2 Nephi 1: 28

28 And now my son, Laman, and also Lemuel and Sam, and also my sons who are the sons of Ishmael, behold, if ye will hearken unto the voice of Nephi ye shall not perish. And if ye will hearken unto him I leave unto you a blessing, yea, even my first blessing.

With my current understanding of birthright traditions, as described in other places in scripture, this verse seems problematic, at least on the surface. The confusion starts with the inclusion of Lemuel, Sam, and the sons of Ishmael. So I’m not sure which is the right idea, but I will attempt to describe a couple of different possible ways to understand this.

Traditionally the first blessing, or birthright would go to the eldest son, giving him a double portion of the inheritance. Certainly this tradition has been broken in the past. We don’t have mention of Adam and Eve’s other children by name, only those in the patriarchal lineage. So we can assume that Cain was in line to receive the birthright, at least until he killed Abel. Is it possible that part of Cain’s jealousy of his younger brother was due to Abel’s accepted sacrifice putting him in line to receive the inheritance instead of Cain? If so, this is the first recorded incident of a younger brother jumping ahead in the inheritance line. Another example is Jacob receiving the first blessing instead of Esau. Isaac could have revoked that when he realized what happened, and that he had been deceived, but he didn’t, giving the inheritance to the second son. Jacob’s son, Reuben, forfeited his birthright to Joseph through his iniquity. So there is certainly history behind the birthright going to someone besides the oldest. In fact, in the case of Joseph, apparently for some reason besides iniquity, he gave his first blessing to Ephraim instead of the slightly older twin brother, Manasseh.

I suppose one possibility of Lehi’s blessing in this verse being conditional is to give the birthright to Nephi in a way that he hoped would cause the least amount of jealousy among his other sons. If that was the intent, it didn’t work, as described in 2 Nephi 5: 3. So one point of confusion is that Lehi can’t give his first blessing (birthright) to all of his sons. This is why I think we need to look at other interpretations of this verse.

Another possibility is that the verse could actually be two verses. The first sentence directed to all the sons; the second sentence directed to Laman only. It almost reads as if Lehi starts talking to Laman, then he adds the other sons to include them in his declaration that they would not perish if they followed Nephi (the prophet). The problem with the second sentence being directed to all of them is that Sam actually did follow Nephi, but Nephi was the one who became king (see 2 Nephi 5: 6, 18). So he did not receive the first blessing, even though he followed Nephi. The second problem with the second sentence applying to all of them is that the sons of Ishmael rightly could not be included in any discussion of Lehi’s birthright. Presumably one of them already possessed the birthright of Ishmael.

Yet another way to look at this (although less likely in my mind) is that Lehi was speaking of eternal inheritance in the Kingdom of God. In that case, all his sons (and us as well) can receive the first blessing of all the Father has if we follow the prophet. If not, the blessing is taken from us and given to the prophets themselves. John teaches, “the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy” (Revelation 19: 10). So as prophets in that sense, all believers in Christ can inherit the first blessing. I’m sure that’s reading too much into it, but it would explain how all Lehi’s sons could be eligible for the first blessing.

• 2 Nephi 5: 3

2 Nephi 1: 27

27 And it must needs be that the power of God must be with him, even unto his commanding you that ye must obey. But behold, it was not he, but it was the Spirit of the Lord which was in him, which opened his mouth to utterance that he could not shut it.

Nephi’s brothers certainly had experience with the power of God working through him. Some of those experiences were so strong that they really should not have been able to forget them. I’m thinking of when the angel appeared to them when they went to get the brass plates (1 Nephi 3: 29–30), when he was able to break free from the chords they tied him with when they went to get their wives (1 Nephi 7: 17–18), the shock they received when they refused to help build a ship (1 Nephi 17: 53–55), and calming the storm on the sea (1 Nephi 18: 21). These are the significant events recorded by Nephi, but there had to be others as well. Even Lehi had been on the receiving end of Nephi’s teaching, when Nephi’s bow broke and he made the new one to go hunting with. The difference is that Lehi had experience with the Lord’s will being expressed through him (see 1 Nephi 3: 5). Lehi learned from his experience; the brothers apparently did not.

I know this will sound counterintuitive, but it takes humility to show the Lord’s power and command in His name, as Nephi did on many occasions. The reason I say that is that the Lord’s will is rarely the popular thing to do in the world. So in order to have the courage to do His will, including commanding in his name as Nephi has done, requires that you put your own insecurities and desires subject to the Lord’s will. So while the world might see this as exercising power and authority over others, maybe even grandstanding, depending on what the Lord requires, it actually is a great show of faith and humility to bury your own selfish desires for popularity, or ignore your own selfish comfort zones, and do what the Lord wants you to do. I’m sure the easy thing for Noah to do would have been to not build the ark, or if he had to do it, not make such a big production of it. I’m sure the easy thing for Joseph to do would have been to submit himself (as a slave) to the will of Potiphar’s wife. The scriptures are full of these kinds of examples of people who could have taken the “easy” way out, but instead, subjected their own wills to the Lord’s will in order to do the uncomfortable or difficult thing. Of course, in the long run, it turns out better to do things the Lord’s way, as Noah found out when it started raining, and as Joseph found out when he was promoted from prisoner to regent over all of Egypt.

There is a story, however, that teaches it is actually easier to do the Lord’s will than it is to ignore it. I am referring to Jonah in the Old Testament. A short book, Jonah’s experience of trying to run from his responsibility to cry repentance to his enemy was not only fruitless, but made his life miserable as well. This is a great illustration of what Lehi means when he says that “it was the Spirit of the Lord which was in [Nephi], which opened his mouth to utterance that he could not shut it.” For a man like Nephi it would have been very difficult to ignore the prompting of the Spirit to open his mouth rather than to ignore it, regardless of the consequences with his brothers.

• Jonah 1–4
• 1 Nephi 13: 5
• 1 Nephi 17: 48
• D&C 33: 8
• D&C 121: 43

2 Nephi 1: 26

26 And ye have murmured because he hath been plain unto you. Ye say that he hath used sharpness; ye say that he hath been angry with you; but behold, his sharpness was the sharpness of the power of the word of God, which was in him; and that which ye call anger was the truth, according to that which is in God, which he could not restrain, manifesting boldly concerning your iniquities.

I discuss at some length in my entry for 1 Nephi 16: 2 the relationship between a guilty conscience and the truth, as it points out the source of that guilty conscience. In this entry I want to discuss the term “sharpness.” This is a word used several times in the scriptures relative to chastisement or reproof. Webster’s New World College Dictionary (3^rd ed.) gives quite a few definitions for the term “sharp.” Most of the definitions have little to do with the scriptural use of the term. Two definitions stand out to me as having application here, and I think Lehi refers to both definitions in this verse.

The first definition is, “clearly defined; distinct; clear.” This is what Lehi refers to as “the sharpness of the power of the word of God.” The word of God, at least in times of reproof, is sharp, clear, direct, and plain, so there is no confusion or room to misinterpret what is being said. The Lord often cloaks doctrine and prophecy in symbolism for the express purpose of confusing or hiding it from people who are not enlightened by the Holy Ghost, or ready to hear it. But when it comes to individual course corrections, He is always clear. So the first definition of sharp has to do with Nephi’s intent.

The second definition of sharp has reference to the perception of Nephi’s clarity, and it’s the perception of the guilty. That definition reads, “harsh, biting, or severe.” This perception can only come to those with a guilty conscience. I think that is one way we know Nephi’s brothers knew better in their behavior and treatment of him. If they had no guilty conscience they would not have taken offense at Nephi’s sharpness. If there is no guilty conscience, there is no reason for offense. Lack of a guilty conscience in times of sharp correction comes from either ignorance or apathy. (Of course, another source of this lack is having done nothing wrong, but I’m assuming if the reproof is coming from God, you did something wrong, or there would be no reproof.) Ignorance is corrected with information. Apathy applies to people who no longer have the light of Christ, who are so far into their wickedness that their “conscience [is] seared with a hot iron” (1 Timothy 4: 2). These are the kinds of people Mormon was forbidden to preach unto because of the hardness of their hearts (see Mormon 1: 16–17).

A guilty conscience will cause people to misinterpret other people’s intentions or actions. Nephi, and I’m sure all prophets who are called to cry repentance, was simply pointing out the truth of his brothers’ behavior. What was the “truth, according to that which is in God,” was interpreted as being Nephi’s anger. It may have been God’s anger “which he could not restrain,” but Nephi was just the messenger. The wayward brothers called it anger, but it was really their own guilty consciences trying to get them to do right. They didn’t like the feeling, but they blamed Nephi instead of themselves for the uncomfortable feeling of guilt.

• Proverbs 15: 10
• 1 Nephi 16: 2
• Words of Mormon 1: 17
• Moroni 9:4
• D&C 121: 43 (41–43)

2 Nephi 1: 25

25 And I exceedingly fear and tremble because of you, lest he shall suffer again; for behold, ye have accused him that he sought power and authority over you; but I know that he hath not sought for power nor authority over you, but he hath sought the glory of God, and your own eternal welfare.

Lehi, of course, recognizes both what Nephi is doing (following the Lord), and what his rebellious sons are doing in response. So Lehi tries to get them to see that they have no reason to be jealous of Nephi. Because Lehi is also a prophet, he gets it. He understands Nephi’s motivations, and recognizes that they are not selfish. But when Nephi tells his brothers what to do (retrieve the brass plates, build a ship, repent, etc.) or not to do (don’t return to Jerusalem, don’t party on the ship, etc.) they get offended and assume that he is trying to be in charge of them and run their lives. They think that it is Nephi’s aim to usurp power, to rule them, and be their teacher. Never mind that an angel had told them that Nephi would do just that (see 1 Nephi 2: 22; 3: 29). Pride and jealousy are major stumbling blocks for these brothers. I love this quote by Ralph Waldo Emerson: "Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted." Laman and Lemuel could have learned from that, if they were humble enough to receive it.

• Genesis 37: 10 (9–11)
• 1 Nephi 2: 22
• 1 Nephi 16: 37
• Mosiah 10: 14

2 Nephi 1: 24

24 Rebel no more against your brother, whose views have been glorious, and who hath kept the commandments from the time that we left Jerusalem; and who hath been an instrument in the hands of God, in bringing us forth into the land of promise; for were it not for him, we must have perished with hunger in the wilderness; nevertheless, ye sought to take away his life; yea, and he hath suffered much sorrow because of you.

Lehi recognizes that Nephi is a prophet, and in fact the prophet of this people after he (Lehi) dies. These wayward sons of his have caused Nephi a lot of grief, even to the point of trying to kill him on at least one occasion (see 1 Nephi 16: 37), and that was after Nephi had saved their lives. So Lehi does admonish his sons to heed Nephi out of respect for his calling as prophet, but if not for that reason, then they should stop rebelling simply because had kept them alive, and they owed him. They owed him their lives. They could at least stop rebelling, even if they disagreed with his teachings. However, the problem was not so much his teachings, but their jealousy of his power and influence over them. They thought Nephi was trying to take their place as rightful heirs of Lehi to lead the people. The times that they rebelled were not so much when he was teaching or preaching, but rather when he was telling them what to do.

• 1 Nephi 16: 32
• 1 Nephi 16: 37

2 Nephi 1: 23

23 Awake, my sons; put on the armor of righteousness. Shake off the chains with which ye are bound, and come forth out of obscurity, and arise from the dust.

I love the imagery used here by Lehi. It’s so descriptive of what happens when someone is caught up in sin. And it can happen to good people, who before they realize it have been lulled away into behavior they never intended. Satan’s methods can be almost hypnotic at times. A later chapter in 2 Nephi tells us that one of Satan’s strategies is to “pacify, and lull [us] away into carnal security” where we are seduced away from the paths of righteousness, and are led away “carefully down to hell” (see 2 Nephi 28: 21). And it can happen so gradually that we don’t realize it is even happening until we are sometimes very far down the wrong path. If you’ve ever had the experience of reading by natural light as the day gradually slips away to evening, you can get the imagery here. You are so engrossed in your reading that you don’t realize it is getting darker, even too dark to read well, until someone else walks in the room and turns on the light. The contrast can be startling and “wake you up” to what you didn’t even realize you were doing, reading in the dark.

How do we avoid falling into that false sense of security? Lehi draws on another word picture to teach how: the armor of righteousness. The comparison of righteousness to armor has been made in other places in the scriptures, but this is the earliest comparison chronologically that I am aware of. Paul elaborates beautifully on what the armor represents in his letter to the Ephesians (see Ephesians 6: 11–18), and a similar comparison is made in the Doctrine and Covenants (see D&C 27: 15–18). There is power in this armor to resist the fiery darts, or temptations, of Satan, who is looking for any way to bind us in chains of sin.

Sin has the effect of shackles, in a spiritual sense. Once these chains bind you it is very difficult to break free. Sin is like that; it leads to more sin, if not checked right away. One big difference between sin and righteousness is that sin is addictive in nature, while righteousness is not. It’s easy to break out of patterns of righteousness; it’s easy to break those habits. Even though righteous behavior makes us feel good, like we want that feeling all the time, the righteous habits are easily broken. You would never hear of someone bound down in the “chains of righteousness.” You always have full capacity to exercise your agency to break habits of righteousness. In fact, it’s way too easy to do so, or seems to be. Not so with habits of sin. Those habits become addictions. Those habits restrict or hinder your ability to exercise your agency. Like chains, they limit your freedom to act. And like chains, you often can’t break out of them alone, without help. That’s where the Savior and his infinite Atonement comes in. When Lehi tells his sons to “shake off the chains,” he is telling them to turn to the Lord. They need the atonement to shake off those chains. They can’t do it alone, but it does have to be their decision. The Savior will not enter and help where He is not wanted.

When Lehi pleads with his sons to “come forth out of obscurity,” I don’t think he is telling them to become famous. The older definition of obscure is, “lacking light; dim; dark; murky” (Webster’s New World College Dictionary, 3^rd ed. 1997). Lehi is telling these wayward sons to leave their dark deeds behind them, to come into the light and righteousness. Likewise, the term dust has an older, less common, but more applicable definition than “small powdery earth” usually associated with the word. Dust also means, “confusion; turmoil” (ibid). With these older definitions, Lehi’s plea makes even more sense, and become more than simply beautiful imagery. He’s telling them to come out of darkness, and stop living in turmoil. They were in that condition because they were bound by the devil’s “everlasting chains of death” (see Alma 36: 18), due to not wearing the armor of righteousness, and being lulled into a false sense of security. They were reading in the dark and didn’t realize it.

• John 8: 32
• Ephesians 6: 11–18
• 2 Nephi 28: 20–24
• Jacob 3: 11
• D&C 27: 15–18