Scripture: These verses should be read as a single passage, for verse 12 concludes the concept begun in verse 11.
There are four elements in verse 11: two statements and two proof sets. The first statement is that there is an opposition in all things, followed by the first proof set—a series of phrases providing evidence of the statement. The second statement is that without opposition all things would be “a compound in one,” followed by its own set of phrases demonstrating the statement’s validity.
Implicit in the verse’s structure is another “opposition.” The first and second statements should also be seen as opposites—as mutually exclusive propositions. The presence of the first condition negates the second; the absence of the first requires the presence of the second.
Because the concept of opposition might be the more conceptually difficult, I will begin with the second. What does Lehi mean by saying that everything “must needs be a compound in one”? Lehi’s proof set (“wherefore, if it should be one body it must needs remain as dead, having no life neither death, nor corruption nor incorruption, happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility”) does not immediately clarify the concept.
Nevertheless, what they have in common is that divisions we take for granted would not exist without the law of opposition. There is no life without death, no corruption without incorruption, no happiness without misery, no sense without insensibility. These are examples of extreme opposites. Under the conditions of a “compound in one,” they would no longer be opposites on a spectrum but rather undifferentiated aspects of the same condition.
This spectrum of opposites clarifies his conditional clause: “wherefore, if it should be one body.… ” Lehi is not speaking of a human body, despite the life/death context. Rather, Lehi is still referring to his “compound in one.” That compound is the one body, or entity, or composite element. The import of Lehi’s second statement is that there is a condition which occupies the opposite pole of the “opposition in all things” spectrum. In this “compound” condition, there is no opposition, and everything becomes undifferentiated, with no distinctive characteristics. While life and death might still exist, there is no difference that matters between them. While the emotions of happiness or misery might exist, nothing gives them meaning.
Suppose that someone were to require that you select, upon penalty of death, the “better” of two completely identical books. How might you make the choice? In the case of the two books, our concept of “better” becomes useless, as they are identical and by definition are the same, not “better” and “worse.” The two identical books are a choice that is a “compound in one.” A choice may be made, but it cannot be an intelligent choice.
What if there is a difference, but the person cannot perceive it? What if a color-blind person is asked to select between red and green, but the person sees only shades of gray? Can that person intelligently and accurately choose the red over the green when they both appear gray? Whether because the items are identical or because we are not supplied with the criteria to judge, if there is no distinction, no “opposition.” They become to us a “compound in one.”
With a clearer understanding of Lehi’s “compound in one,” his contrasting statement is now easier to understand. What does Lehi mean by “opposition in all things”? The example he provides is more a description of effect than a definition: “If not so,… righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad.” Rather than defining “opposition,” Lehi only states that it is required—that it is so essential that without it “righteousness could not be brought to pass.” When elucidating that which could not come to pass, Lehi provides examples that we consider opposites, such as holiness/misery or good/bad, etc. Lehi’s point is that righteousness could not come to pass. His important phrase is “come to pass,” not any of the oppositions.
Lehi’s choice of terminology is a literary device. He is categorizing a set of conditions by the most obvious members of the set. Lehi states that we need opposites because conditions from the opposite ends of the spectrum are the most obvious way to define the spectrum itself. Lehi does not mean that we require only happiness or misery. We also require every emotion in between. Lehi does not mean that we must be either good or bad, but that we must also have good and better. Lehi’s point is the availability of choice, not the specifics of the choice. Opposition is his device to make that point concisely, with the obvious condition standing also for gradations and less obvious conditions.
Verse 12 reads: “Wherefore, it must needs have been created for a thing of naught; wherefore there would have been no purpose in the end of its creation. Wherefore, this thing must needs destroy the wisdom of God and his eternal purposes, and also the power, and the mercy, and the justice of God.” This verse immediately follows Lehi’s explanation about the “compound in one.” That compound would defeat the purpose of the world’s creation. It violates God’s will so wrenchingly that it “must needs destroy the wisdom of God and his eternal purposes.” Thus, by showing the utter calamity that would prevail in the “compound in one” condition, Lehi underscores the absolute essentialness of “opposition in all things.”
Brigham Young also commented on Lehi’s concept of opposition: “You will learn this in the Bible, the Book of Mormon, and in the revelations given through Joseph. We must know and understand the opposition that is in all things, in order to discern, choose, and receive that which we do know will exalt us to the presence of God. You cannot know the one without knowing the other. This is a true principle.”
The principle of opposition is the principle of choice. Mortality compels us to make choices. We cannot make choices without alternatives to choose among. Active participation in the increasingly wise selection among alternatives exalts us. For this reason, Lehi affirms: “Righteousness could not be brought to pass” without it. The principle of opposition does not in itself exalt us; it does, however, provide a necessary option upon which we exercise our agency, which does, over time, exalt us.
Bruce R. McConkie interprets this same passage in the context of exercising agency: “Agency underlies all things—all advancement, all progression, even existence itself. It is based on the presence of opposites between which a choice must be made. If there were no opposites, there would be nothing.”
Variant: Corbin T. Volluz has suggested that the phrase “neither holiness nor misery” may be an error which should have been “neither happiness nor misery.” The original manuscript is not extant at this point and there is no indication of any problem in the printer’s manuscript. However, the pairing of holiness/misery is unique in the Book of Mormon, where the pair happiness/misery appears nine times (2 Ne. 2:11, 2:13; Alma 3:26, 40:15 [two occurrences], 40:17, 40:21, 41:4; Morm. 8:38), including the presence of this phrase later in the same verse. The circumstantial evidence is very strong that this should read “neither happiness nor misery.”
Reference: The corruption/incorruption vocabulary echoes 1 Corinthians 15:42: “So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption.”
“Corruption” refers to the mortal body’s inevitable decay after death. “Incorruption” refers to the resurrected body, which is no longer subject to death and decay.