Nephi sees in vision the future twelve apostles Christ would have with Him in His mortal ministry. This verse comes from Nephi’s description of the twelve apostles as preexistent spirits. They would not come to mortality for another six centuries. Centuries before their birth Nephi is told and has the foreknowledge they would qualify for eternal life.
We have a number of scriptures about those chosen by God while yet preexistent. Jeremiah was told by God: “Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.” (Jer. 1: 5.) Before he was conceived as a mortal embryo, Jeremiah was known to God, and had been ordained as a prophet.
Although a lost doctrine to Historic Christianity, this doctrine was restored through Joseph Smith. The preexistence of spirits is necessarily a true doctrine in order for Nephi to see specific people as spirits, centuries before their earthly ministry.
The most interesting part of this description is the identification of these twelve as “righteous forever” before their mortality. The implication of someone being called “righteous forever” is that they will be exalted. This raises a profound doctrinal question about the ability of spirits to exalt themselves in the preexistence. Joseph Smith taught this doctrine. But, since it was very late in his ministry before he mentioned it directly, most scholars believe it was a late doctrinal development and not something he would have known in 1829 while the Book of Mormon was being translated. Yet, the doctrine arises in the early part of the Book of Mormon. Once again we find the Book of Mormon keeping pace with the most profound doctrines taught by Joseph.
Joseph preached a sermon on June 16, 1844 in the Grove east of the Nauvoo Temple. His comments were recorded by Thomas Bullock, one of the better scribes for Joseph’s talks. The record prepared by Thomas Bullock reads as follows:
-the Scrip are a very strange doct.-I have an[othe]r. Scrip-now says God when visited Moses in the Bush-moses was a stutt[er]ing sort of a boy like me-God said thou shalt be a God unto the children of Israel-God said thou shalt be a God unto Aaron & he shall be thy spokes. (Ftnote. 41) I bel. in these Gods that God reveals as Gods-to be Sons of God (Ftnote. 42) & all can cry Abba Father (Ftnote. 43)-Sons of God who exalt themselves to be Gods even from bef. the foundatn. of the world & are all the only Gods I have a reverence for- (Ftnote. 44) (WJS, p. 381; the spelling and punctuation as in original; footnotes added by Andrew Ehat and Lyndon W. Cook follow: Footnotes:
41. Exodus 3: 16.
42. Job 38: 7; John 1: 12; Romans 8: 14, 19; 1 John 3: 1–2; 3 Nephi 9: 17; Moroni 7: 26, 48; D&C 11: 30; 39: 4; 45: 8; 76: 24, 58 (50–60); Moses 6: 68 (57–68); 7: 1; 8: 13–22 (cf. Genesis 6:1–8).43. Romans 8: 15 (14–17).44. Abraham 3: 22–4: 1. (WJS p. 410.)
The official account in Church History reads as follows:
“Now,” says God, when He visited Moses in the bush, (Moses was a stammering sort of a boy like me) God said, “Thou shalt be a God unto the children of Israel.” God said, “Thou shalt be a God unto Aaron, and he shall be thy spokesman.” I believe those Gods that God reveals as Gods to be sons of God, and all can cry, “Abba, Father!” Sons of God who exalt themselves to be Gods, even from before the foundation of the world, and are the only Gods I have a reverence for. (DHC, 6: 478; TPJS, p. 375.)
These comments were made just eleven days before Joseph’s death. They came at a time when he seemed concerned about leaving us as much teaching as he was permitted in his ministry. As his time was coming to an end, he tried all the harder to have us see into heaven. The above footnotes are from WJS and are to help the reader to follow Joseph’s thinking while using the scriptures.
Joseph is saying there are “Sons of God who exalt themselves to be Gods, even before the foundation of the world.” In the context of the June 1844 sermon, this seemed quite revolutionary. Joseph’s comments were justified by using Biblical references, but this doctrine appeared in other scripture restored through Joseph. For example, in Abraham, Chapters 3–4, we have the following:
Now the Lord had shown unto me, Abraham, the intelligences that were organized before the world was; [i.e., all preexistent spirits] and among all these there were many of the noble and great ones; [i.e., a subset or smaller portion of the group.]
And God saw these souls [i.e., the smaller subset called “noble and great”]that they were good, and he stood in the midst of them, [i.e., the subset “noble &great”] and he said: These [the subset] I will make my rulers; for he stood among those that were spirits, and he saw that they [the subset] were good; and he said unto me: Abraham, thou art one of them; [i.e., one of the subset called “noble & great”] thou wast chosen before thou wast born.
And there stood one among them [i.e., one from among the subset called “noble & great”] that was like unto God, [i.e., Christ as a preexistent spirit being] and he [Christ] said unto those who were with him[i.e., the “noble & great]: We [i.e., Christ and the “noble & great”] will go down, for there is space there, and we [i.e., Christ and the “noble & great”] will take of these materials, and we will make an earth whereon these [i.e., the rest of the preexistent spirits of mankind] may dwell;
And we will prove them [i.e., the rest of the preexistent spirits of mankind]herewith, to see if they will do all things whatsoever the Lord their God shall command them; And they who keep their first estate shall be added upon; and they who keep not their first estate shall not have glory in the same kingdom with those who keep their first estate; and they who keep their second estate shall have glory added upon their heads for ever and ever.
And the Lord said: Whom shall I send? And one answered like unto the Son of Man: [i.e., Christ] Here am I, send me. And another answered and said: Here am I, send me. And the Lord said: I will send the first. And the second was angry, and kept not his first estate; and, at that day, many followed after him. AND then the Lord said: Let us [i.e., the “noble & great” as identified previously in verse 24 where it says “we will take of these materials, and we will make an earth” led by Christ] go down. And they [i.e., Christ and the “noble & great”] went down at the beginning, and they, that is the Gods, [i.e., Christ accompanied by the “noble & great”] organized and formed the heavens and the earth. (Abr. 3: 22–4: 1; emphasis added, and inserted commentary in brackets.)
Here, a subset of preexistent spirits called “noble and great” are referred to as “the Gods.” This designation is consistent with Joseph’s comment about “sons of God who exalt themselves to be Gods, even before the foundation of the world.” It is also consistent with the much earlier reference in Nephi 12: 10 to preexistent spirits whose mortal ministry would include a call to be one of Christ’s Twelve Apostles, and who are referred to long before their mortal probation began as “righteous forever.”
This again shows us the Book of Mormon can keep pace with any of the deepest doctrines of the Restoration.
Joseph would consistently assert God and mankind were not different kinds of beings. Instead, they were linked as Divine Parent and mortal child. The prototype of the saved man was Christ. As the Lectures on Faith teaches:
…let us ask-Where shall we find a prototype into whose likeness we may be assimilated, in order that we may be made partakers of life and salvation? or, in other words, where shall we find a saved being? for if we can find a saved being, we may ascertain without much difficulty what all others must be in order to be saved. We think that it will not be a matter of dispute, that two beings who are unlike each other cannot both be saved; for whatever constitutes the salvation of one will constitute the salvation of every creature which will be saved; and if we find one saved being in all existence, we may see what all others must be, or else not be saved. We ask, then, where is the prototype? or where is the saved being? We conclude, as to the answer of this question, there will be no dispute among those who believe the bible, that it is Christ: all will agree in this, that he is the prototype or standard of salvation; or, in other words, that he is a saved being.
…for salvation consists in the glory, authority, majesty, power and dominion which Jehovah possesses and in nothing else; and no being can possess it but himself or one like him. Thus says John, in his first epistle, third chapter, second and third verses: “Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be; but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is. And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure.” Why purify themselves as he is pure? Because if they do not they cannot be like him. (Lecture 7; paragraph 9.)
Christ is the prototype, and everyone who is to be saved must emulate Him. This is the great reason He invites all mankind to “follow Him.” Unless we are willing to follow in His example, we are not going to become like Him. And, failing to become like Him, we fail in our salvation. The Lectures continue:
These teachings of the Saviour most clearly show unto us the nature of salvation, and what he proposed unto the human family when he proposed to save them-that he proposed to make them like unto himself, and he was like the Father, the great prototype of all saved beings; and for any portion of the human family to be assimilated into their likeness is to be saved; and to be unlike them is to be destroyed; and on this hinge turns the door of salvation.(Id., paragraph 16.)
In one of Joseph’s most lofty sermons, he returns to this theme. The funeral sermon for Elder King Follett was preached at the April, 1844 General Conference. It is generally regarded as one of Joseph’s greatest sermons, containing some of his most profound doctrine. Among other things, he teaches:
Here, then, is eternal life-to know the only wise and true God; and you have got to learn how to be gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all gods have done before you, namely, by going from one small degree to another, and from a small capacity to a great one; from grace to grace, from exaltation to exaltation, until you attain to the resurrection of the dead, and are able to dwell in everlasting burnings, and to sit in glory, as do those who sit enthroned in everlasting power. And I want you to know that God, in the last days, while certain individuals are proclaiming His name, is not trifling with you or me.
These are the first principles of consolation. How consoling to the mourners when they are called to part with a husband, wife, father, mother, child, or dear relative, to know that, although the earthly tabernacle is laid down and dissolved, they shall rise again to dwell in everlasting burnings in immortal glory, not to sorrow, suffer, or die any more, but they shall be heirs of God and joint heirs with Jesus Christ. What is it? To inherit the same power, the same glory and the same exaltation, until you arrive at the station of a god, and ascend the throne of eternal power, the same as those who have gone before.What did Jesus do? Why, I do the things I saw my Father do when worlds came rolling into existence. My Father worked out His kingdom with fear and trembling, and I must do the same; and when I get my kingdom, I shall present it to My Father, so that He may obtain kingdom upon kingdom, and it will exalt Him in glory. He will then take a higher exaltation, and I will take His place, and thereby become exalted myself. So that Jesus treads in the tracks of His Father, and inherits what God did before; and God is thus glorified and exalted in the salvation and exaltation of all His children. It is plain beyond disputation, and you thus learn some of the first principles of the gospel, about which so much hath been said.
When you climb up a ladder, you must begin at the bottom, and ascend step by step, until you arrive at the top; and so it is with the principles of the gospel-you must begin with the first, and go on until you learn all the principles of exaltation. But it will be a great while after you have passed through the veil before you will have learned them. It is not all to be comprehended in this world; it will be a great work to learn our salvation and exaltation even beyond the grave. (DHC, 6: 305–307, emphasis added.)
Christ’s role as Divine Exemplar becomes considerably more understandable in light of these teachings. Christ is God. But there were “sons of God” who were similarly able to “exalt themselves to be gods before they were born.” It is a wonderful new kind of doctrine; something Historic Christianity had altogether lost sight of by the time of the Restoration. Historic Christianity’s struggles to understand Christ resulted in a wholesale modification of Him into something which was not and could not be a prototype for humanity. He was remade into something altogether alien from mankind: A different species; comprised of a different substance.
As Primitive Christianity died and was replaced by Historic Christianity, one of the greatest controversies involved the relationship between Christ and the Father. There was a great debate over the question of whether Christ was equal to or subordinate to the Father. Arius was an advocate of Christ’s subordination. He believed the Father existed before the Son, and the Son was created by the Father. The larger Roman world had little difficulty accepting a “son” being subordinate to a “father.” It did not dishonor Christ to view Him in that way, in their culture. As the Hellenized metaphysicians took control over Historic Christian and began their creed-making, they found the division of Christ from the Father an unacceptable philosophical position. They wanted monotheism, with a single Deity. This required a single entity for the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. The struggle was resolved at Nicea with the adoption of the foundational Nicean Creed. The metaphysicians won. Arius lost. In the debate, God acquired a wholly new nature, as did Christ. Christ became an undifferentiated being commensurate with the Father and the Holy Ghost. All three were one single entity, a single incomprehensible being.
A very readable book on the development of the struggle and its ultimate outcome is Richard E. Rubenstein’s book, When Jesus Became God. New York: Hartcourt, 1999. Rubenstein is Jewish, but fascinated by the early Christological struggles of Christianity. A member of the law faculty at George Mason University, he has written a readable account of the events. Here are a few excerpts from his book to show the problem briefly:
How could one be a Christian and not believe that Christ was God incarnate? The Arians had an answer. To them, Jesus was a person of such sublime moral accomplishments that God adopted him as His Son, sacrificed him to redeem humanity from sin, raised him from the dead, and granted him divine status. Because of his excellence, he became a model of righteous behavior for us. And because his merit earned the prize of immortality, the same reward was made available to other human beings, provided that they model themselves after him. From the Arian perspective, it was essential that Jesus not be God, since God, being perfect by nature, is inimitable. By contrast, Christ’s transcendent virtue, achieved by repeated acts of will, is available (at least potentially) to the rest of us. Even though we may fall short of his impeccable standards, his triumph over egoism shows us how we also may become the Sons and Daughters of God. (Id., p. 7.)
Now this is not good doctrine because it denies the virgin birth and Christ’s status as the “only begotten in the flesh” of the Father’s. Arius was not altogether correct. But he was certainly onto something. And he was closer to the truth than what would ultimately emerge from the debate.
In an effort to bring matters a bit closer to scripture, there were followers of Arius who adopted a slightly more elevated view of Christ. Rubenstein writes about them:
Many Arians believed that the Eternal had somehow conceived him (or conceived of him) before time began, and used him as an instrument to create the rest of the universe. Even so, they insisted, he could not possibly be God Himself. How could an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good Creator experience temptation, learn wisdom, and grow in virtue? How could he suffer on the Cross and die the death of a human being? Surely, when Jesus cried out, “My God, my God, why has Thou forsaken me?” he was not talking to himself? When he admitted that nobody knows the day and hour of Judgment, “not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only,” he was not just being modest. And when he told his disciples that “the Father is greater than I,” he meant exactly what he said. (Id., p. 8.)
These references to Christ’s own words gave Arians some confidence they were onto correct doctrine. Their teachings resonated with many early Christians. Continuing with Rubenstein:
Today, many orthodox Christians consider Arianism obviously heretical, but during the first three centuries after Jesus’ crucifixion, the idea that the Savior was separate from God and subordinate to Him was not particularly shocking. To patriarchal Romans, the very titles Father and Son implied a relationship of superiority and inferiority. Two of the most brilliant and influential of the Eastern Church Fathers, Origen and Dionysius of Alexandria, had taught that Jesus was inferior in some respects to God. And the idea of a hierarchy of power and glory in heaven matched what people saw in earth, as well as what they read in the Gospels. (Id., p. 10.)
There were, therefore, earlier Primitive Christian Church Fathers whose writings gave some support to the Arians. Also, there were cultural reasons which made their beliefs comfortable for them. A great appeal of the doctrine was the potential inherent in it. If Christ was similar to mankind, then mankind’s ultimate destiny might be greater than we could ever imagine. For Christ became a God. Did man, therefore, possess a similar capacity for exaltation? Rubenstein writes:
All Christians believed that Jesus’ sacrifice redeemed humanity. What God did for the Son by resurrecting him and granting him immortality He could do for us as well, provided that we became new people in Christ. But if Jesus was not God by nature—if he earned his deification by growing in wisdom and virtue—why, so can we all. The Good News of the Gospels is that we also are God’s potential Sons and Daughters. (Id., p. 56.)
Here we find the Arians and the promise of the Restoration in harmony. Man’s potential is as unlimited as Christ’s. Provided, of course, mankind follows Christ.
Arians always risked being charged with preaching false doctrine. (The definition of “orthodoxy” and “heresy” did not develop until doctrines became more settled. However all segments of the divided Second and Third Century Christian communities charged those with whom they disagreed with preaching lies.)
Did Arius deny Christ’s divinity? He did not, since whether the Son was perfect by will or by nature, whether he was God’s subordinate or his equal, God had raised him up to rule by His side in heaven and there was none like him. (Id., p. 57.)
The preexistence of Christ (which was not applied to the rest of mankind) posed no hurdle to the Arians, either.
Not even the doctrine, popular in the East, that the Son was begotten before time began disturbed the Arians, since Jesus’ “preexistence” proved that he was chosen to play a special role in cosmic history, not that he was God’s equal. And one phrase in Eusebius’s creed, “first-begotten of all creation,” seemed to imply that, however unique Jesus may have been, he was part of the created order rather than part of the Creator. (Id., p. 79.)
The emerging majority of the early Christian communities was persuaded to deny Christ was created, and therefore a creature. He was “uncreated” (whatever that means) so He could become defined as equal to the Father. If the Father created Him, they reasoned then He would be subordinate to Him and not the same as Him. Such a train of reasoning would in turn introduce all the unthinkable mischief of polytheism, which these advocates of a more philosophical Christianity sought to avoid. Because God was “one,” and they understood the word “one” to require singularity, Christ could not be anything other than the Father, and the Father could not be anything other than the Son. So, they reasoned, there was only one God, and he/it was “triune” or composed of three inseparable parts. Rubenstein then keenly observes:
As a result, Christians who accepted this triune God, distributed over three Persons, no longer shared Jehovah with their Jewish forbears or the Supreme Being with their pagan neighbors, nor could Jews or pagans claim to believe in the same God as that worshiped by the Christians. (Id., p. 209.)
Christ became “God” in this process. But His “Godhood” was defined as triune, and coequal with the Father and Holy Ghost, all three comprising an unknowable single God-thing. They thought this unknowable and unmovable definition of God was a beautiful thing. It represented the finest in commingling philosophy with scripture, allowing scripture to borrow the finery of Greek minds. As the disorderly remainders of Christianity debated and clarified these doctrines, Primitive Christianity was replaced by Historic Christianity, and the Historic Christian movement was then able to distinguish authoritatively between the orthodox and the heretic. But the “authority” they relied upon to make the distinction was not revelation. It was essentially the outcome of a political convention. In the wake of the philosophical and political compromises which led to a new definition of God, the conflicts continued. Once they were confident of their doctrines, they felt comfortable moving away from Christ’s teachings. Instead of the tolerance and love for others, even toward those who abuse and persecute, as Christ taught, they became intolerant. They decreed:
“He who professes the Nicene faith is to be thought of as the genuine worshipper in the Catholic religion,” it read. Arians and other heretics were forbidden to occupy any church or meet together for worship within the walls of any town. For the first time, a substantial bloc of Christian dissenters had been denied the right of association. (Id., p. 221)
It was a great struggle. The resulting “clarifications” of doctrine resonate from the Third and Fourth Centuries through the present. The gulf between Historic Christianity and the Restored Gospel arises from these erroneous conclusions and the adoption of Greek thought to redefine God.
Another writer has shown how these controversies affected the content of the New Testament itself. The debates of the second and third centuries resulted in scribes “clarifying” the meaning of the scriptures by shaving here, adding there, to make the “truth” as they understood it clearer. As Bart Ehrman explains it, these scribes were not interested in misrepresenting and distorting scripture, but rather in making it doctrinally sound. The “theological disputes, specifically disputes over Christology, prompted Christian scribes to alter the words of Scripture in order to make them more serviceable for the polemical task.” (Ehrman, Bart D. The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effects of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993., p. 3–4.)
The problem was the emerging consensus, which became orthodox Historic Christianity adopted views measured by Aristotle and Plato rather than measuring from revelation, inspiration, or even an appeal to prophetic and apostolic intent. Bart Ehrman’s book shows how these turbulent debates twisted the outcome. Though, a defender of Historic Christianity who welcomes the result, he vindicates the Prophet Joseph Smith’s observation the scriptures should only be trusted “as far as it is translated correctly.” (8Article of Faith.) The scribes were not interested in a correct translation. They were busy vindicating their own views, even when it required alteration of the texts, as Bart Ehrman has shown.
We know Christ was a man, tempted in all respects as we are, and yet without sin. He bled, suffered and died. He ate, slept soundly, got hungry, and endured every difficulty and pain all of us experience. What distinguishes Him from the rest of humanity was not His mortal flesh and suffering, but His determination to resist sin and follow His Father.He earned the fullness of grace through obedience, and did not have the fullness of grace simply given to Him at the start. His progression was done in conformity with established laws which anyone can follow to receive the same result. Because He obeyed the Father, He bids us to all come follow Him. We approach the Father by doing as Christ did, and following His example. Just as Joseph Smith said in Lecture 7 quoted earlier, Christ is the “prototype” of a saved man. If we want to be saved as well, we must follow His example and walk in His path.
Christ helped put our dependence upon the Father into perspective by speaking of His own dependence upon the Father. John was shown Christ’s entire development as the Son of God, and testified of how He gained the status. His testimony included this description of Christ: “And I, John, saw that he received not of the fullness at the first, but received grace for grace. And he received not of the fullness at first, but continued from grace to grace, until he received a fullness; And thus he was called the Son of God, because he received not of the fullness at the first.” (D&C 93: 12–14, spellings corrected.) Although most people read this to be a description of Christ’s earthly progression, John states he is testifying to what he saw of Christ’s pre-existent progression. He states, “I saw his glory, that he was in the beginning, before the world was.” (Id., v. 7.) The testimony of John should be read as a description of Christ’s progression in both the pre-existence and here on earth.
Though Christ was the Son of God, He declared: “I can of mine own self do nothing.” (John 5: 29.) He also taught: “I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things. And he that sent me is with me: the Father hath not left me alone; for I do always those things that please him.” (John 8: 28–29.) He declared to the Nephites, “I have suffered the will of the Father in all things from the beginning.” (3 Ne. 11: 11.) If Christ was content to be subordinate to the Father, dependent upon Him and one of His creations, then we should recognize our own debt to the Father. He “created [us] from the beginning.” (Mosiah 2: 21.)
Moreover, He is “preserving [us] from day to day.” (Id.) That is, the Father’s power was not used only to create us, but continues to preserve us “from day to day.” We do not have a moment from our birth to our death in which we are not reliant upon God for the continuance of our existence. Without Him, we would not be “preserved,” or in other words, we would not stay created or organized. We would dissolve into the original, pre-creation, primordial constituent parts. We would be “uncreated” if we lost His “preserving” power.
The full extent of our dependence upon the Father becomes clear in the next phrase. He is “lending [us] breath.” (Id.) This preserving power is also described in D&C 88: 11–13: “And the light which shineth, which giveth you light, is through him who enlighteneth your eyes, which is the same light that quickeneth your understandings; Which light proceedeth forth from the presence of God to fill the immensity of space—The light which is in all things, which giveth life to all things, which is the law by which all things are governed, even the power of God who sitteth upon his throne, who is in the bosom of eternity, who is in the midst of all things.” (Emphasis added.) The full extent of God’s involvement in our daily existence cannot be overstated. God’s direct involvement is not limited to an original launch, or “big bang.” He did not just wind up a watch and let it run on its own, thereafter. He is the power behind “all things” and “giveth life to all things” through His “power.” This description puts God at the center. However far the concentric circles may proceed from Him in all directions, He remains in the center “throne” from which His power continues to provide the “light” which sustains it all. This involvement is immediate, continuing and intimate.
The Nephite King Benjamin taught God does this so we “may live and move and do according to [our] own will.” (Mosiah 2: 21.) We have little reason for pride. There is little about us that is really ours. Paul taught of this same dependence in his sermon on Mars’ Hill in Athens. He put it: “For in him we live, and move, and have our being.” (Acts 17: 28.) Paul, whose visit to the “third heaven” (2 Cor. 12: 2) equipped him to see this relationship, proclaimed God’s direct responsibility for our lives, our energy to move, and the power behind our organized being. We are all beggars, dependent upon God, whether we recognize it or not. As a result, a realistic assessment of our state compels us to be humble.
King Benjamin announces God is “supporting you from one moment to another.” (Mosiah 2: 21.) We think it is us. We presume God’s generosity in lending us these things makes us more than we are. This delusion makes us think we are doing some great thing whenever we obey Him. Our delusion makes us proud. The reality is we have nothing of our own apart from the freedom to choose. We get that freedom from Him. Without the freedom to choose, we would not exist at all. The Lord explained it in revelation to Joseph Smith: “All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence. Behold, here is the agency of man, and here is the condemnation of man; because that which was from the beginning is plainly manifest unto them, and they receive not the light.” (D&C 93: 30–31.) He gives to us the independence to choose for ourselves whether or not we will accept the light he offers us.
We know Christ was similarly situated with us in the pre-existence. The description from Abraham puts Christ among a host of pre-existent spirits referred to as “noble and great.” (Abr. 3: 22–24.) Abraham was one of these “noble and great” as was the “one among them that was like unto God,” or Christ. Christ was not a dissimilar being and there were others like him before the earth’s creation.
Christ’s progression was unique in one respect. He was the very first among all those in the preexistence who “were on the same standing with their brethren” (Alma 13: 5) who went “from grace to grace, until he received a fullness.” (D&C 93: 13.) Christ always chose to “suffer the will of the Father in all things from the beginning.” (3 Ne. 11: 11.) He went “from grace to grace” but “received not the fullness at first.” (D&C 93: 11–12.) As a result of this progression, Christ proved the promises of the Father were true. He showed the way, by living by every word which proceeded from His Father. He personified the Father’s teachings by living them. As a result, He literally became “the Word” of God. (Id., v. 8.)
What He did before coming into the world, He did again in the world. He showed the way by living here as the Word. He followed His Father’s will, obeyed Him, and demonstrated to all the rest of mankind how following the Father is possible. Just as we had faith in the Father through Him before, we have faith in the Father through Him again here. He was able to do the Father’s will. We garnered faith and hope through His example, so we too could make the same progression. With Him we were able to accomplish what we could not do without Him. He proved it could be done. His proof brought others into believing, trying and then doing what was necessary to become sons of God in the preexistence, as well. He was the “author and finisher of our faith.” We saw Him do what was necessary, and then we followed His example. His leadership was necessary for us and not just in mortality. We are reenacting again on this side of the veil the same things that went on before. The challenge is to follow Him again.
The verse we consider in this Chapter provokes many profound ancillary teachings. When Joseph alludes to them late in his ministry, Mormon scholars get excited pointing out the breadth and width of Joseph’s profound insight. However, the Book of Mormon also speaks to these same issues. As Nephi writes about preexistent men, sharing in glory, and being called “righteous forever,” he is echoing doctrines about mankind’s great Divine potential. He, too, is teaching us about “sons of God who exalt themselves to be Gods, even from before the foundation of the world.”
The Book of Mormon is no meager volume of scripture. It is a carefully crafted work of sublime truth, which keeps pace with any of the most profound teachings restored through Joseph. The more closely it is considered, the more depth it reveals. It is a Urim and Thummim to any who care to look carefully into its light.