4 Nephi 1:1-3

1:1-3 - 4th Nephi is just one chapter but it's very long and content heavy so let's see how this goes. HN says, "I'm referring to that miraculous work, 4 Nephi. It's an epitome; it's a digest. The whole Book of Mormon is there. You don't have to read anything but this one book... How many chapters does it have? One. Does it get it all in there? Yes, it does. It contains the best case and the worst case. It describes them, and it explains them all in one chapter, in one book. It's a marvelous thing... It's very, very short, for the reason that Voltaire explains: 'Happy are the people whose annals are a blank.' If people live happy lives, what are you going to write about them?" Good point, there's not a ton to write about when everyone is happy. The IM teaches, "Fourth Nephi covers the nearly 200 years of unity and harmony following Jesus Christ's visit to the Americas. The people 'were all converted unto the Lord,' resulting in a society that people of all ages have dreamed of. Elder Jeffrey R. Holland of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles observed that following Christ's visit, 'His majestic teachings and ennobling spirit led to the happiest of all times, a time in which 'there were no contentions and disputations among them, and every man did deal justly one with another. And they had all things common among them; therefore there were not rich and poor, bond and free, but they were all made free, and partakers of the heavenly gift.' That blessed circumstance was, I suppose, achieved on only one other occasion of which we know- the city of Enoch, where 'they were of one heart and one mind, and dwelt in righteousness; and there was no poor among them.' Tragically, the second half of 4 Nephi reveals how a righteous and happy people allowed pride and apostasy to enter their lives, bringing the eventual destruction of their society. As you study this book of scripture, seek to understand what led to the happiness of the Nephite society as well as what led to the misery and destruction of their society." So by all accounts, 4th Nephi is quite an intensive undertaking. After the last visit recorded with Christ, "the disciples of Jesus had formed a church of Christ in all the lands round about. And as many as did come unto them, and did truly repent of their sins, were baptized in the name of Jesus; and they did also receive the Holy Ghost." The church was established among the people, with great success, in fact "the people were all converted unto the Lord, upon all the face of the land." I've always wondered about this, because yes, it's incredible that all the people that survived Christ's death joined the church, but is it really that far fetched? Especially considering what they had just experienced with the great destruction at the crucifixion, the arrival of Christ, his teachings and miracles and the testimonies of all those who saw and heard and felt him. But the IM brings up a good point by quoting President Marion G. Romney who taught that there is a difference between joining the church and being converted, "Webster (dictionary) says the verb 'convert,' means 'to turn from one belief or course to another.' That "conversion' of 'a spiritual and moral change...' As used in the scriptures, 'converted' generally implies not merely mental acceptance of Jesus and his teachings but also a motivating faith in him and in his gospel- a faith which works a transformation, an actual change in one's understanding of life's meaning and in his allegiance to God- in interest, in thought, and in conduct... In one who is wholly converted, desire for things inimical (contrary) to the gospel of Jesus Christ has actually died, and substituted therefor is a love of God with a fixed and controlling determination to keep his commandments... From this it would appear that membership in the Church and conversion are not necessarily synonymous. Being converted... and having a testimony are not necessarily the same thing either. A testimony comes when the Holy Ghost gives the earnest seeker a witness of the truth. A moving testimony vitalizes faith; that is, it induces repentance and obedience to the commandments. Conversion on the other hand, is the fruit of, or the reward for, repentance and obedience." This makes more sense in the concept of this righteous society, because when I used to think of this Nephite society, I would assume that it meant that if everyone joined the church, then we could have a highly righteous society as well, and I contrasted that with the hypocrisy I would see within the church we have now, and I couldn't reconcile the two. But looking at it from the stand point of personal conversion, but membership statistics, it makes much more sense that they were able to achieve that ultra-righteous state because the people were filled with love, love of God and love of fellow man, that's what changed the society and that's what it will take to change ours. I saw a bumper sticker once that said, "There will never be world peace until the power of love is stronger than the love of power." It took me a minute, but really, that's what it is, until people can love each other, we will always be at each other's throats. But because this power of love permeated their society "there were no contentions and disputations among them." The IM teaches, "Regarding the way members of the Church should treat others, the Lord revealed, 'Every man seeking the interest of his neighbor, and doing all things with an eye single to the glory of God.' What would it take in today's world to build a society that did not have any contentions or disputations? President Spencer W. Kimball taught how this goal can be achieved: 'First, we must eliminate the individual tendency to selfishness that snares the soul, shrinks the heart, and darkens the mind... Second, we much cooperate completely and work in harmony one with the other... Third, we must lay on the altar and sacrifice whatever is required by the Lord. We begin by offering a 'broken heart and a contrite spirit.'" If we think about the attributes of the one who teaches contention, his number one is selfishness, but the one who teaches peace, his number one is selflessness. Selfishness is the human condition, it's very difficult to overcome, especially in the sense of self-defense, but because becoming selfless became their top priority, the society was able to change. I wonder what the world would be like in every one of us decided to decrease our selfishness and increase our selflessness just 10%. How much less road rage would there be? How much less suicide or homicide? The scriptures continue that "Every man did deal justly one with another."  HN gives a little bit of insight here by saying "That means they had relationships, they had deals, they had bargains, etc. but you didn't try to take advantage if you dealt justly." I hadn't considered that, in fact when I considered that there were no contentions or disputations and "they had all things common among them," I assumed that they didn't even deal in temporal matters with each other, like just that everyone dumped everything they had into a pile and people just went and got whatever they wanted when they needed it. I guess that that doesn't make sense, but that's what I imagined, but yes, they had to have dealt with each other in business and trade. When I read that, I thought "well what reasons do we have for not dealing justly with each other now a days?" There's the obvious, that some people will do anything for gain and they don't care who they step on or what they have to do to get it, there's that part. But there are other reasons that I think get overlooked, such as the fear of being taken advantage of. Like when I buy a car, I'm so afraid that they see me as this little white lady who doesn't know anything, so I play my cards close to the vest, I wiggle and squeeze every last drop out of everything I can, so I don't deal justly with them because I'm convinced that they aren't dealing justly with me. Or going back to the car buying example, if I feel like I can get even just a few hundred dollars off, even though I know that the car is worth a little bit more than that, I'll do it and justify it as "this big car company is making tons of money, I'm just a single mom trying to squeak by." Is that appropriate? I don't know, because we live in a place where as a single mom I have a target on my back for sales people and being taken advantage of, who knows when it comes to big corporations and stuff like that. The IM quote Elder Sheldon F. Child of the Seventy as explaining "what it means to 'deal justly' with one another when he spoke about honesty and integrity:' saying, "When we say we will do something, we do it. When we make a commitment, we honor it. When we are given a calling, we fulfill it. When we borrow something, we return it. When we have a financial obligation, we pay it. When we enter into an agreement, we keep it.'" The IM continues by quoting President N. Eldon Tanner as teaching, "A young man came to me not long ago and said, 'I made an agreement with a man that requires me to make certain payments each year. I am in arrears (behind in fulfilling the financial obligations), and I can't make those payments, for if I do, it is going to cause me to lost my home. What shall I do?' I looked at him and said, 'Keep your agreement.' 'Even if it costs me my home?' I said, 'I am not talking about your home. I am talking about your agreement; and I think your wife would rather have a husband who would keep his word... and have to rent a home than to have a home with a husband who will not keep his covenants and his pledges.'" I have to think about my own circumstances and wonder if I think this was a little bit harsh. If I was the wife, would I want my husband to pay his debt and move into a smaller place to live, or would I understand that to keep our lifestyle we need to default on his debt? I think back to my own life, when I've dealt with situations like this and I agree with President Tanner, as a woman, I would rather have a husband to paid his debts. I'm not saying we shouldn't reevaluate and see how we could avoid another mess like this in the future, because we should, but I'm a "you make your bed, now lie in it," type of person, especially with myself. It's one of the hardest things to do, and I'm sure that I'm not always doing it very well, but I try, and I'm definitely a "reevaluate" kind of person. Finally, we have the big topic of "they had all things common among them; therefore there were not rich and poor, bond and free, but they were all made free, and partakers of the heavenly gift." I always assumed that this meant that no one owned or had control or possession over anything, that literally, anyone could walk into anyone else's house and take whatever they wanted because they needed it. Looking back on that statement, it definitely doesn't make sense but that's what I though. So if that's not the case, then what is? The IM quotes President Marion G. Romney as teaching, "This procedure (the united order) preserved in every man the right of private ownership and management of his property... Each man owned his portion, which at his option, he could alienate, keep and operate, or otherwise treat as his own... He consecrated to the Church the surplus he produced above the needs and wants of his own family. This surplus went into a storehouse, from which stewardships were given to others, and from which the needs of the poor were supplied.' President Romney also explained what leads a people to live in such a way: 'When we reach the state of having the 'pure love of Christ,' our desire to serve one another will have grown to the point where we will be living fully the law of consecration. Living the law of consecration exalts the poor and humbles the rich. In the process, both are sanctified. The poor, released from the bondage and humiliating limitations of poverty, are enabled as free men to rise to their full potential, both temporally and spiritually. The rick, by consecration and the imparting of their surplus for the benefit of the poor, not by constraint, but willingly as an act of free will, evidence that charity for their fellowmen characterized by Mormon as 'the pure love of Christ.' This will bring both the giver and the receiver to common ground on which the Spirit of God can meet them.' Elder Robert D. Hales of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles explained how we are preparing to live the law of consecration: 'The law of tithing prepares us to live the higher law of consecration- to dedicate and give all our time, talents, and resources to the work of the Lord. Until the day when we are required to live this higher law, we are commanded to live the law of the tithe, which is to freely give one-tenth of our income annually.'" When explained in that manner, the law of consecration and the law of tithing really makes sense. I loved when he said that "living the law of consecration exalts the poor and humbles the rich." It brings me to the saying "are we not all beggars?" I contest that the vast majority of people will be both rich and poor several times during their lives, and if we hope for compassion when we are down, let us be compassionate when we are up. Is our wealth or good fortune anything but that, favor from God granted to us at the moment to see if we will be good stewards over that which we are provided? I think back to the people of Enoch, and I always thought, as a child, "it's easy to be perfect when everyone is rich!" What I didn't understand as a child was that, the society wasn't righteous because everyone was rich, everyone was rich because the society was righteous. HN quoted Brigham Young as saying, "I could make this people the richest people on earth, but we have to be rich as a people. As soon as we start being rich as individuals that way, then that will spoil everything." Makes sense. When we go back to the concept of everyone dealing justly with each other, we can see that it goes hand in hand with the concept of "all things common." Both unjust dealings and individually rich come from a poverty mindset, which is the belief that if the other person gets what they want then I can't have what I want. It's dog eat dog because it's believed that the resources available are limited. When I was learning about business stuff, they talked extensively about the poverty mindset, and taught that the road to success is a mindset of abundance. They taught that by helping other people get what they wanted, I would be able to get what I wanted. They taught that there was enough resources to supply everybody with everything, there was no need for competition, competition, defensiveness, underhandedness, shady dealings, all this led back to the poverty mindset, and immediately reverted us back to an unsuccessful state. This is very much in line with the law of consecration and tithing, honesty and integrity, and again, this state goes against human nature, thus indicating that it's successful operation in our own life is a matter of time, prayer, and concentrated effort on our part and embracing the atonement of help from the Savior to achieve.