be called the children of Christ (Mosiah 5:6-7)

He twice speaks of "the covenant which ye have made." To publicly announce their willingness to make the covenant is to make the covenant. No further ceremony is required. The covenant was made by a large crowd of people as they were gathered to hear Benjamin speak. If they had all been baptized then and there, it would have been a major event and have taken quite some time. From the fact that no such action is mentioned, we can be pretty confident that it didn't happen. Just as those who make Alma's baptismal covenant are thenceforth "called the church of God, or the church of Christ," those who make Benjamin's non-baptismal but otherwise identical covenant are thereafter "called the children of Christ."

Benjamin's people made exactly the same covenant as Alma's, and with the same result. If baptism were the established way of making such covenants among the Nephites, the story of Benjamin's people would include baptism, but it doesn't. We therefore conclude that baptism was introduced by Alma, and that the Nephites did not practice it before.

In around 120 BC -- approximately four years after Benjamin's people had made their covenant -- the Zeniffites (under King Limhi) and the Almaites both come to Zarahemla and join the main Nephite body under Benjamin's successor, Mosiah II. The Almaites have all been baptized, made the associated covenant, and become known as the "church of Christ." In the main Nephite body, "there was not one soul, except it were little children, but who had entered into the covenant and had taken upon them the name of Christ" (Mosiah 6:2), though they had done so under Benjamin and without the rite of baptism. As for the Zeniffites, we are quite confident that they were not baptized, and there is no record of their having made any equivalent covenant.

After this union of the three groups, Mosiah "caused that all the people should be gathered together" (Mosiah 25:1), and Alma addressed them all. "And Alma did speak unto them, when they were assembled together in large bodies, and he went from one body to another, preaching unto the people repentance and faith on the Lord" (Mosiah 25:15). The Zeniffites (Limhi's people) responded to this preaching by being baptized:

And it came to pass that after Alma had taught the people many things, and had made an end of speaking to them, that king Limhi was desirous that he might be baptized; and all his people were desirous that they might be baptized also. Therefore, Alma did go forth into the water and did baptize them; yea, he did baptize them after the manner he did his brethren in the waters of Mormon; yea, and as many as he did baptize did belong to the church of God; and this because of their belief on the words of Alma.

And it came to pass that king Mosiah granted unto Alma that he might establish churches throughout all the land of Zarahemla; and gave him power to ordain priests and teachers over every church (Mosiah 25:17-19).

Only the Zeniffites are baptized at this point. There is no record of any of the Zarahemla Nephites wanting to be baptized after hearing Alma preach. From the language of v. 19, we might conclude that Alma's movement remained a minority sect and that most of the Nephites did not join, though Mosiah tolerantly "granted unto Alma that he might establish churches."

However, we are told that during the reign of Mosiah, those who did not belong to Alma's church "were not half so numerous as the people of God" (Mosiah 26:5). We don't know how big the Zeniffite group was, but they can scarcely have had twice the population of the main Nephite body, so we must assume that most of the Zarahemla Nephites did join Alma's movement. The most logical conclusion is that, since the purpose of baptism is to covenant lifelong obedience to God and to become his people, and since the Nephites had already done that, there was no need for them to do it again by being baptized. They had in effect made the baptismal covenant, but had done so before baptism became established among them as the way to make such covenants, and they were therefore "grandfathered in."

This is confirmed by the nature of the group that did not belong to the church.

Now it came to pass that there were many of the rising generation that could not understand the words of king Benjamin, being little children at the time he spake unto his people; and they did not believe the tradition of their fathers. . . . And they would not be baptized; neither would they join the church (Mosiah 26:1, 4).

It was explicitly stated that all of King Benjamin's subjects except "little children" entered into his baptism-equivalent covenant. It was only among this "rising generation" that some refused to be baptized because they were the only Nephites who were expected to be baptized. Those who had been of age in Benjamin's time had already done something that was counted as being in effect baptism and were not expected to do it again.

I will have more to say in a later post about the rising generation's specific reasons for not wanting to be baptized. Here I just cite their refusal as evidence that baptism was only expected of those who had not covenanted under Benjamin.

I think I've made a pretty strong case that Alma and Benjamin independently introduced the idea of making a covenant and becoming the people of Christ, that only Alma's version of this covenant involved baptism, and that baptism was not practiced by the Nephites before Alma brought it to them.

Against this conclusion, we have 2 Ne. 9 and 2 Ne. 31, where the need to be baptized is taught by Jacob and Nephi, long before Alma. This, too, will be a subject for another post.

Seeing the bodies of spirits

"Touch these stones, O Lord, with thy finger" (Ether 3:4), said the Brother of Jared, apparently taking it for granted that the Lord had in some sense such appendages. When he unexpectedly saw that finger, his reaction is somewhat surprising.

And the veil was taken from off the eyes of the brother of Jared, and he saw the finger of the Lord; and it was as the finger of a man, like unto flesh and blood; and the brother of Jared fell down before the Lord, for he was struck with fear.

And the Lord saw that the brother of Jared had fallen to the earth; and the Lord said unto him: Arise, why hast thou fallen?

And he saith unto the Lord: I saw the finger of the Lord, and I feared lest he should smite me; for I knew not that the Lord had flesh and blood (Ether 3:6-8).

The Brother later confirms, when asked by the Lord, that he has at this point seen only a finger -- just a finger, seemingly floating in the air and unattached to a body, touching the stones one by one. It seems to me that almost anyone seeing such an apparition would assume it to be a spiritual manifestation, not an actual flesh-and-blood finger. For example, when the disciples saw the flesh-and-blood Jesus walking on water -- something physical bodies don't normally do -- they assumed it was a ghost. Belshazzar even saw disembodied "fingers of a man's hand" (Daniel 5:5) but was only interested in decoding the words those fingers had written. The Brother, though, reacted differently: He already knew the Lord had "fingers" but was now shocked to discover that he had fingers that were entirely physical -- indeed, biological -- in nature. For him to have concluded this, I think the finger must have looked exactly like a physical finger, with nothing spiritual or ghostly about it (except for the fact that it was hovering in the air, I mean).

But of course this all happened several millennia BC, and the Being that the Brother saw, the future Jesus Christ, did not at that time have a body of flesh and blood. The usual Mormon understanding is that the premortal Jesus had a "spirit body" -- a quasi-physical structure, somewhat like the subtle or "astral" body of other traditions, corresponding in form to his future mortal body -- and that this is what the Brother saw. That's not what the Lord says to him, though.

And the Lord said unto him: Because of thy faith thou hast seen that I shall take upon me flesh and blood; and never has man come before me with such exceeding faith as thou hast; for were it not so ye could not have seen my finger (Ether 3:9).

He doesn't say, "You have seen my spirit body, which looks exactly the same as the physical body I will later take on." He says, "Thou hast seen that I shall take upon me flesh and blood" -- implying that the Brother has in some sense seen the future. He saw a physical finger because the Lord would in the future have an actual physical finger.

It wasn't a vision of the future in the ordinary sense, though. He didn't at this point see a vision of what Jesus would do in the future (as Nephi did, for instance). He saw what Jesus was at that time doing -- touching the stones with his finger -- but the Jesus that he saw doing this was not Jesus as he existed at that time (an invisible spirit) but as he would exist in the future, an incarnate Man.

The Lord proceeds to show the rest of himself to the Brother, calling that which he is showing "the body of my spirit":

Behold, this body, which ye now behold, is the body of my spirit; and man have I created after the body of my spirit; and even as I appear unto thee to be in the spirit will I appear unto my people in the flesh.

And now, as I, Moroni, said I could not make a full account of these things which are written, therefore it sufficeth me to say that Jesus showed himself unto this man in the spirit, even after the manner and in the likeness of the same body even as he showed himself unto the Nephites (Ether 3:16-17).

These expressions with of can be slippery and ambiguous. For instance, when we read of "the god of Elkenah" (Abr. 1:6), are we to understand that Elkenah is the name of the god himself, or -- by analogy with such phrases as "the god of Abraham" and "the gods of Egypt" -- the name of some person or place with which the god is associated? It is similarly unclear here whether Jesus means "the 'body' which is my spirit" (i.e., the "spirit body" of popular Mormon understanding) or "the body that pertains to my spirit" (because my spirit will later be incarnated in it). In my judgment, "my body of spirit" would be more natural for the first sense than "the body of my spirit." Of course Jesus' body in the latter sense didn't exist yet, but precognitive visions of the future are definitely a feature of the Book of Mormon, and as I have said, the Lord does seem to be implying that the Brother saw his future body.

Later in the same chapter, the Brother has another vision that seems as if it might be the same sort of thing:

And when the Lord had said these words, he showed unto the brother of Jared all the inhabitants of the earth which had been, and also all that would be; and he withheld them not from his sight, even unto the ends of the earth (Ether 3:25).

This has traditionally been interpreted as a vision of the entire past and future history of the earth (it is repeatedly referred to in Joseph Smith's Seer Stones as "the all-seeing vision"), but that's not what it says. It says that he saw all those who had been or would be "inhabitants of the earth." Only the people themselves are mentioned, nothing about past or future scenes or events. He could have had a panoramic view of all history, of course, but the context of his vision of Jesus strongly suggests another possibility: that he saw these past and future inhabitants in the same way that he saw the future Jesus.

Again, he didn't see scenes from Jesus' future life. Instead, he saw the pre-incarnate Jesus, doing what he was at that time doing (touching the stones), but doing it in the body into which he had not yet been born. If the popular Mormon understanding that the "spirit world" is all around us is correct, the Brother was at all times surrounded by the invisible spirits of those who had already died or had yet to be born. In this experience, these spirits became visible as Jesus had become visible, appearing in the bodies in which they had lived or would live. He didn't see those past and future lives; he saw the spirits doing whatever the spirits were doing at the time, but he saw those spirits as bodies.

Enoch perhaps had a similar experience:

And the Lord spake unto Enoch, and said unto him: Anoint thine eyes with clay, and wash them, and thou shalt see. And he did so.

And he beheld the spirits that God had created; and he beheld also things which were not visible to the natural eye; and from thenceforth came the saying abroad in the land: A seer hath the Lord raised up unto his people (Moses 6:35-36).

When you see a spirit -- something inherently invisible -- what exactly do you see? The same thing people typically see when they see "ghosts," presumably: The ghost manifests as the physical likeness of the person when he or she was alive, but you don't see their life. You see what the ghost is doing now -- wandering around "haunting" the place or whatever -- but you see the spirit as the body it once inhabited.

Another possible example of this sort of thing is the Transfiguration described in the New Testament:

And after six days Jesus taketh with him Peter, and James, and John, and leadeth them up into an high mountain apart by themselves: and he was transfigured before them. And his raiment became shining, exceeding white as snow; so as no fuller on earth can white them. And there appeared unto them Elias with Moses: and they were talking with Jesus. . . .

And suddenly, when they had looked round about, they saw no man any more, save Jesus only with themselves. And as they came down from the mountain, he charged them that they should tell no man what things they had seen, till the Son of man were risen from the dead. And they kept that saying with themselves, questioning one with another what the rising from the dead should mean (Mark 9:2-4, 8-10).

This is slightly different, since Jesus was not a disembodied spirit at the time, but one interpretation of what happened is that Peter, James, and John saw Jesus as he would later be, after the resurrection. The description of the transfigured Jesus -- whiter-than-white clothing and, Matthew adds, a face that "did shine as the sun" (Matt. 17:2) -- is consistent with descriptions of resurrected beings. Here is Joseph Smith's description of the resurrected Moroni:

He had on a loose robe of most exquisite whiteness. It was a whiteness beyond anything earthly I had ever seen; nor do I believe that any earthly thing could be made to appear so exceedingly white and brilliant. . . . Not only was his robe exceedingly white, but his whole person was glorious beyond description, and his countenance truly like lightning (JS-H vv. 31-32).

As in the Gospels, it is the preternaturally white clothing that first attracts comment, being apparently even more distinctive than the shining face. Likewise, when the resurrected Jesus appears to the Nephites, the only description given is that "he was clothed in a white robe" (3 Ne. 11:8).

At the time of the Transfiguration, Jesus hadn't yet been resurrected and didn't look like that -- but somehow he did look like that for a brief period of time. Perhaps, like the Brother of Jared, the apostles were granted the temporary ability to see present-Jesus as future-Jesus. They saw Jesus doing what he was doing at the time -- staying with them on the mountain, talking with Moses and Elias -- but they saw him doing it in a sort of body that he did not yet have.

Moroni says that the Brother of Jared saw Jesus in "the likeness of the same body even as he showed himself unto the Nephites" (Ether 3:17), suggesting that he, too, saw the Lord's resurrection body before the resurrection had occurred. There is biblical precedent for referring to the resurrection body in language similar to "the body of my spirit":

So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: it is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: it is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body (1 Cor. 15:42-44).

I haven't yet thought through the details of how this sort of phenomenon might work, and what it might imply about bodies and spirits and resurrection and time, but I wanted to get the basic idea out there first.

The Book of Mormon predicts the imminent destruction of all Western nations

And one Middle-Eastern one.

It is often said that the Book was written "for our day," but one rarely feels it viscerally, and as often as not those who say that are thinking of "our day" in the very broad sense of everything from the 19th century on. Here, though, is a prophecy that singles out this precise moment in history:

And whatsoever nation shall uphold such secret combinations [i.e., oath-bound conspiracies], to get power and gain, until they shall spread over the nation, behold, they shall be destroyed; for the Lord will not suffer that the blood of his saints, which shall be shed by them, shall always cry unto him from the ground for vengeance upon them and yet he avenge them not.

Wherefore, O ye Gentiles [i.e., "goyim"], it is wisdom in God that these things should be shown unto you, that thereby ye may repent of your sins, and suffer not that these murderous combinations shall get above you, which are built up to get power and gain -- and the work, yea, even the work of destruction come upon you, yea, even the sword of the justice of the Eternal God shall fall upon you, to your overthrow and destruction if ye shall suffer these things to be.

Wherefore, the Lord commandeth you, when ye shall see these things come among you that ye shall awake to a sense of your awful situation, because of this secret combination which shall be among you; or wo be unto it, because of the blood of them who have been slain; for they cry from the dust for vengeance upon it, and also upon those who built it up.

For it cometh to pass that whoso buildeth it up seeketh to overthrow the freedom of all lands, nations, and countries; and it bringeth to pass the destruction of all people, for it is built up by the devil, who is the father of all lies; even that same liar who beguiled our first parents, yea, even that same liar who hath caused man to commit murder from the beginning; who hath hardened the hearts of men that they have murdered the prophets, and stoned them, and cast them out from the beginning.

Wherefore, I, Moroni, am commanded to write these things that evil may be done away, and that the time may come that Satan may have no power upon the hearts of the children of men, but that they may be persuaded to do good continually, that they may come unto the fountain of all righteousness and be saved (Ether 8:22-26).

I think it is fair to say that we've reached the point where these things have been "shown unto" us, that entire nations now "see these things." There have always been conspiracy theories -- including, yes, the anti-Masonic panic of the Prophet's day -- but today, for perhaps the first time in modern history, even the normiest of normies understands that we are ruled by a psychopathic cabal of child-hating, devil-worshiping robbers and murderers. Jokes take it for granted as something everyone knows. The face of Jeffrey Epstein, which is rapidly becoming as iconic as that of Adolf Hitler, is a meme that everyone immediately understands.

Prepare ye, prepare ye for that which is to come, for the anger of the Lord is kindled, and his sword is bathed in heaven, and it shall fall upon the inhabitants of the earth.

And everyone knows that, too. The "prophet of doom" used to be a figure of fun, but now we dismiss him for another reason: that it hardly takes much of a "prophet" to predict what everyone already takes for granted.

Joseph Smith, though, wrote in the 19th century; and Moroni, if you believe it, in the fifth.

A bit of evidence for the "interplanetary Book of Mormon" hypothesis

In my August 2024 posts "Thoughts on the Astronaut Nephi theory" and "Tight like unto a saucer?" I looked and Bill and Leo's theory that Lehi and Jared traversed not ordinary seas but the "great waters" of outer space. I was mostly critical of the idea, but in my current read-through of the Book (yes, the Book of Mormon will now be known as "the Book"), I noticed a detail that does lend it some support.

The Book's "promised land" is 13 times referred to as being "choice above all." Here are 10 of these instances:

a land which is choice above all other lands (1 Ne. 2:20)

the land which is choice above all other lands (1 Ne. 13:30)

a land which is choice above all other lands (2 Ne. 1:5)

a choice land, saith God unto me, above all other lands (2 Ne. 10:19)

choice unto me above all other parts of the land of my vineyard (Jacob 5:43)

the land of promise, which was choice above all other lands (Ether 2:7)

a land which is choice above all other lands (Ether 2:10)

a land choice above all other lands (Ether 2:15)

choice above all other lands (Ether 9:20)

a choice land above all other lands (Ether 13:2)

The key word I want you to notice here is other. This is required by logic, since a land that is choice above "all lands" would have to be choice above itself, and that is impossible. Something can be choice above all members of a given category only if it is not itself a member of that category.

Now look at these two instances from Ether:

a land which is choice above all the earth (Ether 1:38)
a land which is choice above all the lands of the earth (Ether 1:42)

These differ from the others it two respects: (1) they omit the word other, and (2) they refer not to "lands" but to "the earth" or "the lands of the earth." Logically, this implies that the choice land, though it is a land, is not "of the earth." Another planet seems to be indicated.

There is, alas, one counterexample:

a land that was choice above all lands (Ether 10:28)

As stated above, it is logically impossible for what is said in this verse to be strictly true, and if the language here is logically loose, so could the language of those other two Ether verses be. This weakens the evidence presented here but does not disprove the interplanetary theory. What would potentially disprove it would be the other sort of counterexample -- "choice above all other lands of the earth," which would place the promised land firmly on planet Earth -- and this we do not find in the Book.

As evidence, this is extremely tenuous, and by itself it is hardly enough to tip the scales in favor of the interplanetary hypothesis. I thought it was worth mentioning, though. Some additional tenuous evidence may be found in the command that the Jaredites bring "seed of the earth of every kind" (Ether 1:41) -- a phrase not used anywhere else in scripture -- and in the fact that "they did also prepare a vessel, in which they did carry with them the fish of the waters" (Ether 2:2) -- scarcely necessary on an ordinary sea voyage.