INTERPRETER

A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship

Volume 44 • 2021

The Interpreter Foundation

Orem, Utah

BOARD OF TRUSTEES

Daniel C. Peterson, President

Jeffrey M. Bradshaw, Vice President of Special Projects

Steven T. Densley Jr., Executive Vice President

Kristine Wardle Frederickson, Vice President

Jeffrey D. Lindsay, Vice President

Shirley Smith Ricks, Vice President

Allen Wyatt, Vice President of Operations

MANAGEMENT

Kent Flack, Treasurer

Jeffrey D. Lindsay, Co-Editor

Deborah Peterson, Secretary

Tanya Spackman, Manager of Editorial Services

Allen Wyatt, Managing Editor

BOARD OF ADVISORS

Kevin Christensen

Brant A. Gardner

Louis C. Midgley

George L. Mitton

Gregory L. Smith

Ed Snow

Ted Vaggalis

CONTRIBUTING EDITORS

Robert S. Boylan

Benjamin I. Huff

Jennifer C. Lane

David J. Larsen

Ugo A. Perego

Stephen D. Ricks

Lynne Hilton Wilson

Mark Alan Wright

BOARD OF EDITORS

Matthew L. Bowen

David M. Calabro

Craig L. Foster

Taylor Halverson

Benjamin L. McGuire

Tyler R. Moulton

Martin S. Tanner

Bryan J. Thomas

A. Keith Thompson

John S. Thompson

LEGAL ADVISORS

Preston Regehr

Scott Williams

INTERPRETER ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Larry Ainsworth, Chairman

Rob Haertel, Vice-Chairman

DONOR RELATIONS

Jann E. Campbell

TYPESETTING

Timothy Guymon

EDITORIAL CONSULTANTS

Eden Buchert

Daniel Evensen

Jolie Griffin

Deidre Marlowe

Don Norton

Kaitlin Cooper Swift

Elizabeth Wyatt

MEDIA & TECHNOLOGY

Richard Flygare

Mark Johnson

Steve Metcalf

Tyler R. Moulton

Tom Pittman

Alan Sikes

Victor Worth

THE INTERPRETER FOUNDATION

© 2021 The Interpreter Foundation. A 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution — NonCommercial — NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ or send a letter to Creative Commons, 444 Castro Street, Suite 900, Mountain View, California, 94041, USA.

ISSN 2372-1227 (print)

ISSN 2372-126X (online)

Mission Statement

Supporting The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints through scholarship.

The Interpreter Foundation supports the Church in the following ways:

- Promotion: We provide tools to encourage and facilitate personal learning by study and faith, and disseminate accurate information to the public about the Church.

- Explanation: We make the results of relevant scholarship more accessible to non-specialists.

- Defense: We respond to misunderstandings and criticisms of Church beliefs, policies, and practices.

- Faithfulness: Our leadership, staff, and associates strive to follow Jesus Christ and be true to the teachings of His Church.

- Scholarship: Our leadership, staff, and associates incorporate standards of scholarship appropriate to their academic disciplines.

The Interpreter Foundation is an independent organization that supports but is not owned, controlled by, or affiliated with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The material published by the Interpreter Foundation is the sole responsibility of the respective authors and should not be interpreted as representing the views of The Interpreter Foundation or of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

This journal compiles weekly publications. Visit us online at InterpreterFoundation.org

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Vast Prairies and Trackless Wilds of Snow: A Good Test of Sincerity

Daniel C. Peterson vii

“Strong Like unto Moses”: The Case for Ancient Roots in the Book of Moses Based on Book of Mormon Usage of Related Content Apparently from the Brass Plates

Jeff Lindsay and Noel B. Reynolds 1

The Ark and the Tent: Temple Symbolism in the Story of Noah

Jeffrey M. Bradshaw 93

Resurrection Month

Claudia L. Bushman 137

The Past and Future of the Temple Lot in Independence, Jackson County, Missouri

R. Jean Addams 145

Josiah to Zoram to Sherem to Jarom and the Big Little Book of Omni

Val Larsen 217

Much More than a Reader: The Latest in Chiastic Studies for Interested Scholars and Lay Readers Alike

Steven L. Olsen 265

Edfu and Exodus

John Gee 271

“The Messiah Will Set Himself Again”: Jacob’s Use of Isaiah 11:11 in 2 Nephi 6:14 and Jacob 6:2

Matthew L. Bowen 287

Understanding Covenants Anew: Using Ancient Thought to Enrich Modern Faith

Jeffrey Thayne 307

Nibley’s Early Education

Zina Nibley Petersen 315

VAST PRAIRIES AND TRACKLESS WILDS

OF SNOW: A GOOD TEST OF SINCERITY

Daniel C. Peterson

Abstract: Embarking roughly six months after the organization of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the 1830–1831 “mission to the Lamanites” faced challenges that we pampered moderns can scarcely imagine. Oliver Cowdery, Peter Whitmer Jr., Parley P. Pratt, Ziba Peterson, and, eventually, Frederick G. Williams demonstrated beyond reasonable dispute the depth of their commitment to the Restoration and to the promises extended by the Book of Mormon to the surviving children of Lehi. Given that Cowdery and Whitmer were witnesses of the golden plates, this demonstration of their genuine belief seems significant.

In an early revelation given at Harmony, Pennsylvania, well before The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints had been established and even before the translation of the Book of Mormon had been completed, Joseph Smith was told that the plates from which he was translating the Book of Mormon had been preserved for particular purposes. One of them was in order “that the Lamanites might come to the knowledge of their fathers, and that they might know the promises of the Lord, and that they may believe the gospel and rely upon the merits of Jesus Christ” (D&C 3:19–20).

But the Book of Mormon itself prophesied at numerous places that, before that day came, the remnant of Lehi’s descendants would be scourged and scattered and would suffer greatly at the hands of the Gentiles.[1] Some of that was occurring at the very time the book was published (March 1830) and the Church established (6 April 1830).

For example, the United States federal government had already been removing eastern Native Americans to the American frontier, west of the organized states, in the early 1800s. Then, on 28 May 1830, President Andrew Jackson signed the Indian Removal Act into law. Somewhat controversial even then and broadly condemned today, it authorized the president of the United States to negotiate with Native American tribes in order to make way for white settlers to occupy their ancestral lands. In exchange, they were to be allocated federal lands lying west of the Mississippi River — e.g., in what would eventually become the Territory and then the State of Kansas, which had been acquired in the 1803 Louisiana Purchase. That “persuasion” was very effective; the law was vigorously enforced — eventually creating, among other things, the famous (or more aptly, the infamous) “Trail of Tears.”

In an entry referring to late September 1830 — that is, dating to just a few months after the Indian Removal Act became law and less than a year before the forced removal began — the History of the Church, compiled by B. H. Roberts, cites the Prophet Joseph Smith as saying that

At this time a great desire was manifested by several of the Elders respecting the remnants of the house of Joseph, the Lamanites, residing in the west — knowing that the purposes of God were great respecting that people, and hoping that the time had come when the promises of the Almighty in regard to them were about to be accomplished, and that they would receive the Gospel, and enjoy its blessings. The desire being so great, it was agreed that we should inquire of the Lord respecting the propriety of sending some of the Elders among them.[2]

That very month, Joseph Smith received a revelation at Fayette, New York, that was directed to Oliver Cowdery. In it, Cowdery was told that “you shall go unto the Lamanites and preach my gospel unto them” (D&C 28:8).

Why was Oliver Cowdery chosen for this mission? We can’t be certain. However, as the principal scribe for the original manuscript of the Book of Mormon and as the man who recopied the entire text into the printer’s manuscript, he was certainly aware of the book’s title page, which declared that it had been

Written to the Lamanites, who are a remnant of the house of Israel; and also to Jew and Gentile … Which is to show unto the remnant of the house of Israel what great things the Lord hath done for their fathers; and that they may know the covenants of the Lord, that they are not cast off forever.[3]

It would scarcely be surprising, in that light, that Cowdery might have been prominent among those who felt “a great desire” respecting the evangelization of Native Americans.

During the 6 April 1830 conference in which the Church was organized, Oliver Cowdery had been designated “an elder unto this church of Christ, bearing my name — and the first preacher of this church unto the church, and before the world” (D&C 21:11–12). Days before, he had been termed “the second elder of this church,” second only to Joseph Smith himself (D&C 20:3).

Subsequently, but also during that same month of September 1830, Peter Whitmer Jr. was called to accompany Cowdery on his mission to the Lamanites, under Cowdery’s leadership:

Behold, I say unto you, Peter, that you shall take your journey with your brother Oliver; for the time has come that it is expedient in me that you shall open your mouth to declare my gospel; therefore, fear not, but give heed unto the words and advice of your brother, which he shall give you. And be you afflicted in all his afflictions, ever lifting up your heart unto me in prayer and faith, for his and your deliverance; for I have given unto him power to build up my church among the Lamanites. (D&C 30:5–6)

Oliver Cowdery was also, of course, one of the Three Witnesses of the Book of Mormon, and Peter Whitmer Jr. was one of the Eight Witnesses.

In early October 1830, Parley Pratt and Ziba Peterson were added to the company by a revelation given at Manchester, New York (D&C 32:1– 3). Brother Pratt had harbored an ambition “to try and teach the red man” already several years before his baptism.[4] The four men set out almost immediately. It had been approximately six months since the organization of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and slightly longer since the first appearance of the Book of Mormon from the press.[5] They carried a number of copies of the Book of Mormon with them.

This was a clear illustration of the Church’s genuine commitment to sharing the message of the Book of Mormon with people whom Joseph Smith and his early converts believed to be descendants of the nations described on the golden plates.

To reach their destination — at what a June 1831 revelation would soon term “the borders of the Lamanites” — they would need to travel approximately 1,500 miles, a significant portion of it on foot (D&C 54:8).

After their first few days on the journey, the party met briefly with a group of Native Americans on the Cattaraugus Reservation, near Buffalo, New York. They then continued on to Ohio, where they visited with the Wyandot tribe near Sandusky and then preached for a time in Cincinnati.

On roughly 20 December 1830, they boarded a steamboat on the Ohio River, bound for St. Louis. However, after just a few days the steamer was obliged to stop because the river was “blocked with ice.”[6] So they continued on foot, entering into Illinois near what has been known since 1839 as the town of Cairo. They walked approximately 200 miles from there, crossing the Mississippi River to St. Louis.

Unfortunately, the frozen Ohio River would prove a harbinger of weather to come. The end of 1830 and the beginning of 1831 would become known as “The Winter of the Deep Snow” or “The Year of the Deep Snow.”[7]

The first storm of that memorable winter actually began the very day on which the missionaries set out on that steamboat from Cincinnati, on 20 December. According to one contemporary,

Cold rain began to fall … occasionally changing to snow or sleet, until the earth was saturated and frozen. … The wildest imagination could not have dreamed that this first fall of snow was merely the overture to a winter of continuous storm.[8]

Ten days later, on 30 December — presumably while Elders Cowdery, Whitmer, Pratt, and Peterson, along with a new addition to their number by the name of Frederick G. Williams, were making their way on foot toward St. Louis — a violent downpour hit the region. As one who experienced it recalled, a “bitter cold, a blinding, swirling blur of snow … combined to make this storm a thing to paralyze that prairie country.” One writer described it as “a wonder, at first, then a terror … as it became a menace to life of men and animals.” How long did it last? “In one sense it did not end at all; it merely changed in character, from time to time, for the next sixty days.”[9]

Several local Illinois histories describe the exceptionally severe weather conditions. The History of White County, Illinois explains that “It was definitely one of the hardest winters ever experienced here. Snow was deep, and a crust was formed upon its surface so strong a man could walk on it without breaking through.”[10] The History of Adams County, Illinois tells the story of a farmer who lived on the Illinois River and who nearly died simply trying to haul in some corn from his own cornfield.[11] A Pottawatomie Indian chief named Senogewone is quoted as saying,

Big heap snow came early and no thaw until late spring. Snow, snow, snow everywhere. Blow into hollows and make all level. Deer could not travel. Indian wigwam all covered.

Continuing, he said:

Turkey got nothing to eat, prairie chicken starve, deer starve and die. Wolf not die, he run on top of snow crust, kill and eat plenty deer. Deer break through snow and no could run. Poor Indian hungry and almost starve.[12]

The elders were passing through country often very sparsely populated. The terrain varied from open prairie to swamps, from rather rugged hills interlaced with sandstone, chert, and limestone to heavily forested woodland and deep ravines and canyons. Sometimes they were on a primitive frontier mail route. When it wasn’t frozen, it was muddy. They often may have been making their own path. Sometimes the timber and grass were so thick that just walking through them was extremely difficult.[13]

“We halted for a few days in Illinois,” recalled Parley Pratt,

about twenty miles from St. Louis, on account of a dreadful storm of rain and snow, which lasted for a week or more, during which the snow fell in some places near three feet deep.[14]

They reached St. Louis and St. Charles, Missouri, at the very beginning of 1831 — which, as the Missouri Intelligencer of Columbia noted on 8 January 1831, was another period of terrible winter weather:

We are informed that the snow in the upper countries of Missouri is 41 inches deep, and, what is very remarkable, the falling was accompanied by frequent and tremendous peals of thunder and vivid blue streaks of lightening. It was an awful scene, indeed.[15]

But the small missionary group had not yet reached its intended destination, which was on or just beyond the western border of Missouri — in other words, strictly speaking, beyond the western border of the United States of America altogether. Missouri had been admitted to the Union as a state in 1821, under the famous Missouri Compromise.

As Parley Pratt next recorded in his well-known Autobiography,

We travelled on foot for three hundred miles through vast prairies and through trackless wilds of snow — no beaten road; houses few and far between; and the bleak northwest wind always blowing in our faces with a keenness which would almost take the skin off the face. We travelled for whole days, from morning till night, without a house or fire, wading in snow to the knees at every step, and the cold so intense that the snow did not melt on the south side of the houses, even in the mid-day sun, for nearly six weeks. We carried on our backs our changes of clothing, several books, and corn bread and raw pork. We often ate our frozen bread and pork by the way, when the bread would be so frozen that we could not bite or penetrate any part of it but the outside crust.

After much fatigue and some suffering we all arrived in Independence, in the county of Jackson, on the extreme western frontiers of Missouri, and of the United States.

This was about fifteen hundred miles from where we started, and we had performed most of the journey on foot, through a wilderness country, in the worst season of the year, occupying about four months, during which we had preached the gospel to tens of thousands of Gentiles and two nations of Indians; baptizing, confirming and organizing many hundreds of people into churches of Latter-day Saints.[16]

Oliver Cowdery, Parley Pratt, and Frederick G. Williams actually went over into Indian Territory, preaching first to the Shawnees and then, crossing the frozen Kansas River, to the Delawares. Peter Whitmer Jr. and Ziba Peterson set up a tailor’s shop in Independence in order to earn some much-needed funds.

With reference to the story thus far, my simple point is this: Many critics would dismiss people like Parley Pratt, Ziba Peterson, and Frederick G. Williams as naïvely trusting, zealous dupes of Joseph Smith. Many would happily dismiss the Three Witnesses and the Eight Witnesses in the same fashion, however contrary to fact that seems to people like me. Others, though, claim that some or all of the Eight Witnesses and the Three Witnesses — most especially among them Oliver Cowdery — were co-conspirators with Joseph Smith, conscious frauds, deliberate deceivers. The 1830–1831 mission to the Lamanites, however, seems to me to offer a very powerful argument (one of many) against that notion. I, for one, would not be willing to put up with what Peter Whitmer Jr. and Oliver Cowdery endured during that difficult and dangerous winter journey of 1,500 miles for the sake of something I knew to be a hoax.

Would you?

The story of the Lamanite mission, in my judgment — even taken alone and by itself — makes it very difficult for me to imagine either Oliver Cowdery or Peter Whitmer Jr. as having been knowingly involved in a scam regarding forged or even nonexistent Book of Mormon plates. The notion isn’t plausible. The ratio of palpable costs to hypothetical (and never realized) tangible or earthly benefits is simply too high.

To bring the story to a suitable close, however, it must be noted that while some of the Native Americans to whom the missionaries preached in late 1830 and early 1831 were reportedly pleased to listen to them regarding the Book of Mormon and reasonably receptive to the message, the missionaries’ effort did not, in fact, establish the Church among the Lamanites. Whereas the elders had hoped to found a permanent school among the Delawares and to teach and baptize Lamanite converts, the local federal Indian agents in the area ordered them to desist (perhaps urged on in that action by local Protestant ministers) and even threatened them with arrest if they continued.

As presiding officer, Oliver Cowdery dispatched Parley Pratt to the East to deliver a report to Joseph Smith. Meanwhile, he and the other elders of the Lamanite mission remained in the Independence area, preaching to white settlers there.

Nonetheless, the mission was anything but a failure. Very importantly, for instance, it brought the message of the Restoration to the area of Kirtland, in northeastern Ohio, where Parley Pratt had settled about four years earlier. While visiting the nearby town of Mentor en route to the “borders of the Lamanites,” Elders Cowdery and Pratt called upon a charismatic Reformed Baptist minister by the name of Sidney Rigdon, who was not only a friend of Elder Pratt but also his former pastor. Rigdon was an eloquent advocate of restoring true New Testament Christianity. He allowed the missionaries to preach in his church, and he accepted their challenge to read the Book of Mormon.

Shortly thereafter, many members of Rigdon’s congregation, including Rigdon himself, were received into the Church of Jesus Christ by baptism. (Rigdon would later serve as a counselor in the First Presidency of the Church from 1832 until Joseph Smith’s martyrdom in the summer of 1844.) Within four weeks, the elders baptized approximately 130 converts in the greater Kirtland area, including, beyond Sidney Rigdon, such future leaders as Levi Hancock, Isaac Morley, John Murdock, Newel K. Whitney, and Lyman Wight. Frederick G. Williams, another convert from the Kirtland area, actually joined the four original missionaries on their trek to and beyond Missouri. He, too, would eventually serve as a member of the First Presidency of the Church, from 1833 to 1837.

The conversions continued after the elders resumed their journey, leaving Kirtland. Edward Partridge and Orson Hyde, for example, joined shortly after the missionaries had moved on. By the end of 1830, Latter-day Saints in Ohio numbered approximately 300, nearly three times as many as in New York itself. In December, Joseph Smith received a revelation near Fayette, New York, commanding the Church to gather “at the Ohio” (D&C 37:1, 3). Joseph responded quickly; the first of his many recorded revelations to have been received in Kirtland is dated 4 February 1831.

Another important result of the Lamanite mission is that it marked the first Latter-day Saint involvement with Jackson County, Missouri, a place eventually designated as the future location of Zion, or the New Jerusalem (D&C 57:1–2). On 6 June 1831, during a conference in Kirtland, the Church was told to convene its next conference in Missouri (D&C 52:1–6). On 20 July 1831, having himself come to the western border of the state, Joseph Smith designated the place for the great millennial temple in Jackson County (D&C 57:3).

Kirtland, Ohio, and Jackson County, Missouri, were the two principal centers of the Church throughout much of the 1830s.

Like Parley Pratt, Ziba Peterson, and Frederick G. Williams, the witnesses Oliver Cowdery and Peter Whitmer were, clearly, genuinely convinced of the truth of the Restoration in general and of the divine authenticity of the Book of Mormon in particular. Their actions under grueling conditions persuasively attest to their commitment. As that September 1830 revelation had foreshadowed, Peter was indeed “afflicted in all [of Oliver’s] afflictions.”

Something not altogether dissimilar can be said of those who have contributed time, effort, and money to the work of the Interpreter Foundation. In their own less-dramatic fashion, they likewise testify by their actions of their deep commitment to the scriptures and truths of the Restoration.

I am profoundly grateful to them. I particularly wish to thank the authors, copy editors, source checkers, and others who have created this volume — in particular, Allen Wyatt and Jeff Lindsay. For no financial or other material compensation, they not only devotedly oversee and steer the effort but are themselves deeply involved in it. Their dedication and that of many others like them is essential to the success of the Interpreter Foundation. Such devoted service is at its very core.

Daniel C. Peterson (PhD, University of California at Los Angeles) is a professor of Islamic studies and Arabic at Brigham Young University and is the founder of the University’s Middle Eastern Texts Initiative, for which he served as editor-in-chief until mid-August 2013. He has published and spoken extensively on both Islamic and Mormon subjects. Formerly chairman of the board of the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (FARMS) and an officer, editor, and author for its successor organization, the Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship, his professional work as an Arabist focuses on the Qur’an and on Islamic philosophical theology. He is the author, among other things, of a biography entitled Muhammad: Prophet of God (Eerdmans, 2007).

1 . See, for example, 1 Nephi 15:17; 2 Nephi 10:18; 26:15–19; 3 Nephi 20:27–28.

2 . Joseph Smith, History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, ed. B. H. Roberts, 2nd ed. (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1978), 1:118.

3 . Title Page of the Book of Mormon.

4 . The phrase comes from Parley P. Pratt, ed., Autobiography of Parley Parker Pratt, 6th ed. (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1966), 29.

5 . For the basic history of this first “mission to the Lamanites,” I’m relying upon Marlene C. Kettley, Arnold K. Garr, and Craig C. Manscill, Mormon Thoroughfare: A History of the Church in Illinois, 1830–1839 (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 2006), 1–11, https://rsc.byu.edu/mormon-thoroughfare/mission-lamanites; as well as upon Richard Dilworth Rust, “A Mission to the Lamanites,” in Revelations in Context, eds. Matthew McBride and James Goldberg (Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 2016), https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/revelations-in-context/a-mission-to-the-lamanites; and Max H. Parkin, “Lamanite Mission of 1830–1831,” in Encyclopedia of Mormonism (New York: Macmillan, 1992), 802–804, https://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Lamanite_Mission_of_1830-1831.

6 . Pratt, Autobiography, 51.

7 . Eleanor Atkinson, “The Year of the Deep Snow,” in The Prairie State: A Documentary History of Illinois, Colonial Years to 1860, ed. Roberts P. Sutton (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1976), 217–25, https://rsc.byu.edu/mormon-thoroughfare/mission-lamanites#_ednref12.

8 . Ibid., 217–18.

9 . Ibid., 218.

10 . The History of White County, Illinois (Chicago: Inter-state Publishing Company, 1883), 285–86, https://rsc.byu.edu/mormon-thoroughfare/mission-lamanites#_ednref14.

11 . The History of Adams County, Illinois (Chicago: Murray, Williamson and Phelps, 1879), 271, https://rsc.byu.edu/mormon-thoroughfare/mission-lamanites#_ednref15.

12 . Jean L. Herath, Indians and Pioneers: A Prelude to Plainfield, Illinois (Hinckley, IL: Hinckley Review, 1975), 78, https://rsc.byu.edu/mormon-thoroughfare/mission-lamanites#_ednref16.

13 . Kettley, Garr, and Manscill, Mormon Thoroughfare, 5–8; set out the party’s likely route.

14 . Pratt, Autobiography, 52.

15 . Atkinson, “The Year of the Deep Snow,” 224.

16 . Pratt, Autobiography, 52.

“STRONG LIKE UNTO MOSES”:

THE CASE FOR ANCIENT ROOTS

IN THE BOOK OF MOSES

BASED ON BOOK OF MORMON USAGE

OF RELATED CONTENT

APPARENTLY FROM THE BRASS PLATES

Jeff Lindsay and Noel B. Reynolds

Abstract: Over 30 years ago, Noel Reynolds compared matching non- Biblical phrases in the Book of Moses and Book of Mormon. Based on this analysis, Reynolds proposed a possible connection between the Book of Moses and hypothetical material on the brass plates that may have influenced some Book of Mormon authors. Reynolds’s work, “The Brass Plates Version of Genesis,” provided potentially plausible explanations for additional relationships between the Book of Moses and Book of Mormon that arose in two later Jeff Lindsay studies: one on the Book of Mormon account of Lehi_1’s trail and another on the Book of Mormon’s intriguing use of the ancient theme of rising from the dust. The additional findings and connections presented here strengthen the original case Reynolds made for the ancient roots of the Book of Moses, roots that could have extended to the brass plates and then on to the Book of Mormon. Critics might dismiss such connections by asserting that Joseph merely drew from the Book of Mormon when drafting the Book of Moses; however, this view overlooks significant evidence indicating that the direction of dependence is the other way around. In light of the combined evidence now available, it is time to reconsider Reynolds’s original proposal and recognize the possibility that the Book of Moses is more deeply rooted in antiquity that many have recognized in the past.

[Editor’s Note: This article is based on a presentation by Reynolds and Lindsay made at the Tracing Ancient Threads in the Book of Moses Conference, Provo, Utah, Sept. 18–19, 2020, presented by The Interpreter Foundation, Brigham Young University Department of Ancient Scripture, Book of Mormon Central, and FairMormon. A more detailed version, along with an edited transcript of the question-and-answer session that followed the presentation, can be found in the forthcoming conference proceedings.]

Research in recent decades shows the Book of Moses to be more than Joseph Smith’s alleged reworking of Genesis based on his personal views, his nineteenth-century environment, or some prophetic imagination. These advances include:

- Glimpses into apparent ancient wordplays that are still detectable behind the English translation,[1] including a wordplay on the name of Moses that could not have been logically crafted based on the extant scholarship of Joseph’s day.[2]

- Surprising parallels to ancient records associated with Enoch, even including specific names such as Mahujah that Joseph either could not have had access to or, in some cases, most likely did not have access to.[3]

- Evidence from the tools of biblical and literary criticism that the text of Moses 1 has the characteristics and content of an ancient religious document, including artfully crafted chiasmus and other ancient Near Eastern literary tools such as a prophetic lawsuit.[4]

Nevertheless, many people — including even some faithful members of the Church — tout a naturalistic view of the Book of Moses without adequate attention to the possibility of other explanations for the texts.[5] We propose here that an additional witness for the divine origins of the Book of Moses may be found in an unexpected source — the Book of Mormon.

Several years ago, while preparing a rebuttal to a Latter-day Saint scholar who claimed that the Book of Mormon account of Lehi_1’s trail was implausible and even impossible,[6] Lindsay noted a curious reference to Moses in 1 Nephi 4:2. This scripture had been used as evidence that the Book of Mormon is anachronistic for speaking of Moses and the Exodus as if the Exodus account were known in Nephi_1’s day.[7] While there is excellent evidence for ancient roots of the Exodus account,[8] a significant puzzle remained after dealing with the objection: What was Nephi_1 referring to when he described Moses as strong?

Therefore let us go up.

Let us be strong like unto Moses,

for he truly spake unto the waters of the Red Sea

and they divided hither and thither,

and our fathers came through out of captivity on dry ground,

and the armies of Pharaoh did follow

and were drownded in the waters of the Red Sea. (1 Nephi 4:2)[9]

Nephi_1 seems to be alluding to a text or tradition about the strength of Moses that would be readily recognized by his brethren. However, nothing from the Old Testament directly supports describing Moses with the adjective “strong.” A search in the King James Version (KJV) for the words strength or strong associated with Moses shows that the Pharaoh was strong (he would use a “strong hand” in Exodus 6:1); that Joshua was commissioned to be strong (see Deuteronomy 31:7, 23; Joshua 1:6– 7); that the sea was strong (see Exodus 14:27), as well as the wind (see Exodus 10:19); and that the Lord would lead Moses “with a strong hand” (Exodus 13:9; cf. Deuteronomy 7:18–19). However, the KJV says nothing about Moses, himself, being strong.

In fact, Moses was getting on in years in the Biblical account. By Exodus 17, the aging man needed the physical support of two other men to hold his staff up during a battle (see Exodus 17:12). It is difficult to picture him as physically strong as the Exodus begins, so where did Nephi come up with the concept of Moses being strong? Researching this question led Lindsay to find Reynolds’s 1990 article “The Brass Plates Version of Genesis,”[10] recently reprinted in Interpreter.[11] That article outlined the results Reynolds found during a preliminary study on the intertextual relationship between the Book of Mormon and the Book of Moses. Since Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon before the Book of Moses, if there is a relationship in the language or themes of the two books, it would be most natural to expect the Book of Mormon to have served as a source of language and themes that the Book of Moses draws upon. However, Reynolds found surprising evidence that the opposite has occurred: The Book of Mormon, in many cases, appears to draw on language and themes in the Book of Moses, and sometimes there are indications that the flow is one way. In particular, as will be shown shortly, there are cases where the Book of Mormon appears to make allusions to concepts that are more fully developed in the Book of Moses, or where a passage in the Book of Mormon gains significant added meaning when the background provided by the Book of Moses is considered, indicating the Book of Moses as a possible source. There are no clear cases of the reverse, where the Book of Moses seems to draw upon details in the Book of Mormon.

In his article about the brass plates, Reynolds offers 33 distinct parallels of common language between the Book of Moses and the Book of Mormon suggesting a relationship between the two texts that is not found in comparing the Book of Abraham and the Book of Mormon. He therefore proposed that an ancient text with some similarities to our modern Book of Moses may have been on the brass plates, and that the brass plates version of Genesis (or something similar to the Book of Moses) may have extensively influenced the Book of Mormon. Reynolds’s proposal appears to offer some promising ore to mine but seems to have received inadequate attention.

Applying Reynolds’s work to the issue of the strength of Moses led to a surprising find, presented shortly as parallel 34, and launched the present effort to more fully explore the possible relationship between the Book of Mormon and the Book of Moses.

Recently, and apparently independently, David Calabro, in a discussion of the Garden of Eden themes in Lehi_1’s dream, observed that in 2 Nephi 2:17–18 Lehi_1 may have been drawing on language from Moses 4:4 where the works of Satan are described, consistent with Reynolds’s earlier proposal.[12] But in general, few seem to have recognized that a text related to the Book of Moses may have been on the brass plates, influencing numerous Book of Mormon passages.

A Note on the Documents of the Book of Moses

The Book of Moses passages discussed herein come from the current Latter-day Saint printing of the Pearl of Great Price. The Book of Moses has a complex history with multiple documents involved, some of which had multiple corrections made at various times, as discussed by Kent P. Jackson.[13] He notes that Joseph Smith’s Genesis translation began on a manuscript known as Old Testament Manuscript 1 (OT1), in which the Book of Moses is found on the first 21 pages written by four different scribes from Joseph’s dictation. This manuscript was later copied by John Whitmer into a new document, now known as Old Testament Manuscript 2 (OT2), with many changes in wording, including many simple errors, introduced by Whitmer. This document is available as “Old Testament Revision 2” on the Joseph Smith Papers website, the first 27 pages of which contain what is the Book of Moses.[14] Joseph would later come back to the previously dictated text of the Book of Moses and make further changes and corrections, working with OT2 rather than OT1. It is likely that the changes to OT2 were made by the fall of 1833.[15]

What we have today as the canonized Book of Moses is largely based on the 1867 Committee Manuscript (CM) prepared by the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, which employed both OT1 and OT2. However, its editor, Joseph Smith III, removed many of the corrections and additions made by Joseph Smith to OT1. “The consequence was that his editing reverted many OT2 readings back to those found in OT1, thereby overruling much of his father’s work on the text,” especially in chapters 1 and 7.[16] This issue in general does not appear to significantly affect the examples discussed in this paper. Relevant verses with noteworthy differences relative to OT2 will be noted. A third manuscript, OT3, was a copy of OT1 made by John Whitmer that became his private possession, not a text used in any Church publications.[17]

A Review of Key Findings from Reynolds’s Original Work

Reynolds’s original paper explored relationships between key phrases and concepts occurring in the Book of Moses with both the Book of Mormon and the King James Bible. He found dramatic evidence that multiple elements in the Book of Moses showed up prominently in the Nephite record while being absent from the Bible. Further, he found evidence on multiple fronts indicating the direction of dependency was not from the Book of Mormon to the Book of Moses, but vice versa.

Criteria for dependency that he used included the following:

1. The greater the number of significant terms repeated in parallel phrasings in two texts, the less likely they are to be independent.

2. The more precise the similarities between parallel phrasings in two texts, the less likely they are to be independent.

3. The more deliberately shaped the repetition in parallel phrasings in two texts is, the less likely they are to be independent.

4. The more similar the contexts in which parallel phrasings occur, the less likely they are to be independent.

5. Author awareness of a brass plates source reduces the likelihood of independence.

6. The more distinctive the terminology repeated in parallel phrasings in two texts, the less likely they are to be independent.

7. Presence of weak or strong versions of the parallel terminology in the New Testament, and even more so, in the Old Testament, increases the possibility that the Book of Moses and Book of Mormon passages are independent. Although clear Old Testament parallels do not prove independence, their existence is considered sufficient reason to drop the occurrence altogether as evidence of dependence.

Reynolds gave each proposed parallel a score based on consideration of each of the seven criteria and selected the parallels with the highest scores to identify a group of parallels between the two texts that are highly persuasive on the basis of criteria ordinarily used by scholars evaluating possible sources of texts.

A first group of eleven Book of Mormon passages (shown in Table 1) provided strong parallels with the Book of Moses materials (the Book of Moses itself and the related material in the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible). This first group is distinguished from a second group (shown in Table 2) in that none of these parallels finds expression in the Bible, with the noted exception of Moses 6:52 being found in Acts 4:12.

Table 1. Reynolds’s Proposed Parallels, Group 1 — Concepts Not

Directly Found Together in the King James Bible.

No.

Concept[18]

Book of Moses

Book of Mormon

1

transgression-fall; fall-death

Moses 6:59

2 Nephi 9:6

2

order-days-years-eternity

Moses 6:67

Alma 13:7

3

Lord-from all eternity-to

Moses 7:29

Mosiah 3:5; Moroni 8:18

4

God-gave-man-agency

Moses 7:32

2 Nephi 2:16

5

Lord’s Spirit-withdraws-from-man

Moses 1:15

Mosiah 2:36; Alma 34:35; Helaman 4:24; 6:35; 13:8

6

children-whole-from the foundation

Moses 6:54

Moroni 8:8, 12

7

only name-given-salvation[19]

Moses 6:52

Mosiah 3:17

8

devil-father-of (all) lies

Moses 4:4

2 Nephi 2:18; 9:9; Ether 8:25

9

devil-lead-captive-his will

Moses 4:4

2 Nephi 2:27; Alma 12:11; 40:13

10

devil-deceive-blind-lead

Moses 4:4

3 Nephi 2:2

11

lies-lead-will-deceive-blind

Moses 4:4

1 Nephi 16:38

Table 2. Reynolds’s Proposed Parallels, Group 2 — Concepts that

Also Have King James Bible Connections.

No.

Concept

Book of Moses

Book of Mormon

12

earth-groans; rocks-rend

Moses 7:56

1 Nephi 12:4; 19:12; 3 Nephi 10:9

13

plan of salvation (redemption)

Moses 6:62

2 Nephi 11:5; Jacob 1:8; Jarom 1:2; Alma 12:25,26,30,32–33; 17:16; 18:39; 22:13; 24:14; 29:2; 34:16,31; 39:18; 41:2; 42:5,8,11,13,15,16,31

14

eternal life

Moses 1:39

2 Nephi 2:27–28; 10:23; 31:18, 20; Jacob 6:11; Enos 1:3; Mosiah 5:15, 15:23–25; 18:9, 13; 26:20; 28:7; Alma 1:4; 5:28; 7:16; 11:40; 13:29; 22:15; Helaman 5:8; 3 Nephi 9:14; 15:9; Moroni 9:25

15

unclean-dwell-presence-God

Moses 6:57

1 Nephi 10:21; 15:34; Alma 7:21

16

call on-all men-to repent

Moses 6:23

2 Nephi 2:21; Alma 12:33; 3 Nephi 11:32; Moroni 7:31

17

nowise-inherit-kingdom of God

Moses 6:57

Mosiah 27:26; Alma 5:51; 9:12; 39:9; 3 Nephi 11:38

18

things-temporal-spiritual

Moses 6:63

1 Nephi 15:32; 22:3; 2 Nephi 9:11–12; Mosiah 2:41; Alma 7:23; 12:16; 37:43; Helaman 14:16

19

people-dwell-in righteousness

Moses 7:16

1 Nephi 22:26

20

mine Only Begotten Son

Moses 6:52 (cf. Moses 1:33)

Jacob 4:5, 11; Alma 12:33

21

works of darkness

Moses 5:55

2 Nephi 9:9; 10:15; 25:2; 26:10, 22; Alma 37:21, 23; 45:12; Helaman 6:28, 30; 8:4; 10:3; Mormon 8:27

22

secret combination(s)

Moses 5:51

2 Nephi 26:22; Alma 37:30–31; Helaman 2:8; 3:23; 6:38; 3 Nephi 4:29; 5:6; 7:6, 9; 9:9; 4 Nephi 1:42; Mormon 8:27; Ether 8:18–19, 22, 24, 27; 9:1; 11:15; 13:18; 14:8, 10

23

wars and bloodshed

Moses 6:15

Jacob 7:24; Omni 1:3, 24; Mosiah 29:36; Alma 35:15; 45:11; 60:16; 62:35, 39; Helaman 6:17; Mormon 8:8; Ether 14:21

24

shut out-from-presence-God

Moses 6:49

2 Nephi 9:9

25

murder-get gain

Moses 5:31

Helaman 2:8; 7:21; Ether 8:16

26

seeking for power

Moses 6:15

Alma 46:4

27

carnal-sensual-devilish

Moses 5:13

Mosiah 16:3; Alma 41:13; 42:10

28

hearts-wax-hard

Moses 6:27

Alma 35:15

29

lifted up-imagination-his heart

Moses 8:22

Alma 1:6

30

natural man

Moses 1:14

Mosiah 3:19; Alma 26:21

31

Omner

Moses 7:9

Mosiah 27:34

32

Shum

Moses 7:5

Alma 11:5

33

and thus-it was (is)-amen

Moses 5:59

1 Nephi 9:6; 14:30; 22:31; Alma 13:9; Helaman 12:26

While these concepts are explained in detail in Reynolds’s original publication, we’ll note a few highlights here. Moses 4:4 appears to be an especially important connection, where multiple details in the description of Satan and his modus operandi appear to have influenced the Book of Mormon:

One sentence from Moses seems to have spawned a whole family of formulaic references in the Book of Mormon: “And he became Satan, yea, even the devil, the father of all lies, to deceive and to blind men, and to lead them captive at his will, even as many as would not hearken unto my voice” (Moses 4:4). This language is echoed precisely by both Lehi and Moroni, who, when mentioning the devil, add the stock qualification: “which is the father of all lies” (cf. 2 Nephi 2:18; Ether 8:25), while Jacob says the same thing in similar terms (2 Nephi 9:9). Incidentally, the descriptive term devil, which is used frequently to refer to Satan in both Moses and the Book of Mormon, does not occur at all in the Old Testament. New Testament occurrences do not reflect this context.

The Book of Mormon sometimes separates and sometimes combines the elements of this description of the devil from Moses and portrays Satan as one deliberately [seeking to “deceive the hearts of the people” and to “blind their eyes”] that he might “lead them away” (3 Nephi 2:2). Particularly striking is the repeated statement that the devil will lead those who do not hearken to the Lord’s voice “captive at his will” (Moses 4:4). In Alma we find that those who harden their hearts will receive “the lesser portion of the word until they know nothing concerning his mysteries; and then they are taken captive by the devil, and led by his will down to destruction” (Alma 12:11). Much later, Alma invokes the same phrasing to warn his son Corianton of the plight of the wicked who, “because of their own iniquity,” are “led captive by the will of the devil” (Alma 40:13). In the passage discussed above, Lehi taught his son Jacob that men “are free to choose liberty and eternal life … or to choose captivity and death according to the captivity and power of the devil, for he seeketh that all men might be miserable” (2 Nephi 2:27).

A remarkable passage in the first part of the Book of Mormon pulls all these Book of Moses themes about Satan together — to describe someone else. The implication is unmistakable when Laman characterizes his brother Nephi as one who lies and who deceives our eyes, thinking to lead us away for the purpose of making himself “a king and a ruler over us, that he may do with us according to his will and pleasure” (1 Nephi 16:38). Laman insinuates that Nephi, who chastises his wayward brothers, is himself like the devil. And resistance against him is not only righteous, but required. This account has the added complexity that it is a speech of Laman, who is quoted here in a record written by the very brother he attacks. If we accept the possibility that this text is dependent on a passage from an ancient source related to the Book of Moses, we then recognize a major new dimension of meaning, not only in Laman’s speech, but in Nephi’s decision to preserve the speech, thus showing his descendants, and any other readers familiar with the Moses text, the full nature of the confrontation between the brothers, as well as the injustice of the attacks he suffered. The full irony is revealed when we reflect on the facts reported in Nephi’s record and realize that Laman’s false accusation against Nephi is an accurate self-description.[20]

Laman’s complaint about Nephi becomes meaningful and ironic when one realizes that he may be referring to a specific scriptural depiction of Satan that is not found in the Old Testament, but is in the Book of Moses — as if that description were in the brass plates. In this instance, the relationship between the Book of Mormon and the Book of Moses shows a one-way nature.

The speech from Laman illustrates some of the reasons Reynolds gives for the one-way relationship between the two books:

It is clearly Moses that provides the unity and coherence to a host of scattered Book of Mormon references. It is the story of creation and subsequent events that supplies meaning to Book of Mormon language connecting (1) the transgression, Fall, and death; (2) explaining the origins of human agency; (3) describing the character and modus operandi of Satan; (4) explaining the origins and character of secret combinations and the works of darkness — to mention only a few of the most obvious examples. The Book of Mormon is the derivative document. It shows a number of different authors borrowing from a common source as suited their particular needs — Lehi, Nephi, Benjamin, and Alma all used it frequently, drawing on its context to give added meaning to their own writings.

Perhaps most significantly, we have at hand a control document against which to check this hypothesis. A few years after receiving [the Book of] Moses, Joseph Smith translated an Abrahamic text. In spite of the fact that this new document contained versions of some of the same chapters of Genesis that are paralleled in the Book of Moses, and in spite of the fact that the Book of Mormon has a large number of direct references to Abraham, the person, detailed textual comparison demonstrates that this second document does not feature any of the phrases and concepts that have been reported above linking Moses to the Book of Mormon textual tradition. Nor does the distinctive, non-Old Testament phraseology of the Book of Abraham show up in the Book of Mormon. The logic that would lead skeptics to conclude that these common concepts and expressions provide evidence that Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon and the Book of Moses runs aground on Abraham, as the skeptical hypothesis would seem to require a similar pattern there. But such a pattern is not even faintly detectable.

It is also impressive that most of the influence from the Book of Moses in the Book of Mormon shows up early in the small plates and the writings of the first generation of Book of Mormon prophets — significantly, those who had custody and long-term, firsthand access to the brass plates. Many of the later passages that use Book of Moses terminology and concepts tend to repeat earlier Nephite adaptations of the original materials.[21]

While Table 2 has connections to the KJV that sometimes could account for the intertextuality, in many cases what the KJV offers is less complete than the Book of Moses. For example, Moses 6:49 tells us that Satan came among the children of men, tempting them to worship him, and thus men became “carnal, sensual, and devilish, and are shut out from the presence of God.” Moses 5:13 has Satan deceiving the children of men, with the result that “men began from that time forth to be carnal, sensual, and devilish.” Those three adjectives in the same order are found in Mosiah 16:3 and Alma 42:10 (cf. Alma 41:13 with “carnal” and “devilish”). The Book of Mormon’s use of that phrase points to the same context as in the Book of Moses. The closest language in the King James Bible has “earthly, sensual, devilish” in James 3:15.

The listing for “things-temporal-spiritual” refers to Moses 6:63, where the Lord draws a distinction between “things which are temporal and things which are spiritual.” Nephi_1 makes the same distinction in 1 Nephi 15:32 and 22:3 using the phrase “things both temporal and spiritual.” King Benjamin later says that those who keep the commandments “are blessed in all things, both temporal and spiritual” (Mosiah 2:41). Alma_2 encouraged people to pray for what they needed, “things … both spiritual and temporal” (Alma 7:23). He also distinguished between spiritual and temporal death (see Alma 12:16) and between the temporal and spiritual things the Lord provides (see Alma 37:43). The two classes of things and the two classes of death are both combined by Samuel the Lamanite in Helaman 14:16, which also invokes the phrase “cut off from the presence of the Lord,” similar to the phrase found in Moses 6:49. The concept of spiritual things occurs in the New Testament, but it is not paired with references to temporal things (cf. 1 Corinthians 2:10–14).

In reviewing the parallels previously listed and others to be discussed, we found that an interesting feature is the tendency for a few Book of Moses passages to be used in multiple ways in the Book of Mormon and for some Book of Mormon passages to cite multiple phrases from the Book of Moses. We previously mentioned the multiple phrases of Moses 4:4. As discussed above, Moses 6:49 not only has “carnal, sensual, and devilish,” but it also has the phrase “shut out from the presence of God,” which is found in 2 Nephi 9:9 (“shut out from the presence of our God”) in the related context of becoming subject to Satan. Second Nephi 9:9 also refers to “secret combinations” and “secret works of darkness” related to other Book of Moses phrases, as well as the Book of Moses teaching about the misery of Satan, to be discussed herein.

Reynolds discusses many more parallels. Significantly, based on further exploration, it appears that his case may be stronger than initially realized.

Additional Potential Relationships between

the Book of Mormon and the Book of Moses

In coping with the earlier-described question about the strength of Moses in 1 Nephi 4:2 and in light of Reynolds’s original study with its 33 parallels, we questioned whether something in the Book of Moses could have served as a source for Nephi_1’s allusion when he told his brothers, “Let us be strong like unto Moses.” This led us to the results detailed shortly, but it also led us to an additional question: Might there be more?

Through collaboration that began after that tentative question, we now offer an update that may help encourage others to reconsider how they approach the Book of Moses. The resulting possible relationship- defining parallels are detailed in this paper.

Building on the 33 parallels originally identified by Reynolds, we start numbering the new parallels with 34 for the “strength of Moses.” Table 3 lists the additional concepts found in the Book of Mormon that show relationships with the Book of Moses that either are not found in the King James Bible or may be significantly stronger than possible KJV relationships.

Table 3. Additional Proposed Parallels for the Book of Moses

and the Book of Mormon

No.

Concept

Book of Moses

Book of Mormon

34

The strength of Moses

Moses 1:20–21, 25

1 Nephi 4:2

35

Chains of darkness, chains of hell, chains of the devil

Moses 7:26, 57

2 Nephi 1:13, 23; 9:45; 28:19, 22; Alma 5:7, 9–10; 12:6, 11, 17; 13:30; 26:14–15; 36:18

36

Veil of darkness

Moses 7:26, 61

Alma 19:6 (cf. Ether 4:15)

37

Song of redeeming love / everlasting joy, contrasted with chains of darkness/hell

Moses 7:53–57

Alma 5:7, 9, 26; 26:13–15; 36:18, 22

38

The use of satanic oaths and covenants in forming secret combinations

Moses 5:29, 49–52; 6:28–29

Alma 37:27, 29; Helaman 6:21, 25, 26; 4 Nephi 1:42; Ether 8:15–16, 20

39

The great antiquity of secret combinations and satanic covenants

Moses 5:28–31, 49; 6:15

2 Nephi 26:22; Helaman 6:27; Ether 8:9; 9:26; 10:33

40

Cain’s involvement in a secret combination to keep Abel’s murder secret

Moses 5:29

Helaman 6:27

41

The persistence of Satan’s secret combination not only with Cain but with other followers (with mechanisms for enforcement)

Moses 5:29, 49–52, 55; 6:15

Helaman 6:27; Ether 8:20–26 (on the enforcement system, see Helaman 6:24)

42

Knowing/distinguishing brothers in secret satanic covenants/combinations

Moses 5:51

Helaman 6:22

43

Shaking, trembling of heavens, earth, Satan, and the wicked / shaking off Satan’s chains, bands, and sin

Moses 1:21; 6:47–49; 7:41, 61

2 Nephi 1:13, 23; 9:44–45; 28:18–19

44

Misery (either for Satan or his followers)

Moses 7:37, 41

2 Nephi 2:5, 11, 13, 18, 23, 27; 9:9, 46; Mosiah 3:25; Alma 3:26; 9:11, 26:20; 40:15, 17, 21; 41:4; 42:1, 26; Helaman 3:29; 5:12; 7:16; 12:26; Mormon 8:38

45

Misery and woe

Moses 6:48

2 Nephi 1:13; Alma 9:11; Helaman 5:12; 7:16

46

The infinite nature of God’s love and the Atonement (Enoch’s “heart swelled wide as eternity” and his “bowels yearned” in tasting the grief of human wickedness / Christ’s “bowels of mercy” and infinite atonement)

Moses 7:28–41, particularly 41

Bowels of mercy: Mosiah 15:9; Alma 26:37; 34:15

Infinite atonement: 2 Nephi 9:7; Alma 34:10, 14

47

Rage and Satan’s dominion over the hearts of men

Moses 6:15

1 Nephi 12:17; 13:27, 29; 14:7; 22:15, 26; 30:18; Mosiah 3:6; Alma 8:9; 10:24, 25; 12:11; 27:12; Helaman 6:21; 16:22, 23; 3 Nephi 1:22; 2:2–3; 6:15–16; 11:29; 4 Nephi 1:28, 31; Ether 8:15–26; 15:19; Moroni 9:3–4

48

Administering death

Moses 6:15

Alma 57:19; cf. Alma 47:18; 55:30, 32

49

Word returning “void,” in context of the Garden of Eden and the Fall

Moses 4:30

Alma 12:22–23, 26; 42:2–5

50

“Esteeming” scripture as a thing of “naught”

Moses 1:40–41

1 Nephi 19:6–9; 2 Nephi 33:2–3

51

“Raising up” a prophet to restore ancient scripture

Moses 1:41

2 Nephi 3:6–7, 12, 24

52

The workmanship of God’s hands

Moses 1:4; 7:32, 36–37, 40

Jacob 4:9

53

(Men) ordained … after the order (of the Son of God or of God)

Moses 8:19 (cf. Moses 6:67–68)

2 Nephi 6:2; Alma 13:1–2 (cf. Alma 4:20; 5:44; 6:1; 13:6–10,14; 43:2; 49:30; Helaman 8:18)

54

Natural (man, eyes, frame) vs. the spiritual / the spirit / spirits

Moses 1:10, 11 (cf. verse 14); 3:5, 7, 9; 6:36

Mosiah 3:19; Alma 19:6; 26:21; 41:4 (cf. Alma 42:9–10)

55

The roles of a seer

Moses 6:35–36; also Moses 6 and 7 generally

Mosiah 8:13–17; 28:10–16; Alma 37:22–26

56

Perished in their sins

Moses 7:1

Mosiah 15:26 (cf. Mosiah 13:28)

57

Sins/cursing answered upon the heads of parents/children

Moses 6:54; 7:37

2 Nephi 4:6; Jacob 1:19; 3:10; Mosiah 29:30–31 (cf. 1 Nephi 22:13; Alma 60:10; Mormon 8:40)

58

The glory of God and its relationship to eternal life

Moses 1:39; 6:59, 61

2 Nephi 1:25; Jacob 4:4, 11; 5:54; Alma 14:11; 22:14; 29:9; 36:28; Helaman 5:44; Moroni 9:25

59

Weeping, wailing, and gnashing of teeth (all three)

Moses 1:22

Mosiah 16:2; Alma 40:13

60

Satan laughs and his angels rejoice

Moses 7:26

3 Nephi 9:2

61

The God/Lord who weeps/grieves for those who are lost

Moses 7:28–40

Jacob 5:7, 11, 13, 32, 46–47, 51, 66

62

“All things” bear witness of the Creator

Moses 6:63

2 Nephi 11:4; Alma 30:41, 44; Helaman 8:23–24

63

Power, wisdom, mercy, and justice

Moses 6:61–62

2 Nephi 2:12; 11:5; Mosiah 5:15; Jacob 4:10

64

Commanding the earth and the power of the word

Moses 7:13

1 Nephi 17:29; 2 Nephi 1:26; Jacob 4:6, 9; Words of Mormon 1:17; Alma 17:4, 17; 26:13; 31:5; 53:10

65

Spreading abominations and works (of darkness)

Moses 5:52

Helaman 6:28 (cf. Ether 8:18–22)

66

“Powers of heaven” and heavenly ascent and descent

Moses 7:27

3 Nephi 20:22; 21:23–25; 28:7–8

67

Salvation or damnation by “a firm decree”

Moses 5:15 (cf. Moses 6:29–30)

Alma 9:24; 29:4

68

Angels bearing testimony

Moses 7:27

Moroni 7:31

69

Residue of men / the people + angels bearing testimony

Moses 7:27–28 (cf. Moses 7:20, 22)

Moroni 7:31–32

70

Prepared from the foundation of the world

Moses 5:57

1 Nephi 10:18; Mosiah 4:6–7; 15:19; 18:13; Alma 12:30; 18:39; 22:13; 42:26; Ether 3:14

71

Gathered from the four quarters of the earth

Moses 7:62

1 Nephi 19:16; 22:25; 3 Nephi 5:24, 26; 16:5; Ether 13:11

72

Counsel + “ye yourselves”

Moses 6:43

Jacob 4:10

73

Fearful looking for the fiery indignation of the wrath of God upon them

Moses 7:1 (cf. Moses 7:34)

Alma 40:14

74

Numerous upon … the face of the land

Moses 6:15

Jarom 1:6; Mosiah 27:6; Mormon 1:7; Ether 7:11 (cf. Jarom 1:8; Alma 16:16; Helaman 11:32; 16:22–23)

75

Record + baptism by fire and the Holy Ghost

Moses 6:66

3 Nephi 11:35; 19:14

76

Caught up/away to an exceedingly high mountain

Moses 1:1

1 Nephi 11:1

77

Compound parallel 1: (a) the captivity of Satan, (b) the concept of “eternal life,” (c) the combination of “temporal” and “spiritual,” (d) hardness of hearts, and (e) blindness

(a) Moses 4:4; (b) Moses 1:39; (c) Moses 6:63; (d) Moses 6:15, 27; (e) Moses 4:4; 6:27

1 Nephi 14:7

78

Compound parallel 2: (a) devil as father of lies, (b) shut out from the presence of God, and (c) secret combinations, (d) works of darkness, and (e) misery for the wicked

(a) Moses 4:4; (b) Moses 5:4, 41; 6:49; (c) Moses 5:51; (d) Moses 5:51, 55; (e) Moses 7:37, 41

2 Nephi 9:9

79

Compound parallel 3: (a) Satan’s fall and his angels, (b) plan of salvation / merciful plan of God, (c) temporal vs. spiritual, and (d) clothed with glory/purity/robe of righteousness

(a) Moses 4:3–4; 7:26; (b) Moses 6:62; (c) Moses 6:63; (d) Moses 7:3

2 Nephi 9:6–14

(a) verses 8–9; (b) verses 6, 13, (cf. verse 28); (c) verses 10–12; (d) verse 14

80

Compound parallel 4: (a) Satan will “rage in the hearts” of men, (b) chains of hell/destruction, and (c) Satan leading men into captivity

(a) Moses 6:15; (b) Moses 7:26; 57; (c) Moses 4:4

2 Nephi 28:18–23

81

Compound parallel 5: (a) the workmanship of God’s hands and (b) counsel

(a) + (b): Moses 1:4; 7:32–40

Jacob 4:9–10

82

Compound parallel 6: (a) creation of “all things” and (b) wisdom, power, justice, and mercy

Moses 6:61

Mosiah 5:15 (cf. Mosiah 4:9)

83

Compound parallel 7: (a) after the order (of the Son), (b) without beginning of days or end of years, (c) Only Begotten of the Father, (d) full of grace and truth, and (e) “Thus it is. Amen.”

(a) + (b): Moses 6:67; (c) + (d): Moses 5:6 (cf. Moses 1:6, 32; 5:6; 6:52; 7:11); (e): Moses 5:59

Alma 13:9

84

Compound parallel 8: (a) New Jerusalem, (b) gathered from four quarters of the earth, (c) cleansed through blood of the Lamb, and (d) fulfilled covenants

(a) + (b): Moses 7:62, (c): Moses 6:59, (d): Moses 8:2

Ether 13:10–11

85

Compound parallel 9: (a) call men to repentance, (b) fulfill covenants, (c) angels declare, (d) bear testimony

(a) Moses 6:23, (b) Moses 8:2, (c) Moses 5:58, (d) Moses 7:27, 62

Moroni 7:31

86

Compound parallel 10: Enoch and Samuel the Lamanite

Moses 6

Helaman 13–16

87–97

Weaker parallels to consider

In examining proposed parallels, we wish to exclude those that can be readily derived from the King James Bible to which Joseph had access. When there are closely related phrases in the Bible, we will note them and discuss their relevance. A possible parallel will be less significant if the wording can be easily accounted as a common term in the Bible or possibly drawn from well-known concepts, but possibly more significant if it is unusual.

In exploring intertextuality between two revealed texts, there is certainly the possibility that some parallels may simply reflect Joseph’s preference for wording in describing common themes and concepts.[22] Indeed, it is possible that some of the parallels discussed in this paper, especially when dealing with relatively common concepts, may be a reflection of Joseph’s choice in wording, particularly if the method of receiving revelation about a text involved using his own words to express revealed impressions or ideas, as has often been proposed. However, there is increasing evidence that at least for the Book of Mormon, Joseph’s translation method involved a good deal of “tight control” in which specific wording may have been provided through revelation, as opposed to general ideas being given that Joseph then expressed with his own words.[23] In light of that evidence, we will favor the hypothesis that the wording of the Book of Mormon and the Book of Moses may frequently transcend Joseph’s vernacular. It is possible, of course, that tight control occurred for the dictation of the Book of Mormon but not for the Book of Moses, allowing Joseph to use his own words and perhaps to draw on language he had picked up from the Book of Mormon translation. For relatively general concepts, that possibility may be considered, but it may not account for the many unique or unusual elements considered in this paper.

Parallel 34: The Strength of Moses

In exploring possible origins for the strength of Moses alluded to in 1 Nephi 4:2, Moses 1:20–21 was found to contain two references to Moses receiving strength from the Lord. Then comes a surprise a few verses later:

And calling upon the name of God, he beheld his glory again, for it was upon him; and he heard a voice, saying: Blessed art thou, Moses, for I, the Almighty, have chosen thee, and thou shalt be made stronger than many waters; for they shall obey thy command as if thou wert God. (Moses 1:25)

Moses, who had received strength from the Lord, would later be made even stronger than the many waters that he would cross. If Nephi_1 had access to a text with a similar account about Moses, his words in 1 Nephi 4:2 could be understood as an allusion to such an account.

In a recent paper, Mark Johnson observed that the three references in Moses 1 to strength involving Moses describe a three-tiered structure for “personal strength and spirituality” in which strength is described in patterns reminiscent of sacred geography, each tier bringing Moses closer to God.[24] The first instance depicts Moses having “natural strength like unto man,” which was inadequate to cope with Satan’s fury. In fear, Moses called upon God for added strength, allowing him to gain the victory over Satan. Next, Moses is promised additional strength that would be greater than many waters. “This would endow Moses with powers to be in similitude of YHWH, to divide the waters from the waters (similar to Genesis 1:6) at the shores of the Red Sea (Exodus 14:21).”[25] Johnson sees the treatment of the strength of Moses as one of many evidences of ancient perspectives woven into the text of Moses 1.

In light of Johnson’s analysis, if something like Moses 1 were on the brass plates as a prologue to Genesis, to Nephite students of the brass plates, the reference to the strength of Moses might be seen as more than just a random tidbit. It would rather be seen as part of a carefully developed literary tool related to important themes such as the commissioning of prophets and becoming more like God through serving Him. If so, the concept of the strength of Moses may easily have been prominent enough to require no explanation to his brothers when Nephi_1 alluded to it. In short, if something like the Book of Moses were on the brass plates, it could provide a source for Nephi_1’s allusion, an allusion his brothers readily understood. That proposed source may help explain the concept of the strength of Moses, providing the detailed background story to which the Book of Mormon merely alludes. The direction of transmission most logically would be from that hypothetical source to the Book of Mormon.

Parallel 35: Satan’s Chains of Darkness

In Moses 7:26, Enoch sees Satan with “a great chain”: “And he beheld Satan; and he had a great chain in his hand, and it veiled the whole face of the earth with darkness; and he looked up and laughed, and his angels rejoiced.” A little later in Moses 7:57, we read of spirits in prison, held captive in “chains of darkness” until the judgment day. (This follows the heavens being “veiled” in verse 56.) Chains of darkness and Satan veiling the earth (perhaps with the chain of darkness) are striking images in Moses 7. In light of Reynolds’s original work, one might hope to find the imagery of chains of darkness and Satan’s veiling of the earth in darkness to be present in the Book of Mormon. Exploring that possibility initially led to disappointment, as the term “chains of darkness” is not found in the Book of Mormon. However, some related references may be significant.

Revelation 20:1 mentions a “great chain” used by the angel who casts Satan into the bottomless pit, and “chains of darkness” are mentioned in 2 Peter 2:4 and Jude 1:6. These references, however, are possibly connected back to the Book of Enoch, which is cited in Jude 1:14. First Enoch, published in 1821 from a text in the Ge’ez language and often called “Ethiopic,”[26] mentions great iron chains[27] and is supposed to be tied to the source of the passages from 2 Peter and Jude,[28] especially since Jude explicitly refers to an ancient book of Enoch. Both Peter and Jude write of angels who sinned and are held in chains of darkness until the judgment day, aligning well with the discussion of Satan’s rebellion in heaven in the Book of Moses and also with Moses 7:57 and the spirits in prison in “chains of darkness until the judgment of the great day.”

In the KJV Old Testament, the connection between chains and darkness is not present. However, Psalm 107:10 could be relevant, for it speaks of rebellious souls who “sit in darkness and in the shadow of death, being bound in affliction and iron.” Iron may refer to chains, and some other translations use “chains,” such as the New International Version (NIV):

Some sat in darkness, in utter darkness, prisoners suffering in iron chains, because they rebelled against God’s commands and despised the plans of the Most High. (Psalm 107:9–10 [NIV])

While the Book of Moses phrase “chains of darkness” does not occur in any single verse of the Book of Mormon, Lehi_1’s speech to his sons in 2 Nephi 1 may be relevant. In verse 23, Lehi_1 says, “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.” Here chains are associated with obscurity, a word that can mean darkness. The entry for obscurity in the 1828 dictionary of Noah Webster, for example, gives the first definition for obscurity as “darkness; want of light.”[29]

Second Nephi 1:23 ends an apparent chiasm, as outlined in Donald W. Parry’s valuable work Poetic Parallelisms in the Book of Mormon.[30] Parry identifies a seven-step chiasm covering verses 13–23, with the outer verses strongly connected by the themes of arising and shaking off chains. Significantly, the obscurity or darkness linked to dust and chains in verse 23 is also parallel to “a deep sleep” in verse 13. In verse 13, Lehi_1 urges his sons to “awake, awake from a deep sleep — yea, even from the sleep of hell — and shake off the awful chains by which ye are bound.” “Sleep” and “hell” here are related to darkness and juxtaposed with chains.

Other sections of the Book of Mormon display related concepts. Further, based on Parry’s identification of poetic structures in the Book of Mormon, it appears that a majority of the references to chains occur in the form of chiasmus, with examples in 2 Nephi 1:13–23; 2 Nephi 9:44–46; 2 Nephi 28:16–20; Alma 5:7–9; and Alma 36 (see verse 18). Metal chains, while apparently not part of life in the New World for Book of Mormon peoples, long remained a part of Book of Mormon poetry.

Alma 5:7–9, for example, is shown by Parry to be a five-step chiasm. The following passage is shown using Parry’s formatting but with the punctuation and wording from Skousen:[31]

7 Behold, he changed their hearts; yea, he awakened them out of a deep sleep, and they awoke unto God.

A Behold, they were in the midst of darkness; nevertheless

B their souls were illuminated by the light of the everlasting word.

C Yea, they were encircled about

D by the bands of death and the chains of hell,

and an everlasting destruction did await them.

8 E Now I ask of you, my brethren, were they destroyed?

E’ Behold, I say unto you: Nay, they were not.

9 D’ And again I ask: Was the bands of death broken? And the chains of hell

C’ which encircled them about, were they loosed? I say unto you:

B’ Yea, they were loosed. And their souls did expand, and they did sing redeeming love.

A’ And I say unto you that they are saved.[32]

The chiasm begins with the phrase “They were in the midst of darkness” in line A and then has both the “bands of death” and “chains of hell” in lines D and D’. It is through loosing them that the contrast to being in darkness is obtained — namely, being saved in line A’. Immediately before the reference to darkness, Alma_2 discusses the Nephites in the city of Nephi and says that they were in a “deep sleep,” so both sleep and darkness are associated with the “chains of hell,” adding to the proposed parallel with “chains of darkness” as symbols of Satan’s captivity.

In considering the possible relationship between the Book of Mormon and the Book of Moses and disregarding the chronology of the two (that is, being open to the possibility of a related ancient text on the brass plates predating the Book of Mormon), the vivid imagery of Satan with his terrible chains of darkness, if also present on the brass plates, could be a source for the poetical uses of chains in the Book of Mormon, where the concept of Satan’s “chains of darkness” is more subtly present. This seems to be the case with many of the further examples we will consider.

Parallel 36: The Veil of Darkness

As noted previously, Moses 7:26 tells us that Satan’s great chain “veiled the whole face of the earth with darkness,” and Moses 7:61 speaks of the “veil of darkness” that will cover the earth. A related concept occurs in Isaiah 25:7, which refers to the “veil that is spread over all nations.” Like the “covering cast over all people” in that verse, this veil is a hindrance to the spiritual progress of humanity and will be destroyed by the Lord in the end. The veil may implicitly be a veil of darkness or bring darkness. Second Corinthians 3:13–16 refers to the veil Moses put over his face and how the minds of the children of Israel were blinded. The verses say that we experience this same veil today when we read Moses, but we remove this veil when we turn to the Lord. Spiritual darkness can be said to be the implicit effect of that metaphorical veil.

The concept of veiling with darkness or a dark veil is more explicit in Alma 19:6, where we read of the “dark veil of unbelief being cast away from [King Lamoni’s] mind.” Also related is Ether 4:13–15, where Moroni tells the house of Israel that when they rend “that veil of unbelief which doth cause you to remain in your awful state of wickedness and hardness of heart and blindness of mind,” then they will know that the Father has remembered the covenant he made with their fathers (Ether 4:15). Here the veil directly causes blindness of mind.

Parallel 37: The Song of Redeeming Love Contrasted with the Chains of Hell

In line B’ of the previous chiasm of Alma 5:7–9, when the chains of hell are loosed, “their souls did expand, and they did sing redeeming love.”

The contrast between the chains of hell or darkness and songs of redeeming love or joy is found in Moses 7:53–57. In verse 53, the Lord tells Enoch that “whoso cometh in at the gate and climbeth up by me [the arise/ascend theme[33]] … shall come forth with songs of everlasting joy.” Enoch then asks when the Son of Man will come, and in vision he is then shown the Crucifixion of Christ (see verses 54–55). The “heavens were veiled” (verse 56), the earth groaned, and the rocks were rent.[34] Then follows verse 57, which mentions spirits in prison “reserved in chains of darkness” until the Judgment Day. Shortly afterward, verse 61 describes the “veil of darkness” that will cover the earth.

The point of this proposed parallel is that both the Book of Moses and the Book of Mormon share the contrast between the chains of hell and singing by those who are redeemed by Christ.

Singing is a common occurrence in the Bible, of course, but apparently not with this particular contrast. In Isaiah 51, following the call for the Lord’s arm to “awake, awake, put on strength” (verse 9), the redeemed of the Lord “come with singing unto Zion; and everlasting joy shall be upon their head” (verse 11).[35]

One may object to differences in wording between “sing redeeming love” in the Book of Mormon and “songs of everlasting joy” in the Book of Moses. Are these really related? In response, note that both expressions refer to singing as a result of the redemptive work of the Savior, in contrast to Satan’s captivity with the chains of hell. As for “song” vs. “sing,” one is of course a noun while the other is a verb, but as in many languages, the words for sing and song are closely related in Hebrew (ריִׁש is the root for the verb, Strong’s H7891, and for the noun, Strong’s H7892, typically used for “sing” and “song,” respectively, in the KJV).[36]

Parallels 38–42: Multiple Connections on the Existence, Nature, and History of Satanic Oaths and Covenants

The existence of secret satanic covenants and their ancient history, including the involvement of Cain in one such murderous secret combination, is given in significant detail in Moses 5:28–32, 49–56 and also in Moses 6:15. Some of these concepts and details appear to be familiar to Book of Mormon writers, who not only use similar language such as “works of darkness” and “secret combinations,” as Reynolds has noted (see parallels 21 and 22 in Table 2), but also allude to the their ancient history several times. In so doing, they share several details found in the Book of Moses account.

Helaman 6:21–31, for example, describes the operations of the secret combinations in Nephite society. Among the highlights, this passage

- describes the existence and nature of the “secret oaths and covenants” (verses 25–26; cf. verse 21) of the secret combination known as the Gaddianton[37] robbers.

- explains that their covenants and oaths were used to protect members in their murders and theft, allowing members to distinguish “brothers” within their murderous band (see verses 21–22).

- states that secret signs and words were used by those who had taken such covenants (see verse 22).

- reveals the existence of their own justice system based on “laws of their wickedness” to punish those who improperly revealed their secrets and crimes (verse 24).

- indicates that these secret oaths and covenants were “put into the heart of Gaddianton” by Satan (verse 26).

- relates that it was Satan who plotted with Cain to encourage him to murder Abel (verse 27).

- observes that Satan continues carrying on such “works of darkness and secret murder” (verses 29–30) and hands down the plots, oaths, covenants, and “plans of awful wickedness” from generation to generation as he gets “hold upon the hearts of the children of men” (verse 30).

This passage, along with others mentioned later in this study, shows multiple unique connections with the Book of Moses that are not found in the Bible and go beyond the connections previously noted by Reynolds. These additional connections between the Book of Mormon and the Book of Moses include the following connections.

Parallel 38: The Use of Satanic Oaths and Covenants in Forming Secret Combinations

Both the Book of Mormon and the Book of Moses are explicit about the use of oaths and covenants to form the satanic conspiracies described as “secret combinations” and “works of darkness.” Moses 5 describes the oath that Satan has Cain make (see verse 29), telling Cain to swear by his throat and having others also swear by their lives to keep their murderous plot secret. Cain’s descendant Lamech likewise “entered into a covenant with Satan” (verse 49) and later slew Irad, his great-grandfather (see verses 49–50), “for the oath’s sake” (verse 50). Not only Lamech but also “all them that had covenanted with Satan” were cursed by the Lord (verse 52). Later, when the Lord speaks to Enoch, He condemns the dark works of that era in which men “devised murder” (Moses 6:28) and ironically states that these wicked ones “by their oaths … have brought upon themselves death” (Moses 6:29).

As noted previously, Helaman 6:25 and Helaman 6:26 use the phrase “secret oaths and covenants” and Helaman 6:21 also mentions “their oaths and their covenants” as instrumental in the secret combination of the Gaddianton robbers.

That oaths and covenants were used in secret combinations is also made clear in Alma_2’s statement in Alma 37 to his son Helaman_2 as he transfers stewardship of sacred records, including the account from the Jaredites with extensive details on their secret combinations. He warns Helaman_2 not to share those details but to “retain all their oaths and their covenants and their agreements in their secret abominations; yea, and all their signs and their wonders ye shall retain from this people, that they know them not, lest peradventure they should fall into darkness also and be destroyed” (Alma 37:27). “These secret plans of their oaths and their covenants” are again mentioned in verse 29.

As the Nephites descend into wickedness, 4 Nephi 1:42 relates that “the wicked part of the people began again to build up the secret oaths and combinations of Gaddianton.” Finally, in describing the establishment of a deadly secret combination among the Jaredites, Moroni uses the term “oaths” in Ether 8:15, 16, and 20.

Both the Book of Mormon and the Book of Moses clearly teach that satanic oaths and covenants are used to establish and maintain the murderous secret combinations that both texts warn against.

Parallel 39: The Great Antiquity of Secret Combinations and Satanic Covenants

The Book of Moses teaches that Satan’s murderous secret combinations date back to Cain and continued to be present at least into Enoch’s day. Cain, after being chastised by the Lord for his improper sacrifice, “loved Satan more than God” (Moses 5:28) and was approached by Satan with an offer to form a secret combination with others with a satanic oath in order to have Satan’s assistance and to be able to kill Abel without fear of being caught (see Moses 5:29–31). This combination is later continued by Lamech, who, like Cain, becomes “the master of that great secret” that Satan had administered to Cain (Moses 5:49). Such murderous secret works would become widespread as Satan continued to have dominion over the hearts of men (see Moses 6:15).

These ancient origins are consistent with Helaman 6:27, which dates secret combinations back to Cain.

Works of darkness and secret combinations are referred to, as well, in 2 Nephi 26:22. There it states they were founded by Satan and were known “in times of old”:

And there are also secret combinations, even as in times of old,

according to the combinations of the devil,

for he is the founder of all these things

—yea, the founder of murder and works of darkness—

yea, and he leadeth them by the neck with a flaxen cord

until he bindeth them with his strong cords forever.

Being known “in times of old” suggests that these secret combinations were mentioned on the brass plates, though details of their covenants and signs may not have been recorded there or on Nephite records, according to Helaman 6:26, to reduce the risk of others using that information to seek for power.

Records brought by the Jaredites also gave information about the secret covenants of ancient people. As the daughter of Jared works to establish a secret combination to murder her father, she speaks of “the record which our fathers brought across the great deep” and the “account concerning them of old” who “by their secret plans did obtain kingdoms and great glory” (Ether 8:9; see also Ether 8:17). Ether 9:26 mentions a later man, Heth, embracing the “secret plans of old” to slay his father and gain the throne. Ether 10:33 also speaks of wicked Jaredites who “adopted the old plans and administered oaths after the manner of the ancients and sought again to destroy the kingdom.” Such knowledge from the Jaredites may have also adversely affected later Nephite society.[38]

Parallel 40: Cain’s Involvement in a Secret Combination to Keep Abel’s Murder Secret

Though there is overlap with the previous point on the antiquity of secret combinations, the specific identification of Cain as the first man to enter into a secret combination is still a noteworthy connection to the Book of Moses. Helaman 6:27 specifically notes that it was Satan “who did plot with Cain that if he would murder his brother Abel, it should not be known unto the world.” This fits Moses 5:29 well:

And Satan said unto Cain: Swear unto me by thy throat, and if thou tell it thou shalt die; and swear thy brethren by their heads, and by the living God, that they tell it not; for if they tell it, they shall surely die; and this that thy father may not know it; and this day I will deliver thy brother Abel into thine hands.

Parallel 41: The Persistence of Satan’s Secret Combination not Only with Cain but with Other Followers

Moses 5:29 indicates that Satan’s plot with Cain involved Cain’s brethren, while later we read that it continued through his descendent Lamech (see Moses 5:49–51) “and began to spread among all the sons of men. And it was among the sons of men” (Moses 5:52), until “the works of darkness began to prevail among all the sons of men” (Moses 5:55). Moses 6:15 also tells us that secret works of darkness eventually became widespread and highly destructive.

Likewise, Helaman 6:27 tells us that Satan not only plotted with Cain for the murder of Abel but then “did plot with Cain and his followers from that time forth.” These satanic conspiracies also became widespread in their destructive influence among both the Jaredites and Nephites. Moroni wrote that “they are had among all people” (Ether 8:20), and he prophesied that they would be among our societies today (see Ether 8:20–26). Widespread indeed.

The oaths of satanic secret combinations involve death for violating the oath and, to persist, would logically have mechanisms to enforce the oath (see Moses 5:29). We see the oath being enforced when Lamech, Cain’s descendant and later leader of what is presumably the successor of Cain’s band, slays Irad, his great-grandfather, for revealing the secret to others (see Moses 5:49–51).

Likewise, Helaman 6:24 states that the Gaddianton robbers had their own justice system based on “laws of their wickedness” to punish those who improperly revealed their secrets and crimes (Helaman 6:24). The structure of the system, including the oaths, the opportunities for gain and power, and the means for enforcing secrecy helped these combinations spread widely not only in the very ancient societies described in the Book of Moses but also in two great civilizations in the Book of Mormon.

Parallel 42: Knowing/Distinguishing “Brothers” in Secret Combinations

Moses 5:51 states that “from the days of Cain, there was a secret combination, and their works were in the dark, and they knew every man his brother.” This seems related to Helaman 6:22 regarding the brotherhood within secret combinations in which signs and oaths were used to distinguish or recognize one’s brothers in the combination:

And it came to pass that they did have their signs,

yea, their secret signs and their secret words—

and this that they might distinguish a brother

who had entered into the covenant,

that whatsoever wickedness his brother should do,

he should not be injured by his brother,

nor by those who did belong to his band who had taken this covenant.

Parallel 43: Shaking and Trembling

Many Book of Mormon passages involving dust, chains, and related motifs seem to involve shaking and trembling.[39] Chains and the captivity of Satan are sometimes directly associated with shaking and trembling, as in 2 Nephi 1:13 (“Shake off the awful chains,” spoken by Lehi_1 the “trembling parent,” who also urges his sons to “arise from the dust” in verse 14); 2 Nephi 1:23 (“Shake off the chains”); 2 Nephi 9:44–45 (“Shake off the chains,” which is parallel to shaking of garments and shaking off iniquities in verse 44); and 2 Nephi 28:18–19 (verse 18 says that the great and abominable church “must tumble to the earth,” and then verse 19 says that “the kingdom of the devil must shake, and … the devil will grasp them with his everlasting chains”). The Book of Mormon blends dust and chains as symbols of captivity and death and refers to “shaking” in describing liberation from both. Isaiah 14 is also quoted in 2 Nephi 24, where Lucifer/the king of Babylon, now overthrown and brought down to the pit, is identified in verse 16 as the one who “made the earth to tremble” and “did shake kingdoms.”

In the Book of Mormon, shaking also plays a role, as in some references involving dust or chains mentioned earlier (2 Nephi 1:13, 23; 2 Nephi 9:44–45; and 2 Nephi 28:19). Other connections may be weaker than in other cases explored here and may not have been the likely source for Nephite expressions, although the relationship may still be considered. In the last days, the “heavens shall shake, and also the earth” as the heavens are “darkened, and a veil of darkness” covers the earth (Moses 7:61). “Satan began to tremble, and the earth shook” as Moses withstood him (Moses 1:21).[40] When Enoch got a taste of the Lord’s perspective and understood the misery that wicked humans face, “his heart swelled wide as eternity [or “he beheld eternity,” per the OT2[41]], and his bowels yearned, and all eternity shook” (Moses 7:41). The people also tremble as Enoch teaches them, warning of Satan’s temptations and explaining that through the Fall, we are made “partakers of misery and woe” (Moses 6:47–49). While these examples do not directly involve the liberating motifs of shaking off dust or chains found in some Book of Mormon passages (which are more aligned with Isaiah 52:2), they have some commonality with passages describing the Lord’s power and the fall of Satan’s dominion.

Parallel 44: Misery (Either for Satan or His Followers)

Another possible link to consider is the misery that Satan brings upon his followers and that Satan himself faces. “Misery” or “miserable” occurs several times in the KJV but not in the context of the fate of the wicked who yield to Satan, as is taught in ominous language in Moses 7:37:

But behold, their sins shall be upon the heads of their fathers; Satan shall be their father, and misery shall be their doom; and the whole heavens shall weep over them, even all the workmanship of mine hands; wherefore should not the heavens weep, seeing these shall suffer?

This passage strongly implies that both mortals and Satan suffer misery for their rebellion. If the sins of wicked children are upon the heads of their wicked parents, are not all those sins upon the head of Satan, who “shall be their father”? Is not “their doom” collectively the doom of the wicked and of Satan? But Satan’s misery is also more graphically depicted in the opening chapter of the Book of Moses as Moses begins to see “the bitterness of hell” in his encounter with Satan (Moses 1:20). When Moses resists Satan, Satan cries “with a loud voice, with weeping, and wailing, and gnashing of teeth” (Moses 1:22).

The line “Satan shall be their father, and misery shall be their doom” (Moses 7:37) is a perfect antiparallel to the gospel message for those who follow Jesus Christ.

The occurrences of the term “misery” or “miserable” are much more common in the Book of Mormon than in the Bible and much more consistent with the Book of Moses’s usage. The number of occurrences in the Book of Mormon is not necessarily significant, since later writers may have been drawing on Lehi_1’s heavy use of that term, but the usage by Lehi_1 and others is generally quite consistent with teachings in the Book of Moses.

Heavy use of the word “misery” is found in the portion of Lehi_1’s speech given in 2 Nephi 2, where misery is involved in several contrasts (2 Nephi 2:11, 13, 23) and being miserable is part of the punishment of the wicked (see verse 5). Misery is also presented as a goal of Satan for all humankind; for because “he had fallen from heaven” and had become “miserable forever, he sought also the misery of all mankind” (verse 18), a goal reiterated in verse 27. Second Nephi 9, discussed later in this study, also twice associates Satan with misery (2 Nephi 9:9, 46). King Benjamin warns the wicked that they face a “state of misery” (Mosiah 3:25). Many references to misery come from the words of Alma_2, a man who was a student of the brass plates, and his references include the misery of those who inherit the kingdom of the devil (see Alma 41:4), building on the principle of opposition that Lehi_1 introduced. Alma 3:26 speaks of those fallen in war going to “eternal happiness or eternal misery, according to the spirit which he listed to obey.” Other relevant examples include Alma 9:11; 26:20; 40:15, 17, 21; 42:1, 26; Helaman 3:29; 5:12; 7:16; 12:26; and Mormon 8:38. Moses 7:41 also mentions the misery of the wicked.

In the KJV, “misery” is usually used to describe an afflicted state in mortality and is not explicitly associated with following Satan. True, the basic idea of the wicked being damned naturally suggests that they will be miserable after this life, but the use of related language in the KJV does not seem as clearly related to the Book of Mormon as the Book of Moses does. For example, Romans 3:16 speaks of the wicked and states that “destruction and misery are in their ways.” But in context, this appears to be saying that the wicked spread destruction and misery in their mortal lives by hurting others rather than saying that they face misery and doom with Satan. Or, as the International Standard Version (ISV) puts it, “Ruin and misery characterize their lives.”[42] James 5:1 warns rich men about the “miseries” that shall come upon them without clearly stating when or noting an association with Satan. Also relevant is Revelation 3:17, where the Lord speaks against the complacent church in Laodicea and warns that while the Laodiceans may feel rich and secure, in reality they are “wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked.” But again, this is not directly describing the postmortal state of the wicked and is not explicitly connected with Satan. Thus, while it is certainly possible that the concept of the wicked being miserable or unhappy could be based on general concepts from the Bible, the specific language in the Book of Mormon does not appear to be drawing directly from the use of “misery” or “miserable” in the Bible but seems to be more closely connected to the teachings of the Book of Moses.

Parallel 45: Misery and Woe

When Enoch undertook to teach the people why “all men must repent” (Moses 6:50), he explained that as a consequence of the Fall of Adam, “we are made partakers of misery and woe” (Moses 6:48). Nephite prophets borrowed that same language four times in calling their people to repentance. Lehi_1 called upon his rebellious sons to awake from “the sleep of hell” and to “shake off the awful chains” by which the devil carries the children of men “away captive down to the eternal gulf of misery and woe” (2 Nephi 1:13). Before commanding the apostate Nephites at Ammonihah to repent, Alma_2 told them that had it not been for God’s matchless power, mercy, and long-suffering toward them, they should have long since been “cut off from the face of the earth” and “been consigned to a state of endless misery and woe” (Alma 9:11). After reminding his sons about Amulek’s teachings about repentance, Nephi_2 urged them to remember to build their foundations on “the rock of our Redeemer” so that “when the devil shall send forth his mighty winds, … when all his hail and his mighty storm shall beat upon you, it shall have no power to drag you down to the gulf of misery and endless woe” (Helaman 5:12). Nephi_2 also told the curious crowd around his garden tower that the devil had gained “great hold upon [their] hearts” and that he was “seeking to hurl away [their] souls down to everlasting misery and endless woe” (Helaman 7:15–16). Like the previous examples, he then called on them to repent: “O repent ye, repent ye! Why will ye die? Turn ye, turn ye unto the Lord your God!” (verse 17).

There are several things to notice here. As with all the other phrasings featured in this paper, nonbiblical wording found in the Book of Moses is featured repeatedly in the writings of the Nephite prophets. Not only are the same words used four times in Nephite teaching but each occurrence is placed in the same immediate context as the Book of Moses example — the teaching of repentance as essential for human salvation. These clearly demonstrate the likelihood that the phrase “misery and woe” in the Book of Mormon is borrowed from the Book of Moses. But there is more.

While using the same basic phrase, the Nephites had apparently enriched and developed its meaning in three ways that show up in all four examples. The first is the way each of the four Nephite prophets linked the misery and woe resulting from wickedness to the influence of the devil. That linkage is immediate and explicit in three of the Book of Mormon examples and is brought in by Alma_2 near the end of his speech when he clarifies that all men can be delivered by Jesus Christ, but “if they have been evil they shall reap the damnation of their souls, according to the power and captivation of the devil” (Alma 9:28). Second, all four Nephite examples use “endless,” “eternal,” or “everlasting” to describe this misery and woe, and Nephi_2 even calls it “everlasting misery and endless woe” (Helaman 7:16).

Finally, the recurring phrase “misery and woe” would appear to be a promising example of the frequent Old Testament figure of speech called hendiadys. In its simplest form, a hendiadys is a conjunction of two nouns that take on a combined meaning and cannot be translated accurately with equivalent terms for each noun in the pair. Examples could include “brimstone and fire” in Genesis 19:24 and spirit of “prophecy and revelation” (used as a hendiadys twelve times in the Book of Mormon).[43] Such hendiadyses could be seen as their own terms with recognized usage that are accompanied by their own descriptors. It has already been demonstrated that the language of repentance in the Book of Mormon has almost a dozen widely repeated hendiadyses that greatly enrich the concept in the Nephite gospel.[44] We don’t know what original language terms lie behind “misery and woe” in the Nephite text. But if we assume that the text has a Hebrew background, some obvious candidates suggest themselves.

The Old Testament has three different words usually translated as “woe,” and all have the same general meaning, announcing lamentation for one’s fate — often the consequences of one’s own sins. The obvious candidate for “misery” would be ra’ or rā’â, usually meaning “evil,” “misery,” or “distress.”[45] Interpreting “misery and woe” as a hendiadys with these Hebrew terms in mind, the phrase could mean lamentation for one’s own evil or wickedness. Add to that one of the apparently stock Nephite adjectives (“eternal,” “everlasting,” or “endless”), and we get a very rich set of meanings for Nephite prophets to evoke when calling people to repentance by using the phrase “misery and woe.”

Parallel 46: The Infinite Nature of God’s Love and the Atonement

In Moses 7, the misery of the wicked not only caused God to weep (see Moses 7:28–31) but also, as we see in verse 41, caused Enoch to experience a transcendent taste of God’s compassion for humankind. Enoch saw the wicked with a touch of God’s perspective as he “looked upon their wickedness, and their misery, and wept and stretched forth his arms, and his heart swelled wide as eternity; and his bowels yearned, and all eternity shook.”[46]

Powerfully expressing God’s love and perhaps pointing to His Son’s offering on the cross, Enoch stretches out his arms as his body and soul yearn for the welfare of others. Terryl and Fiona Givens describe this scene as “plumb[ing] the mystery of the weeping God” in which Enoch “is raised to a perspective from which he sees the world through God’s eyes.”[47] His heart swells and his bowels yearn, again pointing to Christ’s suffering that gave Him the “bowels of mercy” mentioned several times in the Book of Mormon (see Mosiah 15:9; Alma 26:37; and Alma 34:15; cf. Alma 7:12 and 3 Nephi 17:6–7).

If something similar to this passage were present on the brass plates, it could have served as a basis for a few parts of the Book of Mormon that are linked to the brass plates. The Book of Mormon’s first reference to an “infinite atonement” occurs in 2 Nephi 9:7, a passage surrounded by other material that appears to be rich in Book of Moses themes. Those connections include Reynolds’s concept of “transgression-fall, fall-death” in Moses 6:59 that’s reflected in 2 Nephi 9:6 (see Table 1) and multiple concepts in 2 Nephi 9:9 (see Table 3; these will be discussed later). There are also references to the plan of salvation in 2 Nephi 9:6, 13 (cf. Moses 6:62); the fall of Satan and his angels in 2 Nephi 9:8–9 (cf. Moses 4:3–4; 7:26); “temporal” versus “spiritual” death in 2 Nephi 9:11–12 (cf. Moses 6:63); and the chains of Satan in 2 Nephi 9:45 (see Moses 7:26, 57). Enoch was “clothed upon with glory” in Moses 7:3 as he saw the Lord in a theophany on a mountain, and in 2 Nephi 9:14, the righteous who enter the Lord’s presence will be “clothed with purity, yea, even with the robe of righteousness,” also suggestive of the beautiful garments mentioned in a highly influential passage in Isaiah (see Isaiah 52:1–2), a passage of foundational importance in the Book of Mormon’s brilliant usage of the ancient theme of rising from the dust.[48] Given the abundance of possible links to Book of Moses material in 2 Nephi 9, is it possible that the concept of an infinite atonement was on the brass plates and was possibly tied to Enoch’s vision? This connection is admittedly relatively speculative but may still have value.

Parallel 47: Rage and Satan’s Dominion over the Hearts of Men

Reynolds points to Moses 6:15 as a possible source for three important Book of Mormon concepts: satanic “secret works” (related to “secret combination[s]” in Moses 5:51), “seeking for power,” and “wars and bloodshed,” a phrase frequently used in the Book of Mormon, though sometimes with slight variations. Two more concepts in this verse may merit consideration: Satan’s “dominion” over men and his ability to rage “in their hearts.” The verse says, “And the children of men were numerous upon all the face of the land. And in those days Satan had great dominion among men, and raged in their hearts; and from thenceforth came wars and bloodshed; and a man’s hand was against his own brother, in administering death, because of secret works, seeking for power” (Moses 6:15).

The theme of dominion over men is akin to Satan’s quest for power over men, which Reynolds views as a theme from Moses 4:3, where Satan “sought to destroy the agency of man” and sought God’s own power. Satan’s “dominion” over man may be equally relevant, and that word may be used to reflect Satan’s corruption of the dominion that God has, a tiny portion of which God delegated to Adam and Eve (see Moses 2:26, 28). Moses 6:15 adds a dimension to Satan’s power over men by showing that his dominion has a relationship to anger, for his dominion is manifest as he “rage[s] in their hearts,” leading to wars, bloodshed, and so forth.

In light of Moses 6:15 and the link between Satan’s dominion and power over men and his anger-inducing influence on the hearts of men, a persistent pattern in the Book of Mormon becomes interesting, for most Book of Mormon references to Satan’s power over men also mention their hearts. Indeed, one of the first examples of this is 1 Nephi 14:7, which relates the “hardness of [men’s] hearts” to “the captivity of the devil” — Satan’s influence over the hearts of men again being a key tool toward achieving his aim of gaining dominion and making people his captives.

Many further examples are listed in Table 3 and are discussed in more detail in Lindsay’s publication on the theme of rising from the dust in the Book of Mormon.[49]

Parallel 48: Administering Death

Yet another term of interest in Moses 6:15 may strike modern readers as almost humorous: “A man’s hand was against his own brother, in administering death, because of secret works, seeking for power.” This unusual term, not found in the King James Bible, occurs in Alma 57:19, where Helaman_2 reports a battle in which his band of 2,060 stripling warriors “did administer death unto all those who opposed them.”

The word administer is not common in the KJV, occurring only in 2 Corinthians 8:19–20, where it is used in a positive sense (administering grace). The word occurs many times in the Book of Mormon, typically for positive concepts such as administering grace or justice. In addition to the combination of “administering” with “death” in Alma 57:19, a murder is committed in Alma 47:18 as Amalickiah has a servant “administer poison by degrees” to Lehonti, while Alma 55:30, 32 describes attempts by the Lamanites to “administer” poison (poisonous wine) to Nephite guards.

The account of Amalickiah’s murder of Lehonti is an excellent example of the murderous “secret works” of the wicked described in the Book of Moses, and it even begins with Amalickiah sending a “secret embassy” (Alma 47:10) in order to lure Lehonti into a secret deal with Amalickiah, in which Lehonti would appoint him as second in command, thereby allowing him to be first in command upon Lehonti’s death. Lehonti’s murder through “administering” poison closely fits what Moses 6:15 laments, for Amalickiah’s “hand was against his own brother [a fellow military officer in the Lamanite army], in administering death, because of secret works, seeking for power” (Moses 6:15). The lethal “administering” of poison in Alma 47:18 in the same context found in the Book of Moses’s use of “administering death” increases the odds that the relationship may not be merely fortuitous but also reflects influence from the Book of Moses in the wording of the Book of Mormon. It is also a good example of a relationship that makes much more sense when viewed as a relationship in which the wording in the Book of Moses influences the Book of Mormon rather than the other way around.

Parallel 49: God’s Word Returning “Void”

The Book of Moses, Isaiah, and the Book of Mormon all use the concept of God’s “word” returning (or becoming) “void,” a concept not found elsewhere in the scriptures. The context used in the Book of Mormon corresponds most closely to that of the Book of Moses. First consider Moses 4:30: “For as I, the Lord God, liveth, even so my words cannot return void, for as they go forth out of my mouth they must be fulfilled.”

Similar language involving “void” is in Isaiah 55:11: “So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.”

Now compare the use of “void” in Alma 12:22–23, 26:

Now Alma saith unto him:

This is the thing which I was about to explain.

Now we see that Adam did fall by partaking of the forbidden fruit,

according to the word of God.

And thus we see that by his fall

that all mankind became a lost and a 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

that 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 now behold, if it were possible

that our first parents could have went 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.

It is possible that Isaiah was the source behind the use of void in Alma 12 or may have provided the language for Joseph’s choice of wording in both Alma 12 and Moses 4:30. What is interesting, though, is that the concept of God’s word being voided in Moses 4 is in the specific context of the Garden of Eden and the Fall of Adam, just as it is in Alma 12.

The only other use of the word void in the Book of Mormon occurs later in the book of Alma, in chapter 42, and in a context even more closely aligned with the Book of Moses, specifically referring to the expulsion from the Garden of Eden:

Now behold, my son, I will explain this thing unto thee.

For behold, after the Lord God sent our first parents forth from the garden of Eden

to till the ground from whence he was taken

—yea, he drove out the man—

and he placed at the east end of the garden of Eden cherubims

and a flaming sword which turned every way to keep the tree of life—

now we see that the man had became as God, knowing good and evil,

and lest he should put forth his hand

and take also of the tree of life and eat and live forever,

that the Lord God placed cherubims and the flaming sword

that he should not partake of the fruit.

And thus we see that there was a time granted unto man to repent,

yea, a probationary time, a time to repent and serve God.

For behold, if Adam had put forth his hand immediately

and partook of the tree of life,

he would have lived forever, according to the word of God,

having no space for repentance.

Yea, and also the word of God would have been void,

and the great plan of salvation would have been frustrated. (Alma 42:2–5)

All three occurrences of void with respect to the word of God in the Book of Mormon involve the precise scene where it is present in the Book of Moses, and they come from Alma_2, a keeper and careful student of the brass plates who discusses them explicitly (see Alma 37) and quotes from them several times (for example, Alma 33).

Parallel 50: Esteeming as Naught, Setting at Naught

Another potential connection between the brass plates and the Book of Moses involves the concept of “esteeming” scripture as a thing of “naught.” “Naught” and “nought” both occur in the King James Bible, but not in the context given in Moses 1:40–41:

And now, Moses, my son, I will speak unto thee concerning this earth upon which thou standest; and thou shalt write the things which I shall speak.

And in a day when the children of men shall esteem my words as naught and take many of them from the book which thou shalt write, behold, I will raise up another like unto thee; and they shall be had again among the children of men — among as many as shall believe.

Now consider 1 Nephi 19:6–9, which mentions things which some men esteem of great worth that others set at naught and trample under their feet:

Nevertheless I do not write any thing upon plates

save it be that I think it be sacred… .

For the things which some men esteem to be of great worth,

both to the body and soul,

others set at naught and trample under their feet,

yea, even the very God of Israel do men trample under their feet.

I say trample under their feet,

but I would speak in other words:

they do set him at naught and hearken not to the voice of his counsels… .

And the world because of their iniquity shall judge him to be a thing of naught.

This passage begins with a reference to writing on plates, then follows in verse 10 with a reference to other prophets on the brass plates, specifically citing Zenoch, Zenos, and Neum, who made prophecies of the ministry and sufferings of Christ. Thus, it is interesting that as Nephi_1 was thinking about the word of God as recorded on plates, right before quoting from the brass plates, he would use language similar to what is found in the Book of Moses and in the same context, esteeming the word of God as naught.

Strikingly similar to the predicted taking away of scripture in Moses 1:41, 2 Nephi 33:2–3 also uses “esteem” and “naught” in the context of taking away sacred writings:

But behold, there are many that harden their hearts against the Holy Spirit,

that it hath no place in them.

Wherefore, they cast many things away which are written

and esteem them as things of naught.

But I Nephi have written what I have written,

and I esteem it as of great worth and especially unto my people.

Once again, the connections to the Book of Moses come from one of the writers most reliant on the brass plates.

Parallel 51: Raising Up a Prophet to Restore Ancient Scripture

Moses 1:41, discussed in the previous section, also relates to 2 Nephi 3 and prophecies of Joseph and the Restoration, where we read of the work of a latter-day seer who will bring forth God’s word and restore a knowledge of God’s ancient covenants (see 2 Nephi 3:6–7, 12, 24). In that chapter, the Lord says He will “raise up” a seer to do this work of restoration, language also found in Moses 1:41. This seems to draw on Deuteronomy 18:15–18, where God tells Moses that He will “raise up” a prophet “like unto thee.” But the concept of “raising up” a prophet like Moses for the work of restoring scriptures is not found in the Bible, while it is found in both the Book of Mormon and the Book of Moses.

Parallel 52: The Workmanship of God’s Hands

Five times in the Book of Moses, the Lord mentions “the workmanship of mine hands” or “the workmanship of mine own hands,” which refers to human beings (Moses 1:4; 7:32, 36–37, 40). “Workmanship” occurs several times in the King James Bible but almost always refers to human craftsmanship. The closest parallel that the Bible has to the phrase in the Book of Moses is Paul’s statement that “we are his [God’s] workmanship,” but he doesn’t speak of hands (Ephesians 2:10). However, in Jacob 4:9, Jacob speaks of humans as the “workmanship of his [God’s] hands,” consistent with the Book of Moses and again coming from a writer known to have thoroughly studied the brass plates.

Parallel 53: (Men) Ordained … After the Order

In Psalm 110:4, in a scene apparently involving God the Father speaking to Jehovah, we read, “The Lord hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.” Paul cites this passage several times as he describes the divine calling and role of Jesus Christ (see Hebrews 5:6, 10; 6:20; 7:11, 17, 21). The Book of Moses, like the Book of Mormon, does not speak of anyone being after the order of Melchizedek, but the order of God or His Son, and adds an expansive twist by showing that mortal men can likewise be called and ordained after this holy order:

And the Lord ordained Noah after his own order, and commanded him that he should go forth and declare his Gospel unto the children of men, even as it was given unto Enoch. (Moses 8:19)

Moses 6:67–68 is also relevant, where Adam, after being baptized, is told that he is also “after the order” of the Son of God and that through this means all men may become sons of God:

And thou art after the order of him who was without beginning of days or end of years, from all eternity to all eternity.

Behold, thou art one in me, a son of God; and thus may all become my sons. Amen.

These concepts are strongly present in the Book of Mormon. First consider 2 Nephi 6:2, where Jacob declares that he has been “ordained after the manner of his [God’s] holy order.” When Alma_2 steps down as chief judge, Mormon writes that he “confined himself wholly to the high priesthood of the holy order of God” (Alma 4:20). Alma_2 uses such language several times, most completely in Alma 13:1–2: “The Lord God ordained priests after his holy order, which was after the order of his Son… . And those priests were ordained after the order of his Son.” Related references are found in Alma 5:44; 6:1; 13:6–10, 14; 43:2; 49:30; and Helaman 8:18.

Interestingly, the wicked followers of Nehor stand in contrast to the true priesthood as they are said to be “after the order of the Nehors” (twice in Alma 21:4 and once in Alma 24:28) or “after the order of Nehor” (Alma 24:29). That the order was a faith, or counterfaith, is suggested in Alma 14:16, which states that a wicked judge in Ammonihah “was after the order and faith of Nehor.”

Parallel 54: Natural (Man, Eyes, Frame) vs. the Spiritual / the Spirit / Spirits

Reynolds’s original list of correlations included the contrast between temporal and spiritual that is found in both the Book of Moses and the Book of Mormon, and Reynolds also noted that both texts discuss the “natural man.” A related contrast may also merit attention, that of nature and the natural man (or natural eyes or the natural frame) in contrast to the spiritual, including the Spirit or spirits.

After the encounter Moses had with the Lord in Moses 1, it took “many hours before Moses did again receive his natural strength like unto man” (verse 10). He then observed that it was his “spiritual eyes” and not his “natural eyes” that beheld God, for “my natural eyes could not have beheld; for I should have withered and died in his presence; but his glory was upon me; and I beheld his face, for I was transfigured before him” (verse 11). Shortly thereafter, verse 14 tells us that Moses could look upon Satan “in the natural man” since Satan lacked the intense glory that God bears. Here there are physical limits to what one can behold with the natural eyes.

Natural eyes are mentioned again in Moses 6:36, where we learn that they cannot see spirits, but Enoch as a seer could behold such spiritual things. This follows verse 35, where the Lord tells Enoch to “anoint thine eyes with clay, and wash them, and thou shalt see.” After following the Lord’s instructions, Enoch is able to see what the natural eyes cannot.

Another aspect of the contrast between the natural and the spiritual involves the Creation account in Moses 3, where the Lord declares that He “created all things … spiritually, before they were naturally upon the face of the earth” (verse 5) and again that “all things were before created; but spiritually were they created and made according to my word” (verse 7). The distinction between spiritual and natural in the Creation is also made specifically regarding trees in Moses 3:9:

And out of the ground made I, the Lord God, to grow every tree, naturally, that is pleasant to the sight of man; and man could behold it. And it became also a living soul. For it was spiritual in the day that I created it.

This distinction between the natural and the spiritual may be reflected in King Benjamin’s speech when he contrasts the “natural man” with the spiritual “saint”:

For the natural man is an enemy to God

and has been from the fall of Adam and will be forever and ever

but if[50] he yieldeth to the enticings of the Holy Spirit

and putteth off the natural man

and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord. (Mosiah 3:19)

The opposite of the natural man is one who yields to the Holy Spirit and thus becomes a saint.

Turning again to the eyes, seeing sacred, spiritual things, such as when Moses saw the Lord Himself, is an experience beyond the limitations of our natural eyes that also occurs in the Book of Mormon. When the brother of Jared had a divine encounter in Ether 3, “the veil was taken from off [his] eyes” (verse 6) and he was able to see the finger of the Lord as it would appear on His physical body. This majestic but fearful experience caused the brother of Jared to fall down, struck with fear that he should be smitten (see verses 6, 8, 19). But the Lord comforted Him and showed Himself more fully, telling the brother of Jared that because of his faith, he was redeemed from the Fall and brought back into the Lord’s presence, and that through Him, those who believe on Him shall become His sons and daughters (verses 13–14).

A related example occurs in the Book of Mormon when King Lamoni, after being taught the gospel by Ammon, turns to the Lord and has a spiritual encounter that overwhelms him physically, like the encounter of Moses that left him unconscious for many hours (see Alma 18:41–43 and Moses 1:9–10). As Lamoni was spiritually “carried away in God,” we read that his “natural frame” was overcome:

Now this was what Ammon desired,

for he knew that king Lamoni was under the power of God.

He knew that the dark veil of unbelief being cast away from his mind,

and the light which did light up his mind,

which was the light of the glory of God,

which was a marvelous light of his goodness

—yea, this light had infused such joy into his soul,

the cloud of darkness having been dispelled,

and that the light of everlasting life was lit up in his soul—

yea, he knew that this had overcame his natural frame

and he was carried away in God. (Alma 19:6)

Being overcome by the encounter with the glory and light of God not only caused Lamoni to be physically overcome but also caused fatigue or apparent unconsciousness in others in the Book of Mormon. After his first mentioned encounter with God, Lehi_1 went home and “cast himself upon his bed, being overcome with the Spirit” in 1 Nephi 1:7; Alma_2 spent three days in unconsciousness after his encounter with an angel (see Alma 36:10); and several others also fell to the ground or became unconscious after experiencing the light and glory of God.

There is also a reference to the limited knowledge of heavenly things in the “natural man” in Alma 26:21 and a mention of the “natural frame” in Alma 41:4, in the context of the resurrection of the soul (see Alma 41:2). Also compare Alma 42:9–10, where a discussion contrasting the spiritual and temporal is followed by a statement that men are carnal, sensual, and devilish “by nature,” a phrase also used by King Benjamin in Mosiah 3:16 in discussing the Fall, shortly before he discusses the natural man in verse 19.

Natural and spiritual bodies are contrasted in Paul’s discussion of the Resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15:44, 46. In 1 Corinthians 2:14, Paul also mentions the “natural man” and states that he “receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God[,] … neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.” The gap between spiritual knowledge and the abilities of the natural man is not unique to the Latter-day Saint scriptures, of course, but what seems to be unique is the contrast between seeing with the spiritual and with the natural eyes, including not just the physical limitations of the natural eyes but also the overwhelming physical impact on the natural frame that an encounter with Deity has. These themes and related language are shared in the Book of Moses and the Book of Mormon.

Parallel 55: The Roles of a Seer

Building on the theme of natural vs. spiritual eyes, the role of a seer in the Book of Moses resonates with teachings in the Book of Mormon. In an act symbolic of washing or purifying the natural eyes so that they see that which is spiritual, the Lord instructs Enoch to anoint his eyes with clay and wash them so that he “shalt see” (Moses 6:35). As a result, he becomes a seer:

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 6:36)

In the Bible, the role and abilities of a seer are not easily distinguished from those of a prophet. In the Book of Moses, we gain additional perspective as we see Enoch, as a seer, being able to see spirits and invisible things, as well as seeing many future events and receiving great revelations (see Moses 6 and 7). Then after receiving this gift, Enoch also worked as a prophet in declaring the need for repentance, baptism, and faith in the Lord (see Moses 6:35–68; 7:1, 9–12) and worked as a leader who guided and gathered his people and established Zion (see Moses 7:13–19).

In the Book of Mormon, seers play similar roles. Mosiah 8:13–17 tells us that whoever is commanded to look into the divine “interpreters” (tools presumably like the Urim and Thummim or seer stones) is called a seer (see verse 13) and that seers are revelators who can know of things to come and “secret things” and “hidden things” (verse 17) so that they can bring to light that which would otherwise never be known (see verses 16–18).[51] But the “secret things” and “hidden things” revealed by seers in the Book of Mormon are not limited to the things of heaven and the translation of once hidden records; they also include the “secret works” and “secret combinations” of the wicked.

Regarding how the Lord uses interpreters, the key tools of a seer in the Book of Mormon, to reveal these secret works, Alma_2 explains:

For behold, the Lord saw that his people began to work in darkness

—yea, work secret murders and abominations—

therefore the Lord said

if they did not repent

they should be destroyed from off the face of the earth.

And the Lord said:

I will prepare unto my servant Gazelem

a stone which shall shine forth in darkness unto light,

that I may discover unto my people which serve me—

that I may discover unto them the works of their brethren,

yea, their secret works, their works of darkness,

their wickedness and abominations.

And now, my son, these directors were prepared

that the word of God might be fulfilled which he spake, saying:

I will bring forth out of darkness unto light

all their secret works and their abominations;

and except they repent I will destroy them from off the face of the earth.

And I will bring to light all their secrets and abominations,

unto every nation that shall hereafter possess the land.

And now, my son, we see that they did not repent;

therefore they have been destroyed.

And thus far the word of God has been fulfilled;

yea, their secret abominations have been brought out of darkness

and made known unto us. (Alma 37:22–26)

Thus, the role of seers can involve seeing “secret things” and “hidden things” to oppose the secret works of darkness and secret combinations that are condemned in the Book of Moses and the Book of Mormon. Their role clearly includes using such vision to preach repentance, baptism, and faith in Christ. In both texts, the role of a seer is far greater than seeing the future alone.

Parallel 56: Perished in Their Sins

In Moses 7:1, Enoch states that while many have believed what Adam taught and have become sons of God, many others “have believed not, and have perished in their sins.” Abinadi, a student of the brass plates, speaks of “those that have perished in their sins” in Mosiah 15:26 (cf. Mosiah 13:28). The combination of perishing with “in their sins” is not found in the King James Bible, though those who sin shall perish according to Romans 2:12, the closest but still distant KJV parallel.

Parallel 57: Sins/Cursing Answered upon the Heads of Parents/Children

Moses 6:54 provides another possible link to the Book of Mormon regarding the responsibility for sin:

Hence came the saying abroad among the people, that the Son of God hath atoned for original guilt, wherein the sins of the parents cannot be answered upon the heads of the children, for they are whole from the foundation of the world.

Moses 7:37 has a similar concept, along with other phrases connected to the Book of Mormon:

But behold, their sins shall be upon the heads of their fathers; Satan shall be their father, and misery shall be their doom; and the whole heavens shall weep over them, even all the workmanship of mine hands; wherefore should not the heavens weep, seeing these shall suffer?

Related passages from the Book of Mormon follow:

Wherefore, if ye are cursed,

behold, I leave my blessing upon you,

that the cursing may be taken from you

and be answered upon the heads of your parents. (2 Nephi 4:6)

And we did magnify our office unto the Lord,

taking upon us the responsibility,

answering the sins of the people upon our own heads

if we did not teach them the word of God with all diligence;

wherefore by laboring with our mights,

their blood might not come upon our garments;

otherwise their blood would come upon our garments

and we would not be found spotless at the last day. (Jacob 1:19)

Wherefore ye shall remember your children,

how that ye have grieved their hearts

because of the example that ye have sat before them;

and also remember that ye may because of your filthiness

bring your children unto destruction

and their sins be heaped upon your heads at the last day. (Jacob 3:10)

And I commanded you to do these things in the fear

of the Lord;

and I commanded you to do these things and that ye

have no king,

that if these people commit sins and iniquities,

they shall be answered upon their own heads.

For behold, I say unto you:

The sins of many people have been caused by the iniquities of their kings;

therefore their iniquities are answered upon the heads of their kings. (Mosiah 29:30–31)

Also possibly relevant, blood coming upon the heads of the wicked occurs in 1 Nephi 22:13; Alma 60:10; and Mormon 8:40.

The closest concept in the King James Bible may be that of the scapegoat in Leviticus 16:21–22:

And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins, putting them upon the head of the goat, and shall send him away by the hand of a fit man into the wilderness:

And the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities unto a land not inhabited: and he shall let go the goat in the wilderness.

Also relevant is 1 Kings 2:33:

Their blood shall therefore return upon the head of Joab, and upon the head of his seed for ever: but upon David, and upon his seed, and upon his house, and upon his throne, shall there be peace for ever from the Lord.

The use of the verb “answer” in this context adds a unique element common to the Book of Mormon and the Book of Moses.

Parallel 58: The Glory of God (and Its Relationship to Eternal Life)

In his discussion of the ancient literary elements in Moses 1, Mark J. Johnson sees the many references to glory in that chapter to be consistent with ancient authorship, and he states that “the predominance and preeminence of the word glory reveals Moses 1 to be doxological, that is, being a witness and praise to God’s glory.”[52] In Moses 1, Moses uses the contrast between the glory of God that he experiences and Satan’s lack of glory to judge between God and Satan in a literary technique known as the “rîb disputation pattern” or the covenant (or prophetic) lawsuit.[53] Indeed, the glory of God is an important theme in several chapters of the Book of Moses.

As it does in the Book of Moses, in the Bible the glory of God can temporarily come upon individuals such as Moses, but in the Book of Moses it also comes upon God’s covenant people in the city of Enoch and causes their enemies to fear (see Moses 7:17). Even more unlike the Old Testament, the glory of God is also described as something that the faithful may receive after this life:

That by reason of transgression cometh the fall, which fall bringeth death, and inasmuch as ye were born into the world by water, and blood, and the spirit, which I have made, and so became of dust a living soul, even so ye must be born again into the kingdom of heaven, of water, and of the Spirit, and be cleansed by blood, even the blood of mine Only Begotten; that ye might be sanctified from all sin, and enjoy the words of eternal life in this world, and eternal life in the world to come, even immortal glory… .

Therefore it is given to abide in you; the record of heaven; the Comforter; the peaceable things of immortal glory. (Moses 6:59, 61)

A famous Book of Moses verse related to the glory of God is among those seen by Reynolds as possibly having an influence on the Book of Mormon:

For behold, this is my work and my glory — to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man. (Moses 1:39)

In this case, Reynolds considered the phrase “eternal life,” which is also found in the New Testament, but showed that the Book of Moses’s usage of that phrase may be more relevant as a potential influence on the Book of Mormon. The use of the term glory in this context and in the previously mentioned context of humans entering into the glory of God in the next life may both serve as additional influences on the Book of Mormon.

A few verses in the Book of Mormon seem to reflect the message, if not some of the phrasing, of Moses 1:39, such as Alma_2’s exultation in Alma 29:9:

I know that which the Lord hath commanded me,

and I glory in it.

I do not glory of myself,

but I glory in that which the Lord hath commanded me.

Yea, and this is my glory,

that perhaps I may be an instrument in the hands of God

to bring some soul to repentance;

and this is my joy.

Likewise, in 2 Nephi 1:25, Lehi_1 tells his rebellious sons that Nephi_1 “hath not sought for power nor authority over you, but he hath sought the glory of God and your own eternal welfare.” Here, seeking the glory of God is linked to seeking the eternal welfare (or eternal life) of others.

Further, in the allegory of the olive tree, the Lord of the vineyard explains that he wishes for his olive trees to “be sufficiently strong that perhaps they may bring forth good fruit unto me, and I may yet have glory in the fruit of my vineyard” (Jacob 5:54). In other words, the work that represents the gathering of Israel and the saving of souls gives God glory. The work of redeeming humankind is His work and His glory. Jacob 5:72 reminds us that the work of the gathering in the Lord’s vineyard is indeed His work and His labor: “And it came to pass that the servants did go to it and labor with their mights, and the Lord of the vineyard labored also with them.”

The concept of humans having a hope of the glory of God after this life is found in several Book of Mormon passages with various levels of affinity for the Book of Moses. Such passages often reflect entering into or receiving glory as a consequence of being redeemed by the Savior:

For for this intent have we written these things

that they may know that we knew of Christ,

and we had a hope of his glory many hundred years before his coming.

And not only we ourselves had a hope of his glory,

but also all the holy prophets which were before us. (Jacob 4:4)

Wherefore, beloved, be reconciled unto him

through the atonement of Christ his Only Begotten Son,

that ye may obtain a resurrection according to the power of the resurrection which is in Christ

and be presented as the firstfruits of Christ unto God,

having faith and having obtained a good hope of glory in him

before he manifesteth himself in the flesh. (Jacob 4:11)

Teachings about the basics of the Atonement, the Resurrection, repentance, and faith in Christ are linked to the “hopes of glory” also found in Alma 22:14, where the teachings of the Nephite missionary Aaron to a Lamanite king are summarized:

And since man had fallen, he could not merit any thing of himself;

but the sufferings and death of Christ atoneth for their sins

through faith and repentance — etc.—

and that he breaketh the bands of death,

that the grave shall have no victory

and that the sting of death should be swallowed up in the hopes of glory.

And Aaron did expound all these things unto the king.

Alma_2 looks forward to his future resurrection, knowing that God “will raise [him] up at the last day to dwell with him in glory” (Alma 36:28). Regarding believers who were martyred in Ammonihah, Alma_2 says that “the Lord receiveth them up unto himself in glory” (Alma 14:11). This glory of God shared with His children is associated with joy in Helaman 5:44 when Nephi_2 and Lehi_2, while in a Lamanite prison, had a miraculous experience that converted the surrounded Lamanites and filled them “with that joy which is unspeakable and full of glory.”

Finally, in a time of destruction and sorrow, Mormon comforts his son, Moroni, by telling him in Moroni 9:25 to “be faithful in Christ. And may not the things which I have written grieve thee, to weigh thee down unto death; but may Christ lift thee up. And may his sufferings and death and the shewing his body unto our fathers and his mercy and long-suffering and the hope of his glory and of eternal life rest in your mind forever.” The hope of God’s glory is linked to the gift of eternal life, bringing together two concepts also found in Moses 1:39.

The promise of entering into or partaking of God’s glory is a doctrine found to some degree in the New Testament, though it’s often underplayed or overlooked by those Christians who may fail to understand the real relationship between God and man and the magnitude of the gifts that God wishes to give to His children through His grace and love. Peter writes of God giving us “all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue,” so that we might be “partakers of the divine nature” (2 Peter 1:3–4). Paul speaks of the “hope of the glory of God” that believers have due to the grace of Christ that they “access by faith” (Romans 5:2; cf. Colossians 1:27). He also speaks of “hope of his [God’s] calling, and … the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints” (Ephesians 1:18). But the Book of Mormon’s expansive teachings on the glory of God and eternal life for man would seem more closely aligned with the Book of Moses than with what is in the King James Bible.

Parallel 59: Weeping, Wailing, and Gnashing of Teeth

Moses 1:22 reports that “Satan cried with a loud voice, with weeping, and wailing, and gnashing of teeth.” The Bible has a number of verses combining “weeping” with either “wailing” (Esther 4:3; Jeremiah 9:10; Ezekiel 27:31) or “gnashing” (Luke 13:28; Matthew 8:12; 22:13; 24:51; 25:30) or combining “wailing” and “gnashing” (Matthew 13:42, 50), but not all three as in Moses 1:22. In the Book of Mormon, Mosiah 16:2 has all three verbs:

And then shall the wicked be cast out,

and they shall have cause to howl and weep and wail and gnash their teeth—

and this because they would not hearken unto the voice of the Lord.

Therefore the Lord redeemeth them not.

Interestingly, the verse that follows (Mosiah 16:3) has further Book of Moses connections, employing the phrase “carnal, sensual, and devilish” (discussed previously) and references to the actions of Satan.

Alma 40:13 also has all three verbs:

And then shall it come to pass, that

the spirits of the wicked, yea, who are evil

—for behold, they have no part nor portion of the Spirit of the Lord;

for behold, they chose evil works rather than good;

therefore the spirit of the devil did enter into them,

and take possession of their house—

and these shall be cast out into outer darkness;

there shall be weeping, and wailing, and gnashing of teeth,

and this because of their own iniquity,

being led captive by the will of the devil.

Note that this verse also contains a previously discussed potential connection to the Book of Moses: the concept of being led captive by the will of the devil (see Moses 4:4).

On the other hand, the phrase “weeping, wailing, and gnashing of teeth” derived from the related New Testament phrases has long been in use in English, arguably because of its pleasant meter,[54] and thus its presence in the Book of Moses and the Book of Mormon could have been the result of translating a phrase akin to “weeping and gnashing of teeth” into English.

Parallel 60: Satan Laughs and His Angels Rejoice

Now we’ll turn to one of the verses that motivated the current study. Moses 7:26 gives us a chilling glimpse into Satan’s power and attitude as seen by Enoch in a vision:

And he beheld Satan; and he had a great chain in his hand, and it veiled the whole face of the earth with darkness; and he looked up and laughed, and his angels rejoiced.

In the Book of Mormon, following the grim destruction of many cities among the Nephites near the time of the Crucifixion, the voice of the Lord exclaims, “Woe woe woe unto this people! Woe unto the inhabitants of the whole earth except they shall repent, for the devil laugheth, and his angels rejoice because of the slain of the fair sons and daughters of my people” (3 Nephi 9:2). This pairing of verbs does not appear to be in the Bible.

The existence of angels among Satan’s forces is found in many other Book of Mormon verses (see 2 Nephi 9:9, 16; Jacob 3:11; Mosiah 26:27; and Moroni 7:17) but is also evident in the New Testament (see Matthew 25:41; Revelation 12:9).

Parallel 61: The Lord Who Weeps and Grieves for Lost Souls

One of the most beloved and poignant passages in the Book of Moses involves Enoch’s surprise when he sees in Moses 7:28–40 that God weeps over the wicked.[55] It is a brilliant and inspiring passage that is widely viewed as one of the most profound portions of our scriptures.

The concept of the God who weeps for sinful mortals may be reflected in the allegory of the tame and wild olive trees taken from the brass plates. While the allegory is not from Moses but rather from Zenos, the Lord’s feelings for humanity show an intriguing relationship with the account about Enoch’s experience.

In the allegory in Jacob 5, the work of the Lord in redeeming humankind is related to a vineyard featuring olive trees. The Lord seeks to help His trees bring forth good fruit. Eight times in this chapter, the Lord states that “it grieveth me” as he considers the future loss of the tree or trees He is nourishing (Jacob 5:7, 11, 13, 32, 46–47, 51, 66). The loss of human souls brings God grief. While the time of Zenos’s ministry is not known (likely to be between 1600 and 600 BC),[56] it is possible that his writings preserved on the brass plates may have been informed in part by knowledge of something related to our Book of Moses or other related sources dealing with Enoch. Elements apparently common to Zenos and the Book of Moses may reflect a common genre or common concepts from an era well before Nephi_1 (or may be because of chance, as is always a possibility).

The account of Noah in Genesis 6 also shows the Lord grieving over His creation, but not necessarily because men will suffer for their sins:

And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. (Genesis 6:5–6)

In this account Lord grieves that men had become wicked, but the text does not provide the insight of God’s love for His rebellious children and His pain at the misery sin will bring the wicked.

More relevant may be Luke 19:41, where Jesus weeps over Jerusalem because of its impending destruction. The New Testament and the Book of Moses both bear witness of the compassionate nature of God, and it is possible that related material in the Book of Mormon could simply be expressions of God’s well-known compassion, though the repeated expression of God’s grief for losses in Israel from Jacob 5 resonates nicely with the weeping God of the Book of Moses who sorrows over the loss of human souls.

Parallel 62: All Things Witness of the Creation

As Enoch taught the gospel, he testified of the Creation:

And behold, all things have their likeness, and all things are created and made to bear record of me, both things which are temporal, and things which are spiritual; things which are in the heavens above, and things which are on the earth, and things which are in the earth, and things which are under the earth, both above and beneath: all things bear record of me. (Moses 6:63)

The concept Enoch taught is similar to Alma_2’s teaching when he responds to Korihor in Alma 30:

But behold, I have all things as a testimony that these things are true.

And ye also have all things as a testimony unto you that they are true.

And will ye deny them?

Believest thou that these things are true? …

But Alma said unto him:

Thou hast had signs enough.

Will ye tempt your God?

Will ye say,

shew unto me a sign,

when ye have the testimony of all these thy brethren

and also all the holy prophets?

The scriptures are laid before thee.

Yea, and all things denote there is a God;

yea, even the earth, and all things that is upon the face of it,

yea, and its motion,

yea, and also all the planets, which move in their regular form,

doth witness that there is a Supreme Creator. (Alma 30:41, 44)

A messianic discourse by Nephi_2 in Helaman 8 also invokes a related argument. Interestingly, he begins by citing the miracles, power, and prophecies of Moses (see Helaman 8:11–16), and then he mentions the witness of other prophets from records likely on the brass plates (namely, Abraham, Zenos, Zenoch, Ezaias, Isaiah, and Jeremiah; see verses 17–20). Then in verses 23 and 24, he refers to the witness of the Creation:

And behold, he is God… .

And now, seeing ye know these things

and cannot deny them except ye shall lie,

therefore in this ye have sinned,

for ye have rejected all these things,

notwithstanding so many evidences which ye have received.

Yea, even ye have received all things

—both things in heaven and all things which are in the earth—

as a witness that they are true.

Perhaps also related is 2 Nephi 11:4, which declares that “all things which have been given of God from the beginning of the world unto man are the typifying of him.”

The King James Bible uses “all things” many times, sometimes touching on the Creation, such as Nehemiah 9:6 which speaks of God having made the heavens and “the earth, and all things that are therein” or John’s declaration that “all things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made” (John 1:3). But nothing in the Bible seems to directly offer the particular and beautiful teaching of “all things” in the Creation bearing witness of God.

Parallel 63: Power, Wisdom, Mercy, and Justice

In describing the “plan of salvation,” one of the key phrases originally noted by Reynolds, several significant nouns, including power, wisdom, mercy, and justice, occur together in Moses 6:61–62:

Therefore it is given to abide in you; the record of heaven; the Comforter; the peaceable things of immortal glory; the truth of all things; that which quickeneth all things, which maketh alive all things; that which knoweth all things, and hath all power according to wisdom, mercy, truth, justice, and judgment.

And now, behold, I say unto you: This is the plan of salvation unto all men, through the blood of mine Only Begotten, who shall come in the meridian of time.

Several Book of Mormon verses use portions of this grouping that are not found together in the King James Bible. Second Nephi 2:12 speaks of “the wisdom of God and his eternal purposes, and also the power and the mercy and the justice of God.” 2 Nephi 11:5 says, “My soul delighteth in his grace and his justice and power and mercy, in the great and eternal plan of deliverance from death.” In Mosiah 5:15, King Benjamin exhorts his people to be “steadfast and immovable, always abounding in good works” so that they “may have everlasting salvation and eternal life through the wisdom and power and justice and mercy of him who created all things in heaven and in earth.” Note that King Benjamin also refers to God’s creation of “all things,” a phrase that is used four times in Moses 6:61 right before the recitation of power, wisdom, mercy, and justice.

These Book of Mormon passages on salvation and their similar vocabulary to Moses 6:61–62 suggest a possible relationship between the two books and further favor the Book of Moses as the tentative source since it offers the more complete, extensive language from which slightly different portions may have been drawn by Book of Mormon authors.

Another relevant passage is Jacob 4:10, which tells us that God “counseleth in wisdom, and in justice, and in great mercy, over all his works.” God’s role in counseling is also a Book of Moses theme (see Moses 7:35; cf. Moses 5:25; 6:28).

Parallel 64: Commanding the Earth and the Power of the Word

Jacob 4:10 in the previous section is part of a longer but still brief passage, Jacob 4:4–10, with several possible connections to the Book of Moses. Like the Book of Moses, this passage declares that the Nephites and earlier prophets “had a hope of his glory many hundred years before his coming” (Jacob 4:4). Verse 5 refers to the law of Moses and to Abraham, and then verse 6 speaks of commanding mountains, trees, or the waves after mentioning the writings of the prophets:

Wherefore we search the prophets,

and we have many revelations and the spirit of prophecy.

And having all these witnesses,

we obtain a hope and our faith becometh unshaken,

insomuch that we truly can command in the name of Jesus

and the very trees obey us or the mountains or the waves of the sea.

This thought resumes in verse 9:

For behold, by the power of his word

man came upon the face of the earth,

which earth was created by the power of his word.

Wherefore if God being able to speak and the world was

and to speak and man was created,

O then why not able to command the earth,

or the workmanship of his hands upon the face of it,

according to his will and pleasure?

The “workmanship of [God’s] hands” is a Book of Moses parallel discussed earlier in this study that strengthens the case that Jacob may have been influenced by something like the Book of Moses in this discourse.

This theme of commanding the earth through faith and the power of God’s word may relate to the account of Enoch, one of the ancient writings Jacob may have searched. According to Moses 7:13,

And so great was the faith of Enoch that he led the people of God, and their enemies came to battle against them; and he spake the word of the Lord, and the earth trembled, and the mountains fled, even according to his command; and the rivers of water were turned out of their course; and the roar of the lions was heard out of the wilderness; and all nations feared greatly, so powerful was the word of Enoch, and so great was the power of the language which God had given him.

Through faith, God’s word can be spoken with miraculous power to command the earth, including mountains and rivers of water / waves of the sea. Thus, the theme of commanding the earth in Jacob 4:6, 9 seems to have strong connections with the account of Enoch in Moses 7:13. It is also significant in both Jacob 4 and Moses 7 that the commanding of the earth is associated with servants of God.

Jacob continues with verse 10, which uses the Book of Moses concept of God’s counsel plus the previously discussed elements of wisdom, justice, and mercy, again suggesting that Jacob has been influenced heavily by Book of Moses–related material in the brass plates in this discourse.

Commanding the earth can be viewed more broadly as an expression of the power of the word when spoken by servants of God. In Moses 7:13, it was Enoch speaking “the word of the Lord” that caused the earth to tremble, “and all nations feared greatly, so powerful was the word of Enoch, and so great was the power of the language which God had given him.”

The Book of Mormon cites several examples of mortals having divine power in the words that they speak. Sometimes this is power to convert others, but other times more physically obvious miracles are indicated. The first Book of Mormon example of a physical miracle performed by a prophet using the power of the word is cited in a discussion of Moses:

Yea, and ye also know that Moses by his word

according to the power of God which was in him

smote the rock and there came forth water. (1 Nephi 17:29)

Jacob 4:6–9, as mentioned previously, shows how powerful the word of God’s servants was, and it reminds us that the Creation came by “the power of his [God’s] word,” so naturally God (or implicitly, God’s servants) should be able to “command the earth” according to God’s will (verse 9). Further, Ether 12:30 mentions a mountain that was moved by the faith of the brother of Jared in response to his verbal command, “Remove.”

Other forms of power in the word of God from humans include the power to shake the wicked or to convert the penitent. Lehi_1, for example, explains that Nephi_1’s alleged anger toward his wicked brothers was actually “the sharpness of the power of the word of God, which was in him” (2 Nephi 1:26). Sharpness and power in the word are mentioned in Words of Mormon 1:17, which states that King Benjamin and other “holy men in the land … did speak the word of God with power and with authority, and they did use much sharpness because of the stiffneckedness of the people.” Accounts of preaching and missionary efforts often mention the power of the words from humans, such as the sons of Mosiah_2 in their mission to the Lamanites: “By the power of their words many were brought before the altar of God to call on his name and confess their sins before him” (Alma 17:4).[57]

In contrast, the examples of divinely powerful words or language are typically attributed to the Lord in the Bible. For example, speaking of Christ, Luke 4:32 says, “They were astonished at his doctrine: for his word was with power.” Paul speaks of Christ in mentioning “the word of his power” (Hebrews 1:3). It is the word of God, not any mortal, that is “quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword” in Hebrews 4:12. Moses, Elijah, and other prophets and apostles certainly performed miracles as directed by the Lord, with a relevant example being 1 Kings 17:16: “And the barrel of meal wasted not, neither did the cruse of oil fail, according to the word of the Lord, which he spake by Elijah.” Christ also tells his disciples that with sufficient faith they can speak and cause miracles such as moving a mountain (see Matthew 17:20; 21:21), but this is done without using the wording in the Book of Moses and the Book of Mormon. The Book of Moses and the Book of Mormon are more explicit in referring to the great power of the word or the language of mortal men, though that power, as indicated in Moses 7:13 and 1 Kings 17:16, is, of course, given by the Lord.

Parallel 65: Spreading Abominations and Works of Darkness

Moses 5:52 speaks of the Lord cursing Lamech and his followers who had covenanted with Satan, stating that “their works were abominations, and began to spread among all the sons of men.” This combination of abominations, works (of darkness), and the verb spread is also found in Helaman 6:28, which declares that it was Satan “which led on the people which came from that tower into this land which spread the works of darkness and abominations over all the face of the land until he dragged the people down to an entire destruction and to an everlasting hell.”

Ether 8:18–22 employs related words in a similar context, but these are spread over five verses.

Parallel 66: The “Powers of Heaven” and Heavenly Ascent and Descent

The term “powers of heaven” occurs in the New Testament, but only in the context of the troubles and fearsome signs of the last days. According to Matthew 24:29, the stars will fall from heaven and “the powers of the heavens shall be shaken”; Mark 13:25 says that “the stars of heaven shall fall, and the powers that are in heaven shall be shaken”; and Luke 21:26 speaks of “men’s hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth: for the powers of heaven shall be shaken.”

In contrast, Moses 7:27 refers to the powers of heaven in the context of joyous interaction between heaven, earth, and Zion, with glorious angelic descent and the ascent of saints into the heavenly Zion:

And Enoch beheld angels descending out of heaven, bearing testimony of the Father and Son; and the Holy Ghost fell on many, and they were caught up by the powers of heaven into Zion.

The Book of Mormon captures some of this context in describing the future New Jerusalem and presence of divine power in the midst of gathered Israel, with Christ “in the midst” of the saints on earth:

And behold, this people will I establish in this land

unto the fulfilling of the covenant which I made with your father Jacob;

and it shall be a New Jerusalem.

And the powers of heaven shall be in the midst of this people;

yea, even I will be in the midst of you. (3 Nephi 20:22)

In the next chapter, similar language involving the “powers of heaven” and divine descent is used in a prophecy indicating that the Gentiles who repent will be able to assist gathered Israel in building the New Jerusalem:

And they shall assist my people, the remnant of Jacob,

and also as many of the house of Israel as shall come,

that they may build a city which shall be called the New Jerusalem.

And then shall they assist my people

that they may be gathered in

which are scattered upon all the face of the land,

in unto the New Jerusalem.

And then shall the powers of heaven[58] come down among them;

and I also will be in the midst. (3 Nephi 21:23–25)

A related prophecy of a glorious descent (of the Lord) and glorious ascent (of saints) involves the Three Nephites with their access to the “powers of heaven” and the promise of future assumption into the kingdom of God:

Therefore more blessed are ye;

for ye shall never taste of death,

but ye shall live to behold all the doings of the Father unto the children of men,

even until all things shall be fulfilled according to the will of the Father

when I shall come in my glory with the powers of heaven.

And ye shall never endure the pains of death.

But when I shall come in my glory,

ye shall be changed in the twinkling of an eye from mortality to immortality.

And then shall ye be blessed in the kingdom of my Father. (3 Nephi 28:7–8)

The unshaken powers of heaven here bless humans and are associated with both heavenly descent and ascent. Zion is not explicitly present here, but “the kingdom of my Father” is given as the destination for the ascent.

Parallel 67: Salvation or Damnation by “a Firm Decree”

In Moses 5, we learn that the Lord was working to teach the gospel to humanity from the days of Adam and Eve, calling upon all people to repent. Verse 15 outlines the choice of salvation or damnation given to humankind and the need for repentance:

And as many as believed in the Son, and repented of their sins, should be saved; and as many as believed not and repented not, should be damned; and the words went forth out of the mouth of God in a firm decree; wherefore they must be fulfilled.

Alma 9:24–25 employs similar language in a similar context:

For behold, the promises of the Lord are extended to the Lamanites,

but they are not unto you if ye transgress.

For hath not the Lord expressly promised and firmly decreed,

that if ye will rebel against him

that ye shall utterly be destroyed from off the face of the earth?

And now for this cause that ye may not be destroyed,

the Lord has sent his angel to visit many of his people,

declaring unto them that they must go forth

and cry mightily unto this people, saying:

Repent ye, repent ye,

for the kingdom of heaven is nigh at hand.

Alma_2 again uses similar language in a similar context in his famous “O that I were an angel” speech:

I had not ought to harrow up in my desires the firm decree of a just God,

for I know that he granteth unto men according to their desires,

whether it be unto death or unto life.

Yea, I know that he allotteth unto man,

yea, decreeth unto them decrees which are unalterable according to their wills,

whether they be unto salvation or unto destruction. (Alma 29:4)

Alma_2 uses both “firm” and “unalterable” to describe God’s decrees. Later in Alma 41:7–8, Alma_2 uses “unalterable” instead of “firm” to describe God’s decrees related to our salvation or damnation.

A “firm decree” does occur in the King James Bible in Daniel 6:7 when leaders under King Darius set a trap to ensnare Daniel by convincing the king to issue a “firm decree” that “whosoever shall ask a petition of any God or man for thirty days, save of thee, O king, he shall be cast into the den of lions.” This is a decree of mortals, though, not a divine decree related to our eternal salvation or damnation.

Parallel 68: Angels Bearing Testimony

Enoch’s vision in Moses 7:27 teaches us about the role of angels:

And Enoch beheld angels descending out of heaven, bearing testimony of the Father and Son; and the Holy Ghost fell on many, and they were caught up by the powers of heaven into Zion.

In parallel 87, Moroni 7:29–31 is cited for its discussion of the role of angels. The role of “declaring” glad tidings in verse 31 is also associated with bearing testimony:

And the office of their ministry is to call men unto repentance,

and to fulfill and to do the work of the covenants of the Father,

which he hath made unto the children of men,

to prepare the way among the children of men,

by declaring the word of Christ unto the chosen vessels of the Lord,

that they may bear testimony of him. (Moroni 7:31)

The bearing of testimony mentioned is done by humans but is the result of the work of angels. This language is not found in the King James Bible.

Parallel 69: Residue of Men / the People + Angels Bearing Testimony

In the Book of Moses, the phrase “residue of the people” occurs three times in the same chapter, not far from the previously mentioned verse, Moses 7:27, with angels bearing testimony (see parallel 68). Two occurrences are shortly before verse 27 (verses 20, 22), and one occurs immediately after, in verse 28, part of the famous passage where Enoch sees God weeping for the wicked (see parallel 61):

And it came to pass that the God of heaven looked upon the residue of the people, and he wept; and Enoch bore record of it, saying: How is it that the heavens weep, and shed forth their tears as the rain upon the mountains? (Moses 7:28)

The word “residue” in the context of angels and the bearing of testimony also occurs in Moroni 7:31–32. Moroni 7:31 (see parallel 68) describes the role of angels in helping mortals “bear testimony” of Christ. Then in verse 32, the result of this work is described:

And by so doing, the Lord God prepareth the way

that the residue of men may have faith in Christ,

that the Holy Ghost may have place in their hearts,

according to the power thereof;

and after this manner bringeth to pass the Father, the covenants

which he hath made unto the children of men.

Parallel 70: Prepared from the Foundation of the World

Moses 5:57–58 explains that the Savior was “prepared from before the foundation of the world”:

For they would not hearken unto his voice, nor believe on his Only Begotten Son, even him whom he declared should come in the meridian of time, who was prepared from before the foundation of the world.

And thus the Gospel began to be preached.

These sentences bring closure to the story of how men were first taught about the plan of redemption, the Atonement of Christ, and the gospel that would teach the descendants of Adam and Eve that they could return to the presence of God by repenting, being baptized, and faithfully obeying His commandments. They refer back to the more expansive presentation of these teachings in verses 4–15. As the account of Adam’s immediate descendants next unfolds, we read of Enoch, who undertakes to teach the same plan of salvation through the Atonement of the Son of God, which was in effect “from the foundation of the world,” and the gospel of repentance as the only way they can return to dwell with God (Moses 6:54; see verses 48–68).

Matthew 25:34 speaks of “the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world,” but not specifically of Christ or the Atonement. Revelation 13:8 speaks of “the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.” “The foundation(s) of the world” occurs in a total of twelve verses in the KJV Bible, but not with the specific language of Christ and His Atonement being prepared from the foundation of the world. Meanwhile, Isaiah 40:21 has “from the foundations of the earth,” which is relevant but still different and lacking words related to “prepared.” But the Book of Mormon abounds in this language.

Most of the Book of Mormon usages of this phrase refer explicitly to the Atonement of Jesus Christ as prepared from the foundation of the world in the plan of salvation/redemption and to the gospel it provides for the salvation of all humankind. The way of salvation is “prepared for all men from the foundation of the world” (1 Nephi 10:18). The Atonement of Christ was “prepared from the foundation of the world” in Mosiah 4:6–7. Redemption was “prepared from the foundation of the world” in Mosiah 15:19; 18:13; and Alma 12:30, as was “the plan of redemption” in Alma 18:39 and 22:13. In Alma 42:26, God’s “great and eternal purposes” involving mercy and justice were “prepared from the foundation of the world,” ultimately leading to “the salvation and the redemption of men, and also their destruction and misery.” In Ether 3:14, Christ declares that “I am he which was prepared from the foundation of the world to redeem my people.”

The following excerpt from King Benjamin’s teachings (Mosiah 4:6– 8) is beautifully structured according to the principles now known as Hebrew rhetoric and exemplifies the pattern used in another nine passages in the Book of Mormon that present the plan of salvation, a pattern that includes the Atonement of Jesus Christ and His gospel as the way to salvation for all peoples who were prepared or in place “from the foundation of the world.”[59] As displayed here, Benjamin presents a six-line chiasm beginning and ending with a reference to the Atonement “prepared from the foundation of the world,” with a preface focused on “the goodness of God” and a double conclusion stating the universality and uniqueness of the salvation it makes available in a pair of four-line chiasms:[60]

I say unto you that

if ye have come to a knowledge of the goodness of God

and his matchless power

and his wisdom

and his patience

and his long-suffering towards the children of men,

A and also the atonement which hath been prepared from the foundation of the world,

B that thereby salvation might come to him

C that should put his trust in the Lord

D and should be diligent in keeping his commandments

C’ and continue in the faith, even unto the end of his life — I mean the life of the mortal body—

I say that

B’ this is the man that receiveth salvation

A’ through the atonement which was prepared from the foundation of the world

i for all mankind which ever was, ever since the fall of Adam,

ii or which is

ii’ ...or which ever shall be,

i’ ...even unto the end of the world.

A And this is the means whereby salvation cometh.

B And there is none other salvation save this which hath been spoken of;

B’ neither is there any conditions whereby man can be saved

A’ except the conditions which I have told you. (Mosiah 4:6–8)

Alma 13:3 speaks of priesthood holders being “called and prepared from the foundation of the world” with a holy calling that was “prepared with and according to a preparatory redemption for such.” That result is made possible only by the preparation of Christ: “this holy calling being prepared from the foundation of the world for such as would not harden their hearts, being in and through the atonement of the Only Begotten Son which was prepared” (Alma 13:5). Then Alma 13:7 speaks of “the order of his Son, which order was from the foundation of the world, or in other words, being without beginning of days or end of years, being prepared from eternity to all eternity, according to his foreknowledge of all things.”

Since several different gospel-related things, such as Christ Himself, redemption or salvation, and priesthood callings, are “prepared from the foundation of the world” in the Book of Mormon, one could argue that the intertextuality explored here may simply be a cultural linguistic artifact in which Joseph favored an expression that means little more than “from the beginning” or “from time immemorial.” However, the different things connected with “prepared from the foundation of the world” remain based in the Savior and His work of Atonement — even priesthood callings, which Alma 13:5 indicates were “in and through the atonement of the Only Begotten Son which was prepared” — making it logical that the basket of Book of Mormon concepts said to be “prepared from the foundation of the world” could plausibly be related to the teachings of Moses 5:57–58.

Parallel 71: Gathering from the Four Quarters of the Earth

Moses 7:62 has a prophecy given to Enoch about the future gathering of the elect:

And righteousness will I send down out of heaven; and truth will I send forth out of the earth, to bear testimony of mine Only Begotten; his resurrection from the dead; yea, and also the resurrection of all men; and righteousness and truth will I cause to sweep the earth as with a flood, to gather out mine elect from the four quarters of the earth, unto a place which I shall prepare, an Holy City, that my people may gird up their loins, and be looking forth for the time of my coming; for there shall be my tabernacle, and it shall be called Zion, a New Jerusalem.

This verse resonates in several previously discussed ways with the Book of Mormon and also has affinity to the Book of Mormon in its use of “bear testimony” (2 Nephi 27:13; Moroni 7:31) and the reference to future revelation, scripture, and the Restoration implied in “righteousness … out of heaven; and truth … out of the earth” (see Mormon 8:16, 26). Further, the phrase “gather out mine elect from the four quarters of the earth” has strong parallels to the Book of Mormon.

The first occurrence of related language is attributed to the brass plates, but from the prophet Zenos: “All the people who are of the house of Israel, will I gather in, saith the Lord, according to the words of the prophet Zenos, from the four quarters of the earth” (1 Nephi 19:16). Several other examples are found in the Book of Mormon: “He gathereth his children from the four quarters of the earth” (1 Nephi 22:25); He will “gather in from the four quarters of the earth all the remnant of the seed of Jacob” (3 Nephi 5:24); “Then shall they be gathered in from the four quarters of the earth unto their own lands” (3 Nephi 5:26); and “Then will I gather them in from the four quarters of the earth” (3 Nephi 16:5). Finally, immediately following a prophecy about the future New Jerusalem in Ether 13:10, Moroni turns to the Jerusalem of old and the gathering from the four quarters of the earth:

And then also cometh the Jerusalem of old;

and the inhabitants thereof, blessed are they,

for they have been washed in the blood of the Lamb;

and they are they who were scattered and gathered in

from the four quarters of the earth and from the north countries

and are partakers of the fulfilling of the covenant

which God made with their father Abraham. (Ether 13:11)

In the King James Bible, “the four quarters of the earth” is not a common term, occurring only in Revelation 20:8 regarding the scope of Satan’s final deceptions before the battle of Gog and Magog. Isaiah 11:12, however, speaks of the gathering of Israel from the “four corners” of the earth, probably the closest KJV relationship to the gathering from the four quarters of the earth in Moses 7:62.

Parallel 72: Counsel + “Ye Yourselves”

Moses 6:43 has the phrase “Why counsel ye yourselves, and deny the God of heaven?” “Ye yourselves” occurs 10 times in the Bible and 8 times in the Book of Mormon, but in Jacob 4:10, it also occurs with three instances of “counsel”:

Wherefore, brethren, seek not to counsel the Lord,

but to take counsel from his hand.

For behold, ye yourselves know that he counseleth

in wisdom, and in justice, and in great mercy, over all his works.

The inclusion of wisdom, justice, and mercy, another previously discussed collocation from the Book of Moses, would seem to increase the probability that Jacob is being influenced by something related to the Book of Moses in this passage.

Parallel 73: Fearful Looking for the Fiery Indignation of the Wrath of God upon Them

In the King James Bible, “fiery indignation” occurs in Hebrews 10:26–27:

For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,

But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.

The Book of Moses uses this language as well and also uses a phrase similar to Paul’s “fearful looking”:

And it came to pass that Enoch continued his speech, saying: Behold, our father Adam taught these things, and many have believed and become the sons of God, and many have believed not, and have perished in their sins, and are looking forth with fear, in torment, for the fiery indignation of the wrath of God to be poured out upon them. (Moses 7:1; cf. “fire of mine indignation” in Moses 7:34).

Hebrews seems to be a plausible source for some of the language in this passage. However, this passage’s relationship to Alma 40:14 may raise other possibilities. That verse is shown here with the preceding verse, which contains previously discussed language also related to Book of Moses material:

And then shall it come to pass that

the spirits of the wicked, yea, which are evil

—for behold, they have no part nor portion of the Spirit of the Lord,

for behold, they chose evil works rather than good;

therefore the spirit of the devil did enter into them

and take possession of their house—

and these shall be cast out into outer darkness.

There shall be weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth—

and this because of their own iniquity,

being led captive by the will of the devil.

Now this is the state of the souls of the wicked—

yea, in darkness, and a state of awful fearful looking for

of the fiery indignation of the wrath of God upon them.

Thus they remain in this state,

as well as the righteous in paradise,

until the time of their resurrection. (Alma 40:13–14)

The common elements of “fearful looking” / “looking forth in fear” and “the fiery indignation of the wrath of God … upon them” would seem to make the relationship of the wording in Moses 7:1 to the Book of Mormon stronger than it is to Hebrews 10:27. Could a common ancient source also have influenced Paul’s choice of words?

The possibility of Alma_2 drawing on something related to the Book of Moses is amplified by the use of other shared concepts such as “weeping, and wailing, and gnashing of teeth” (see parallel 59) and also “being led captive by the will of the devil” (see parallel 9). The concept of the misery that Satan brings (see parallel 44) also occurs in the following verse, Alma 40:15.

Parallel 74: Numerous upon ... the Face of the Land

“The children of men were numerous upon all the face of the land” in Moses 6:15. This is a verse that we previously identified as a possible source of influence in the Book of Mormon for the concept of Satan raging in the hearts of men. Another possible relationship to this verse may be seen in Jarom 1:6, which speaks of the “numerous” Lamanites who “were scattered upon much of the face of the land” (cf. Jarom 1:8). Mormon 1:7 says, “The whole face of the land had become covered with buildings, and the people were as numerous almost, as it were the sand of the sea.” Likewise, Mosiah 27:6 tells us that “the people began to be very numerous and began to scatter abroad upon the face of the earth.” Ether 7:11 relates how the Jaredite king Shule “did spread his kingdom upon all the face of the land, for the people had become exceedingly numerous.” “On/upon all the face of the land” also occurs in Alma 16:16; Helaman 11:32; and Helaman 16:22–23 (verse 23 uses another Book of Moses concept in the phrase “Satan did get great hold upon the hearts of the people” as discussed in parallel 45). First Nephi 22:3, a verse already noted by Reynolds for a possible relationship to the Book of Moses based on its discussion of “things both temporal and spiritual,” also has the phrase “scattered upon all the face of the earth,” as do 1 Nephi 10:12 and 13:39, and several other verses also speak of “all the face of the earth” or “all the face of the land.”

“Numerous” and “face” do not occur together in any verses of the King James Bible. On the other hand, the idea of people being numerous is simple and common, as is the concept of things being upon the “face” of the earth, so it is possible that “numerous upon … the face of the land” is simply Joseph’s translation of content expressing something about population density. Nevertheless, the precise language used could also point to a connection between the Book of Mormon and the brass plates.

The King James Bible does not have “face of the land” but does have “scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth” in Genesis 11:4 in the context of the story of the scattering at the time of the tower of Babel (cf. Ezekiel 34:6). This is similar to many verses in the Book of Mormon with “scattered” combined with “upon the face of the earth/land.” “The face of the earth” (not land) occurs in several other KJV verses (see Exodus 33:16; Numbers 11:31; 12:3; Deuteronomy 7:6; Isaiah 23:17; Jeremiah 8:2; 16:4; 25:26; Ezekiel 34:6; 38:20; 39:14; Amos 5:8; 9:6, 8; Acts 17:26). Verses that have similar wording but use “whole earth” include Daniel 8:5; Zechariah 5:3; and Luke 21:35). Also illustrating the use of “the land” in the context of rising population is Exodus 1:7: “And the children of Israel were fruitful, and increased abundantly, and multiplied, and waxed exceeding mighty; and the land was filled with them.”

On the other hand, “be numerous upon the face of the land” is close semantically to “multiply on the face of the earth” in Genesis 6:1. The intertextual connection between Moses and the Book of Mormon here could be merely on the level of the English wording and not necessarily clearly connected in the original languages. Indeed, the concept of numerous people in or on the land is rather mundane, and the wording could be the result of Joseph Smith translating instances of a common concept in similar ways. However, as noted previously, in light of the growing evidence of tight translation for the Book of Mormon, we will entertain the hypothesis of significant tight control.

If one accepts the suggestion that the specific language of “numerous” occurring with “face” or of “face of the land” in the Book of Mormon could derive from Book of Moses influence, then, in light of the multiple parallels Reynolds has found for Moses 6:15 and the additional ones discussed herein, it would seem that Moses 6:15 is composed almost entirely of phrases that appear to have influenced the Book of Mormon. Here is Moses 6:15, where terms noted in Reynolds’s original work are in bold and further discoveries reported herein are in italics:

And the children of men were numerous upon all the face of the land. And in those days Satan had great dominion among men, and raged in their hearts; and from thenceforth came wars and bloodshed; and a man’s hand was against his own brother, in administering death, because of secret works, seeking for power.

It could be that this verse or something similar was a well-known, influential passage on the brass plates. Such a cluster of Book of Mormon terms brought together into one verse may suggest that the Book of Moses verse was a source mined in multiple contexts in the Book of Mormon rather than disparate Book of Mormon phrases being suddenly brought together in high density.

Of itself, the evidence that “numerous upon all the face of the land” has influenced the Book of Mormon should be considered weak given the relatively nonunique simplicity of the phrases involved, but in light of the additional parallels apparent for other phrases in Moses 6:15, there may be a reasonable case that this verse and its wording has had significant impact on Book of Mormon writers, adding to the probability that apparent relationships to “numerous upon all the face of the land” may not be accidental.

Parallel 75: Record + (Baptism of) Fire and the Holy Ghost

Moses 6:66 describes Adam’s baptism and his receipt of the Holy Ghost, or his baptism by fire, and then makes an intriguing statement about the “record” of the Father and the Son:

And he heard a voice out of heaven, saying: Thou art baptized with fire, and with the Holy Ghost. This is the record of the Father, and the Son, from henceforth and forever.

Baptism with fire and the Holy Ghost also occurs with “record” in 3 Nephi 11:35 as the Lord teaches the Nephites about baptism:

Verily verily I say unto you that this is my doctrine,

and I bear record of it from the Father.

And whoso believeth in me believeth in the Father also.

And unto him will the Father bear record of me,

for he will visit him with fire and with the Holy Ghost.

3 Nephi 19:14 also seems relevant:

And behold, they were encircled about as if it were by fire;

and it came down from heaven.

And the multitude did witness it and do bear record.

And angels did come down out of heaven and did minister unto them.

Here the fire that encircles the crowd is similar to the fire that encircled a group of Lamanites in a miraculous prison scene in Helaman 5, which may be what the Lord later explains as a baptism of fire and the Holy Ghost (see 3 Nephi 9:20). An additional common element in 3 Nephi 19:14 is the fire coming “down from heaven,” somewhat parallel to the “voice out of heaven” from Moses 6:66.

The King James Bible lacks this parallel, though, of course, baptism by fire and the Holy Ghost is mentioned in the Gospels (see Matthew 3:11 and Luke 3:16).

Parallel 76: Caught Up/Away into an Exceedingly High Mountain

Our list of simple parallels concludes with a look at the very beginning of the Book of Moses, “at a time when Moses was caught up into an exceedingly high mountain” and had an encounter with the Lord (Moses 1:1). Similar language is used in Nephi_1’s account to describe his extensive vision related to Lehi_1’s dream and the tree of life:

For it came to pass that after I had desired

to know the things that my father had seen,

and believing that the Lord was able to make them known unto me,

wherefore as I sat pondering in mine heart,

I was caught away in the Spirit of the Lord,

yea, into an exceeding high mountain,

a mountain which I never had before seen

and upon which I never had before sat my foot. (1 Nephi 11:1)

In Matthew 4:8, Satan “taketh” Christ “into an exceeding high mountain” and tempts Him, but the King James Bible does not speak of anyone being caught up or away into a mountain or mount.

Parallels 77–86: Compound Parallels

In several cases shown at the end of Table 3, there are compounded elements in which multiple elements in the Book of Moses are grouped together. For example, the first such “compound parallel” (parallel 77) is in 1 Nephi 14:7. This verse contains at least three of the parallels from Reynolds’s original list: (1) the description of Satan; (2) the concept of “eternal life” in Moses 1:39 (though found frequently in the New Testament and the Book of Mormon, it is not used in the Old Testament); and (3) the combination of “temporal” and “spiritual” (Moses 6:63; cf. 1 Nephi 15:32; 22:3; Mosiah 2:41; Alma 7:23; 12:16; 37:43):

For the time cometh, saith the Lamb of God,

that I will work a great and a marvelous work among the children of men,

a work which shall be everlasting,

either on the one hand or on the other,

either to the convincing of them unto peace and life eternal

or unto the deliverance of them to the hardness of their hearts

and the blindness of their minds,

unto their being brought down into captivity,

and also unto destruction both temporally and spiritually,

according to the captivity of the devil of which I have spoken. (1 Nephi 14:7)

Recall the key elements of Moses 4:4: “And he became Satan, yea, even the devil, the father of all lies, to deceive and to blind men, and to lead them captive at his will, even as many as would not hearken unto my voice.”

In 1 Nephi 14:7, the devil and related concepts of deception (hardness of hearts, perhaps, as treated previously in discussing Satan’s dominion), blindness, and being delivered from captivity (vs. being brought into captivity) are included, as are the concept of “life eternal” and the pairing of “temporally” and “spiritually,” all with connections to the Book of Moses. Reynolds wrote that the first occurrence of “eternal life” (a Book of Moses concept not found in the Old Testament) was in 2 Nephi 2:27; “life eternal” is essentially equivalent.

This clustering of concepts in the writings of Nephi_1 is also characteristic of his approach to Isaiah, where he pulls together verses from different portions of the text to bring out new meaning.[61] While Isaiah 29:14, with its wording “marvellous work among this people,” is tied to the opening phrases of 1 Nephi 14:7, references to “work” and “life eternal” in 1 Nephi 14:7 could be building on the concepts in Moses 1:39 (“my work and my glory — to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man”).

In addition to the other Book of Moses concepts noted in this passage, the “hardness of their hearts and the blindness of their minds” might have some relationship. Satan’s blinding of men has been noted in Moses 4:4, and Satan’s influence on the hearts of men in Moses 6:15 was discussed previously in this study. Moses 6:27 has the Lord asking Enoch to tell the people that their “hearts have waxed hard” and “their eyes cannot see afar off,” a phrase suggestive of blindness.

The pairing of “hardness of their hearts and the blindness of their minds” (1 Nephi 14:7) may be a formulaic construction based on how Nephi_1 and others use it elsewhere (see 1 Nephi 7:8 and 13:27; cf. Mosiah 11:29; Jarom 1:3; Alma 13:4; 48:3; 3 Nephi 2:1–2; 7:16; Ether 4:15; 15:19). However, related terms occur in John 12:40 (“He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart”), which is quoting Isaiah 6:10, though the King James Version of Isaiah 6:10 has “make the heart of this people fat” instead of hard.

Similar observations can be made for the remaining compound groupings in parallels 78–85. The final compound parallel (86) merits more detailed explanation.

Parallel 86: Enoch and Samuel the Lamanite

One further potential compound parallel to consider involves Samuel the Lamanite and Enoch. This, like some other parallels that could be proposed, involves themes and concepts in addition to a few parallels in language.

In Moses 6, Enoch is moved by the Spirit while journeying and is commanded to preach repentance (see verses 26–30). Indeed, “a voice from heaven” (the voice of the Lord) calls him to prophesy and preach repentance (verse 27) with the promise that “no man shall pierce thee” (verse 32), for he was preaching to a violent people guilty of devising murder and other sins (see verse 28). He is told to “open thy mouth, and it shall be filled, and I will give thee utterance” (verse 32). Enoch went forth to fulfill this commission, crying “with a loud voice” while “standing upon the hills and the high places” as he testified against the people, “and all men were offended because of him” (verse 37). Though they were angry, he was protected, for “no man laid hands on him” out of fear (verse 39).

A similar pattern occurs in the Book of Mormon with Samuel the Lamanite in Helaman 13. Samuel had come among the Nephites but had been rejected, and he was “about to return to his own land” (verse 2). His homeward journey was curtailed when “the voice of the Lord came unto him, that he should return again, and prophesy unto the people whatsoever things should come into his heart” (verse 3). Because he was not allowed to enter the city, he “got upon the wall thereof, and stretched forth his hand and cried with a loud voice, and prophesied unto the people whatsoever things the Lord put into his heart” (verse 4). His preaching and prophesying continue in Helaman 14 and 15, and then in Helaman 16:2 we learn that the people were angry at him and sought to kill him: “They cast stones at him upon the wall, and also many shot arrows at him as he stood upon the wall; but the Spirit of the Lord was with him, insomuch that they could not hit him with their stones neither with their arrows.” In other words, no man could pierce him with arrows as he preached and prophesied while standing upon a high place.

Common elements in these accounts include the prophet experiencing the following:

- receiving a prophetic charge while journeying or about to journey

- hearing the voice of the Lord

- being called to both preach and prophesy to a wicked people

- being promised that the Lord would give him utterance

- standing upon high places while preaching “with a loud voice” to the people

- offending the crowd and stirring them to anger but being protected from piercing by the power of God

The parallel of standing upon high places in fulfilling a prophetic commission may also be considered in light of Jeffrey M. Bradshaw’s scriptural exploration of what it means to “stand in holy places.”[62]

There are other candidates for compound parallels that can be proposed; those listed here are given as examples for consideration.

Parallels 87–97: Weaker Parallels to Consider

Several weaker parallels may also be considered. These are typically considered weaker because the parallels may involve wording that could simply reflect Joseph’s preferences rather than an underlying connection in the original languages or may involve minor mundane details, though the evidence for tight translation in the Book of Mormon may enhance the plausibility of some of these weaker proposed parallels. Some are considered weaker because similar but not exact biblical parallels may exist.

Parallel 87: Declared by Angels

Here we explore the particular wording associated with angels that “declare” the gospel. Here we must particularly consider the warning expressed in the introduction about the possibility of parallels relying on Joseph’s word choice in some cases. The act of “declaring” is similar to many other verbs expressing what is spoken, told, or said, and thus could be translated in a variety of ways.

Moses 5:58 describes how the Lord worked to preach the gospel among the children of Adam:

And thus the Gospel began to be preached, from the beginning, being declared by holy angels sent forth from the presence of God, and by his own voice, and by the gift of the Holy Ghost.

For angels to “declare” gospel news may seem like a natural expression, but this language is not found in the King James Bible. Declare and the related declaration occur many times (55 times and 4 times, respectively), but apparently not from the mouth of angels. The closest parallel may be Revelation 10:7, which mentions an angel and also mentions what God has declared to His prophets. In the Book of Mormon, however, the verb declare is frequently used to describe what angels do. In Mosiah 3:2–4, an angel awakes King Benjamin and tell him that he has “come to declare … glad tidings of great joy” regarding the birth of Christ (verse 3), using “declare” twice more in verse 4. According to Alma 9:25, “The Lord hath sent his angel to visit many of his people, declaring unto them” that they must preach repentance in preparing for the coming of Christ. In Alma 13:21–25, “declare” is used 5 times to describe angels proclaiming the gospel and the coming of Christ:

And now it came to pass that when Alma had said these words unto them,

he stretched forth his hand unto them and cried with a mighty voice, saying:

Now is the time to repent,

for the day of salvation draweth nigh.

Yea, and the voice of the Lord by the mouth of angels

doth declare it unto all nations,

yea, doth declare it that they may have glad tidings of great joy.

Yea, and he doth sound these glad tidings among all his people,

yea, even to them that are scattered abroad upon the face of the earth;

wherefore they have come unto us.

And they are made known unto us in plain terms,

that we may understand, that we cannot err—

and this because of our being wanderers in a strange land.

Therefore we are thus highly favored,

for we have these glad tidings declared unto us in all parts of our vineyard.

For behold, angels are declaring it unto many at this time in our land;

and this is for the purpose of preparing the hearts of the children of men

for to receive his word at the time of his coming in his glory.

And now we only wait to hear the joyful news,

declared unto us by the mouth of angels,

of his coming;

for the time cometh,

we know not how soon.

Would to God that it might be in my day;

but let it be sooner or later,

in it I will rejoice.

In recounting his dramatic conversion story, Alma_2 tells his son Shiblon that the Lord “sent his angel to declare unto me” that he must stop his efforts to destroy the faith of God’s people (Alma 38:7). To his son Corianton, he asks, “Is it not as easy at this time for the Lord to send his angel to declare those glad tidings unto us as unto our children or as after the time of his coming?” (Alma 39:19).

In Helaman 5:11, Helaman_3’s words to his sons, Nephi_2 and Lehi_2, are quoted: “He hath sent his angels to declare the tidings of the conditions of repentance, which bringeth unto the power of the Redeemer, unto the salvation of their souls.” Angels also declare glad tidings in Helaman 13:7 and 16:14. Moroni, in discussing the role and ministry of angels in Moroni 7:29–31, lists one role in verse 31 as “declaring the word of Christ unto the chosen vessels of the Lord.”

Not surprisingly, others before Joseph Smith used the verb declare to describe what angels may do. For example, the cleric George Whitefield (1714–1770) once opined that “perhaps, part of our entertainment in heaven will be, to hear the angels declare how many millions of times they have assisted and helped us.”[63] But the concept of angels declaring the gospel message centuries or millennia before the coming of Christ is unlikely to be found in Joseph Smith’s environment, but it does occur with similar language in both the Book of Moses and the Book of Mormon. But again, given the relatively nonunique nature of “declaring” itself, this parallel may be relatively weak.

Parallel 88: “For mine own purpose”

The phrase “for mine own purpose” occurs twice in the Book of Moses. Speaking of the scope of God’s creations, the Lord tells Moses, “For mine own purpose have I made these things” in Moses 1:31, and then He uses that phrase again in Moses 1:33, which also contains the Book of Mormon parallel involving “mine Only Begotten Son” (see parallel 20):

And worlds without number have I created; and I also created them for mine own purpose; and by the Son I created them, which is mine Only Begotten.

The word “purpose” occurs regularly in the Bible, and “own purpose” occurs in 2 Timothy 1:9: “according to his own purpose and grace.” Ephesians 1:11 has “according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will.” However, “mine own purpose” does not occur. But the entire phrase “for mine own purpose” occurs three times in Jacob 5:

Nevertheless I know that the roots are good,

and for mine own purpose I have preserved them.

And because of their much strength

they have hitherto brought forth from the wild branches good fruit. (Jacob 5:36)

And this will I do that the tree may not perish,

that perhaps I may preserve unto myself the roots thereof for mine own purpose. (Jacob 5:53)

And, behold, the roots of the natural branches of the tree,

which I planted whithersoever I would are yet alive;

wherefore that I may preserve them also for mine own purpose,

I will take of the branches of this tree and I will graft them in unto them. (Jacob 5:54)

As mentioned earlier, Jacob 5 quotes from a brass plates account by a prophet named Zenos. Two other parallels to verses in Jacob 5 were previously discussed (see parallels 58 and 61). As previously noted, common elements from Zenos and a text related to the Book of Moses could be due to Zenos having access to something like the Book of Moses or due to both texts being influenced by earlier texts or cultural elements. Further, since “mine own purpose” is not a unique concept, but a common one that can be expressed in many ways, it could be an artifact of translation rather than an indication of ancient connections in the original texts, although the evidence for tight translation of at least the Book of Mormon may be helpful in evaluating this proposed parallel.

Parallel 89: Fulfilling Covenants

Moses 8:2 speaks of covenants being fulfilled:

And it came to pass that Methuselah, the son of Enoch, was not taken, that the covenants of the Lord might be fulfilled, which he made to Enoch; for he truly covenanted with Enoch that Noah should be of the fruit of his loins.

In the King James Bible, oaths, scriptures, statutes, judgments, counsel, petitions, desires, lusts, ministries, righteousness, the law, one’s will, periods of time, and the word of the Lord can be “fulfilled,” but that verb is apparently not associated with the word “covenants.” However, “fulfilled” is used to describe the Lord’s keeping of what He “promised” David (2 Chronicles 6:15; 1 Kings 8:24). But in the Book of Mormon, we frequently find an express association of “covenant” or “covenants” with “fulfill.” Examples include “preparing the way for the fulfilling of his [the Father’s] covenants” (1 Nephi 14:17); “the covenant [made with Abraham] which should be fulfilled in the latter days” (1 Nephi 15:18); “the Lord God will fulfill his covenants” (2 Nephi 6:12); “that my covenants may be fulfilled which I have made unto the children of men” (2 Nephi 10:15); and many more (see 3 Nephi 5:25; 10:7; 15:8; 20:12, 22, 27, 46; 21:4, 7; 29:1, 9; Mormon 5:14; Ether 13:11; and Moroni 7:31). The Book of Mormon clearly prefers the verb “fulfill” in its covenant-rich language.

Parallel 90: Peaceable Things of Immortal Glory/Heaven

The King James Bible uses the word “peaceable” or “peaceably” a number of times, but not with the direct connection to eternal life found in Moses 6. In verse 59, we read of being born again and enjoying “eternal life in the world to come, even immortal glory,” and then verse 61 refers to “the peaceable things of immortal glory.” A related application of the word peaceable is found in Moroni 7:3:

Wherefore I would speak unto you that are of the church,

that are the peaceable followers of Christ,

and that have obtained a sufficient hope

by which ye can enter into the rest of the Lord,

from this time henceforth until ye shall rest with him in heaven.

Here the followers of Christ are “peaceable” and able to “enter into the rest of the Lord” in heaven, which, of course, is eternal life and immortal glory. Perhaps this represents a connection to the Book of Moses.

Parallel 91: For the Space of Many Hours

Moses 1:10 describes the time that Moses was overcome after his vision as lasting “for the space of many hours.” The same phrase of six words is found three times in the Book of Mormon, in 1 Nephi 8:8 and Helaman 14:21, 26. The New Testament has “the space of” plus a specific number of hours (Acts 5:7 and 19:34; Revelation 8:1) but lacks the initial “for” and the use of “many” in this phrase. The differences are minor, and the phrase is not doctrinally meaningful but is still consistent with a possible relationship between the Book of Mormon and the Book of Moses.

Parallel 92: Joy through the Fall of Man

A passage that may have connections to the writings of Nephi_1 is Moses 5:10:

And in that day Adam blessed God and was filled, and began to prophesy concerning all the families of the earth, saying: Blessed be the name of God, for because of my transgression my eyes are opened, and in this life I shall have joy, and again in the flesh I shall see God.

The potential for joy that comes because of the Fall is reflected in 2 Nephi 2:22–25:

And now behold, if Adam had not transgressed,

he would not have fallen,

but he would have remained in the garden of Eden;

and all things which were created must have remained

in the same state in which they were

after they were created.

And they must have remained forever and had no end,

and they would have had no children.

Wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence,

having no joy, for they knew no misery,

doing no good, for they knew no sin.

But behold, all things have been done

in the wisdom of him who knoweth all things.

Adam fell that men might be,

and men are that they might have joy.

The phrase “in the flesh I shall see God” is also similar to 2 Nephi 9:4, which says, “In our bodies we shall see God.” A related KJV phrase is in Job 19:26: “In my flesh shall I see God.”

Parallel 93: Dwell in Safety Forever

In Moses 7:20, Enoch declares, “Surely Zion shall dwell in safety forever.” This is similar to “dwell safely forever” in 2 Nephi 1:9, mentioned shortly before references to shaking off the chains of Satan, another Book of Moses element.

Parallel 94: Visions on the Mount + “Look”

Some language from Moses 7 may be employed in Nephi_1’s description of his visions. Moses 7 has the following:

And it came to pass that I turned and went up on the mount; and as I stood upon the mount, I beheld the heavens open, and I was clothed upon with glory;

And I saw the Lord; and he stood before my face, and he talked with me, even as a man talketh one with another, face to face; and he said unto me: Look, and I will show unto thee the world for the space of many generations. (verses 3–4)

In 1 Nephi 18:3, we read that Nephi_1 “did go into the mount oft” while at Bountiful and saw great things. In his earlier tree of life vision, in 1 Nephi 11:1, Nephi_1 is caught away into a high mountain, and the Spirit shows him a vision (an angel later takes His place). Both the Spirit and the angel frequently use the command “Look!” For example, in 1 Nephi 11:8, “The Spirit said unto me: Look!”[64]

The Bible, of course, also provides the concept of prophets or Christ going to a mountain to commune with God (such as Moses going to Mount Sinai in Exodus, Elijah going to Mount Sinai in 1 Kings 19, and Christ going to the Mount of Transfiguration in Matthew 17).

Parallel 95: Pierced by God’s Eye

God’s ability to “pierce” with his eye is another apparent commonality. Jacob 2:15 says, “O that he would show you that he can pierce you, and with one glance of his eye he can smite you to the dust!” This is similar to Moses 7:36, which says, “Wherefore, I can stretch forth mine hands and hold all the creations which I have made; and mine eye can pierce them also.”

The word “pierce” occurs a few times in the Bible, but not in this context.

Parallel 96: Combinations with “full of grace and truth”

The phrase “full of grace and truth” in Moses 7:11, while found prominently in John 1, is also found in 2 Nephi 2:6 (among other verses), immediately after a verse with multiple connections to the Book of Moses. Verse 5 refers to the misery of wickedness (see Moses 7:37, 41), the contrast of temporal vs. spiritual things (see Moses 6:63), and perishing in sin (see Moses 7:1). It could be that an ancient version of the Book of Moses had the concept of the Messiah being “full of grace and truth,” which theoretically could have also directly or indirectly influenced John.

Parallel 97: The Lord Preserving His people (Particularly during Final Tribulations)

Moses 7:61 warns of great tribulations to come upon the earth in the last days but also states that the Lord will preserve his people:

And the day shall come that the earth shall rest, but before that day the heavens shall be darkened, and a veil of darkness shall cover the earth; and the heavens shall shake, and also the earth; and great tribulations shall be among the children of men, but my people will I preserve.

A similar scenario with related language is given in a prophecy of Nephi_1:

For the time soon cometh that

the fullness of the wrath of God shall be poured out upon all the children of men,

for he will not suffer that the wicked shall destroy the righteous.

Wherefore, he will preserve the righteous by his power,

even if it so be that the fullness of his wrath must come,

and the righteous be preserved,

even unto the destruction of their enemies by fire.

Wherefore the righteous need not fear,

for thus, saith the prophet, they shall be saved,

even if it so be as by fire.

Behold, my brethren, I say unto you

that these things must shortly come;

yea, even blood and fire and vapor of smoke must come,

and it must needs be upon the face of this earth.

And it cometh unto men according to the flesh

if it so be that they will harden their hearts against the Holy One of Israel. (1 Nephi 22:16–18)

“Preserve” is a key verb used 20 times in Jacob 5, describing the Lord’s efforts to preserve the house of Israel and gather His people, and is used in each of the three verses in Jacob 5 that also use the parallel term “for mine own purpose” (see parallel 88). In the latter verses of the chapter, “preserve” is used in the context of the last days and the destruction of the wicked, particularly in verse 77: “And when the time cometh that evil fruit shall again come into my vineyard, then will I cause the good and the bad to be gathered; and the good will I preserve unto myself, and the bad will I cast away into its own place. And then cometh the season and the end; and my vineyard will I cause to be burned with fire.”

The Bible also uses “preserve” to describe God’s protections of individuals, families, and others, but here the context of the preservation during final tribulations before the Millennium suggests a possible connection between the Book of Mormon and the Book of Moses on this point.

The Density of Book of Moses Allusions in Nephi_1’s Writings

Reynolds has noted that most of the connections to the Book of Moses come from Book of Mormon authors who were obviously familiar with the brass plates, including writers of the small plates of Nephi_1 and Alma_2, who spoke of and cited from the brass plates, as did Nephi_1.[65] A high proportion of the examples of language considered in this study are found in the writings of Nephi_1 in particular. In Table 1, five of the eleven examples involve Nephi_1’s writings (including times when he quotes Lehi_1 or Jacob). In Table 2, 11 of the 22 examples involve passages from 1 and 2 Nephi. In the further cases listed in Table 3 (parallels 34 to 86, excluding the weaker examples), 23 of the 53 examples involve 1 and 2 Nephi. For example, 2 Nephi 2 has multiple phrases and concepts showing apparent connections to the Book of Moses, including the agency of man (see verses 4–5, 16, 26–29; cf. Moses 7:32), the multiple concepts in verse 5 (see parallel 96), the rebellion of Satan (see 2 Nephi 2:17–19), and so forth.

One further example of many that could be given occurs in 2 Nephi 11:4–5. After referring to the Law of Moses in vs. 4, Nephi_1 mentions that “all things” given of God from the beginning unto man “are the typifying of him” (i.e., serve as types of Christ that bear record of him), possibly linking this verse to Moses 6:61 (parallel 62). Interestingly, concepts from adjacent verses in the Book of Moses are found in the next verse in the Book of Mormon. In vs. 5, Nephi_1 mentions the “plan of deliverance,” a term synonymous with the “plan of salvation” in Moses 6:62 (parallel 13), and also cites God’s “justice and power and mercy,” a significant subset of the terms used in Moses 6:61 (parallel 63). Though Nephi_1 is preparing to introduce us to words from Isaiah, it’s as if words related to the Book of Moses echo deeply in his thoughts.

Passages dense with connections to the Book of Moses are not unique to Nephi_1. For example, the short passage of Alma 12:16–18 includes references to several concepts in the Book of Moses, including the contrast between temporal and spiritual things, the torment of the wicked, being chained, the captivity of Satan, being subjected according to Satan’s will, and redemption.

Are the Parallels Meaningful?

In offering nearly 100 parallels between the Book of Moses and the Book of Mormon, apart from the extensive direct use of material from the King James Bible, we suggest that the large number of parallels and the density of passages in the Book of Moses with links to the Book of Mormon merit further consideration. This is particularly so given the lack of a similar relationship between the Book of Abraham and the Book of Mormon, the high ratio of Book of Moses content from Book of Mormon writers most familiar with the brass plates, and the multiple cases where a parallel, if real, would make the most sense as a one-way transmission from the Book of Moses to the Book of Mormon. At the same time, we recognize that in comparing two texts, there is always the possibility of finding parallels that are chance occurrences or that arise from other factors. Here we must be mindful of the phenomenon that Samuel Sandmel called “parallelomania.”[66] Sandmel explains that similarities between two texts may be due to common sources or influences for both and must be considered in detail and in terms of context, etc., to determine if the parallel really points to a direct relationship. Benjamin McGuire has also discussed the problem of parallelomania in looking for influences on the Book of Mormon, which is often done to undermine its authenticity, unlike the current exercise.[67]

While there are pitfalls in considering parallels, they can be of great value, whether in the form of direct quotations, clear allusions, or, as Richard Hays refers to many of the Old Testament influences in the epistles of Paul, subtle “echoes” that may have many levels of “volume.”[68]

While the number of proposed parallels offered here is on the same order as the nearly 300 direct quotations in the New Testament from the Old Testament,[69] the number of indirect allusions or “echoes” from the Old Testament is obviously larger. Yet having nearly one hundred proposed parallels, direct or indirect, from such a proposed source as short as the passages of the Book of Moses that are not quotations from Genesis, while clearly an unexpectedly large number, is only meaningful if individual examples carry meaning. We recognize that the quality of these parallels varies, yet we suggest that a noteworthy number offer unexpected or improbable parallels with a reasonable context and add meaning to some of the Book of Mormon passages that use them, consistent with a legitimate source of influence as opposed to random coincidences.

However, the problem of comparing our two texts is unlike the problem of comparing Paul to the Old Testament or Ancient Near East documents to the Bible, for here we have books that were both produced by Joseph Smith. One can always maintain that this is all we need to know to see that the parallels have no meaning apart from reflecting common authorship. But in comparing texts to determine if a relationship exists, scholars have repeatedly emphasized that details need to be considered.[70] It is the details in this study that call for consideration of something more than just quoting the Book of Mormon in producing the Book of Moses. Did Joseph Smith produce the rich complex of parallels we have identified by working them into the Book of Mormon first and then providing backstories or apparent source material later in the Book of Moses to create some of the more intriguing parallels we consider? We feel the easy hypothesis that Joseph Smith was the fabricator of both texts cannot withstand scrutiny in light of the many details we discuss, even if he were a skilled author, and that the parallels collectively have significant meaning.

Conclusion

In considering what we have learned from Reynolds’s initial study and from further finds reported here, it is appropriate to reevaluate Reynolds’s original proposal that the brass plates may have contained a text similar to what Joseph Smith dictated as part of his work to develop an inspired “translation” of the Bible. Joseph did not indicate that the translation was based on any kind of ancient text, but that it was simply given through revelation. For decades, some Latter-day Saints have assumed that the Book of Moses reflects Joseph’s prophetic imagination as he reworked some Bible stories from Genesis to add inspiring or inspired concepts to flesh out his growing views on theology, while others point to other modern sources to attempt to explain some aspects of the Book of Moses through naturalistic influences.[71] Without any claims from Joseph about the existence of an ancient urtext that he was restoring or translating, it is natural that many Latter-day Saints may have a casual attitude about the Book of Moses, viewing it as “good enough for modern scripture but not really an ancient text restored.” But we may need to reconsider that attitude if the Book of Moses, created well after the Book of Mormon was completed, has significant connections to the Book of Mormon that go beyond merely citing the Book of Mormon and show signs of a one-way relationship in which the Book of Mormon appears to be drawing on the Book of Moses and not the other way around.[72]

In fact, the strongest case for so-called “plagiarism” in the Book of Mormon, apart from the obvious and expected borrowing from the Bible, may be that of borrowing from the Book of Moses on the brass plates.

Jeffrey Dean Lindsay recently returned to the United States after almost nine years in Shanghai, China. Jeff has been providing online materials defending the Church for more than twenty years, primarily at JeffLindsay.com. His Mormanity blog (https://mormanity.blogspot.com) has been in operation since 2004. He is currently vice president for The Interpreter Foundation and co-editor of Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship. Jeff has a PhD in chemical engineering from BYU and is a US patent agent. He is currently senior advisor for ipCapital Group, assisting clients in creating intellectual property and innovation. From 2011 to 2019 he was the head of Intellectual Property for Asia Pulp and Paper in Shanghai, China, one of the world’s largest forest product companies. Formerly, he was associate professor at the Institute of Paper Science and Technology (now the Renewable Bioproducts Institute) at Georgia Tech, then went into R&D at Kimberly-Clark Corporation, eventually becoming corporate patent strategist and senior research fellow. Jeff served a mission in the German-speaking Switzerland Zurich Mission. He and his wife Kendra are the parents of four boys and have eleven grandchildren.

Noel B. Reynolds (PhD, Harvard University) is an emeritus professor of political science at Brigham Young University, where he taught a broad range of courses in legal and political philosophy, American Heritage, and the Book of Mormon. His research and publications are based in these fields and several others, including authorship studies, Mormon history, Christian history and theology, and the Dead Sea Scrolls.

1 . See Matthew L. Bowen, “‘And They Shall Be Had Again’: Onomastic Allusions to Joseph in Moses 1:41 in View of the So-Called Canon Formula,” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 32 (2019): 297–304, https://www.mormoninterpreter.com/and-they-shall-be-had-again-onomastic-allusions-to-joseph-in-moses-141-in-view-of-the-so-called-canon-formula/.

2 . See Nathan J. Arp, “Joseph Knew First: Moses, the Egyptian Son,” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 32 (2019): 189–90, https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/joseph-knew-first-moses-the-egyptian-son/.

3 . See Jeffrey M. Bradshaw and Ryan Dahle, “Could Joseph Smith Have Drawn on Ancient Manuscripts when He Translated the Story of Enoch?: Recent Updates on a Persistent Question,” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 33 (2019): 305–74, https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/could-joseph-smith-have-drawn-on-ancient-manuscripts-when-he-translated-the-story-of-enoch-recent-updates-on-a-persistent-question/.

4 . See Mark J. Johnson, “The Lost Prologue: Reading Moses Chapter One as an Ancient Text,” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 36 (2020): 171–76, https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/the-lost-prologue-reading-moses-chapter-one-as-an-ancient-text/. For further literary tools in Moses, see Mark J. Johnson, “Scriptures through the Jeweler’s Lens,” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 36 (2020): 85–108, https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/scriptures-through-the-jewelers-lens/.

5 . Examples of proposed naturalistic origins include Salvatore Cirillo, “Joseph Smith, Mormonism, and Enochic Tradition,” Masters Thesis, Durham University, 2010, http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/236/1/Thesis_Final_1_PDF.pdf, see particularly 126. Cirillo argues that Joseph must have had access to material from or inspired by Enochic literature, a hypothesis which fails to account for significant parallels between the Book of Moses and Enochic literature that was not available in Joseph Smith’s day. See Bradshaw and Dahle, “Could Joseph Smith Have Drawn on Ancient Manuscripts When He Translated the Story of Enoch?,” 305–74. Other naturalistic approaches are evident in Colby Townsend, “Returning to the Sources: Integrating Textual Criticism in the Study of Early Mormon Texts and History,” Intermountain West Journal of Religious Studies 10 no. 1 (2019): 55–85, https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/imwjournal/vol10/iss1/6/. Townsend argues, for example, that a Bible commentary from Adam Clarke may have guided Joseph in selection of some names that have been offered as evidence of antiquity in the Book of Moses, 83–84. A response is found in Jeffrey M. Bradshaw, Matthew L. Bowen and Ryan Dahle, “Textual Criticism and the Book of Moses: A Response to Colby Townsend’s ‘Returning to the Sources,’ Part 1 of 2,” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 40 (2020): 99–162, https://interpreterfoundation.org/textual-criticism-and-the-book-of-moses-a-response-to-colby-townsends-returning-to-the-sources-part-1-of-2/, and “Where Did the Names Mahaway and Mahujah Come From? A Response to Colby Townsend’s ‘Returning to the Sources,’ Part 2 of 2,” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 40 (2020): 181–242, https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/where-did-the-names-mahaway-and-mahujah-come-from-a-response-to-colby-townsends-returning-to-the-sources-part-2-of-2/. The argument that Adam Clarke influenced Joseph’s production of the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible is more fully developed in Thomas A. Wayment and Haley Wilson-Lemmon, “A Recovered Resource: The Use of Adam Clarke’s Bible Commentary in Joseph Smith’s Bible Translation,” in Producing Ancient Scripture: Joseph Smith’s Translation Projects in the Development of Mormon Christianity, eds. Michael Hubbard MacKay, Mark Ashurst-McGee, and Brian M. Hauglid (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 2020), 262–84, and their argument is analyzed in detail in Kent P. Jackson, “Some Notes on Joseph Smith and Adam Clarke,” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 40 (2020): 15–60, https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/some-notes-on-joseph-smith-and-adam-clarke/.

6 . See Jeff Lindsay, “Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dream Map: Part 1 of 2,” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 19 (2016): 153–239, https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/joseph-and-the-amazing-technicolor-dream-map-part-1-of-2/.

7 . See Jeff Lindsay, “‘Arise from the Dust’: Insights from Dust-Related Themes in the Book of Mormon (Part 1: Tracks from the Book of Moses),” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 22 (2016): 189–90, https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/arise-from-the-dust-insights-from-dust-related-themes-in-the-book-of-mormon-part-1-tracks-from-the-book-of-moses/.

8 . See S. Kent Brown, “The Exodus Pattern in the Book of Mormon,” in From Jerusalem to Zarahemla: Literary and Historical Studies of the Book of Mormon (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 1998), 75–98, https://rsc-legacy.byu.edu/archived/jerusalem-zarahemla-literary-and-historical-studies-book-mormon/exodus-pattern-book-mormon; Bruce J. Boehm, “Wanderers in the Promised Land: A Study of the Exodus Motif in the Book of Mormon and Holy Bible,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 3 no. 1 (1994): 187–203, https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1043&context=jbms; and Don Bradley, “A Passover Setting for Lehi’s Exodus,” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 34 (2020): 119–42, https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/a-passover-setting-for-lehis-exodus/.

9 . Unless otherwise indicated, all quotations from the Book of Mormon are taken from the Yale critical text, including punctuation, spelling, and capitalization. See Royal Skousen, ed., The Book of Mormon: The Earliest Text (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2009). Key terminology is occasionally emphasized with italicized or bolded text.

10 . See Noel B. Reynolds, “The Brass Plates Version of Genesis,” in By Study and Also by Faith: Essays in Honor of Hugh W. Nibley on the Occasion of His Eightieth Birthday, 27 March 1990, ed. John M. Lundquist and Stephen D. Ricks (Provo, UT: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1990), 2:136–73.

11 . See Noel B. Reynolds, “The Brass Plates Version of Genesis,” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 34 (2020): 63–96, https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/the-brass-plates-version-of-genesis/.

12 . See David Calabro, “Lehi’s Dream and the Garden of Eden,” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 26 (2017): 293–95, https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/lehis-dream-and-the-garden-of-eden/.

13 . Kent P. Jackson, “History of the Book of Moses,” in The Book of Moses and the Joseph Smith Translation Manuscripts (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 2005), 1–52, https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/book-moses-and-joseph-smith-translation-manuscripts/history-book-moses.

14 . “Old Testament Revision 2,” The Joseph Smith Papers, https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/old-testament-revision-2/. The document was originally published in Scott H. Faulring, Kent P. Jackson, and Robert J. Matthews, eds., Joseph Smith’s New Translation of the Bible: Original Manuscripts (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 2004), 583–851, then revised as Jackson, The Book of Moses and the Joseph Smith Translation Manuscripts, https://rsc.byu.edu/book/book-moses-joseph-smith-translation-manuscripts, with chapter 1 (marked up to show changes) at https://rsc.byu.edu/book-moses-joseph-smith-translation-manuscripts/moses-1 and other chapters at the same URL but differing in the final digit, such as “… /moses-2” for chapter 2, and so forth. These chapters are cited herein as Kent Jackson, “Moses 1,” etc.

15 . Jackson, “History of the Book of Moses” in The Book of Moses and the Joseph Smith Translation Manuscripts (Provo, UT: BYU Religious Studies Center, 2005), 9, https://rsc.byu.edu/sites/default/files/pub_content/pdf/History%20of%20the%20Book%20of%20Moses.pdf.

16 . Ibid., 20–28.

17 . Kent P. Jackson and Scott H. Faulring, “Old Testament Manuscript 3: An Early Transcript of the Book of Moses,” Mormon Historical Studies 5 no. 2 (Fall 2004): 113–44, http://mormonhistoricsites.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/MHS_FALL-2004_08-OT_Manuscript3.pdf.

18 Hyphens indicate connected units in the listed concepts.

19 This group 2 item is listed here because it is linked to the previous concept, item 6 in group 1.

20 . Reynolds, “The Brass Plates Version of Genesis,” in By Study and Also by Faith, 142.

21 . Ibid., 146.

22 . For instance, a potential counterargument from a naturalistic perspective is that the “strength” references detailed in parallel 34 simply reflect a personal admiration that Joseph had for Moses — he was a prophetic ideal and, therefore, must be strong. Such an argument is not nearly as compelling, however, given that the allusion to strength was made in Joseph’s earlier translation (and was culturally appropriate for that translation) and the specification of strength came in Joseph’s later translation (and was supportive of the prior, culturally appropriate usage).

23 . See Royal Skousen, “How Joseph Smith Translated the Book of Mormon,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 7, no. 1 (1998): 22–31, https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1186&context=jbms; and Stanford Carmack, “Joseph Smith Read the Words,” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 18 (2016): 41–64, https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/joseph-smith-read-the-words/.

24 . Johnson, “The Lost Prologue,” 179.

25 . Ibid.

26 . The 1821 publication is Richard Laurence, The Book of Enoch the Prophet: An Apocryphal Production, Supposed To Have Been Lost For Ages; But Discovered At The Close Of The Last Century in Abyssinia; Now First Translated From An Ethiopic Ms, In The Bodleian Library (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 1821), https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Book_of_Enoch_the_Prophet/IFM7AQAAMAAJ. See also “1 (Ethiopic Apocalypse of) Enoch,” trans. E. Isaac, in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, ed. James H. Charlesworth, vol. 1, Apocalyptic Literature and Testaments (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1983), 5–90, https://books.google.com/books?id=Z8cyt_SM7voC&pg=PA5; and The Book of Enoch, or First Enoch: Translated from the Editor’s Ethiopic Text […], trans. R. H. Charles (Escondido, CA: The Book Tree, 2000), https://books.google.com/books?id=wQpjqn26o60C&pg=PA106.

27 . See 1 Enoch 53:4; 54:3–4; 69:28 in Isaac, “1 (Ethiopic Apocalypse of) Enoch,” 37–38, 49. Further, 1 Enoch 56:1 speaks of iron nets in E. Isaac’s translation but iron chains in that of Charles, The Book of Enoch, 108 (see other mentions of chains on pp. 105–106, 141). The only version of 1 Enoch that theoretically could have been available to Joseph Smith prior to working on the Book of Moses text, Laurence’s The Book of Enoch the Prophet, uses “fetters of iron” in 53:3–4 and captive prisoners confined in “a net-work of iron and brass” in 54:6. Chains, as far as we can tell, are mentioned only once at 68:39: “those who seduced them shall be bound with chains forever.”

28 . See Frederic Huidekoper, Works of Frederic Huidekoper, vol. 1, Judaism at Rome: B.C. 76 to A.D. 140 (New York: D. G. Francis, 1887), 483–84, https://books.google.com/books?id=tFcJAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA484&lpg=PA483.

29 . Noah Webster, An American Dictionary of the English Language (New York: S. Converse, 1828), vol. 2, s.v. “obscurity,” https://archive.org/stream/americandictiona02websrich#page/196/mode/2up. For the same results from an online search engine, see Mschaffer.com, s.v. “obscurity,” http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/search/word,obscurity.

30 . See Donald W. Parry, Poetic Parallelisms in the Book of Mormon: The Complete Text Reformatted (Provo, UT: Neal A. Maxwell Institute, Brigham Young University, 2007), 59–60, https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/mi/61/.

31 . Skousen, The Book of Mormon: The Earliest Text, 292.

32 . Parry, Poetic Parallelisms in the Book of Mormon, 233. Here the punctuation and several words have been adjusted to follow Skousen, The Earliest Text, 292.

33 . See Lindsay, “‘Arise from the Dust,’” Part 1, 199–200. See also Jeff Lindsay, “‘Arise from the Dust’: Insights from Dust-Related Themes in the Book of Mormon (Part 2: Enthronement, Resurrection, and Other Ancient Motifs from the ‘Voice from the Dust’),” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 22 (2016): 233–77, https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/arise-from-the-dust-insights-from-dust-related-themes-in-the-book-of-mormon-part-2-enthronement-resurrection-and-other-ancient-motifs-from-the-voice-from-the-dust/.

34 . The rending of rocks and the groaning of earth in Moses 7:56 are themes also found in the Book of Mormon that are explored by Reynolds, “The Brass Plates Version of Genesis,” in By Study and Also by Faith, 149–50.

35 . See also Isaiah 35:10.

36 . See Blue Letter Bible, s.v. “Strong’s H7981 — shiyr,” https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H7891&t=KJV; and Blue Letter Bible, s.v. “Strong’s H7982 — shiyr,” https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H7892&t=KJV.

37 . “Gaddianton” follows the spelling used in the original manuscript of the Book of Mormon, as used and discussed in Skousen, The Earliest Text, 778, whereas the current printing of the Book of Mormon still has “Gadianton.” The double d is particularly interesting in light of the Hebrew word gedud (Strong’s 1416), which means “band, bandit.” See Book of Mormon Onomasticon, s.v. “Gadianton,” https://onoma.lib.byu.edu/index.php/GADIANTON. See also John W. Welch and Kelly Ward, “Thieves and Robbers,” in John W. Welch, ed., Reexploring the Book of Mormon: A Decade of New Research (Provo, UT: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies / Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1992), 248–49, https://archive.bookofmormoncentral.org/node/219.

38 . See Matthew Bowen, “Coming Down and Bringing Down: Pejorative Onomastic Allusions to the Jaredites in Helaman 6:25, 6:38, and Ether 2:11,” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 42 (2021): 397–410, https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/coming-down-and-bringing-down-pejorative-onomastic-allusions-to-the-jaredites-in-helaman-625-638-and-ether-211/; and Brant A. Gardner, “Mormon the Writer: Turning History into Story,” in Give Ear to My Words: Text and Context of Alma 36–42 (48th Annual Brigham Young University Sidney B. Sperry Symposium), ed. Kerry M. Hull, Nicholas J. Frederick, and Hank R. Smith (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University / Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2019), 480–81, as cited by Bowen, “Coming Down and Bringing Down.”

39 . See Lindsay, “‘Arise from the Dust,’ Part 1,” 221–23.

40 . Jeffrey M. Bradshaw proposes that the shaking caused by Satan may be relevant to the meaning of “moved” in the Lord’s statement in Doctrine and Covenants 45:32 that His “disciples shall stand in holy places, and shall not be moved.” Jeffrey M. Bradshaw, “Standing in the Holy Place: Ancient and Modern Reverberations of an Enigmatic New Testament Prophecy,” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 37 (2020): 170–71, https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/standing-in-the-holy-place-ancient-and-modern-reverberations-of-an-enigmatic-new-testament-prophecy/.

41 . Jackson, “History of the Book of Moses,” 27.

42 . Romans 3:16 (International Standard Version), Biblegateway.com, https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+3&version=ISV.

43 . See Noel B. Reynolds, “The Language of the Spirit in the Book of Mormon,” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 33 (2019): 207–10, https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/the-language-of-the-spirit-in-the-book-of-mormon/.

44 . For a detailed explanation of biblical hendiadyses and an extended documentation of Book of Mormon examples, see Noel B. Reynolds, “The Language of Repentance in the Book of Mormon,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 29 (2020): 196–213.

45 . Ludwig Koehler and Walter Baumgartner, The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (Leiden, NDL: Brill, 2001), 1250–53.

46 . In OT2, Joseph changed the original “his heart swelled wide as eternity” to “he beheld eternity” (Jackson, “Moses 7,” in The Book of Moses and the Joseph Smith Translation Manuscripts [Provo, UT: BYU Religious Studies Center, 2005], 128, https://rsc.byu.edu/sites/default/files/pub_content/pdf/Moses%207.pdf), a change that was dropped in the 1867 Committee Manuscript that would be the basis for the current Latter-day Saint version of the Book of Moses (see Jackson, “History of the Book of Moses,” 27. Whether Enoch’s heart swelled wide as eternity or he otherwise beheld eternity, he appears to obtain a view or taste of eternity in this experience.

47 . Terryl L. Givens and Fiona Givens, The God Who Weeps: How Mormonism Makes Sense of Life (Salt Lake City: Ensign Peak, 2012), 105.

48 . For a more complete discussion, see Lindsay, “‘Arise from the Dust’, Part 1.”

49 . Ibid., 216–18.

50 . Here “but if” has a meaning of “unless, except,” as Skousen notes in The Earliest Text, xxxviii; cf. p. 757.

51 . See also Mosiah 28:10–16, which speaks of King Mosiah_2’s role as a seer in translating the ancient Jaredite record.

52 . Johnson, “The Lost Prologue,” 178.

53 . Ibid., 171–77.

54 . See Glen, “Weeping and Wailing and Gnashing of Teeth,” The King’s English: Through the King James Bible, Phrase by Phrase (blog), 12 August 2011, https://kingsenglish.info/2011/08/12/weeping-and-wailing-and-gnashing-of-teeth/.

55 . On the relationship between the Book of Moses account and other ancient sources on this topic, see Jeffrey M. Bradshaw, Jacob A. Rennaker, and David J. Larsen, “Revisiting the Forgotten Voices of Weeping in Moses 7: A Comparison with Ancient Texts,” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 2 (2012): 41–71, https://interpreterfoundation.org/revisiting-the-forgotten-voices-of-weeping-in-moses-7-a-comparison-with-ancient-texts/. On the improbability that Joseph could have accessed related material from the ancient text known as 1 Enoch, see Bradshaw and Dahle, “Could Joseph Smith Have Drawn on Ancient Manuscripts When He Translated the Story of Enoch?,” 305–74.

56 . See Daniel H. Ludlow, “Zenos,” in Encyclopedia of Mormonism (New York: Macmillan, 1992), 1623, https://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/digital/collection/EoM/id/5938.

57 . See also Alma 17:17; 26:13; 31:5; and 53:10.

58 . The current printing of the Book of Mormon has “power of heaven,” but “powers of heaven” should be the correct wording according to Skousen, The Earliest Text, 625, and is a better fit to the Book of Moses.

59 . Cf. 2 Nephi 9:17–18; Alma 12:27–32; 13:5; 18:39; 22:13; 42:26; Ether 3:13–14; 4:12–15; and 4:18–19.

60 . Formatted following the structure shown in Parry, Poetic Parallelisms in the Book of Mormon, 167–68.

61 . See, for example, the technique of Gezera Shawa, as discussed in Matthew L. Bowen, “Onomastic Wordplay on Joseph and Benjamin and Gezera Shawa in the Book of Mormon,” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 18 (2016): 259–65, https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/onomastic-wordplay-on-joseph-and-benjamin-and-gezera-shawa-in-the-book-of-mormon/.

62 . Bradshaw, “Standing in the Holy Place,” 165–71.

63 . George Whitefield, “Jacob’s Ladder — A Farewell Sermon,” in Samuel Drew and Josiah Smith, Sermons on Important Subjects by the Rev. George Whitefield, A.M. (London: Henry Fisher, Son, and P. Jackson, 1828), 773, https://www.google.com/books/edition/Sermons_on_important_subjects_With_a_mem/dXqihZfmjtoC?hl=en&gbpv=&dq=‘angels+declare&pg=PA773.

64 . Also see 1 Nephi 11:12, 19, 24, 26, 30–32; 12:1, 11; 13:1; 14:9, 18.

65 . Reynolds, “The Brass Plates Version of Genesis,” 72.

66 . Samuel Sandmel, “Parallelomania,” Journal of Biblical Literature 81 no. 1 (March 1962): 1–13, https://www.jstor.org/stable/3264821.

67 . Benjamin L. McGuire, “Finding Parallels: Some Cautions and Criticisms, Part One,” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 5 (2013): 1–59, https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/finding-parallels-some-cautions-and-criticisms-part-one/.

68 . Richard B. Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1989), 30, https://www.google.com/books/edition/Echoes_of_Scripture_in_the_Letters_of_Pa/8faLhqRXH24C.

69 . “Quotations,” M. G. Easton, Easton’s Bible Dictionary (London: T. Nelson and Sons, 1897), https://archive.org/details/eastonsbibledict00east/page/n975/mode/2up and http://eastonsbibledictionary.org/3039-Quotations.php. “Sometimes, e.g., the quotation does not agree literally either with the LXX. or the Hebrew text. This occurs in about one hundred instances. Sometimes the LXX. is literally quoted (in about ninety instances), and sometimes it is corrected or altered in the quotations (in over eighty instances) … . There are in all two hundred and eighty-three direct quotations from the Old Testament in the New.” Of course, in addition to direct quotations, there are many other allusions or “echoes.”

70 . See, for example, the examination of various criteria for assessing relationships between texts discussed in Robert Ouro, “Similarities and Differences Between the Old Testament and the Ancient Near Eastern Texts,” Andrews University Seminary Studies 49 no. 1 (2011): 5–32, https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3125&context=auss. Also see the useful discussion of Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul, in Charles A. Gieschen, “Listening to Intertextual Relationships in Paul’s Epistles with Richard Hays,” Concordia Theological Quarterly 70 no. 1 (January 2006): 17–32, http://www.ctsfw.net/media/pdfs/gieschenlisteningwithhays.pdf.

71 . In addition to the sources provided in footnote 5 regarding theories of naturalist origins for the Book of Moses, consider also Jared Hickman, “‘Bringing Forth’ the Book of Mormon: Translation as Reconfiguration of Bodies in Space Time,” in Producing Ancient Scripture, 54–80. Hickman sees Joseph’s imagination stirred by the reference to Enoch being “translated” in Hebrew 11:5 and proposes that this “metaphysical translation” as opposed to literal or linguistic translation became a guide for Joseph’s production of various “translated” texts (p. 55). While he focuses on the Book of Mormon in this chapter, he notes that other revealed texts such as the translation of the Bible are less tenable as products of linguistic translation, and thus are even more likely to be “exercises of transhumanist creativity” than the Book of Mormon if he has successfully shown the Book of Mormon to fit his proposed model. That proposed model leads him to see Joseph as “impudently transposing all of sacred history to his America in the form of the Book of Mormon” (p. 80). That creative, transhumanist work is a metaphysical translation, not the result of a genuine ancient record translated into English by the power of God. Also see Terryl Givens and Brian Hauglid, The Pearl of Greatest Price: Mormonism’s Most Controversial Scripture (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2019), in which the authors repeatedly discuss the Pearl of Great Price texts, including the Book of Moses, in terms of Joseph Smith’s imagination, often described as “revelatory imagination” (e.g., pp. 35, 82, 90) or “prophetic imagination” (pp. 95, 96, 182). That is not to say that the authors claim that Joseph’s texts were not inspired, but the influence of his imagination in the production of the Book of Moses and the Book of Abraham seems to be presented as an important factor in these works.

72 . Some may question whether we have shown, in this paper, definitive proof of a one-way relationship between the Book of Mormon and the Book of Moses. When the relationship inherent in a parallel is one of an allusion to a more complete backstory which requires the user to fill in the gaps or to apply the richer details from the source to understand the significance of the allusion, we take that as evidence of a one-way transmission. We have shown that pattern in several of the parallels identified. In no case we are aware of does the Book of Moses allude to a more complete story or description in the Book of Mormon. The Book of Moses often provides the account or descriptions that helps readers understand the meaning of the Book of Mormon phrase. Regardless, in all cases the parallels provide rich earth for further exploration and mining.

THE ARK AND THE TENT:

TEMPLE SYMBOLISM IN THE STORY OF NOAH

Jeffrey M. Bradshaw

Abstract: Jeffrey M. Bradshaw compares Moses’ tabernacle and Noah’s ark, and then identifies the story of Noah as a temple related drama, drawing of temple mysticism and symbols. After examining structural similarities between ark and tabernacle and bringing into the discussion further information about the Mesopotamian flood story, he shows how Noah’s ark is a beginning of a new creation, pointing out the central point of Day One in the Noah story. When Noah leaves the ark, they find themselves in a garden, not unlike the Garden of Eden in the way the Bible speaks about it. A covenant is established in signs and tokens. Noah is the new Adam. This is then followed by a fall/Judgement scene story, even though it is Ham who is judged, not Noah. In accordance with mostly non-Mormon sources quoted, Bradshaw points out how Noah was not in “his” tent, but in the tent of the Shekhina, the presence of God, how being drunk was seen by the ancients as a synonym to “being caught up in a vision of God,” and how his “nakedness” was rather referring to garments God had made for Adam and Eve.

[Editor’s Note: Part of our book chapter reprint series, this article is reprinted here as a service to the LDS community. Original pagination and page numbers have necessarily changed, otherwise the reprint has the same content as the original.

See Jeffrey M. Bradshaw, “The Ark and the Tent: Temple Symbolism in the Story of Noah,” in Temple Insights: Proceedings of the Interpreter Matthew B. Brown Memorial Conference, “The Temple on Mount Zion,” 22 September 2012, ed. William J. Hamblin and David Rolph Seely (Orem, UT: The Interpreter Foundation; Salt Lake City: Eborn Books, 2014), 25–66. Further information at https://interpreterfoundation.org/books/temple-insights/.]

It has long been recognized that the story of Noah recapitulates the Genesis accounts of the Creation, the Garden, and the Fall of Adam and Eve. What has been generally underappreciated by modern scholarship, however, is the nature and depth of the relationship between all these stories and the liturgy and layout of temples, not only in Israel but also throughout the ancient Near East. And this relationship goes two ways. Not only have accounts of primeval history been included as a significant part of ancient temple worship, but also, in striking abundance, themes echoing temple architecture, furnishings, ritual, and covenants have been deeply woven into scripture itself.

In this chapter I will outline some of the rich temple themes in the biblical account of the great flood, highlighting how the scriptural descriptions of the structure and function of the ark and the tent within the story of Noah anticipate the design and purpose of the later tabernacle of Moses.

Structural Similarities Between the Ark and the Tabernacle

It is significant that, apart from the tabernacle of Moses^1 and the temple of Solomon,2 Noah’s ark is the only man-made structure mentioned in the Bible whose design was directly revealed by God.3

Like the tabernacle, Noah’s ark “was designed as a temple.”4 The ark’s three decks suggest both the three divisions of the tabernacle and the threefold layout of the Garden of Eden.5 Indeed, each of the three decks of Noah’s ark was exactly “the same height as the Tabernacle and three times the area of the Tabernacle court.”6 Strengthening the association between the Ark and the Tabernacle is the fact that the Hebrew term for Noah’s ark, tevah, later became the standard word for the ark of the covenant in Mishnaic Hebrew.7 In addition, the Septuagint used the same Greek term, kibotos, for both Noah’s ark and the ark of the covenant.8 The ratio of the width to the height of both of these arks is 3:5.9

Marking the similarities between the shape of the ark of the covenant and the chest-like form of Noah’s ark, Westermann describes Noah’s ark as “a huge, rectangular box, with a roof.”10 The biblical account makes it clear that the ark “was not shaped like a ship and it had no oars,” “accentuating the fact that Noah’s deliverance was not dependent on navigating skills, [but rather happened] entirely by God’s will,”11 its movement solely determined by “the thrust of the water and wind.”12

Consistent with the emphasis on deliverance by God rather than through human navigation, the Hebrew word for “ark” reappears for the only other time in the Bible in the story of the infant Moses, whose deliverance from death was also made possible by a free-floating watercraft — specifically, in this case, a reed basket.13 Reeds may have also been used as part of the construction materials for Noah’s ark, as will be discussed below.

Besides the resemblances in form between the Ark and the Tabernacle, there is also the manner by which the Ark was entered and exited. For example, scholars have noted in the Mesopotamian flood story of Gilgamesh a similarity of the loading of the ship to the loading of goods into a temple.14 Morales discusses the centrality of entering and leaving the Ark as reason “to suspect an entrance liturgy ideal at work,”15 with all “‘entries’ as being via Noah,”16 the righteous and unblemished priestly prototype.17

As for the material out of which the ark was constructed, Genesis 6:14 reads, “Make thee an ark of gopher wood; rooms shalt thou make in the ark, and shalt pitch it within and without with pitch.”

The meaning of the Hebrew term for “gopher wood” — unique in the Bible to Genesis 6:14 — is uncertain.18 Modern commentators often take it to mean cypress wood.19 Because it is resistant to rot, the cypress tree was used in ancient times for the building of ships.20

There is an extensive mythology about the cypress tree in cultures throughout the world. It is known for its fragrance and longevity^21 — qualities that have naturally linked it with ancient literature describing the Garden of Eden.22 Cypress trees were also sometimes used to make temple doors — gateways to Paradise.23

The possibility of conscious rhyming wordplay in the juxtaposition of the Hebrew terms gopher and kopher (“pitch”) within the same verse cannot be ruled out. As Harper notes, the word kopher might have evoked for the ancient reader, “the rich cultic overtones of kaphar ‘ransom’ with its half-shekel temple atonement price,24 kapporeth ‘mercy seat’ over the Ark of the Covenant,25 and the verb kipper ‘to atone’ associated with so many priestly rituals.”26 Some of these rituals involve the action of smearing or wiping, the same movements by which pitch is applied.27 Just as God’s presence in the tabernacle preserves the life of His people, so Noah’s ark preserves a righteous remnant of humanity along with representatives of all its creatures.

In Mesopotamian flood stories, the construction materials for the building of a boat were obtained by tearing down a reed-hut. The basic construction idea of such huts is that poles of resinous wood would have framed and supported woven reed mats.28 The reed mats would be stitched to the hull and covered with pitch to make them waterproof.29 These building techniques are still in use today.

Although reed-huts may sometimes serve as secular enclosures, references to them in Mesopotamian flood stories clearly point to their ancient use as divine sanctuaries.30 Seated in his rectangular sanctuary made of reeds, Enki presided both as the god of wisdom and of the Abzu, the freshwater ocean that existed under the land.31 In some parts of the ancient Near East, mortal kings and priests entered into reed sanctuaries in order to commune with the gods, just as Israelite high priests entered their temples.

In a Mesopotamian account of the flood story, Ziusudra enters into a “reed-hut … temple,”32 where he stands “day after day” listening to the “conversation” of the divine assembly.33 Eventually, Ziusudra hears the deadly oaths of the council of the gods following their decision to destroy mankind by a devastating flood. Regretting the decision of the divine assembly, the god Enki contrives a plan to warn Ziusudra and to instruct him on how to build a boat that will save him and his family. Evoking ancient Near East parallels where the gods whisper their secrets to mortals standing on the other side of temple partitions or screens separating the divine and human realms,34 Enki conveys his warning message privately through the thin wall of Ziusudra’s reed sanctuary.35 Related accounts tell us that Enki instructed Ziusudra to tear down the reed-hut temple and to use the materials to build a boat.36

Three kinds of boat-building materials are listed in the Mesopotamian flood stories — wood timbers, reeds, and pitch.37 The biblical list is identical, except that the second item is given as “rooms” rather than “reeds.” Concluding “that the apparent lack of the reed-hut or primeval shrine in the Genesis flood account demands closer inspection,”38 Jason McCann observes^39 that re-pointing the Hebrew vowels would lead to an alternate translation signifying an ark that was “woven-of-reeds.” Thus, the New Jerusalem Bible translation of Genesis 6:14:40 “Make yourself an ark out of resinous wood. Make it with reeds and caulk it with pitch inside and out” (emphasis added).

By a translation that recognizes “reeds,” not “rooms,” as the second element in the building materials for Noah’s ark, a puzzling inconsistency between the Bible and the Mesopotamian accounts is resolved while at the same time further connecting the scriptural ark with the temple.

Let’s now turn our attention to the Creation and temple themes in the story of the Flood, where we will find temple parallels not only to the structure of the Ark but also in its function.

Creation

In considering the role of Noah’s ark in the Flood story, it should be noted that it was, specifically, a mobile sanctuary,41 as were the tabernacle and the ark made of reeds that saved the baby Moses. Arguably, each of these structures can be described as a traveling vehicle of rescue designed to parallel in function God’s portable pavilion or chariot.

Scripture makes a clear distinction between the fixed heavenly temple and its portable counterparts. For example, in Psalm 18^42 and D&C 121:1, the “pavilion” of “God’s hiding place” should not be equated with the celestial “temple” to which the prayers of the oppressed go up^43 but rather as a representation of a movable “conveyance”44 in which God could swiftly descend to rescue His people from mortal danger.45 The sense of the action is succinctly captured by Robert Alter: “The outcry of the beleaguered warrior ascends all the way to the highest heavens, thus launching a downward vertical movement”46 of God’s own chariot.

Despite its ungainly shape as a buoyant temple, the Ark is portrayed as floating confidently above the chaos of the great deep. Significantly, the motion of the ark “upon the face of the waters”47 paralleled the movement of the Spirit of God “upon the face of the waters”48 at the original creation of heaven and earth. The deliberate nature of this parallel is made clear when we consider that Genesis 1:2 and 7:18 are the only two verses in the Bible that contain the phrase “the face of the waters.” In short, scripture intends to make us understand that in the presence of the Ark there was a return of the same Spirit of God that had hovered over the waters at the Creation — the Spirit whose previous withdrawal had been presaged in Genesis 6:3.49

The motion of the Ark “upon the face of the waters,”50 like the Spirit of God “upon the face of the waters”51 at Creation, was a portent of the (re)appearance of light and life. Within the Ark, a “mini replica of Creation,”52 were the last vestiges of the original Creation, “an alternative earth for all living creatures,”53 “a colony of heaven”54 containing seedlings for the planting of a second Garden of Eden,55 the nucleus of a new world — all hidden within a vessel of rescue described in scripture, like the tabernacle, as a likeness of God’s own traveling pavilion.

Just as the Spirit of God patiently brooded^56 over the great deep at the Creation and just as “the longsuffering of God waited … while the ark was a preparing,”57 so the indefatigable Noah endured the long brooding of the ark over the slowly receding waters of the deluge^58 until, at last, the dry land appeared.59

There are rich thematic connections between the emergence of the dry land at the Creation, the settling of the Ark atop the first mountain to emerge from the Flood, New Year’s Day, and the temple. In ancient Israel, the holiest spot on earth was believed to be the foundation stone in front of the ark of the covenant within the temple at Jerusalem:60 “It was the first solid material to emerge from the waters of Creation,61 and it was upon this stone that the Deity effected Creation.” The depiction of the ark-temple of Noah perched upon Mount Ararat would have evoked similar temple imagery for the ancient reader of the Bible.

Note that it was “in the six hundred and first year [of Noah’s life] in the first month, the first day of the month” that “the waters were dried up.”62 The specific wording of this verse would have hinted to the ancient reader that there was ritual significance to the date. Note that it was also the “first day of the first month”63 when the tabernacle was dedicated, “while Solomon’s temple was dedicated at the New Year festival in the autumn.”64

Garden

Nothing in the story of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden can be understood without reference to the temple. Neither can the story of Noah and his family in the garden setting of a renewed earth be appreciated fully without taking the temple as its background.

Allusions to Garden of Eden and temple motifs begin as soon as Noah and his family leave the ark. Just as the book of Moses highlights Adam’s diligence in offering sacrifice as soon as he entered the fallen world,65 Genesis describes Noah’s first action on the renewed earth as being the building of an altar for burnt offerings.66 Likewise, in each account, God’s blessing is followed by a commandment to multiply and replenish the earth.67 Both stories also contain instructions about what the protagonists are and are not to eat.68

Notably, in each case a covenant is established in a context of ordinances and signs or tokens.69 More specifically, according to Pseudo-Philo,70 the rainbow as a sign or token of a covenant of higher priesthood blessings was said by God to be an analogue of Moses’s staff, a symbol of kingship.71

Both the story of Adam and Eve and the story of Noah prominently feature the theme of nakedness being covered by a garment.72 Noah, like Adam, is called the “lord of the whole earth.”73 Surely, it is no exaggeration to say that Noah is portrayed as a new Adam, “reversing the estrangement” between God and man by means of an atoning sacrifice.74

Fall and Judgment

In Genesis, the Fall and judgment scenes are straightforwardly recited as follows:75

And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard:

And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent.

And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without.

And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father’s nakedness.

And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him.

And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.

Looking at the passage more closely, however, raises several questions. To begin with, what tent did Noah enter? Although the English translation says “his tent,” the Hebrew text features a feminine possessive that would normally mean “her tent.”76 The Midrash Rabbah explains this as a reference to the tent of Noah’s wife,77 and both ancient and modern commentators have often focused on this detail to imply that Ham intruded on his father and mother during a moment of intimacy.78

A very intriguing alternative explanation, however, is offered by Rabbi Shim’on in the Zohar, who takes the he of the feminine possessive to mean “‘the tent of that vineyard,’ namely, the tent of Shekhinah,”79 the term for “the divine feminine”80 that was equated to the presence of Yahweh in Israelite temples. In a variant of the same theme, at least one set of modern commentators takes the he as referring to Yahweh, hence reading the term as the “Tent of Yahweh,”81 the divine sanctuary.

In view of the pervasive theme in ancient literature where the climax of the Flood story is the founding of a temple over the source of the floodwaters, Blenkinsopp^82 finds it “safe to assume” that the biblical account of “the deluge served … as the Israelite version of the cosmogonic victory of the deity resulting in the building of a sanctuary for him.” Lucian reports that “the temple of Hierapolis on the Euphrates was founded over the flood waters by Deucalion, counterpart of Ziusudra, Utnapishtim, and Noah.”83 Consistent with this theme, Psalms 29:10 “speaks of Yahweh enthroned over the abyss.”84

Given the many allusions in the story of Noah to the tabernacle of Moses, it would have been natural for the ancient reader to have seen in Noah’s tent, at the foot of the mount where the ark-temple rested, a parallel with the sacred “tent of meeting” at the foot of Mount Sinai, at whose top God’s heavenly tent had been spread.

How are we to understand the mention that Noah “was drunken”? Most rabbinical sources make no attempt to explain or justify but instead roundly criticize Noah’s actions.85 The difficulty with that explanation is the fact that the scriptures offer no hint of condemnation for Noah’s supposed drunkenness.

Is there a better explanation for Noah’s unexpected behavior?86 Yes. According to a statement attributed to Joseph Smith, Noah “was not drunk, but in a vision.”87 This agrees with the Genesis Apocryphon which, immediately after describing a ritual drinking of wine by Noah and his family, tells of a divine dream vision that revealed the fate of Noah’s posterity.88 Koler and Greenspahn^89 concur that Noah was enwrapped in a vision while in the tent, commenting that “this explains why Shem and [Japheth] refrained from looking at Noah even after they had covered him, significantly ‘ahorannît [= Hebrew “backward”] occurs elsewhere with regard to avoidance of looking directly at God in the course of revelation.”

Noah’s fitness to enjoy the presence of God is explored in detail by Morales.90 “In every sense,” he writes, “Noah is defined as the one able ‘to enter’”91 into the presence of the Lord. He concludes:92

As the righteous man, Noah not only passes through the [door] of the Ark sanctuary,93 but is able to approach the mount of Yahweh for worship…. Noah stands as a new Adam, the primordial man who dwells in the divine Presence … As such, he foreshadows the high priest of the Tabernacle cultus who alone will enter the paradisiacal holy of holies….

How does wine play into the picture? It should be remembered that a sacramental libation was an element in the highest ordinances of the priesthood as much in ancient times as it is today. For example, only five chapters after the end of the Flood story, we read that Melchizedek “brought forth bread and wine”94 to Abraham as part of the ordinance that was to make him a king and a priest after Melchizedek’s holy order.95 Just as Melchizedek then blessed the “most high God, which had delivered thine enemies into thine hand,”96 so Noah, according to the Genesis Apocryphon, partook of the wine with his family and blessed “the God Most High, who had delivered us from the destruction.”97 The book of Jubilees further confirms that Noah’s drinking of the wine should be seen in a ritual context, not merely as a spontaneous indulgence that occurred at the end of a particularly wearying day. Indeed, we are specifically told that Noah “guarded” the wine until the time of the fifth New Year festival, the “first day on the first of the first month,” when he “made a feast with rejoicing. And he made a burnt offering to the Lord.”98

We find greater detail about an analogous event within the Testament of Levi. There we read that as Levi was being made a king and a priest, he was anointed, washed, and given “bread and holy wine” prior to his being arrayed in a “holy and glorious vestment.” Note also that the themes of anointing, the removal of outer clothing, the washing of the feet, and the ritual partaking of bread and wine were prominent in the events surrounding the Last Supper of Jesus Christ with the Apostles. Indeed, we are told that the righteous may joyfully anticipate participation in a similar event when the Lord returns: “for the hour cometh that I will drink of the fruit of the vine with you on the earth.”99

How do we make sense of Noah’s being “uncovered” during his vision? Perhaps the closest Old Testament parallel to this practice is when Saul, like the prophets who were with him, “stripped off his clothes … and prophesied before Samuel … and lay down naked all that day and all that night.”100 Jamieson^101 clarifies that “lay down naked” in this instance meant only that he was “divested of his armor and outer robes.” In a similar sense, when we read in John 21:7 that Peter “was naked” as he was fishing, it simply meant that “he had laid off his outer garment, and had on only his inner garment or tunic.”102

How do we understand the statement that Ham “saw the nakedness of his father”? Reluctant to attribute the apparent gravity of Ham’s misdeed to the mere act of seeing, readers have often concluded that Ham in addition must have done something.103 For example, a popular proposal is that Ham committed unspeakable crimes against his mother^104 or his father.105

Wenham, however, wisely observes that “these and other suggestions are disproved by the next verse” that recounts how Shem and Japheth covered their father: 106

As Cassuto^107 points out: “If the covering was an adequate remedy, it follows that the misdemeanor was confined to seeing.” The elaborate efforts Shem and Japheth made to avoid looking at their father demonstrate that this was all Ham did in the tent.108

All this is consistent with the proposal that the misdeed of Ham was intrusively entering the tent of Yahweh and seeing Noah in the presence of God while the latter was “in the course of revelation.”109 While Noah, the righteous and blameless — an exception to those in his generation^110 — was in a position to speak with God face-to-face, Ham was neither qualified nor authorized to see, let alone enter into, a place of divine glory.

Is this a parallel to the story of Adam and Eve? A parallel to this incident might be seen by reading the story of the transgression of Adam and Eve in the context of its many temple allusions. Consistent with recent scholarship that sees the Garden as a temple prototype,111 Ephrem the Syrian, a fourth-century Christian, called the tree of knowledge “the veil for the sanctuary.”112 A similar Jewish tradition about the two special trees in the Garden of Eden holds that the foliage of the tree of knowledge, as an analogue to the temple veil, hid the tree of life from direct view: “God did not specifically prohibit eating from the Tree of Life because the Tree of Knowledge formed a hedge around it; only after one had partaken of the latter and cleared a path for himself could one come close to the Tree of Life.”113

In describing his concept of Eden, Ephrem cited parallels with the division of the animals on Noah’s ark and the demarcations on Sinai separating Moses, Aaron, the priests, and the people, as shown in Figure 2. Ephrem pictured Paradise as a great mountain, with the tree of knowledge providing a boundary partway up the slopes. The tree of knowledge, Ephrem concluded, “acts as a sanctuary curtain [i.e., veil] hiding the Holy of Holies which is the Tree of Life higher up.”

Recurring throughout the Old Testament are echoes of such a layout of sacred spaces and the accounts of dire consequences for those who attempt unauthorized entry through the veil into the innermost sanctuary. By way of analogy to the situation of Adam and Eve and its setting in the temple-like layout of the Garden of Eden, service in Israelite temples under conditions of worthiness was intended to sanctify the participants. However, as taught in Levitical laws of purity, doing the same “while defiled by sin, was to court unnecessary danger, perhaps even death.”116

If this understanding of the situation in Eden is correct, the sin of Ham would be a striking parallel to the transgression of Adam and Eve.117 Noah was positioned directly in front of, or perhaps even seated on, a representation of the throne of God.118 Without proper invitation, Ham approached the curtains of the “tent of Yaweh”119 and looked at the glory of God that was “uncovered within”120 — literally, “in the midst of”121 — the tent, just as Eve “cleared a path” for herself so she could “come close to the Tree of Life”122 that was located “in the midst of”123 the Garden. Emerging from the tent, Noah cursed Canaan,124 who is likened in the Zohar to the “primordial serpent”125 that was cursed by God in Eden.

By way of contrast to Ham and Canaan, Targum Neofiti asserts that the specific blessing given by Noah to his birthright son Shem is to have the immediate presence of the Lord with him and with his posterity:126 “[M]ay the Glory of his Shekhinah dwell in the midst of the tents of Shem.”

What is meant by the “nakedness” of Noah? As with Noah’s drinking of the wine, some readers see his “nakedness” as shameful. However, as an alternative, what has just been outlined about Ham’s having intrusively looked at the divine Presence within the sanctuary might be sufficient explanation for the description.

Going further, however, Nibley^127 argued from the interpretations of some ancient readers^128 that the Hebrew term for “nakedness” in this verse, ‘erwat, might be better rendered as “skins,” or ‘orot — in other words, an animal skin garment corresponding, in this instance, to the “coats of skins”129 [kuttonet ‘or] given to Adam and Eve for their protection after the Fall. The two Hebrew words ‘erwat and ‘orot would have looked nearly identical in their original unpointed form. Midrash Rabbah specifically asserts that the garment of Adam had been handed down to Noah, who wore it when he offered sacrifice.130

In the current context, the possibility signaled by Morales^131 that “the ‘covering [mikseh] of the Ark’132 establishes a link to the [skin] ‘covering of the Tabernacle’”133 is significant.134 The idea that not only the Ark and the Tabernacle but also Noah himself might have been covered in a priestly garment of skins is intriguing when we consider Philonenko’s observation that “the temple is [itself] considered as a person and the veil of the temple as a garment that is worn, as a personification of the sanctuary itself.”135 Could it be that just as it is specifically pointed out in scripture that Noah “removed the [skin] covering of the Ark” in Genesis 8:13, he subsequently removed his own ritual covering of skins? This “garment of repentance”136 — which, by the way, was worn in those times as outer rather than inner clothing — was taken off by Noah in preparation for his being “clothed upon with glory.”137

The tradition of the stolen garment. Some ancient readers went further, stating that Ham not only saw but also took the “skin garment” of his father, intending to usurp his priesthood authority. In one of the earliest extant sources for this idea, Rabbi Judah said, “The tunic that the Holy One, blessed be His Name, made for Adam and his wife was with Noah in the Ark; when they left the Ark, Ham, the son of Noah, took it, and left with it, then passed it on to Nimrod.”138

Rabbi Eliezer, among others, continues the intrigues of the stolen garment forward to the time of Esau, who murdered Nimrod for it, and to Jacob, who had been enjoined by Rebekah to wear it, as she supposed, in order to obtain Isaac’s blessing.139 In turn, Nibley traces the theme backward to traditions telling of how Satan conspired to get the garment from Adam and Eve^140 and to accounts of the premortal fight in heaven for the possession of the garment of light.141

Summary and Conclusions

The story of Noah not only repeats the stories of the Creation,142 the Garden,143 and the Fall of Adam and Eve^144 but also replays the temple themes in those accounts. These themes are especially apparent in the stories of the Ark and the tent, both of which foreshadowed the later tabernacle of Moses.

While unequivocal confirming evidence in reliable ancient sources of certain details in the account of Noah is likely to remain elusive, unmistakable allusions throughout the stories in Genesis and in other Flood accounts from the ancient Near East make clear that we must regard them as temple texts that have been written at a high degree of sophistication. Without modern revelation, we might have continued “all at sea” in our understanding of Ark and the tent. However, with the additional light of the revelations and teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, we are on solid ground.

This article adapts and abridges material previously published in:

- Jeffrey M. Bradshaw and David J. Larsen, Enoch, Noah, and the Tower of Babel. In God’s Image and Likeness 2. Salt Lake City, UT: The Interpreter Foundation and Eborn Books, 2014;

- Jeffrey M. Bradshaw, “The tree of knowledge as the veil of the sanctuary.” In Ascending the Mountain of the Lord: Temple, Praise, and Worship in the Old Testament, edited by David Rolph Seely, Jeffrey R. Chadwick and Matthew J. Grey. The 42nd Annual Brigham Young University Sidney B. Sperry Symposium (26 October, 2013), pp. 49-65. Provo and Salt Lake City, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University and Deseret Book, 2013.

References

Abarqu’s cypress tree: After 4000 years still gracefully standing. 2008. In

CAIS News, The Circle of Ancient Iranian Studies. http://www.cais-soas.com/News/2008/April2008/25-04.htm. (accessed August 1, 2012).

al-Tha’labi, Abu Ishaq Ahmad Ibn Muhammad Ibn Ibrahim. d. 1035. ’Ara’is Al-Majalis Fi Qisas Al-Anbiya’ or “Lives of the Prophets.” Translated by William M. Brinner. Studies in Arabic Literature, Supplements to the Journal of Arabic Literature, Volume 24, ed. Suzanne Pinckney Stetkevych. Leiden, Netherlands: Brill, 2002.

Allberry, Charles Robert Cecil Augustine, ed. A Manichaean Psalm-Book, Part 2. Manichaean Manuscripts in the Chester Beatty Collection 2. Stuttgart, Germany: W. Kohlhammer, 1938.

Alter, Robert, ed. The Five Books of Moses: A Translation with Commentary. New York City, NY: W. W. Norton, 2004.

— — — , ed. The Book of Psalms: A Translation with Commentary. New York City, NY: W. W. Norton, 2007.

Andersen, F. I. “2 (Slavonic Apocalypse of) Enoch.” In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, edited by James H. Charlesworth. 2 vols. Vol. 1, 91-221. Garden City, NY: Doubleday and Company, 1983.

Anderson, Gary A., and Michael Stone, eds. A Synopsis of the Books of Adam and Eve. 2nd ed. Society of Biblical Literature: Early Judaism and its Literature, ed. John C. Reeves. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1999.

Anderson, Gary A. The Genesis of Perfection: Adam and Eve in Jewish and Christian Imagination. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001.

Attridge, Harold W., Wayne A. Meeks, Jouette M. Bassler, Werner E. Lemke, Susan Niditch, and Eileen M. Schuller, eds. The HarperCollins Study Bible, Fully Revised and Updated Revised ed. New York City, NY: HarperOne, 2006.

Augustine. d. 430. St. Augustine: The Literal Meaning of Genesis. New ed. Ancient Christian Writers, 41 and 42. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1982.

Barker, Kenneth L., ed. Zondervan NIV Study Bible Fully Revised ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2002.

Barker, Margaret. “Atonement: The rite of healing.” Scottish Journal of Theology 49, no. 1 (1996): 1-20. http://www.abdn.ac.uk/~div054/sjt. (accessed August 3).

— — — . E-mail message to Jeffrey M. Bradshaw, June 11, 2007.

— — — . The Hidden Tradition of the Kingdom of God. London, England: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge (SPCK), 2007.

Beale, Gregory K. The Temple and the Church’s Mission: A Biblical Theology of the Dwelling Place of God. New Studies in Biblical Theology, 1, ed. Donald A. Carson. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004.

Bergsma, John Sietze, and Scott Walker Hahn. “Noah’s nakedness and the curse on Canaan (Genesis 9:20-27).” Journal of Biblical Literature 124, no. 1 (Spring 2005): 25-40. http://www.jstor.org/stable/30040989. (accessed June 5, 2012).

bin Gorion (Berdichevsky), Micha Joseph. 1919. Die Sagen der Juden. Köln, Germany: Parkland Verlag, 1997.

bin Gorion, Micha Joseph (Berdichevsky), and Emanuel bin Gorion, eds. 1939-1945. Mimekor Yisrael: Classical Jewish Folktales. 3 vols. Translated by I. M. Lask. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1976.

Black, Jeremy A., G. Cunningham, E. Robson, and G. Zolyomi. “Enki’s journey to Nibru.” In The Literature of Ancient Sumer, edited by Jeremy A. Black, G. Cunningham, E. Robson and G. Zolyomi, 330-33. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, 2004.

— — — , eds. The Literature of Ancient Sumer. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, 2004.

Blenkinsopp, Joseph. “The structure of P.” The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 38, no. 3 (1976): 275-92.

Bradshaw, Jeffrey M. 2010. Creation, Fall, and the Story of Adam and Eve. 2014 update ed. In God’s Image and Likeness 1. Salt Lake City, UT: Eborn Publishing, 2014.

— — — . 2010. Temple Themes in the Book of Moses. 2014 update ed. Salt Lake City, UT: Eborn Books, 2014.

— — — . 2012. Temple Themes in the Oath and Covenant of the Priesthood. 2014 update ed. Salt Lake City, UT: Eborn Books, 2014.

— — — . “The tree of knowledge as the veil of the sanctuary.” In Ascending the Mountain of the Lord: Temple, Praise, and Worship in the Old Testament, edited by David Rolph Seely, Jeffrey R. Chadwick and Matthew J. Grey. The 42nd Annual Brigham Young University Sidney B. Sperry Symposium (26 October, 2013), pp. 49-65. Provo and Salt Lake City, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University and Deseret Book, 2013.

Bradshaw, Jeffrey M., and Ronan J. Head. “Mormonism’s Satan and the Tree of Life (Longer version of an invited presentation originally given at the 2009 Conference of the European Mormon Studies Association, Turin, Italy, 30-31 July 2009).” Element: A Journal of Mormon Philosophy and Theology 4, no. 2 (2010): 1-54.

— — — . “The investiture panel at Mari and rituals of divine kingship in the ancient Near East.” Studies in the Bible and Antiquity 4 (2012): 1-42.

Brodie, Thomas L. Genesis as Dialogue: A Literary, Historical, and Theological Commentary. Oxford, England: Oxford University Pres, 2001.

Brown, Francis, S. R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs. 1906. The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2005.

Buck, Christopher. Paradise and Paradigm: Key Symbols in Persian Christianity and the Baha’i Faith. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1999.

Budge, E. A. Wallis, ed. The Book of the Cave of Treasures. London, England: The Religious Tract Society, 1927. Reprint, New York City, NY: Cosimo Classics, 2005.

Butterworth, Edric Allen Schofeld. The Tree at the Navel of the Earth. Berlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyter, 1970.

Carter, R. A. “Watercraft.” In A Companion to the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, edited by Daniel T. Potts. Blackwell Companions to the Ancient World, 347-72. New York City, NY: Wiley-Blackwell, 2012. http://books.google.com/books?id=7lK6l7oF_ccC. (accessed 24 July 2012).

Cassuto, Umberto. 1944. A Commentary on the Book of Genesis. Vol. 1: From Adam to Noah. Translated by Israel Abrahams. 1st English ed. Jerusalem: The Magnes Press, The Hebrew University, 1998.

— — — . 1949. A Commentary on the Book of Genesis. Vol. 2: From Noah to Abraham. Translated by Israel Abrahams. 1st English ed. Jerusalem: The Magnes Press, The Hebrew University, 1997.

Chouraqui, André, ed. La Bible. Paris, France: Desclée de Brouwer, 2003.

Clifford, Richard J. The Cosmic Mountain in Canaan and the Old Testament. Harvard Semitic Monographs 4, ed. Frank Moore Cross, William L. Moran, Isadore Twersky and G. Ernest Wright. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1972. Reprint, Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, n.d.

— — — . “The temple and the holy mountain.” In The Temple in Antiquity, edited by Truman G. Madsen, pp. 107-24. Salt Lake City, UT: Bookcraft, 1984.

Cohen, Chayim. “Hebrew tbh: Proposed etymologies.” Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society 4 (1972): 37-51. http://www.jtsa.edu/Documents/pagedocs/JANES/1972 4/CCohen4.pdf. (accessed May 20, 2012).

Cohen, H. Hirsch. The Drunkenness of Noah. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press, 1974.

Dalley, Stephanie. “Atrahasis.” In Myths from Mesopotamia: Creation, the Flood, Gilgamesh, and Others, edited by Stephanie Dalley. Oxford World’s Classics, pp. 1-38. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, 2000.

De Vaux, Roland, ed. La Bible de Jérusalem Nouvelle ed. Paris, France: Desclée de Brouwer, 1975.

Dogniez, Cécile, and Marguerite Harl, eds. Le Pentateuque d’Alexandrie: Texte Grec et Traduction. La Bible des Septante, ed. Cécile Dogniez and Marguerite Harl. Paris, France: Les Éditions du Cerf, 2001.

Douglas, Mary. “Atonement in Leviticus.” Jewish Studies Quarterly 1, no. 2 (1993-1994): 109-30.

— — — . Leviticus as Literature. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, 2001.

Drower, E. S., ed. The Canonical Prayerbook of the Mandaeans. Leiden, The Netherlands: E. J. Brill, 1959. http://www.gnosis.org/library/ginzarba.htm. (accessed September 11, 2012).

Dunn, James D. G., and John W. Rogerson. Eerdmans Commentary on the Bible. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 2003.

Eden, Giulio Busi. “The mystical architecture of Eden in the Jewish tradition.” In The Earthly Paradise: The Garden of Eden from Antiquity to Modernity, edited by F. Regina Psaki and Charles Hindley. International Studies in Formative Christianity and Judaism, 15-22. Binghamton, NY: Academic Studies in the History of Judaism, Global Publications, State University of New York at Binghamton, 2002.

Embry, Brad. “The ‘naked narrative’ from Noah to Leviticus: Reassessing voyeurism in the account of Noah’s nakedness in Genesis 9:22-24.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 35, no. 4 (2011): 417-33.

Ephrem the Syrian. ca. 350-363. Hymns on Paradise. Translated by Sebastian Brock. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1990.

— — — . ca. 350-363. “The Hymns on Paradise.” In Hymns on Paradise, edited by Sebastian Brock, 77-195. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1990.

Faulring, Scott H., Kent P. Jackson, and Robert J. Matthews, eds. Joseph Smith’s New Translation of the Bible: Original Manuscripts. Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 2004.

Feliks, Jehuda. “Cypress.” In Encyclopedia Judaica, edited by Fred Skolnik. Second ed. 22 vols. New York City, NY: Macmillan Reference, 2007. http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0005_0_04781.html. (accessed August 1, 2012).

Fisk, Bruce N. Do You Not Remember? Scripture, Story, and Exegesis in the Rewritten Bible of Pseudo-Philo. Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001.

Fitzmyer, Joseph A., ed. The Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran Cave 1 (1Q20): A Commentary Third ed. Biblica et Orientalia 18/B. Rome, Italy: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 2004.

Fletcher-Louis, Crispin H. T. All the Glory of Adam: Liturgical Anthropology in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, 2002.

Freedman, H., and Maurice Simon, eds. 1939. Midrash Rabbah. 3rd ed. 10 vols. London, England: Soncino Press, 1983.

George, Andrew, ed. 1999. The Epic of Gilgamesh. London, England: The Penguin Group, 2003.

Ginzberg, Louis, ed. The Legends of the Jews. 7 vols. Translated by Henrietta Szold and Paul Radin. Philadelphia, PA: The Jewish Publication Society of America, 1909-1938. Reprint, Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998.

Hamilton, Victor P. The Book of Genesis: Chapters 1-17. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1990.

Harper, Elizabeth A. 2011. You shall make a tebah. First draft paper prepared as part of initial research into a doctorate on the Flood Narrative. In Elizabeth Harper’s Web Site. http://www.eharper.nildram.co.uk/pdf/makeark.pdf. (accessed June 18, 2012).

Haynes, Stephen R. Noah’s Curse: The Biblical Justification of American Slavery. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, 2002.

Hennecke, Edgar, and Wilhelm Schneemelcher. “The Acts of Thomas.” In New Testament Apocrypha, edited by Edgar Hennecke and Wilhelm Schneemelcher. 2 vols. Vol. 2, 425-531. Philadelphia, PA: The Westminster Press, 1965.

Hodges, Horace Jeffery. “Milton’s muse as brooding dove: Unstable image on a chaos of sources.” Milton Studies of Korea 12, no. 2 (2002): 365-92. http://memes.or.kr/sources/%C7%D0%C8%B8%C1%F6/%B9%D0%C5%CF%BF%AC%B1%B8/12-2/11.Hodges.pdf. (accessed August 25).

Holloway, Steven Winford. “What ship goes there: The flood narratives in the Gilgamesh Epic and Genesis considered in light of ancient Near Eastern temple ideology.” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 103, no. 3 (1991): 328-55.

Holzapfel, Richard Neitzel, and David Rolph Seely. My Father’s House: Temple Worship and Symbolism in the New Testament. Salt Lake City, UT: Bookcraft, 1994.

Jackson, Abraham Valentine Williams. “The cypress of Kashmar and Zoroaster.” In Zoroastrian Studies: The Iranian Religion and Various Monographs, edited by Abraham Valentine Williams Jackson, 255-66. New York City, NY: Columbia Press, 1928. http://www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/Religions/iranian/Zarathushtrian/cypress_zoroaster.htm. (accessed August 1, 2012).

Jackson, Kent P. The Book of Moses and the Joseph Smith Translation Manuscripts. Provo, UT: Brigham Young University Religious Studies Center, 2005.

Jacobsen, Thorkild. “The Eridu Genesis.” In The Harps That Once … Sumerian Poetry in Translation, edited by Thorkild Jacobsen. Translated by Thorkild Jacobsen, pp. 145-50. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1987.

Jamieson, Robert, Andrew Robert Fausset, and David Brown. 1871. A Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1967.

Kaplan, Arye, ed. La Torah Vivante: Les Cinq Livres de Moïse. Translated by Nehama Kohn. New York City, NY: Moznaim, 1996.

Kee, Howard C. “Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs.” In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, edited by James H. Charlesworth. Vol. 1, pp. 775-828. Garden City, NY: Doubleday and Company, 1983.

Kugel, James L. Traditions of the Bible. Revised ed. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1998.

Lidzbarski, Mark, ed. Das Johannesbuch der Mandäer. 2 vols. Giessen, Germany: Alfred Töpelmann, 1905, 1915.

— — — , ed. Ginza: Der Schatz oder das Grosse Buch der Mandäer. Quellen der Religionsgeschichte, der Reihenfolge des Erscheinens 13:4. Göttingen and Leipzig, Germany: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, J. C. Hinrichs’sche, 1925.

Lundquist, John M. “What is reality?” In By Study and Also by Faith: Essays in Honor of Hugh W. Nibley, edited by John M. Lundquist and Stephen D. Ricks. 2 vols. Vol. 1, pp. 428-38. Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 1990.

— — — . The Temple: Meeting Place of Heaven and Earth. London, England: Thames and Hudson, 1993.

Malan, Solomon Caesar, ed. The Book of Adam and Eve: Also Called The Conflict of Adam and Eve with Satan: A Book of the Early Eastern Church. Translated from the Ethiopic, with Notes from the Kufale, Talmud, Midrashim, and Other Eastern Works. London, England: Williams and Norgate, 1882. Reprint, San Diego, CA: The Book Tree, 2005.

Martinez, Florentino Garcia. “Genesis Apocryphon (1QapGen ar).” In The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated: The Qumran Texts in English, edited by Florentino Garcia Martinez. 2nd ed. Translated by Wilfred G. E. Watson, pp. 230-37. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 1996.

Matt, Daniel C., ed. The Zohar, Pritzker Edition. Vol. 1. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2004.

— — — , ed. The Zohar, Pritzker Edition. Vol. 2. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2004.

McCann, Jason Michael. “’Woven-of-Reeds’: Genesis 6:14b as evidence for the preservation of the reed-hut Urheiligtum in the biblical flood narrative.” In Opening Heaven’s Floodgates: The Genesis Flood Narrative, Its Context and Reception, edited by Jason M. Silverman. Bible Intersections 12, pp. 113-39. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2013.

McConkie, Joseph Fielding, and Craig J. Ostler, eds. Revelations of the Restoration: A Commentary on the Doctrine and Covenants and Other Modern Revelations. Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 2000.

McNamara, Martin, ed. Targum Neofiti 1, Genesis, translated, with apparatus and notes. Vol. 1a. Aramaic Bible. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1992.

Mead, George Robert Shaw, ed. 1921. Pistis Sophia: The Gnostic Tradition of Mary Magdalene, Jesus, and His Disciples (Askew Codex). Mineola, NY: Dover Publications, 2005.

Milton, John. 1667. “Paradise Lost.” In Paradise Lost, Paradise Regained, Samson Agonistes, edited by Harold Bloom, pp. 15-257. London, England: Collier, 1962.

Morales, L. Michael. The Tabernacle Pre-Figured: Cosmic Mountain Ideology in Genesis and Exodus. Biblical Tools and Studies 15, ed. B. Doyle, G. Van Belle, J. Verheyden and K. U. Leuven. Leuven, Belgium: Peeters, 2012.

Morray-Jones, Christopher R. A. “Transformational mysticism in the apocalyptic-merkabah tradition.” Journal of Jewish Studies 43 (1992): 1-31.

— — — . “Divine names, celestial sanctuaries, and visionary ascents: Approaching the New Testament from the perspective of Merkava traditions.” In The Mystery of God: Early Jewish Mysticism and the New Testament, edited by Christopher Rowland and Christopher R. A. Morray-Jones. Compendia Rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum 12, eds. Pieter Willem van der Horst and Peter J. Tomson, pp. 219-498. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, 2009.

Morrow, Jeff. “Creation as temple-building and work as liturgy in Genesis 1-3.” Journal of the Orthodox Center for the Advancement of Biblical Studies (JOCABS) 2, no. 1 (2009). http://www.ocabs.org/journal/index.php/jocabs/article/viewFile/43/18 (accessed July 2, 2009).

Neusner, Jacob, ed. Genesis Rabbah: The Judaic Commentary to the Book of Genesis, A New American Translation. 3 vols. Vol. 1: Parashiyyot One through Thirty-Three on Genesis 1:1 to 8:14. Brown Judaic Studies 104, ed. Jacob Neusner. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1985.

— — — , ed. Genesis Rabbah: The Judaic Commentary to the Book of Genesis, A New American Translation. 3 vols. Vol. 2: Parashiyyot Thirty-Four through Sixty-Seven on Genesis 8:15-28:9. Brown Judaic Studies 105, ed. Jacob Neusner. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1985.

Nibley, Hugh W. “The Babylonian Background.” In Lehi in the Desert, The World of the Jaredites, There Were Jaredites, edited by John W. Welch, Darrell L. Matthews and Stephen R. Callister. The Collected Works of Hugh Nibley 5, pp. 350-79. Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 1988.

— — — . “A twilight world.” In Lehi in the Desert, The World of the Jaredites, There Were Jaredites, edited by John W. Welch, Darrell L. Matthews, and Stephen R. Callister. The Collected Works of Hugh Nibley 5, 153-71. Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 1988.

— — — . 1966. “Tenting, toll, and taxing.” In The Ancient State, edited by Donald W. Perry and Stephen D. Ricks. The Collected Works of Hugh Nibley 10, pp. 33-98. Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 1991.

— — — . 1967. “Apocryphal writings and the teachings of the Dead Sea Scrolls.” In Temple and Cosmos: Beyond This Ignorant Present, edited by Don E. Norton. The Collected Works of Hugh Nibley 12, pp. 264-335. Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1992.

— — — . 1973. “Treasures in the heavens.” In Old Testament and Related Studies, edited by John W. Welch, Gary P. Gillum and Don E. Norton. The Collected Works of Hugh Nibley 1, 171-214. Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 1986.

— — — . 1975. “Sacred vestments.” In Temple and Cosmos: Beyond This Ignorant Present, edited by Don E. Norton. The Collected Works of Hugh Nibley 12, 91-138. Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1992.

— — — . 1975. The Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri: An Egyptian Endowment. 2nd ed. Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 2005.

— — — . 1980. “Before Adam.” In Old Testament and Related Studies, edited by John W. Welch, Gary P. Gillum and Don E. Norton. The Collected Works of Hugh Nibley 1, 49-85. Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 1986.

— — — . 1986. “Return to the temple.” In Temple and Cosmos: Beyond This Ignorant Present, edited by Don E. Norton. The Collected Works of Hugh Nibley 12, 42-90. Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 1992.

Noah, Mordecai M., ed. 1840. The Book of Jasher. Translated by Moses Samuel. Salt Lake City, UT: Joseph Hyrum Parry, 1887. Reprint, New York City, NY: Cosimo Classics, 2005.

Oppenheim, A. Leo. 1961. “II. The Mesopotamian temple.” In The Biblical Archaeologist Reader, edited by G. Ernest Wright and David Noel Freedman. 2 vols. Vol. 1, pp. 158-69. Missoula, Montana: Scholars Press, 1975.

Origen. ca. 200-254. “Commentary on John.” In The Ante-Nicene Fathers (The Writings of the Fathers Down to AD 325), edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. 10 vols. Vol. 10, pp. 297-408. Buffalo, NY: The Christian Literature Company, 1896. Reprint, Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2004.

Ostler, Blake T. “Clothed upon: A unique aspect of Christian antiquity.” BYU Studies 22, no. 1 (1981): 1-15.

Ouaknin, Marc-Alain, and Éric Smilévitch, eds. 1983. Chapitres de Rabbi Éliézer (Pirqé de Rabbi Éliézer): Midrach sur Genèse, Exode, Nombres, Esther. Les Dix Paroles, ed. Charles Mopsik. Lagrasse, France: Éditions Verdier, 1992.

Parry, Donald W. “Garden of Eden: Prototype sanctuary.” In Temples of the Ancient World, edited by Donald W. Parry, pp. 126-51. Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 1994.

— — — . “The cherubim, the flaming sword, the path, and the tree of life.” In The Tree of Life: From Eden to Eternity, edited by John W. Welch and Donald W. Parry, pp. 1-24. Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 2011.

Parry, Jay A., and Donald W. Parry. “The temple in heaven: Its description and significance.” In Temples of the Ancient World, edited by Donald W. Parry, pp. 515-32. Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 1994.

Potts, Daniel T. Mesopotamian Civilization: The Material Foundations. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1997. http://books.google.com/books?id=OdZS9gBu4KwC. (accessed July 24, 2012).

Pseudo-Lucian. 1913. The Syrian Goddess: ‘De Dea Syria’, ed. Herbert A. Strong and John Garstang: Forgotten Books, 2007. http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=as6QWT3ha3gC. (accessed August 8, 2012).

Pseudo-Philo. The Biblical Antiquities of Philo. Translated by Montague Rhodes James. London, England: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge (SPCK), 1917. Reprint, Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2006.

Rey, Alain. Dictionnaire Historique de la Langue Française. 2 vols. 3ième ed. Paris, France: Dictionnaires Le Robert, 2000.

Ri, Andreas Su-Min, ed. La Caverne des Trésors: Les deux recensions syriaques. 2 vols. Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium 486-487 (Scriptores Syri 207-208). Louvain, Belgium: Peeters, 1987.

— — — . Commentaire de la Caverne des Trésors: Étude sur l’Histoire du Texte et de ses Sources. Vol. Supplementary. Volume 103. Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium 581. Leuven, Belgium: Peeters, 2000.

Robinson, Edward. A Dictionary of the Holy Bible for General Use in the Study of the Scriptures with Engravings, Maps, and Tables. New York City, NY: The American Tract Society, 1859. http://books.google.com/books/about/A_Dictionary_of_the_Holy_Bible.html?id=fMgRAAAAYAAJ. (accessed July 28, 2012).

Robinson, Stephen E., and H. Dean Garrett, eds. A Commentary on the Doctrine and Covenants. 4 vols. Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 2001-2005.

Sailhamer, John H. “Genesis.” In The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, edited by Frank E. Gaebelein, pp. 1-284. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1990.

Sarna, Nahum M., ed. Genesis. The JPS Torah Commentary, ed. Nahum M. Sarna. Philadelphia, PA: The Jewish Publication Society, 1989.

Schwartz, Howard. Tree of Souls: The Mythology of Judaism. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, 2004.

Seixas, Joshua. A Manual of Hebrew Grammar for the Use of Beginners. Second enlarged and improved ed. Andover, MA: Gould and Newman, 1834. Reprint, Facsimile Edition. Salt Lake City, UT: Sunstone Foundation, 1981.

Smith, Mark S. The Priestly Vision of Genesis 1. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2010.

Sparks, Jack Norman, and Peter E. Gillquist, eds. The Orthodox Study Bible. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2008.

Steinmetz, Devora. “Vineyard, farm, and garden: The drunkenness of Noah in the context of primeval history.” Journal of Biblical Literature 113, no. 2 (1994): 193-207.

Stordalen, Terje. Echoes of Eden: Genesis 2-3 and the Symbolism of the Eden Garden in Biblical Hebrew Literature. Leuven, Belgium: Peeters, 2000.

Tomasino, Anthony J. “History repeats itself: The “fall” and Noah’s drunkenness.” Vetus Testamentum 42, no. 1 (January 1992): 128-30.

Tsumura, David Toshio. The First Book of Samuel. The New International Commentary on the Old Testament, ed. Robert L. Hubbard, Jr. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 2007.

Tvedtnes, John A. “Priestly clothing in Bible times.” In Temples of the Ancient World, edited by Donald W. Parry, pp. 649-704. Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 1994.

Vogels, Walter. «Cham découvre les limites de son père Noé.» Nouvelle Revue Théologique 109, no. 4 (1987): 554-73.

Walker, Charles Lowell. Diary of Charles Lowell Walker. 2 vols, ed. A. Karl Larson and Katharine Miles Larson. Logan, UT: Utah State University Press, 1980.

Walton, John H. Genesis 1 as Ancient Cosmology. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2011.

Wenham, Gordon J., ed. Genesis 1-15. Word Biblical Commentary 1: Nelson Reference and Electronic, 1987.

— — — . “Sanctuary symbolism in the Garden of Eden story.” In I Studied Inscriptions Before the Flood: Ancient Near Eastern, Literary, and Linguistic Approaches to Genesis 1-11, edited by Richard S. Hess and David Toshio Tsumura. Sources for Biblical and Theological Study 4, pp. 399-404. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1994.

Westermann, Claus, ed. 1974. Genesis 1-11: A Continental Commentary 1st ed. Translated by John J. Scullion. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1994.

Wevers, John William. Notes on the Greek Text of Genesis. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1993.

Wintermute, O. S. “Jubilees.” In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, edited by James H. Charlesworth. Vol. 2, pp. 35-142. Garden City, NY: Doubleday and Company, 1983.

Wyatt, Nicolas. “‘Water, water everywhere … ’: Musings on the aqueous myths of the Near East.” In The Mythic Mind: Essays on Cosmology and Religion in Ugaritic and Old Testament Literature, edited by Nicholas Wyatt, 189-237. London, England: Equinox, 2005.

Zlotowitz, Rabbi Meir, and Rabbi Nosson Scherman, eds. 1977. Bereishis/Genesis: A New Translation with a Commentary Anthologized from Talmudic, Midrashic and Rabbinic Sources 2nd ed. Two vols. ArtScroll Tanach Series, ed. Rabbi Nosson Scherman and Rabbi Meir Zlotowitz. Brooklyn, NY: Mesorah Publications, 1986.

Notes

1. Exodus 25:8-40.

2. 1 Chronicles 28:11-12, 19.

3. Genesis 6:14-16. Cf. E. A. Harper, You Shall Make, pp. 55-56; L. M. Morales, The Tabernacle Pre-Figured, pp. 147-149.

4. C. H. T. Fletcher-Louis, Glory, p. 41. See also Wyatt’s discussion of the arks of Noah and Moses, the ark of the Covenant, and the story of Utnapishtim in Gilgamesh (N. Wyatt, Water, pp. 214-216).

5. J. M. Bradshaw, Moses Temple Themes, pp. 77-87. Cf. Ephrem the Syrian, Paradise, p. 53; A. S.-M. Ri, Caverne Syriaque, p. 208. See the discussion in E. A. Harper, You Shall Make, p. 50 of readings of Genesis 6:16 in the Targums and the Septuagint, and for a description of parallels in 1 Kings 6:6 and Ezekiel 41:7.

1. J. D. G. Dunn et al., Commentary, p. 44. Following B. Jacob, Wenham further explains:
… that if each deck were further subdivided into three sections [cf. Gilgamesh’s nine sections (A. George, Gilgamesh, 11:62, p. 90)], the Ark would have had three decks the same height as the Tabernacle and three sections on each deck the same size as the Tabernacle courtyard.

Regarding similarities in the Genesis 1 account of Creation, the Exodus 25ff. account of the building of the Tabernacle, and the account of the building of the ark, Sailhamer writes (J. H. Sailhamer, Genesis, p. 82, see also table on p. 84):

Each account has a discernible pattern: God speaks (wayyo’mer/wayedabber), an action is commanded (imperative/jussive), and the command is carried out (wayya’as) according to God’s will (wayehi ken/kaaser siwwah ‘elohim). The key to these similarities lies in the observation that each narrative concludes with a divine blessing (wayebarek, Genesis 1:28, 9:1; Exodus 39:43) and, in the case of the Tabernacle and Noah’s ark, a divinely ordained covenant (Genesis 6:8; Exodus 34:27; in this regard it is of some importance that later biblical tradition also associated the events of Genesis 1-3 with the making of a divine covenant; cf. Hosea 6:7). Noah, like Moses, followed closely the commands of God and in so doing found salvation and blessing in his covenant.

1. V. P. Hamilton, Genesis 1-17, p. 280. See Exodus 27. Cf. J. W. Wevers, Notes, Genesis 6:14, p. 83. In other words, the dimensions of the Tabernacle courtyard “has the same width [as the Ark] but one-third the length and height” (Hendel in H. W. Attridge et al., HarperCollins Study Bible, p. 14 n. 6:14-16).

2. C. Dogniez et al., Pentateuque, p. 150 n. Genesis 6:14, pp. 314-315 n. Exodus 2:3.

3. See Genesis 6:15 and Exodus 25:10.

4. C. Westermann, Genesis 1-11, p. 418. Cassuto further observes (U. Cassuto, Noah to Abraham, p. 60):
The sentence “and the ark went on the face of the waters” (Genesis 8:18) is not suited to a boat, which is navigated by its mariners, but to something that floats on the surface of the waters and moves in accordance with the thrust of the water and wind. Similarly, the subsequent statement (Genesis 8:4) “the ark came to rest … upon the mountains of Ararat” implies an object that can rest upon the ground; this is easy for an ark to do, since its bottom is straight and horizontal, but not for a ship.

5. R. M. Zlotowitz et al., Bereishis, p. 230; cf. U. Cassuto, Noah to Abraham, pp. 60-61; L. M. Morales, The Tabernacle Pre-Figured, pp. 146-147.

6. U. Cassuto, Noah to Abraham, p. 60. This recalls the ancient Sumerian story of Enki’s Journey to Nibru, where the boat’s movement is not directed by its captain, but rather it “departs of its own accord” (J. A. Black et al., Enki’s Journey, 83-92, p. 332).

7. Exodus 2:3, 5. See U. Cassuto, Noah to Abraham, p. 59. Note, however, that the Greek Septuagint translates the Hebrew word (tevah) differently in Genesis 6:14 (kibotos) and Exodus 2:3 (thibis) (C. Dogniez et al., Pentateuque, pp. 314-315 n. Exodus 2:3). See C. Cohen, “Hebrew tbh” for a discussion of the difficulties in explaining why the same Hebrew term tevah was used in the story of Noah’s ark and the ark of Moses.

8. N. Wyatt, Water, p. 215. Cf. S. W. Holloway, What Ship, p. 346. See A. George, Gilgamesh, 11:81-85, p. 91.

9. L. M. Morales, The Tabernacle Pre-Figured, p. 170.

10. L. M. Morales, The Tabernacle Pre-Figured, p. 174.

11. L. M. Morales, The Tabernacle Pre-Figured, pp. 179-189.

12. See, e.g., U. Cassuto, Noah to Abraham, p. 61.

13. R. Alter, Five Books, Genesis 6:14, p. 41; K. L. Barker, Zondervan, Genesis 6:14, p. 14. Cf. A. Chouraqui, Bible, Genesis 6:14, p. 27: “Fais-toi une caisse en bois de cyprès” (= “Make a coffer of cypress wood”). See also A. Kaplan, La Torah Vivante, p. 17 n. 6.14 cyprès.

14. J. Feliks, Cypress.

15. For example, a 4500-year-old Cypress tree stands on the grounds of the Grand Mosque of Abarqu, near the village Shiraz in Iran’s southeastern province of Yazd (Abarqu’s cypress tree). Cf. A. V. W. Jackson, Cypress of Kashmar.

16. See, e.g., J. M. Bradshaw, God’s Image 1, Figure E25-2, p. 593, Endnote E-111, p. 729.

17. E.g., 1 Kings 6:34 (KJV mistranslates the wood as “fir”).

18. Exodus 30:11-13.

19. Exodus 25:17-22.

20. Exodus 29-30; Leviticus and Numbers passim.

21. See J. M. Bradshaw, God’s Image 1, Endnote 3-57, p. 211; E. A. Harper, You Shall Make, pp. 3-4. Of the meaning of kpr, Margaret Barker writes (M. Barker, Atonement):
Atonement translates the Hebrew kpr, but the meaning of kpr in a ritual context is not known. Investigations have uncovered only what actions were used in the rites of atonement, not what that action was believed to effect. The possibilities for its meaning are “cover” or “smear” or “wipe,” but these reveal no more than the exact meaning of “breaking bread” reveals about the Christian Eucharist …. I should like to quote here from an article by Mary Douglas published’ … in Jewish Studies Quarterly (M. Douglas, Atonement, p. 117. See also M. Douglas, Leviticus, p. 234: “Leviticus actually says less about the need to wash or purge than it says about ‘covering.’”):

Terms derived from cleansing, washing and purging have imported into biblical scholarship distractions which have occluded Leviticus’ own very specific and clear description of atonement. According to the illustrative cases from Leviticus, to atone means to cover or recover, cover again, to repair a hole, cure a sickness, mend a rift, make good a torn or broken covering. As a noun, what is translated atonement, expiation or purgation means integument made good; conversely, the examples in the book indicate that defilement means integument torn. Atonement does not mean covering a sin so as to hide it from the sight of God; it means making good an outer layer which has rotted or been pierced.

This sounds very like the cosmic covenant with its system of bonds maintaining the created order, broken by sin and repaired by “atonement.”

22. See discussion of the hypothesis that analogous structures in First Dynasty Egypt were adopted from Mesopotamian temple architecture in J. M. McCann, Woven, p. 117.

23. Cf. R. A. Carter, Watercraft, p. 364:
These boats are … best understood as composite wooden-framed vessels with reed-bundle hulls. Such a boat would have been cheaper to build than one with a fully planked hull and stronger than one without a wooden frame … The use of wooden frames with reed-bundle hulls conforms to the archaeological evidence …

Both wooden and composite boats were covered with bitumen. The RJ-2 slabs also suggest that matting was stitched onto the reed hull prior to coating.

See also D. T. Potts, Mesopotamian Civilization, pp. 122-137.

24. A. L. Oppenheim, Mesopotamian Temple, p. 158.

25. J. A. Black et al., Literature of Ancient Sumer, p. 330. Continuing, Black, et al. write that Enki’s:
… primary temple was … at Eridug deep in the marshes in the far south of Mesopotamia. Eridug was considered to be the oldest city, the first to be inhabited before the Flood … Excavations at Eridug have confirmed that ancient belief — and a small temple with burned offerings and fish bones was found in the lowest levels, dating to some time in the early fifth millennium BCE.”

Eridug or Eridu, now Tell abu Shahrain in southern Mesopotamia, is associated by some scholars (e.g., N. M. Sarna, Genesis, p. 36) with the name of the biblical character “Irad” (Genesis 4:18), and the city built by his father Enoch, son of Cain (Genesis 4:17).

26. J. M. McCann, Woven, p. 113.

27. T. Jacobsen, Eridu, 89-92, p. 158.

28. Cf. H. W. Nibley, Babylonian Background, p. 362: “The manner in which [Utnapishtim] received the revelation is interesting: the will of father Anu, the Lord of Heaven, was transmitted to the hero through a screen or partition made of matting, a kikkisu, such as was ritually used in temples.” See also J. M. Bradshaw, Tree of Knowledge.

29. T. Jacobsen, Eridu, 93-96, p. 158.

30. E.g., S. Dalley, Atrahasis, 3:21-22, p. 29; A. George, Gilgamesh, 11:22-24, p. 89.

31. S. Dalley, Atrahasis, 3:2, p. 30:
The carpenter [brought his axe,]

The reed worker [brought his stone,]

[A child brought] bitumen.

A. George, Gilgamesh, 11:53-55, p. 90:

The young men were … ,

the old men bearing ropes of palm-fibre

the rich man was carrying the pitch

32. J. M. McCann, Woven, pp. 131-32.

33. See J. M. McCann, Woven, pp. 124-134 for an extended discussion of this translation issue.

34. R. De Vaux, Bible, Genesis 6:14, p. 25.

35. Recognizing that even the most seemingly permanent temple complexes are best viewed only as way stations, Nibley generalized the concept of mobile sanctuaries to include all current earthly structures (H. W. Nibley, Tenting, pp. 42-43):
The most wonderful thing about Jerusalem the Holy City is its mobility: at one time it is taken up to heaven and at another it descends to earth or even makes a rendezvous with the earthly Jerusalem at some point in space halfway between. In this respect both the city and the temple are best thought of in terms of a tent, … at least until the time comes when the saints “will no longer have to use a movable tent” [Origen, John, 10:23, p. 404. “The pitching of the tent outside the camp represents God’s remoteness from the impure world” (H. W. Nibley, Tenting, p. 79 n. 40)] according to the early Fathers, who get the idea from the New Testament … [e.g., “John 1:14 reads literally, ‘the logos was made flesh and pitched his tent [eskenosen] among us’; and after the Resurrection the Lord ‘camps’ with his disciples, Acts 1:4. At the Transfiguration Peter prematurely proposed setting up three tents for taking possession (Matthew 17:4; Mark 9:5; Luke 9:33)” (ibid., p. 80 n. 41)] It is now fairly certain, moreover, that the great temples of the ancients were not designed to be dwelling-houses of deity but rather stations or landing-places, fitted with inclined ramps, stairways, passageways, waiting-rooms, elaborate systems of gates, and so forth, for the convenience of traveling divinities, whose sacred boats and wagons stood ever ready to take them on their endless junkets from shrine to shrine and from festival to festival through the cosmic spaces. The Great Pyramid itself, we are now assured, is the symbol not of immovable stability but of constant migration and movement between the worlds; and the ziggurats of Mesopotamia, far from being immovable, are reproduced in the seven-stepped throne of the thundering sky-wagon.

36. Cf. 2 Samuel 22.

37. Psalm 18:6; D&C 121:2. J. F. McConkie et al., Revelations, p. 945 mistakenly identifies the “pavilion” of D&C 121:1 as God’s heavenly residence, while S. E. Robinson et al., D&C Commentary, 4:151 correctly identifies the “pavilion” as a “movable tent.”

38. Appropriately translated from the Greek as “Tabernacle” (J. N. Sparks et al., Orthodox Study Bible, Psalm 17(18):12, p. 691). Eden surmises: “No doubt the historical model closest to this is the apadâna of the Persian sovereign, the pavilion of the royal palace in which the King of kings sat in his throne to receive his subjects. In some texts of the Jewish tradition, the link which ties the description of the divine audience room to the earthly royal one is clearly shown. For instance, in the Pirkei De Rebbe Eliezer, an early medieval Midrash, we can read (G. B. Eden, Mystical Architecture, p. 22; cf. M.-A. Ouaknin et al., Rabbi Éliézer, 12, p. 82): ‘[God] let Adam into his apadâna, as it is written: And put him into the Garden of Eden to cultivate it and to keep it’ (Genesis 2:15).”

39. K. L. Barker, Zondervan, p. 803 n. 18:7-15. Some Christians also came to view this Psalm as foreshadowing the Incarnation (J. N. Sparks et al., Orthodox Study Bible, p. 691 n. 17). Noah’s ark was sometimes seen in a similar fashion: “The ark was a type of the Mother of God with Christ and the Church in her womb (Akath). The flood-waters were a type of baptism, in which we are saved (1 Peter 3:18-22)” (ibid., Genesis 6:14-21, p. 12).

40. R. Alter, Psalms, p. 53 n. 8.

41. Genesis 7:18.

42. Genesis 1:2. The singular rather than the plural term for “water” appears in JST OT2, the source of Moses 2:2 (S. H. Faulring et al., Original Manuscripts, p. 595). However “waters” (Hebrew mayim) the original term in Genesis, is used in JST OT1 as well as in the later translation of the book of Abraham. This raises the possibility that the change in OT2 was made erroneously or on John Whitmer’s initiative rather than the Prophet’s (see K. P. Jackson, Book of Moses, p. 10).

43. V. P. Hamilton, Genesis 1-17, p. 267. Though differing in detail, a number of Jewish sources describe the similar process of the removal of the Shekhinah — representing God’s presence — in various stages, and its return at the dedication of the Tabernacle. See, e.g., H. Schwartz, Tree, p. 51, see also pp. 55-56.

44. Genesis 7:18.

45. Genesis 1:2.

46. E. A. Harper, You Shall Make, p. 54. Cf. L. M. Morales, The Tabernacle Pre-Figured, pp. 151-54. Morales argues that the “building and filling of the Ark … exhibit a correspondence with the ‘building’ and filling of the cosmos” at the time of Creation (ibid., p. 152).

47. E. A. Harper, You Shall Make, p. 54.

48. L. M. Morales, The Tabernacle Pre-Figured, p. 154.

49. Cf. H. W. Nibley, Treasures, p. 185, where he argues from Mandaean and Gnostic sources describing the process of creating new worlds through a “colonizing process called ‘planting.’” “[T]hose spirits that bring their treasures to a new world are called ‘Plants,’ more rarely ‘seeds,’ of their father or ‘Planter’ in another world [cf. Adam’s “planting” (E. S. Drower, Prayerbook, #378, pp. 283, 286, 290)]. Every planting goes out from a Treasure House, either as the essential material elements or as the colonizers themselves, who come from a sort of mustering-area called the ‘Treasure-house of Souls.’”

50. The word describing the agent of divine movement is expressed in the beginning of the story of Creation and in the story of the Flood using the same Hebrew term, ruach (in Genesis 1:2, the KJV translates this as “spirit,” while in Genesis 8:1 it is rendered as “wind”). In the former, the ruach is described as “moving” using the Hebrew verb merahepet, which literally “denotes a physical activity of flight over water” (M. S. Smith, Priestly Vision, p. 55), however Walton has argued that the wider connotation in both the Creation and Flood accounts expresses “a state of preparedness” (J. H. Walton, Genesis 1, p. 149): “ruach is related to the presence of the deity, preparing to participate in Creation” (ibid., p. 149).

Consistent with this reading that understands this verse as a period of divine preparation, the creation story in Joseph Smith’s book of Abraham employs the term “brooding” rather than “moving” as we find in the King James Version. Note that this change is consistent with the English translation Hebrew grammar book that was studied by Joseph Smith in Kirtland (see J. Seixas, Manual, p. 31). John Milton (H. J. Hodges, Dove; J. Milton, Paradise Lost, 1:19-22, p. 16; cf. Augustine, Literal, 18:36; E. A. W. Budge, Cave, p. 44) interpreted the passage similarly in Paradise Lost, drawing from images such as the dove sent out by Noah (Genesis 8:6-12), the dove at Jesus’ baptism (John 1:32), and a hen protectively covering her young with her wing (Luke 13:34):
[T]hou from the first

Wast present, and with mighty wings outspread

Dovelike satst brooding on the vast abyss

And mad’st it pregnant.”

“Brooding” enjoys rich connotations, including, as Nibley observes (H. W. Nibley, Before Adam, p. 69), not only “to sit or incubate [eggs] for the purpose of hatching” but also:

… “to dwell continuously on a subject.” Brooding is just the right word — a quite long quiet period of preparation in which apparently nothing was happening. Something was to come out of the water, incubating, waiting — a long, long time.

Some commentators emphatically deny any connection of the Hebrew term with the concept of brooding (e.g., U. Cassuto, Adam to Noah, pp. 24-25). However, the “brooding” interpretation is not only attested by a Syriac cognate (F. Brown et al., Lexicon, 7363, p. 934b) but also has a venerable history, going back at least to Rashi, who spoke specifically of the relationship between the dove and its nest. In doing so, he referred to the Old French term acoveter, related both to the modern French couver (from Latin cubare — to brood and protect) and couvrir (from Latin cooperire — to cover completely). Intriguingly, this latter sense is related to the Hebrew term for the atonement, kipper (M. Barker, Atonement; A. Rey, Dictionnaire, 1:555).

Going further, Barker admits the possibility of a subtle wordplay in examining the reversal of consonantal sounds between “brood/hover” and “atone”: “The verb for ‘hover’ is rchp, the middle letter is cheth, and the verb for ‘atone’ is kpr, the initial letter being a kaph, which had a similar sound. The same three consonantal sounds could have been word play, rchp/kpr” (M. Barker, 11 June 2007). “There is sound play like this in the temple style” (ibid.; see M. Barker, Hidden, pp. 15-17). In this admittedly speculative interpretation, one might see an image of God, prior to the first day of Creation, figuratively “hovering/atoning” [rchp/kpr] over the singularity of the inchoate universe, just as the Ark smeared with pitch [kaphar] later moved over the face of the waters “when the waters cover[ed] over and atone[d] for the violence of the world” (E. A. Harper, You Shall Make, p. 4).

51. 1 Peter 3:20.

52. In the following chiastic structuring of the account, Wenham demonstrates the pattern of “waiting” throughout the story, as well as the centrality of the theme of Genesis 8:1: “But God remembered Noah” (G. J. Wenham, Genesis 1-15, p. 157):
7 days of waiting for flood (7:4)

7 days of waiting for flood (7:10)

40 days of flood (7:17a)

150 days of water triumphing (7:24)

150 days of water waning (8:3)

40 days of waiting (8:6)

7 days of waiting (8:10)

7 days of waiting (8:12)

53. J. H. Sailhamer, Genesis, p. 89 observes:
The description of God’s rescue of Noah foreshadows God’s deliverance of Israel in the Exodus. Just as later “God remembered his covenant” (Exodus 2:24) and sent “a strong east wind” to dry up the waters before his people (Exodus 14:21) so that they “went through … on dry ground” (Exodus 14:22), so also in the story of the Flood we read that “God remembered” those in the ark and sent a “wind” over the waters (Genesis 8:1) so that his people might come out on “dry ground” (Genesis 8:14).

54. J. M. Lundquist, Meeting Place, p. 7. Ancient temples found in other cultures throughout the world also represent — and are often built upon — elevations that emulate the holy mountain at the starting point of Creation (see, e.g., E. A. S. Butterworth, Tree; R. J. Clifford, Cosmic Mountain; R. J. Clifford, Temple).

55. E.g., Psalm 104:5-9.

56. Genesis 8:13.

57. Exodus 40:1, emphasis added.

58. N. Wyatt, Water, pp. 215-216, emphasis added. See 1 Kings 8:2. Wyatt remarks that the expression about the New Year festival comes from S. W. Holloway, What Ship, noting that “[m]any scholars regard the search for the New Year festival to be something of a futile exercise” (N. Wyatt, Water, p. 235 n. 129).

59. Moses 5:5-8.

60. Genesis 8:20.

61. See Moses 2:28; Genesis 9:1, 7.

62. See Moses 2:28-30, 3:9, 16-17; Genesis 9:2-4.

63. See Moses 5:5, 59; Genesis 9:9-17.

64. See Pseudo-Philo, Biblical Antiquities, 19:11, pp. 129-130.

65. See J. M. Bradshaw et al., Investiture Panel, pp. 38-39 for a brief summary of the symbolism of the staff, and B. N. Fisk, Remember, pp. 276-281 for Pseudo-Philo’s identification of the staff with the rainbow. Just prior to his equating of the rainbow and the staff as a “witness between me and my people,” Pseudo-Philo, Biblical Antiquities, 19:12, pp. 130 has the Lord showing Moses “the measures of the sanctuary, and the number of the offerings, and the sign whereby men shall interpret (literally, begin to look upon) the heaven, and said: These are the things which were forbidden to the sons of men because they sinned” (cf. JST Exodus 34:1-2).

66. See Moses 4:27; Genesis 9:21-22.

67. G. J. Wenham, Genesis 1-15, p. 198.

68. L. M. Morales, The Tabernacle Pre-Figured, p. 197. Cf. O. S. Wintermute, Jubilees, 6:2, p. 66: “And he made atonement for the land. And he took the kid of a goat, and he made atonement with its blood for all the sins of the land because everything which was on it had been blotted out except those who were in the ark with Noah.” See also F. G. Martinez, Genesis Apocryphon, 10:13, p. 231: “I atoned for the whole earth.”

69. Genesis 9:20-25.

70. I.e.:”In the biblical text the final letter of oholoh, his tent, is a he, rather than the normal masculine possesive suffix (vav). The suffix he usually denotes the feminine possessive, her” (D. C. Matt, Zohar 1, 1:73a-b, p. 434 n. 700).

71. J. Neusner, Genesis Rabbah 2, 36:3, p. 30: “The word for ‘his tent’ is written as if it were to be read ‘in her tent,’ namely , in the tent of his wife.”

72. For example, Cohen, having explored the “symbolic meaning of wine in ancient cultures,” concludes that Noah’s actions in this regard have been completely misunderstood, the result of “biblical scholarship’s failure” in explaining the meaning of the enigmatic incident. Summarizing Cohen’s view, Haynes writes (S. R. Haynes, Curse, pp. 188-189; see H. H. Cohen, Drunkenness, pp. 8, 12):

Cohen explores Israelite and other traditions to elucidate a complex relationship between alcohol, fire, and sexuality. Drawing on this connection, he surmises that Noah’s drunkenness is indicative not of a deficiency in character but of a good-faith attempt to replenish the earth following the Flood. Indeed, Noah’s “determination to maintain his procreative ability at full strength resulted in drinking himself into a state of helpless intoxication.” How ironic, Cohen notes, that in acceding to the divine command to renew the earth’s population, Noah suffered the opprobrium of drunkenness. In Cohen’s view, he “deserves not censure but acclaim for having played so well the role of God’s devoted servant.”

73. D. C. Matt, Zohar 1, 1:73a-b, p. 434 n. 700. Cf. related references in the Zohar to the same concept in the story of Abraham (ibid., 1:80a, p. 18, 184a, p. 34).

74. D. C. Matt, Zohar 2, 1:84a, p. 34.

75. Koler and Greenspahn, as discussed in W. Vogels, Cham Découvre, pp. 566-567. Cf., e.g., D. C. Matt, Zohar 2, 1:80a, p. 18 n. 128: “Rabbi Shim’on interprets the final he … as an allusion to the divine, because Shekhinah is symbolized by the final he of the name YHVH, or because the letter he stands for ha-shem, “the [divine] name.” See also ibid., 1:84a, p. 34.

76. J. Blenkinsopp, The structure of P, p. 285.

77. J. Blenkinsopp, The structure of P, p. 285. See Pseudo-Lucian, De Dea Syria, 13, p. 34.

78. J. Blenkinsopp, The structure of P, p. 285. See also S. W. Holloway, What Ship, p. 334-335, which cites Patai’s account of related rabbinic legends about the capping of the Deep with the foundation stone of the temple, on which was written the forty-two letters of the ineffable Name of God.

79. E.g., M. J. B. bin Gorion et al., Mimekor, 1:24; J. Neusner, Genesis Rabbah 1, 36:3, pp. 28-29.

80. Remarking on the odd inconsistency implied by the common understanding of Noah’s actions, G. J. Wenham, Genesis 1-15, p. 198 n. 21 writes:
So striking is the contrast between Noah the saint who survived the Flood and Noah the inebriated vintner that many commentators argue that the two traditions are completely incompatible and must be of independent origin.

81. Joseph Smith, Jr., as reported by William Allen to Charles Lowell Walker (C. L. Walker, Diary, 12 May 1881, 2:554).

82. J. A. Fitzmyer, Genesis Apocryphon, 13:8-15:20, pp. 89-93.

83. Koler and Greenspahn, quoted in W. Vogels, Cham Découvre, p. 567 n. 31.

84. L. M. Morales, The Tabernacle Pre-Figured, pp. 171-203.

85. L. M. Morales, The Tabernacle Pre-Figured, p. 185.

86. L. M. Morales, The Tabernacle Pre-Figured, pp. 171, 203.

87. L. M. Morales, The Tabernacle Pre-Figured, p. 185 writes:
Given the analogy between the Garden [of Eden] and the Holy of Holies of the Tabernacle/temple, and that between the Ark and the Tabernacle/temple, Noah’s entrance may be understood as that of a high priest … ascending the cosmic mountain of Yahweh — an idea “fleshed out,” as it were, when Noah walks the summit of the Ararat mount. The veil separating off the Holy of Holies served as an “objective and material witness to the conceptual boundary drawn between the area behind it and all other areas,” a manifest function of the Ark door.

88. Genesis 14:18.

89. JST Genesis 14:25-40. Cf. Genesis 14:17-24. See J. M. Bradshaw, Temple Themes in the Oath, pp. 53-58.

90. Genesis 14:20.

91. J. A. Fitzmyer, Genesis Apocryphon, 12:17, p. 87.

92. O. S. Wintermute, Jubilees, 7:2, p. 69. Cf. J. A. Fitzmyer, Genesis Apocryphon, 12:13-17, p. 87. In the same scene, the Genesis Apocryphon has Noah saying: “I blessed the Lord of Heaven, God Most High, the Great Holy One, who had delivered us from the destruction” (ibid., 12:17, p. 87). Ostensibly, Noah is referring to his preservation in the Flood (cf. O. S. Wintermute, Jubilees, 7:34, p. 71), but J. A. Fitzmyer, Genesis Apocryphon, p. 163 notes that there are multiple OT connotations to the Hebrew term used for “destruction.”

93. H. C. Kee, Testaments, Levi 8:4-6, p. 791; John 13:4 (see J. M. Smith, She Hath Wrought, pp. 32-35 for a discussion of the royal and priestly context of this and related biblical anointings); John 13:4-17 (cf. John 12:3); Matthew 26:26-29; Mark 14:22-24; Luke 22:14-20; and D&C 27:5.

94. 1 Samuel 19:24.

95. R. Jamieson et al., Commentary, pp. 219-220 n. 24. Cf. D. T. Tsumura, 1 Samuel, p. 499.

96. E. Robinson, Dictionary, p. 302 s.v. Naked.

97. Cf. G. J. Wenham, Genesis 1-15, p. 200: “Westerners who are strangers to a world where discretion and filial loyalty are supreme virtues have often felt that there must be something more to Ham’s offense than appears on the surface.”

98. I.e., maternal incest, drawing on the prohibition in Leviticus 18:7-8 that equates the act of uncovering “the nakedness of [one’s] mother” with the idea of having uncovered the nakedness of one’s father. See, e.g., J. S. Bergsma et al., Noah’s Nakedness. For related precedents for such actions, see the incident of Reuben with his father’s concubine (Genesis 35:22, 49:3-4), and Absalom’s attempt “to secure his hold on the kingdom by going in to his father’s concubines (2 Samuel 16:20-23)” (G. J. Wenham, Genesis 1-15, p. 200).

99. I.e., castration or homosexual relations. On the former, see, e.g., M.-A. Ouaknin et al., Rabbi Éliézer, 23, p. 142. On the latter, see, e.g., J. L. Kugel, Traditions, p. 222; D. Steinmetz, Vineyard, pp. 198-199.

100. G. J. Wenham, Genesis 1-15, p. 200.

101. U. Cassuto, Noah to Abraham, p. 151. Cf. C. Westermann, Genesis 1-11, p. 488 n. 9:22: “All … conjectures [of a graver sin] have missed the point. They have not seen that Ham’s outrage consists in not covering his father.”

102. After having reviewed the evidence for the various views, Embry vigorously argues against proponents of the idea that Ham committed a “sexually deviant act” and produces evidence for the assertion that the “voyeuristic position is the likely explanation for Noah’s reaction against Ham: it was simply the act of seeing Noah uncovered that warranted the cursing from Noah” (B. Embry, Naked Narrative, p. 417). W. Vogels, Cham Découvre, p. 568 likewise concludes that there is “nothing in the statement that Ham ‘saw the nakedness of his father’ that hints at a sexual act.”

103. Koler and Greenspahn, quoted in W. Vogels, Cham Découvre, p. 567 n. 31.

104. See Genesis 7:1.

105. 111. See, e.g., G. K. Beale, Temple, pp. 66-80; J. M. Bradshaw, God’s Image 1, pp. 146-49; R. N. Holzapfel et al., Father’s House, pp. 17-19; J. M. Lundquist, Reality; J. Morrow, Creation; D. W. Parry, Garden; D. W. Parry, Cherubim; J. A. Parry et al., Temple in Heaven; T. Stordalen, Echoes, pp. 112-116, 308-309; G. J. Wenham, Sanctuary Symbolism.

106. Ephrem the Syrian, Paradise, 3:5, p. 92.

107. R. M. Zlotowitz et al., Bereishis, p. 101, cf. p. 96. See also L. Ginzberg, Legends, 1:70, 5:91 n. 50.

108. Brock in Ephrem the Syrian, Paradise, p. 53. See Ephrem the Syrian, Paradise, 2:9-13, pp. 88-89, 3:1-5, pp. 90-92. See also C. Buck, Paradise, pp. 259-288; A. S.-M. Ri, Commentaire de la Caverne, p. 208.

109. Brock in Ephrem the Syrian, Paradise, p. 52.

110. G. A. Anderson, Perfection, p. 129; cf. C. R. A. Morray-Jones, Divine Names, pp. 372-373. Morray-Jones, following Chernus, notes however that, at least in some cases, “underlying these traditions is a theme of ‘initiatory death,’ … leading to rebirth” (C. R. A. Morray-Jones, Transformational, p. 23).

111. J. M. Bradshaw et al., Mormonism’s Satan, pp. 18-19.

112. By analogy to the layout of the Garden of Eden. For those who take the Tree of Life to be a representation within the Holy of Holies, it is natural to see the tree itself as the locus of God’s throne (Revelation 22:1-3, G. A. Anderson et al., Synopsis, Greek 22:4, p. 62E). “[T]he Garden, at the center of which stands the throne of glory, is the royal audience room, which only those admitted to the sovereign’s presence can enter” (G. B. Eden, Mystical Architecture, p. 22).

113. Koler and Greenspahn, as discussed in W. Vogels, Cham Découvre, pp. 566-567. Cf., e.g., D. C. Matt, Zohar 1, 1:73a-b, p. 434 n. 700: “‘the tent of the vineyard,’ namely the tent of Shekhinah.”

114. Genesis 9:21.

115. Compare Moses 3:9; 4:9, 14.

116. R. M. Zlotowitz et al., Bereishis, p. 101, cf. p. 96. See also L. Ginzberg, Legends, 1:70, 5:91 n. 50.

117. Genesis 3:9.

118. T. L. Brodie, Dialogue, p. 192.

119. D. C. Matt, Zohar 1, 1:73a, p. 431. A. J. Tomasino, History, p. 130 elaborates on the role of the “serpent” in the Garden of Eden and in Noah’s garden:
When he saw his father’s nakedness, Ham went and told (wayyagged) his brothers about it (Genesis 9:22). When Adam and Eve told Yahweh God that they had hidden because they were naked, God asked, “Who told (higgid) you that you were naked?” (Genesis 3:1). The source of this information turned out to be the serpent. Furthermore, when Ham told his brothers about their father’s nudity, he was undoubtedly tempting them with forbidden knowledge (the opportunity to see their father’s nakedness). Finally, for his part in the Fall, the serpent was cursed (‘arur) more than any of the other creatures (Genesis 3:14). His offspring were doomed to be subject to the woman’s offspring (Genesis 3:15). Ham’s offspring, too, became cursed (‘arur), doomed to subjugation to the offspring of his brothers (Genesis 9:25).

120. M. McNamara, Targum Neofiti, 9:27, pp. 80-81.

121. H. W. Nibley, Twilight World, pp. 169-170.

122. E.g., M.-A. Ouaknin et al., Rabbi Éliézer, 24, pp. 145-146.

123. Genesis 3:21.

124. H. Freedman et al., Midrash, 4:8 (Numbers 3:45), pp. 101-102. The Mandaean Book of John asserts that the garment of Adam was passed down to Noah, and eventually came down to John the Baptist so that he might make his ascent (M. Lidzbarski, Johannesbuch, John-Jonah, p. 83).

125. L. M. Morales, The Tabernacle Pre-Figured, p. 157.

126. Genesis 8:13.

127. Exodus 40:19.

128. L. M. Morales, The Tabernacle Pre-Figured, p. 157 notes that “the Ark [is] the only exception to the term’s otherwise exclusive usage in reference to the tent of meeting.”

129. Quoted in H. W. Nibley, Return, p. 81.

130. H. W. Nibley, Return, p. 126.

131. Moses 7:3. Cf. H. W. Nibley, Vestments, pp. 118-119:
Why the insistence on [the idea of being “clothed upon with glory”]? Enoch says, “I was clothed upon with glory. Therefore I could stand in the presence of God” (cf. Moses 1:2, 31). Otherwise he could not. It is the garment that gives confidence in the presence of God; one does not feel too exposed (2 Nephi 9:14). That garment is the garment … of divinity. So as Enoch says, “I was clothed upon with glory, and I saw the Lord” (Moses 7:3-4), just as Moses saw Him “face to face, … and the glory of God was upon Moses; therefore Moses could endure his presence (Moses 1:2). In 2 Enoch, discovered in 1892, we read, “The Lord spoke to me with his own mouth: … ‘Take Enoch and remove his earthly garments and anoint him with holy oil and clothe him in his garment of glory.’ … And I looked at myself, and I looked like one of the glorious ones” (see F. I. Andersen, 2 Enoch, 22:5, 8, 10, pp. 137, 139). Being no different from him in appearance, he is qualified now, in the manner of initiation. He can go back and join them because he has received a particular garment of glory.

It appears that the ritual garment of skins was needed only for a protection during one’s probation on earth. Ephrem the Syrian asserted that when Adam “returned to his former glory, … [he] no longer had any need of [fig] leaves or garments of skin” (Commentary on the Diatessaron, cited in M. Barker, Hidden, p. 34). Note also Joseph Smith’s careful description of the angel Moroni (JS-H 1:31): “I could discover that he had no other clothing on but this robe, as it was open, so that I could see into his bosom.” We infer that Moroni had forever laid aside his “garment of repentance,” since he was now permanently clothed with glory. The protection provided by the garment was accompanied by a promise of heavenly assistance. In this connection, Nibley paraphrases a passage from the Mandaean Ginza: “ … when Adam stood praying for light and knowledge a helper came to him, gave him a garment, and told him, ‘Those men who gave you the garment will assist you throughout your life until you are ready to leave earth’” (H. W. Nibley, Apocryphal, p. 299. The German reads: “Wie Adam dasteht und sich aufzuklären sucht, kam der Mann, sein Helfer. Der hohe Helfer kam zu ihm, der ihn in ein Stück reichen Glanzes hineintrug. Er sprach zu ihm: ‘Ziehe dein Gewand an … Die Männer, die dein Gewand geschaffen, dienen dir, bis du abscheidest’” (M. Lidzbarski, Ginza, GL 2:19, p. 488)).

When this time of probation ended, the garment of light or glory that was previously had in the heavenly realms was to be returned to the righteous. As Nibley explained (H. W. Nibley, Message 2005, p. 489. See also E. Hennecke et al., Acts of Thomas, 108.9-15, pp. 498-499; B. T. Ostler, Clothed, p. 4):

The garment [of light] represents the preexistent glory of the candidate … When he leaves on his earthly mission, it is laid up for him in heaven to await his return. It thus serves as security and lends urgency and weight to the need for following righteous ways on earth. For if one fails here, one loses not only one’s glorious future in the eternities to come, but also the whole accumulation of past deeds and accomplishments in the long ages of preexistence.

While Noah had not yet finished his probation when he spoke with Deity in the tent, he and others of the prophets experienced a temporary transfiguration that clothed them with glory and allowed them to endure God’s presence (see, e.g., Moses 1:12-14, 31; 7:3). A conjecture consistent with this view is that Ham took the garment of skins that Noah had laid temporarily aside during his transfiguration.

132. M.-A. Ouaknin et al., Rabbi Éliézer, 24, pp. 145-146. Cf. M. M. Noah, Jasher, 7:27, p. 15, which, according to Ginzberg, derived its version of the story from Rabbi Eliezer (L. Ginzberg, Legends, 5:199 n. 78). See also M. J. bin Gorion (Berdichevsky), Die Sagen, p. 211: “Doch in der Zeit, da er die Arche verliess, stahl Ham seinem Vater jenes Kleid weg und verwahrte es vor seinen Brüdern” (= “After he left the Ark, Ham stole his father’s garment and hid it from his brothers”).

133. M.-A. Ouaknin et al., Rabbi Éliézer, 24, p. 148. See J. A. Tvedtnes, Clothing, pp. 654-659 for a discussion of Jewish traditions relating to the stolen garment. Midrash Rabbah, on the other hand, says that Noah’s garment was passed on to Shem and then eventually to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (H. Freedman et al., Midrash, 4:8 [Numbers 3:45], pp. 102-103). Al-Tha’labi tells of how when (A. I. A. I. M. I. I. al-Tha’labi, Lives, p. 190):
Abraham was stripped of his clothes and thrown into the fire naked, Gabriel brought him a shirt made from the silk of the Garden [of Eden] and clothed him in it. That shirt remained with Abraham, and when he died, Isaac inherited it. When Isaac died, Jacob inherited it from him, and when Joseph grew up, Jacob put that shirt in an amulet and placed it on Joseph’s neck to protect him from the evil eye. He never parted with it. When he was thrown into the pit naked, the angel came to him with the amulet. He took out the shirt, dressed Joseph in it, and kept him company by day.

Later, when Joseph learned that his aged father had lost his eyesight (ibid., p. 228):

… he gave them his shirt. Al-Dahhak said that that shirt was woven in Paradise, and it had the smell of Paradise. When it only touched an afflicted or ailing man, that man would be restored to health and be cured … [Joseph] said to them, “Take this shirt of mine and cast it on my father’s face, he will again be able to see” (Qur’an 12:93) …

134. S. C. Malan, Adam and Eve, 1:50-51, pp. 55-56, cf. 2:17, p. 128.

135. G. R. S. Mead, Pistis, 1:55:18-24, p. 89. Cf. Psalms of Thomas 2; cf. C. R. C. A. Allberry, Psalm-Book, 2:205, quoted in H. W. Nibley, Vestments, p. 128.

136. See, e.g., J. H. Sailhamer, Genesis, p. 94 n. 8:20-9:17.

137. See, e.g., A. J. Tomasino, History, p. 129.

138. See, e.g., J. H. Sailhamer, Genesis, p. 80; A. J. Tomasino, History, pp. 129-130.

Jeffrey M. Bradshaw (Ph.D., Cognitive Science, University of Washington) is a senior research scientist at the Florida Institute for Human and Machine Cognition (IHMC) in Pensacola, Florida. His professional writings have explored a wide range of topics in human and machine intelligence. Jeff has written a detailed commentary on the first five chapters of the book of Moses (Creation, Fall, and the Story of Adam and Eve, In God’s Image and Likeness 1, Eborn, 2010 (updated edition 2014)), and, with David J. Larsen, has published a second volume continuing the commentary through JST Genesis 11 (Enoch, Noah, and the Tower of Babel, In God’s Image and Likeness 2, Eborn, 2014). He has also authored Temple Themes in the Book of Moses, Temple Themes in the Oath and Covenant of the Priesthood, and articles on temple studies and the ancient Near East for Studies in the Bible and Antiquity, Element: A Journal of Mormon Philosophy and Theology, Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture, and BYU Studies. Jeff serves as a Vice President of The Interpreter Foundation and as a member of the Academy for Temple Studies Advisory Board. Jeff was a missionary in the Belgium-Brussels Mission and has since served in a variety of Church capacities, including early-morning seminary teacher, bishop, high councilor, and temple ordinance worker. He currently serves as a counselor in the Pensacola Florida Stake Presidency. Jeff and his wife, Kathleen, are the parents of four children and the grandparents of seven.

Figure 1. Zones of Sacredness in Eden and in the Temple (adapted from G. A. Anderson, Perfection, p. 80).

Figure 2. Ephrem the Syrian’s Conception of Eden, the Ark, and Sinai

(adapted from Brock in Ephrem the Syrian, Paradise, p. 53).

RESURRECTION MONTH

Claudia L. Bushman

Abstract: We tend to have big events and a full month celebrating Christmas, but here we are in a very Christian church that has come to almost ignore the events of the crucifixion and the resurrection. The Last Supper and the events that followed it are the important events of the season. With some planning and creativity, we can immerse ourselves in a Resurrection Month by thinking about the gift of life and promise for the future that we have been given, reading the old scriptures, and reliving the life and times of our elder brother and great teacher.

I welcome this opportunity to say something about our Easter commemorations. The title of my essay, however, does not include that E-word, one I try to avoid. Instead, for my purposes, I will use the title Resurrection Month, two words that more clearly describe what I want to talk about.

We live in New York City and have been incarcerated, shut down, closed off, whatever, since March 11, 2020. When the interruption occurred, I had been about to begin a month-long commemoration in our New York City Latter-day Saint ward of the spring holiday commonly known as Easter.

I had a long series of wonderful Easters while growing up in San Francisco. I loved the beautiful music, of going to church with all its gorgeous flowers, and our beautiful sisters in their smart hats. My own family’s celebrations included the stylish outfits my mother created annually for her four daughters — suits and coats and dresses resulting from months of consideration and planning and my mother’s spectacular skill. And there were her wonderful Easter-themed layer cakes with coconut dyed green to look like grass, bunches of flowers made of colored icing, little nests of jellybeans, little mirrors that became ponds with ducks swimming on them. The cakes were delicious to eat, too. Those were wonderful Easters.

These activities commemorated the coming of spring and were named after a fertility goddess for whom holiday events were celebrated each April back into antiquity. That Easter, now featuring bunnies, eggs, and chicks, was the first traditional celebration in the spring. The celebration of the Passover when many Jews commemorate their flight from Egypt with annual Seder feasts was later layered on the spring tradition. The third and most recent chronological event added to the above two was the Last Supper, the suffering and the crucifixion of Jesus that preceded the resurrection which built, according to the New Testament, on the traditional Passover meal. Jesus gave it a new meaning by using it to prepare his disciples for his death. He identified the bread as his body and the wine as his blood, soon to be sacrificed and shed.

For many of us, this Last Supper, celebrated by Jesus and his disciples, and the events that followed it, are the important events of the season. The early Christians are said to have celebrated this meal to commemorate Jesus’s death and subsequent resurrection, although the records are scanty. All of this goes way back, and I may well have some of it wrong.

We now measure time from the birth of Jesus Christ — anno Domini, in the year of our Lord — but that dating system was not even devised until 525 by Dionysius Exiguus of Scythia Minor and was not widely used until after 800 when the Anglo-Saxon historian Saint, the venerable Bede, used the dating system in his Ecclesiastical History of the English People, which he completed in AD 731.

The venerable Bede, who first wrote specifically and historically of these events, notes in his Reckoning of Time that Ēosturmōnaþ, an old English word translated in Bede’s time as “Paschal month,” was named after the Anglo-Saxon goddess Ēostre, in whose honor April feasts were celebrated. Bede is the source for the etymology of the word Easter, which is a “moveable feast” computed from a lunar calendar and has a sliding date. It has come to be the first Sunday after the ecclesiastical full moon that occurs on or soonest after 21 March, a complicated computation. That event was celebrated in 2020 on April 12 and will be on April 4 in 2021. The date of Easter was fixed by means of the local Jewish calendar, which seems to mean that Easter entered Christianity during its earliest Jewish period.

In Latin and Greek, the Christian celebration was, and still is, called Pascha, a cognate to the Hebrew Pesach, the Jewish festival known as Passover, commemorating the Jewish Exodus from Egypt. (The label Christian was first applied to the Christians in Corinth in the mid- second century. Jewish Christians, the first to celebrate the resurrection of Jesus, timed the observance in relation to Passover.)

Easter celebrates the resurrection of Jesus, perhaps the chief tenet of the Christian faith. The event establishes Jesus as the Son of God and is cited as proof that God will righteously judge the world. For us who are believers, “death is swallowed up in victory.” The followers of Jesus will also be resurrected and receive eternal salvation. But here we are almost two thousand years later with an important event named for a fertility goddess. Here we are in a very Christian Church that has come to almost ignore the events of the crucifixion and the resurrection.

Much of this is a matter of timing. Easter frequently gets in the way of General Conference or our visiting high council speaker. It’s also a function of program and expense. Music has been much downplayed in our congregations in recent years, as have floral displays. We have few images of the Savior in our buildings and none in our chapels.

But it’s also a matter of emphasis. We accord the Nativity a full month on our calendars. We have big events for Christmas. I love the Nativity, but which is more important and significant — the birth or the death of Jesus Christ? I think it is certainly the latter.

I say that this situation is an example of Mormon optimism. We like good, positive things; we downplay the negative. We believe in the resurrection, but we pay little attention to the crucifixion. We believe in immortality but not in death. We believe in the atonement but not in the transgression of Adam and Eve.

I disapprove of these limitations. I think we are missing out on an important part of our Christian worship.

One day in late 2019, I engaged our bishop and noted that I thought we should do better with the death and resurrection of Christ. He suggested that I write him a proposal, which I did. The next time I saw him, he said I could call a committee and organize some commemorative activities. He said to keep him in the loop and let him know how much it would cost.

That was back in November. I called a committee of fervent and imaginative Christians, and we met many times to discuss possibilities and make plans. The bishop came to most of our meetings. Easter came on April 12 in 2020, so we decided to have our opening event a major concert on March 21, not quite a whole month in advance, but a lot more than usual.

Of course, General Conference came in the middle on Palm Sunday, a week before the big day. And of course we share our building with two other large congregations, soon to be three, which means our access to the building is limited by time and date, and of course our people are very busy. But we had three Sunday meetings to work with. We had some evening and weekend possibilities. We could collaborate. We could do things offsite. We took on assignments. We worked together. We tried to be practical. We did not want to do too much. After a couple of meetings, the bishop agreed to fund whatever we came up with. We suggested, discussed, downsized, scheduled, and rescheduled for a workable program. All of it would be available to everyone, but nobody but the committee was expected to do everything.

Alas, it was not to be. Just weeks before our first event, New York City went into lockdown, which it still mostly is.

But I am going to take you through our planned program to give myself a chance to relive it and maybe to encourage you to do more for our most important ecclesiastical events. I think we need to acknowledge the pain and sacrifice of our tradition as well as our triumphal moments.

So what would we have done? Our first best idea was to do a one- page calendar, including half of March and half of April, with boxed squares listing our events. We would give this calendar out at our first event and at all subsequent events. That would be our schedule, and we added supplemental information on the calendar back. There we had dates, times, and places for special services at some of the great New York churches which stage spectacular events: St. Bartholomew’s Episcopal Church, Trinity Church, Saint Patrick’s Cathedral, St. John the Divine Cathedral, and Riverside Church. We also listed the smaller neighborhood churches near our chapel. We listed museums with special exhibitions and collections and added the Easter Parade, Macy’s Flower Show, and public Seder dinners. We listed significant cemeteries.

I wrote up a little pledge that ward members might consider during the Paschal season:

During this month I will try to

__ Be a follower of Jesus Christ

__ Invite someone over to my house or to a Church event

__ Attend some event at another church

__ Read the accounts of the crucifixion and resurrection in the Gospels

__ Consider my own life and future events

__ Write my will and my own obituary, research an ancestor, or visit a cemetery

I wanted a serious concert for our opening event. Despite the huge amount of talent in our area, we have no standing ward choir. We would need to draft one. I thought we might do a stripped-down version of parts II and III of George Friedrich Handel’s Messiah. Many of our good singers have performed it at some time. There are copies in most ward music closets. The Nativity parts are the most familiar, but it really is an Easter piece. We could get some of our excellent soloists to do notable arias, and our pickup choir could prepare four or five choruses. We could do “Behold the Lamb of God,” “Surely He hath Borne Our Griefs,” “And With His Stripes we are Healed,” “All We Like Sheep Have Gone Astray” (although that’s harder than some), and “Since by Man Came Death.” We would finish up with “Worthy is the Lamb That Was Slain,” if we could manage it, and the “Hallelujah!” chorus, out of its proper sequence. We’d hand out copies of this last piece and sing it two or three times so that the congregation could be part of things. We could have our young people read important scriptural passages interspersed with the music. Maybe we could get the kids to memorize their scriptures. That concert with nice refreshments would be a wonderful kickoff.

We had three Sundays for our services, and I asked three committee members to plan each with talks and music. We wanted the Primary children to sing twice and the choir to reprise things from the concert. I strongly believe in wide participation as well as repeating music. Familiarity brings affection.

Our second Sunday was a testimony meeting, but we could add some music and perhaps direct the testimonies to the theme. We couldn’t use slides or films in sacrament meeting, but during the second hour we planned a slide presentation and discussion of the life of Jesus Christ in art and scripture. This was prepared by a young couple with lots of technical expertise and art knowledge.

Palm Sunday, the Sunday preceding Easter, and the Saturday preceding it were out, as it was General Conference. But we had Easter Sunday itself with our best speakers and good music.

Then we needed something for the whole family — a kids’ event, still on theme. We settled on a historical reenactment, an evening in Jerusalem with food, activities, and program. We thought of replaying the Last Supper, but portraying Jesus is forbidden (although he certainly appears in Church films). We decided on an abstract portrayal of events that stopped before violence. We would give out little bags of money to buy food and little gifts from stalls. We would sample traditional foods. We would have speakers rush in to describe events going on offstage. We got the cultural hall space on a Friday evening by inviting in another ward that had rights to that time. The bishop agreed to pay a significant amount for food, projects, and even for a cardboard model of the Tomb that little kids could go in and out of. It would have been a great party!

Early on we had discussed how we could put on a ward Seder or invite our families to celebrate such an event in their homes. But people on our committee were uneasy about introducing Jesus Christ to a traditional Jewish commemoration of the exodus of the Jews from Egypt, so we dismissed the idea. Thinking again, we might, in Seder fashion, adapt the idea of telling a biblical story with accompanying food, games, scriptures, music and ceremony. A Seder is a feast that includes drinking, reading, telling stories, eating special food, singing. We can do that. It’s the celebration of a sacred story along with a dinner of traditional foods and songs, and child-friendly activities that have religious significance and can be adjusted for the audience. Seders vary widely, so I thought I could adapt the idea and the form. I could tell any story I wanted to tell, substituting foods and activities.

I didn’t come to this conclusion until recently, and I haven’t written up my idea of a Christian ceremony for the event, but I would make it the life of Jesus Christ with ten or twelve little scenes, such as the Nativity, young Jesus speaking with the learned men, raising Lazarus, the Sermon on the Mount, walking on the water, healing a leper, driving out the money changers, etc. We could sing some of our Jesus-centered hymns: “Master, the Tempest is Raging,” “Jesus, the Very Thought of Thee, “I Stand All Amazed,” “Come, Follow Me,” as well as Christmas songs, “Away in a Manger,” “What Child is This?”; folk songs, “Green Grow the Rushes”; Primary songs, “Jesus Once Was a Little Child,” and so on and so on. We could introduce brief games. The Beatitudes would make a nice, quick puzzle. We might act out the money changers scene and some good miracles, maybe even The Last Supper itself.

Traditional food is important at a Seder. Again, we substituted imaginatively. At our event we could drink cider or grape juice instead of four cups of wine. We don’t need matzo, horseradish, gefilte fish, or chicken soup. I would try the traditional Seder favorite, charoset, a mixture of apples, pears, cinnamon and walnuts. Everyone would like that. It’s supposed to represent the mortar the Israelites used in brickmaking when they were in Egypt. We could choose from other foods that might be associated with the scriptures, the Middle East, or with Jesus himself. I didn’t want this to be too hard or too expensive. My menu would include a fish entrée; I would use canned tuna, just to show how simple it could be. We could even have tuna sandwiches. I just could not get my head around a nice lamb roast for the occasion. At some Seders the Pascal Lamb is roasted.

Heavy loaves of good bread could be made in advance by mothers and children. Bitter greens are served at Seders, and such greens as arugula, watercress, and even romaine qualify, along with a dressing of wine vinegar and olive oil, so we could add a nice green salad. We could also have little sandwiches of the bread with honey, fig, and pomegranate jam. A platter of olives, grapes, and dates, and maybe Fig Newtons would be popular; I would do a platter of deviled eggs as well for a little more protein. Such a menu would be easy and inexpensive. I thought that adapting and substituting were the way to go. We could develop individual traditions of our own. I imagine similar dinners commemorating the history of the gold plates or the travels of the pioneers.

But back to our aborted New York commemoration this year. On the Saturday before our Easter event, we scheduled in some of our ward activities, like the ward’s annual Primary Easter egg hunt in Central Park. We added a special ward temple sealing service in the afternoon and got permission to do a little special discussion with the group. We added, in the early evening, a Tenebrae Service in our chapel, the traditional three-hour Good Friday afternoon event commemorating when Jesus Christ was on the cross, where people gather to wait out his flickering life. A committee member put together Latter-day scriptures to be read, interspersed with music and meditation. This service would feature some large candles (LED lights, of course) that would be slowly extinguished one by one. With the Savior gone, we would exit in the dark.

That evening we would be back to attend in the chapel the live broadcast of Handel’s Messiah by the Tabernacle Choir at Temple Square. It wouldn’t begin until 9:30 EST, and it does go on forever, but many of us would stay for the last Amens.

The next morning at 7:00, a limited number would gather on the roof of the apartment building next door to the chapel for a sunrise service. Reservations were required for this event, because of space limitations. The sun was scheduled to rise at 6:15, but 7:00 was as early as anyone would agree to come. Instrumental music and a cappella singing would take place. The chairman of that event asked me to speak at that service, and I was planning to say how the resurrected Jesus first appeared to a woman or two women who had not recognized Him and did not until He spoke. I was going to talk about ways that death and resurrection might change mortals. That sunrise service would be followed by a festive breakfast in the building’s lounge.

Some might manage a short nap before our final sacrament service at noon. Our excellent ward organist would play wonderful arrangements of all the favorite Easter hymns, taking each final verse up a half step as he likes to do. We would have sermons that would bring tears to the eyes and resolve to the minds of our congregants.

That Easter evening would conclude with attendance at an Easter music devotional in the chapel, produced by our local stake and the Young Single Adult stake that shares our building.

I think that’s about enough good events to help us participate in and remember our preeminently important religious event. We hadn’t gotten around to organizing field trips to museums, gardens, and cemeteries, which would have added richness to the occasion.

And one of the events I had favored got cut early — a workshop in which we would draft our obituaries and write our wills, things that should be done. We would have forms and examples and helpful experts and also a notary who could stamp our wills and make them official. But we can do that another time.

So, due to COVID-19, our grand program did not come off. But I still had the best “Easter” season I had ever had, thinking about the gift of life and promise for the future that we have been given, reading the old scriptures, reliving the life and times of our elder brother and great teacher, meeting with brothers and sisters that I love and respect, and listening to their ideas. I have gratitude for all that.

It may happen again; I have some new ideas to explore. Easter, as everyone knows, is in two days this year, on April 3 and 4. Saturday will be General Conference sessions, and I have no doubt there well may be some excellent resurrection addresses. Sunday will of course be Easter, but there will be room for other things, as well.

I wish you all a blessed season!

Claudia L. Bushman holds degrees in literature and American Studies from Wellesley College, Brigham Young University, and Boston University and is retired from teaching history and American studies at Columbia University in the City of New York. She grew up in San Francisco and has lived in nine of the thirteen original states. Dr. Bushman is the author and editor of ten books and was the founding editor of Exponent II. Dr. Bushman is married to Richard Lyman Bushman and is the mother of six.

THE PAST AND FUTURE OF

THE TEMPLE LOT IN INDEPENDENCE,

JACKSON COUNTY, MISSOURI

R. Jean Addams

Abstract: Fifteen months after the Church of Christ’s inception in April 1830, Joseph Smith received a revelation indicating that Independence, Jackson County, Missouri, was to be the “center-place” of Zion and a “spot for a temple is lying westward, upon a lot that is not far from the court-house.” Dedication of this spot for the millennial temple soon followed on August 3, 1831, by Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon. A building sketch was prepared in Kirtland, Ohio, and sent to church leaders in Independence in June 1833. Smith also forwarded his plat for the City of Zion, showing 24 temples at its center and giving an explanation for their use. Tragically, the church was driven en masse out of Jackson County only months later. Reclaiming the original Partridge purchase in December 1831, known as the Temple Lot, became an early driving force for the membership of the church. A physical effort to reclaim the saints’ land and possessions in Jackson County was organized in 1834 by Joseph Smith and became known as “Zion’s Camp.” After traveling 900 miles and poised on the north bank of the Missouri River looking toward Jackson County, Smith’s two hundred armed men were unable to proceed for various reasons. While contemplating what to do, given the reality of their situation, Smith received a revelation to “wait for a little season, for the redemption of Zion.” That poignant phrase — “the redemption of Zion” — became a tenet of the church thereafter. In the years following the martyrdom and the subsequent “scattering of the saints,” three independent expressions of the Restoration returned to Independence to reclaim or redeem the Temple Lot in fulfillment of latter-day scripture. This essay examines their historical efforts.

[Editor’s Note: Part of our book chapter reprint series, this article is reprinted here as a service to the LDS community. Original pagination and page numbers have necessarily changed, otherwise the reprint has the same content as the original.

See R. Jean Addams, “The Past and Future of the Temple Lot in Independence, Jackson County, Missouri,” in Proceedings of the Fifth Interpreter Foundation Matthew B. Brown Memorial Conference, 7 November 2020, ed. Stephen D. Ricks and Jeffrey M. Bradshaw, Temple on Mount Zion 6 (Orem, UT: The Interpreter Foundation; Salt Lake City: Eborn Books, 2021), in preparation. Further information at https://interpreterfoundation.org/books/the-temple-past-present-and-future/.]

Figure 1. Temple Lot, 1907.

Wherefore, this is the land of promise, and the place for the city of Zion … the place which is now called Independence is the center place; and a spot for the temple is lying westward, upon a lot which is not far from the courthouse (Doctrine and Covenants 57:2–3, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints edition, hereafter LDS Doctrine and Covenants; cf. Doctrine and Covenants 57:1b–d, Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints edition, hereafter RLDS Doctrine and Covenants).[1]

Prior to the first Mormon missionaries arriving in Independence, Jackson County, Missouri, in January 1831, the Lord orchestrated, over time, a series of events to prepare the Millennial Temple Lot. These events enabled a legal representative of his recently restored church, then known as the Church of Christ, to purchase the property.[2] First, I will briefly review the events preceding and during the Joseph Smith-led trip to western Missouri in the summer of 1831. I will then summarize the prophet’s description of the future temple and city of Zion that dates to June 1833. Next, I will explore the events following the expulsion of the Church from Jackson County in November 1833 and the revelatory mandates given to Smith regarding the redemption of Zion, which commenced in October 1833. Beginning in 1834, efforts to redeem Zion became a significant part of the trials of the young church thereafter.

This determination to return to Jackson County and redeem Zion, and specifically the temple site, became more complicated with the murder of the Prophet Joseph Smith in June 1844. In the years that followed that tragic event, schisms evolved within the original Church. Among several, there are three significant church organizations, viable today, that will be examined as they went about their independent ways to facilitate that return and redeem theme. Each church hoped to reclaim the original dedicated temple property and to eventually build the Millennial Temple. I will conclude with a look at the current status of each of these churches and their expectations for the future of the Temple Lot, located in Independence, Jackson County, Missouri.

The Organization of Jackson County

Provision for the future journey of the first missionaries of the Church of Christ organized by the young prophet Joseph Smith Jr. on April 6, 1830,[3] began with the completion of the US government survey of the land within the proposed boundaries of Jackson County. The Missouri legislature subsequently organized Jackson County[4] on December 15, 1826.[5] Three months later in March 1827, a small but growing frontier village located at the departure point of the trade-lucrative Santa Fe Trail[6] was officially selected as the county seat. The village was named Independence.[7] However, the anticipated US government sale of the recently surveyed land within Jackson County was not made available for sale for nearly two years.[8] To the early squatters or settlers in what was to become Jackson County, many of whom had pioneered in the area as early as 1821,[9] this unexplained delay was a major frustration.[10]

The importance of squatter’s rights and seminary land designations and their impact on Jackson County is essential in understanding the land ownership situation at the time Joseph Smith and party arrived in Independence in July 1831.[11] The westward expansion of the United States was directly impacted by squatter’s rights.[12] Simply, a squatter was an individual who selected a piece of public land (often referred to as the Public Domain) and then settled or squatted upon it. The Land Act of 1820 set the price at $1.25 per acre and the minimum tract at 80 acres after an official survey by the US government.[13] Seminary sections were transferred to the state to provide funds for the creation of a university. Without explanation, nearly 60% of the 72 sections that the US Congress designated[14] as seminary lands for Missouri were set aside within Jackson County.[15] The rationale for this disproportionate allocation to Jackson County, according to Missouri historian Annette Curtis, was “because the sections chosen were predominantly near the Missouri River, and, therefore, theoretically more valuable.”[16] Independence was surrounded by seminary land sections.[17]

When the US government sale of land was finally announced for November 6, 1828, many of the early squatters of Jackson County were informed that they were on seminary land and that Missouri was allowed to hold these seminary sections for an unspecified period and to set a higher minimum price per acre.[18] Already upset with the delay in purchasing their land, these squatters were going to have to wait even longer to be able to obtain legal title for their property. Adding to their disappointment, the Missouri Legislature announced that the minimum price per acre was to be $2.00, rather than the US government price of $1.25 per acre, which they had anticipated.[19] No date for a seminary land sale was announced at this time.

1821–1831: Early Settlers of Independence

James Shepherd, a cousin of General William Clark, had heard from Clark and others “glowing accounts of the territory west of the Mississippi.”[20] Adventurous like his cousin, Shepherd assembled a group of family and close friends in Virginia and journeyed west via Kentucky to the territory of Missouri perhaps as early as 1821.[21] This group included the family of Dr. Lawrence Flournoy, a cousin of Shepherd.[22] Lawrence and his wife, Theodocia Hoy, were the parents of five sons: Hoy, Rowland, Solomon, Jones H., and Lawrence. These sons were all adults at the time of the trip west. It is probable that the Flournoys joined the Shepherd party as they traveled through Kentucky en route to western Missouri inasmuch as the available family records indicate that the sons were all born in Kentucky.[23] The Shepherd group continued their travel southwest, obtained passage on a steamboat at St. Louis, disembarked at Fort Osage, and continued along the Osage Trace to the Big Spring area that William Clark had recommended to them[24] This chosen location soon became the eventual town site of Independence.

Lawrence and Theodocia Flournoy’s fourth son, Jones Hoy Flournoy, was, or became, a gunsmith, harness repairer, and farmer. Jones, like his siblings and parents, quickly staked out his squatter’s land claims (160 acres and more)[25] in the immediate area and proceeded to clear land, farm, and trade. Jones built a house[26] and a trading-post made of bricks soon thereafter, and by the late 1820s, Flournoy was a well-known supplier and trader for the Santa Fe traffic[27] and the Postmaster for Independence.[28] His squatter’s claim would play a vital role in the acquisition of the Temple Lot.

Figure 2. Flournoy House. Built ca. 1826, Photograph 2018.

February–July 1831: The Arrival of the Mormons

in Jackson County

Joseph Smith Jr. and the early missionaries of the Church of Christ preached a restored gospel heavily punctuated with a millenarian spirit that the prophesied return of Christ to this earth and the commencement of his Millennial Reign was imminent.[29] New Testament and Book of Mormon references to Zion and a New Jerusalem were common themes.

In answer to prayerful inquiry by Smith, regarding where the New Jerusalem or city of Zion was to be located, he was told: “No man knoweth where the city Zion shall be built, but it shall be given hereafter. Behold, I say unto you that it shall be on the borders by the Lamanites” (LDS Doctrine and Covenants 28:9; RLDS Doctrine and Covenants 27:3d).[30] This geographical reference was generally understood by the new adherents to Smith’s church to mean the vast reaches of the American continent west of the state of Missouri, to which US President Andrew Jackson was “strongly encouraging” a relocation of the Indian tribes of the eastern and southeastern areas of the United States.[31] Oliver Cowdery and three other missionaries were subsequently designated by revelation and began their journey west “late in October 1830, and started on foot”[32] for the “borders of the Lamanites” (LDS Doctrine and Covenants 28:8, 31:5, 32:1–3; RLDS Doctrine and Covenants 27:3a, 28:2a, 31:1a–c).[33]

On February 9, 1831, soon after Smith had relocated the Church to the Kirtland, Ohio, area,[34] he proclaimed, “the time shall come when it shall be revealed unto you from on high, when the city of the New Jerusalem shall be prepared” and where it would be located (LDS Doctrine and Covenants 42:9; RLDS Doctrine and Covenants 42:3b).[35]

Following the June 3–6, 1831, conference of the Church in Kirtland, additional missionary calls were given by revelation (LDS Doctrine and Covenants 52; RLDS Doctrine and Covenants 52).[36] Those called, which included Joseph Smith, were to go to western Missouri, and there the Lord would reveal to them, they believed, where the “city of the New Jerusalem” would be located.[37] Smith’s party left Kirtland on June 19[38] and reached Independence in mid-July 1831.[39]

On July 20, 1831, soon after Smith’s arrival in Independence, he received a revelation that designated the small village of Independence as the “center-place” of what was to be the future city of Zion (LDS Doctrine and Covenants 57:1–3; cf. RLDS Doctrine and Covenants 57:1a–d).[40] Independence had a population of 200 to 300 individuals, “a court-house built of brick, two or three merchant’s stores, and 15 or 20 dwelling houses.”[41] There was also at least one licensed tavern, owned by Solomon G. Flournoy.[42] The revelation further specified that “a spot for the temple is lying westward, upon a lot which is not far from the court-house.”[43] This revelation was a momentous announcement. Not only had they now been told that they were in the “center-place” of the future city of New Jerusalem, but, of even greater importance, was that they now knew where the Millennial Temple was to be built. It was to this temple, they believed, that the Savior would return to usher in the long-awaited Millennium.[44]

August–December 1831: The Dedication and

Purchase of the Temple Lot

When the Smith party left Kirtland, they were undoubtedly aware that public land was available for purchase at $1.25 per acre as previously discussed. William W. Phelps, and the others who accompanied the prophet, brought funds with them for that very purpose.[45] They would certainly have been knowledgeable about squatter’s rights, but they may not have been familiar with the seminary land designation.

On their arrival, Smith, undoubtedly, would have been briefed on the availability and unavailability of land ownership in Independence and Jackson County and certainly of the seminary land designation and its impact on the Independence area in particular, as the town was surrounded by these sections.[46] The long delay experienced by the early settlers in acquiring their squatter’s claims and the significant increase from $1.25 to $2.00 in the sale price per acre being required by the state of Missouri certainly would have also been explained.[47] The fact that the state of Missouri owned the seminary lands (which had not been sold and were generally unoccupied except for farming by the original squatters) helps us to see the “guiding hand of the Lord” in preserving the “spot for a temple” as undeveloped property. Smith would have also been informed that the long-awaited sale of seminary land had finally been announced for the first week of December 1831.[48] Partridge confirmed his understanding of this information in a letter he wrote to his wife on August 5, 1831.[49]

Prior to the dedication of that “spot for a temple,” having ascertained its approximate location, Smith and Partridge would have sought out Jones H. Flournoy as the rightful squatter or claimant of the land they wished to purchase. Certainly they would also have obtained permission to proceed onto his claimed property for their planned event.[50]

Figure 3. Map of Temple Lot Property, Measuring 63.27 Acres.

Figure 4. Dedication Plaque Casting Near the Temple Lot Site in Independence.

On August 3rd, those privileged to be part of the dedicatory ceremony proceeded to the squatter’s claim of Jones H. Flournoy. The Smith party worked their way through the brush and trees to the highest spot on the property. Orson Pratt recalled: “It was then a wilderness, with large trees on the temple block.”[51] His brother Parley P. Pratt remembered that the location was “a beautiful rise of ground about a half a mile west of Independence … it was a noble forest.”[52] And William L. McLellin recollected what he had been told: “Joseph cut his way in through this growth of trees, brush and saplings, to reach the site of the dedication for the proposed Millennial Temple.”[53] This location was approximately two blocks west of where Flournoy’s home was located and about one-half block southwest of his unoccupied trading post on the Santa Fe Trail.[54]

Figure 5. Church of Christ Marker at the Spot of the Temple Site Dedication.

There are five extant accounts of those who participated in the dedication of the Temple Lot on August 3, 1831, and from these records it appears that there were at least thirteen men[55] present on this momentous occasion, rather than the traditional eight elders in attendance.[56] Once Smith had located “the spot for a temple,” he placed a stone at the northeast corner of the contemplated temple “in the name of the Lord Jesus of Nazareth.”[57] This dedicatory service was the culminating event for which the Smith party had come 900 miles to this westernmost outpost of the United States.

On August 9, Smith and party left Independence for the return trip to Kirtland.[58] Bishop Edward Partridge was told by revelation to preside over the Church in Jackson County and to make his residence in Independence.[59] As a priority, he was certainly instructed by Smith to complete the legal acquisition of the Temple Lot Property from Flournoy when the seminary land sale commenced in early December.

As planned, Jones H. Flournoy acquired his squatter’s claim on December 12, 1831.[60] His deed shows that he bought a total of 160 acres for $320.[61] One week later, on December 19, Partridge acquired from Flournoy, a 63.27-acre parcel of his 160 acres, which encompassed the dedicated temple site. Partridge paid Flournoy the sum of $130.00 or $2.055 per acre.[62] Flournoy netted a profit of $3.48. The temple site and the surrounding property, thereafter, came to be known as the “Temple Lot” or the “Temple Property” by church members and locals alike.[63]

Figure 6. East View, Independence Temple Drawing, August 1833.

Figure 7. Side View, Independence Temple Drawing, August 1833.

June 1833: Joseph Smith’s Description of the

Future Temple and City of Zion

Although the revelation dictated on July 20, 1831, had contained instructions about the location of the temple for the city of Zion, no description of “the manner in which the temple should be built” was provided until two years later, on June 3 or 4, 1833. At that time, Joseph Smith, Sidney Rigdon, and Frederick G. Williams, the presidency of the Church, “received a vision in which they viewed plans for the [Kirtland] temple, carefully observing its structure and design. … Although the presidency’s vision specifically addressed the Kirtland Temple … the Independence Temple [plan is] remarkably similar in window layout, floor plan, and interior details.”[64]

A few weeks after the vision, on June 25, 1833, the plat for the city of Zion[65] and plans for its temple,[66] together with detailed explanations in an accompanying letter, were mailed to Edward Partridge and others in Missouri.[67] The package was received in Independence on July 29, 1833.[68] Six weeks after the original temple drawings were mailed to Church leaders in Missouri, the drawings were subsequently reviewed by Joseph Smith and Frederick G. Williams and adjustments were made. A revised set of drawings were prepared in August and sent to Partridge and others in Jackson County by special messengers Orson Hyde and John Gould who arrived in late September.[69]

In actuality, the city plat laid out not one but twenty-four temples at the center, most of them dedicated for church administration by the various priesthood quorums.[70] However, the temple plan given in vision was for one or more of the buildings for the Church Presidency. The full name appeared as follows: “House of the Lord, for the Presidency of the High and most Holy Priesthood, after the order of Melchizedek, which was after the order of the Son of God, upon Mount Zion, City of the New Jerusalem.”[71]

Figure 8. City of Zion Plat Drawing, June 1833.

According to Smith, the city as a whole was “supposed to contain fifteen to twenty thousand people” with sufficient farmland to supply the residents’ needs outside the city on the north and south sides. The idea was to create not one but multiple cities according to this plan: “When this square is thus laid off and supplied, lay off another in the same way, and so fill up the world in these last days.” Thus, in its broad conception, “New Jerusalem was a fairly extensive region,” and “the Jackson County generic label was applied [to include] a large portion of northwestern Missouri,” including Adam-ondi-Ahman, Far West, and Liberty.[72] Though the plan for the city of Zion has not yet been implemented in Jackson County, its principles have inspired city layouts in Kirtland, Far West, Nauvoo, Salt Lake City, San Bernardino, and other, smaller Latter-day Saint settlements throughout the western United States and Canada.[73]

Unfortunately, a number of the citizens of Jackson County began circulating a document on July 18 among the population who were not members of the Church of Christ. This petition enumerated their grievances and called for a meeting to be held on July 20, 1833, to “further discuss their perceived problems with the Mormons and how to remove them from the county.”[74] Sadly, the meeting culminated in the subsequent destruction of the William W. Phelps printing establishment[75] and home, the “tar and feathering” of Bishop Edward Partridge and Charles Allen, and other acts of violence. It was apparent that this early Mormon sojourn in Zion was about to end.[76] Depravations continued against Church members in the weeks that followed. Mobbing, harassments, and violent and deadly encounters on a large and determined scale began on October 31, 1833 and, by early November,[77] twelve hundred Saints were driven out en masse out of the county.[78] Most of the members fled north across the Missouri River to accommodating Clay County.[79]

1833–1836: Troubles in Missouri and

Initial Efforts to Redeem Zion

With the forced exodus and abandonment of the Temple Lot Property, a great concern was manifest by both church leaders and members alike regarding the dedicated site of the Millennial Temple. The physical return to Independence and the reacquisition of that sixty-three-acre parcel of land became (and continues to be) a part of the ongoing history of this sacred space.

Joseph Smith was advised of the July troubles and persecutions in Jackson County by Oliver Cowdery upon his hasty return to Kirtland in mid-August 1833.[80] He had been sent by church leaders in Independence on July 24 or 25 to inform the prophet of the serious problems facing the Church and to seek advice.[81] However, two months later, in what must have been an unsettling revelation, while Smith and Sidney Rigdon were on a brief mission in Perrysburg, New York,[82] Smith was told: “And now I give unto you a word concerning Zion. Zion shall be redeemed, although she is chastened for a little season” (LDS Doctrine and Covenants 100:13; RLDS Doctrine and Covenants 97:4a).[83] This verse became the first latter-day scriptural use of the word “redeemed” as it pertained to Zion. Four months later, in February 1834, Parley P. Pratt and Lyman Wight arrived in Kirtland to advise Joseph Smith of the pitiful situation of his downtrodden followers, clinging to a mere existence in Clay County, after being forcibly driven out of Jackson County the previous November.[84]

Shortly thereafter, on February 24, 1834, Smith announced that “the redemption of Zion must needs come by power” and “as your fathers were led at the first, even so shall the redemption of Zion be” (LDS Doctrine and Covenants 103:15, 18; cf. RLDS Doctrine and Covenants 100:3d–e).[85] The Church responded with a recruitment effort to redeem Zion. Approximately two hundred able-bodied men assembled, as directed by Smith, at New Portage, Ohio, and departed on May 8, 1834, to travel some 900 miles to Jackson County to reclaim Zion. This quasi-military organization has since been known as Zion’s Camp.[86]

A month later, however, while encamped on the banks of the Fishing River in Clay County, just north of the Missouri River and Jackson County, word was received that there would be no assistance from Missouri Governor Daniel Dunklin as had been anticipated in facilitating their efforts to regain their land holdings in Jackson County.[87] Shortly thereafter, on June 22, 1834, Smith received further revelation: “Therefore, in consequence of the transgressions of my people, it is expedient in me that mine elders should wait for a little season for the redemption of Zion” (LDS Doctrine and Covenants 105:9, 13; cf. RLDS Doctrine and Covenants 102:3c, f).[88]

Figure 9. a. Zion’s Camp Location in Clay County, Missouri, 2016;

b. Zion’s Camp Memorial in Mound Grove Cemetery, Independence, 2016.

Coupled with the devastating effects of a cholera epidemic that quickly spread through the ranks of the men (the disease claimed fourteen individuals)[89] Zion’s Camp was officially disbanded on June 30, 1834.[90] A generally unknown second effort (September 1836), by members of the Church to return to Jackson County to redeem Zion, did not materialize.[91]

Justifications for these two apparent failures to redeem Zion (1834 and 1836) included internal dissension, a lack of money, and failure to live the Law of Consecration. As the Lord informed Smith in the June revelation: “were it not for the transgressions of my people, … they might have been redeemed even now” (LDS Doctrine and Covenants 105:2; cf. RLDS Doctrine and Covenants 102:2a).[92]

1838–1839: The Redemption of Zion Postponed

After a four-year effort to strengthen themselves as a church in northwest Missouri, the saints soon found themselves once again contesting with their neighbors.[93] The tragic result was that the Church was forced to vacate Missouri by Governor Lilburn W. Boggs’ infamous “Extermination Order” in the late fall and winter of 1838–39.[94] With the Church’s departure, the near-term hope of redeeming Zion was replaced with a delayed expectation, that is, that the Church would, indeed, have to “wait for a little season, for the redemption of Zion” (LDS Doctrine and Covenants 105:9, 13; RLDS Doctrine and Covenants 102:3c, f).[95]

1844 and Succeeeding Decades: Death of the Prophet Joseph Smith and the Scattering of the Saints

After the murders of Joseph Smith and his brother Hyrum in June 1844 at Carthage, Illinois,[96] the Church struggled over the question of leadership.[97] Several men, besides Brigham Young, claimed the deceased Smith’s prophetic mantle, some of whom attracted numerous adherents among those who stayed behind in Illinois, Wisconsin, and elsewhere. As the claims of Rigdon, Strang, Smith, Wight, Brewster, Miller, Thompson, Bishop, Cutler, and others[98] faded, two significant alliances developed in the Midwest some six years later. They are:[99] (1) The Church of Christ and (2) the “New Organization” (later, The Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints [RLDS]). A third group, and by far the largest, was The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Under the leadership of Brigham Young, they made plans for a near-term departure to the Great Basin of the American West.[100]

Temple Lot Property Ownership after the Exodus of 1833

Questions are often asked regarding the state of ownership of the Temple Lot Property in the intervening years between the forced Mormon 1833 exodus from Jackson County and the late 1860s when members of the returning Church of Christ began to repurchase the individual lots surrounding the traditional 1831 dedication site for the Millennial Temple. The same queries apply to other properties owned by individuals who were forced to leave under the threat of violence as well. Included, of course, is Bishop Edward Partridge, who held property in his name “for and in behalf of” the Church. It should be noted that in the early days of land holdings in Missouri, it was illegal for a church to hold property as a separate entity;[101] therefore the Temple Lot Property parcel of 63.27 acres,[102] as well as other properties, were held in Partridge’s name.

Depending on the circumstances of ownership of a parcel of property, i.e., whether the property was owned outright or under contract, and whether property taxes had been incurred and were due, often dictated the course of action taken by a county or by an individual in regards to ongoing ownership. Regardless of the forced abandonment of property in late 1833, most of the saints’ Jackson County properties were either subsequently sold at a sheriff’s auction or sale for failure to pay delinquent property taxes or were foreclosed upon by the previous owners who had not been paid under the terms of their respective contracts.

Regarding the Temple Lot Property acreage, oral testimony exists that this property was quitclaimed to Martin Harris from Edward Partridge. Harris’s quitclaim deed was never recorded in Jackson County, however. The obvious reasons for his apparent failure to do so were that he never returned to Jackson County after his 1831 trip, and following the exodus of 1833, it would have been extremely dangerous for a returning Mormon to do so in person.[103] However, there is some testimony that Harris did mail the deed to the Jackson County Recorder for proper recording,[104] but the deed was likely destroyed upon receipt. If this were so it would have been due to the fact that the postmasters and county clerks, in the years following 1833, were individuals that had organized and/or participated in forcing the saints out of the county, including Jones H. Flournoy, postmaster and Samuel C. Lucas, county clerk.[105]

In the spring of 1848, a resident of Independence, James Pool, decided to purchase the Temple Lot Property for his own purposes. Pool was well-known by the early members of the Church, dating back to early 1831 wherein, according to Parley P. Pratt, he “entertained us kindly and comfortably.”[106] Pool would have known that Edward Partridge was the recorded owner of the 63.27-acre parcel he wished to purchase. Apparently no attempt had yet been made to seize the property due to nonpayment of back property taxes by the county. Regardless, Pool obviously wanted a clear title to the land, and so he sent his agent, a Mr. Pearson, to Winter Quarters to locate Partridge and make a cash offer for a quitclaim deed.[107] He may not have been aware that Edward Partridge had died a few years previous in Nauvoo.[108]

When Pearson arrived at Winter Quarters, he met with a church member J. A. Kelting, who in turn, relayed a message to Brigham Young. Kelting reported that Pearson, an agent of James Pool of Independence, was anxious to purchase from widow Partridge a quitclaim deed for $300. Young called and held a council meeting on April 26, 1848, to discuss the matter.[109] In 1839, while imprisoned in Liberty Jail, Joseph Smith reversed his thinking regarding the pronounced policy of “not selling” Jackson County land holdings.[110] With this change in policy in mind, Young asked for and received counsel about what course to pursue in regard to the Pool offer for the Temple Lot Property. He stated, as recorded in the minutes of this meeting:

The Temple Lot in Jackson Co. is in the care of the heirs of Bro Partridge. A man [Pool through his agent Pearson] offers [$]300 for a Quit Claim Deed. Bro. Kelting will turn out the 300. The land was deeded to Martin Harris. He has not put the deed on record. Shall we advise Sis. Partridge to go over the mountains. … My object is to get the old Lady [she was 55] over the mountains.[111]

Young then noted that the Partridge family needed oxen, wagons, horses, groceries, and other provisions to equip themselves for the trip to the Great Basin. Orson Pratt, Heber C. Kimball, and Wilford Woodruff provided input. After deliberation, the council decided to proceed with the arrangement and to have the children of Partridge sign the deed besides Partridge’s widow.[112] The sale was made for the equivalent of $300[113] and the Partridge heirs[114] traveled with Pearson to Atchison County, in the extreme northwest corner of Missouri to legally execute the document. On May 5, 1848, the quitclaim deed was signed before two witnesses and the county clerk.[115] Pearson then departed for Independence, and the Partridge family returned to Winter Quarters. Pool subsequently had the deed recorded in the Jackson County property records on May 5, 1848.[116]

Pool only held the property for a short period of time because of some personal legal difficulties. The sheriff levied on this property and sold it to John Maxwell on September 22, 1848. Maxwell, in turn, made an arrangement with Samuel H. Woodson in February 1851 wherein they became partners in the ownership of the property. The two men then platted the land for what became the Maxwell-Woodson Addition to the city of Independence.[117] Thereafter, the individual lots were sold to other individuals and from these various subsequent owners John Hedrick and William Eaton purchased lots 15–22 between 1867 and 1874. These lots comprise the acreage owned today by the Church of Christ.

1852–1878: The Redemption of Zion Begins

The Church of Christ

The earliest church with Mormon roots to stake a claim in Independence after the Nauvoo period was the Church of Christ, which bore the original name of the 1830 church. Beginning in the winter of 1852, members located in north-central Illinois began to meet together at the home of self-appointed, local leader Granville Hedrick, near Washburn, Woodford County. The branch was known as Half Moon Prairie.[118] Hedrick was an elder in the original Church.[119] Several years later, Hedrick published a revelation. In the first issue of the Truth Teller, the Church of Christ’s newspaper (July 1864), he claimed that the revelation had been delivered to him by an angel on April 2 of that year.[120] The heavenly messenger instructed him and his followers to “gather together upon the consecrated land which I have appointed and dedicated by My servant Joseph Smith.” The year of gathering to Jackson County was identified in the revelation as 1867.[121]

When the members of the Church of Christ relocated, as instructed, to Independence in 1867, they discovered that the city had annexed the Temple Lot Property.[122] John Hedrick and William Eaton, thereafter, acquired two-and-a-half acres of that property, including Lot 15, the traditional location where Smith had placed the corner stone in 1831.[123] The Church of Christ (historically called the “Hedrickites”) is unique in its early claim to a specific revelation to return as a church to Jackson County and to redeem or reclaim the Temple Lot in the center place of Zion.

Figure 10. Bird’s Eye View of Independence with Temple Lot

Property at Upper Right, 1868.

The Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints

A second group of scattered members emerged under the early leadership of Jason W. Briggs and Zenas H. Gurley Sr., also in 1852.[124] These men, elders in Joseph Smith’s original Church, had pondered their options after rebuffing the claims of Brigham Young. Beginning in late 1851, both men independently reported that they had received revelations directing them to reject all claimants to the prophetic mission of the church’s founder. The language of the revelation to Jason W. Briggs stated: “in my own due time will I call upon the seed of Joseph Smith.”[125] Both men proclaimed that Joseph Smith’s successor would be Joseph’s eldest son, Joseph Smith III.[126] After some correspondence, they agreed to hold a conference in Beloit, Wisconsin, in June 1852. The Briggs and Gurley group initially called itself the “New Organization.”[127]

Figure 11. Joseph Smith III, 1855.

In March 1860, Joseph Smith III, after deciding to accept the position of church president, wrote to William Marks,[128] advising him, “I am soon going to take my father’s place as the head of the Mormon church.”[129] The church established headquarters in Plano, Illinois, and in 1866 changed its name from the New Organization to the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.[130]

Although the RLDS Church had, in no uncertain terms, rejected Hedrick’s revelation to return to Jackson County,[131] by 1877 the church was carefully developing its own return to Zion strategy. In January 1877, Smith stated: “We now state that we are decidedly of the opinion that those who may so desire, can move into that state [meaning Missouri] in safety.”[132] In the Independence area, RLDS membership grew rapidly in the late 1870s and 1880s.

Figure 12. Brigham Young, 1855.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

Those who chose to follow Brigham Young to the Great Basin of the American West realized that Zion (Jackson County) would be a considerable distance from where they were heading and intending to settle. However, the Redemption of Zion remained a matter of serious concern for these westward bound pioneers and for the rest of the membership of the Church. Indeed, Young voiced the matter four months prior to the departure of the first pioneer company from Winter Quarters. On January 14, 1847, Young received a revelation wherein he was told to “go thy way and do as I have told you … Zion shall be redeemed in mine own due time” (LDS Doctrine and Covenants 136: 17–18).[133] Five years later, with the physical redemption of Zion still fresh in the collective church mind, Young addressed a conference of the Church. In his discourse Young posed this rhetorical question: “When are we going back to Jackson county? Not until the Lord commands His people; and it is just as much as you and I can do to get ready to go, when He does command us.”[134]

Figure 13. Lorenzo Snow.

The Redemption of Zion continued to be an oft-quoted theme in church conferences and meetings for the next half-century. Forty-seven years later, at a meeting of seven hundred church leaders held in the Salt Lake Temple on July 2, 1899, President Lorenzo Snow preached: “The time for returning to Jackson County is much nearer than many suppose and it is the faithful that will be selected to go.”[135]

1879–1920: The Return to Zion Continues

The Church of Christ: A Chapel and a Hope of Reconciliation

In the years following the 1867 return to Independence, the Church of Christ had yet to erect a temple or a meetinghouse on their site. They numbered less than a hundred members and perhaps lacked the requisite resources to do so.[136] However, possibly spurred on by the construction activity of their rival, the RLDS Church, the Church of Christ conference authorized construction of a house of worship in April 1884.[137] However, it was not until April 6, 1887, that a committee was appointed to undertake the construction of “a house of worship … on the Temple grounds.”[138] Their 16 x 25 feet building was completed in 1889.[139]

Figure 14. First Known Photo of Temple Lot and Church of Christ Chapel, 1889.

In January 1900, less than one year after The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints President Lorenzo Snow’s pronouncement regarding a return to Jackson County,[140] Elders John R. Haldeman and George P. Frisbey of the Church of Christ arranged for a meeting at the headquarters of the Reorganized Church of Jesus of Christ of Latter Day Saints with the First Presidency of the latter, consisting of Joseph III, Alexander H. Smith, and Edmund L. Kelley. The Church of Christ’s specific concern was “agreeing upon a common ground upon which the two organizations might unite in an effort to prosecute the work of ‘gathering,’ and the building of the temple at Independence, Missouri,” considered a key element in the Redemption of Zion by both churches.[141]

At the Lamoni, Iowa meeting, Haldeman proposed that two representatives from the Church of Christ travel to Utah. They hoped to meet with the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. They wanted the Church to consider participating in conversations with them and representatives of the RLDS Church in Independence in the near future. Although the overall plan was not explicitly endorsed, they were encouraged to proceed with their visit to Utah.[142] On the afternoon of February 8, 1900, Elders George P. Frisbey and George D. Cole, as official representatives of the Church of Christ, met with the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, consisting of Lorenzo Snow, George Q. Cannon, and Joseph F. Smith. The Church of Christ elders stated that they “ought to take some steps towards placing this ground [the Temple Lot] so it can be used for the purpose indicated in the revelations,”[143] specifically, the building of a temple.[144]

Figure 15. Church of Christ Chapel with Members, 1890s.

After two brief follow-up visits, a much anticipated third meeting was convened. Elders Frisbey and Cole expressed their feelings regarding the purpose of their trip to Salt Lake City to a much larger audience, including the three members of the First Presidency, seven members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, and two members of the Presiding Bishopric.[145] Afterwards, the Church of Christ brethren were excused so that church authorities could counsel privately.[146] President Snow instructed those present to speak freely about the proposed conference and its purpose. However, rather than directly responding to the specific request, George Q. Cannon spoke instead about the 63.27 acres purchased by Bishop Edward Partridge in December 1831 for the young church.[147] This acquisition, he pointed out, included the two-and-a-half-acre parcel then held by the Church of Christ. “Our hearts for years have inclined towards the center stake of Zion,” Cannon stated. He then explained that President Taylor created a fund for purchasing land in Jackson County and “the predominant idea in his mind was to watch for a favorable opportunity to buy land in Independence.”[148]

President Snow then stated that “President Cannon had expressed his views exactly in relation to the purchase of land [in Jackson County],” and confirmed that his mind “was tolerably clear in regard to the redemption of Zion … to purchase the land as opportunity presented without creating excitement.”[149] In the discussion that followed, it was concluded that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints would not participate in the conference or the proposed temple project.

Figure 16. a. Stone Church of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints:, ca. 1889; b. More Recent Photo of the Stone Church.

The RLDS Church: Building of the Stone Church and Relocation of Church Headquarters

In 1879, construction began on the Brick Church, the first building erected by the RLDS Church in Jackson County. However, the growing congregation dictated the purchase of a new site for a larger edifice. Property was subsequently acquired across the street from the Temple Lot on Lexington Avenue. By April 1892, the Stone Church was “ready for occupancy.”[150]

While no official statement was made by Joseph Smith III regarding the building of the Temple in Independence during the first twenty years of his presidency, an article presumably written by him as editor of the Church publication Saints Herald appeared in the June 1878 issue. It was titled “The House of the Lord, As Seen In Vision.” In the article Smith describes, in detail, what the Temple looked like in this highly personal experience.[151] Years later in the May 1907 edition of Autumn Leaves (another publication of the Church), there appeared a full page rendition of a painting by Earnest A Webbe titled “Dream Of The Temple That Is To Be.” In the upper left, one can clearly see the completed 1892 Stone Church, thus indicating that the painting was completed between late 1892 and early 1907. Although a poem referencing “A temple fair,” and exhorting the “Saints” to “Prepare ye the way of the Lord,” was printed on the page facing the painting, there was no accompanying article, or further announcement at this time, regarding the construction of a Temple on the Temple Lot. It is noteworthy, however, that in the Webbe painting the Temple is clearly situated on the Temple Lot property owned by the Church of Christ.[152]

Figure 17. Drawing of “Dream Of The Temple That Is To Be” by Earnest Webbe,

Based on the Vision of Joseph Smith III.

In another article appearing in the Saints Herald in August 1951, C. Ed Miller answered a reader’s question and provided this further insight into the vision of the temple as seen by Joseph Smith III: “Joseph Smith III had a wonderful vision of the temple which will by built on the Temple Lot in Independence, Missouri. He saw it completed and ready for use.” Miller continued to recite many of the particulars of the 1878 article as they related to the inquiry he was addressing.[153]

Further highlighting the importance of returning to the “center-place,” Joseph Smith III recalled his move of residence to Independence in 1906: “I did so … to fulfill, as I believed, a religious duty to become a resident of the place designated of old as Zion.”[154]

In April 1920, the RLDS Church voted to relocate the church’s headquarters from Lamoni, Iowa, to Independence. At the same conference the membership of the church endorsed President Frederick M. Smith’s recommendation that a “large auditorium be built in this city” in order “that the general conference might have an adequate building in which to meet.”[155] In May 1921 the Saints’ Herald, primary publication voice of the church, also relocated to Independence.[156]

Figure 18. Acreage Purchased by Duffin in 1904. Photo Taken in 1910.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: Relocation of Mission Headquarters, Purchase of Land, and a Chapel

The February 1900 meetings with the Church of Christ elders seems to have sparked new intensity by church leaders to “redeem Zion.” Only three months later, the First Presidency called James G. Duffin as president of the Southwestern States Mission, headquartered in St. John, Kansas,[157] who, with obvious direction, moved mission headquarters to Jackson County in December 1900,[158] and which encompassed Missouri. Over the next three-plus years Duffin initiated a quiet search for property near the Temple Lot. In April 1904, he acquired a twenty-six-acre parcel, which included twenty acres of the original Partridge purchase, from the Maggie C. Swope Estate for $25,000.[159]

The money provided to Duffin for this acquisition came from a fund established for the “purchase of land in Independence, Jackson County, Missouri, and the redemption of Zion.”[160] Other property was later acquired.[161]

Samuel O. Bennion replaced Duffin as Central States Mission president in 1906. The following year Bennion[162] moved the mission office of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints from Kansas City to Independence to recently acquired property located to the east of the Temple Lot.[163]

Figure 19. Receipts for Donation to the Jackson County

Temple and Redemption of Zion Fund.

Soon thereafter, arrangements were made for the publication of the Liahona magazine[164] for the missions of the Church in the United States. Six months after launching the magazine, Bennion requested that at least four US mission presidents and two other interested individuals meet in Independence on September 9, 1907, to form a corporation to be known as Zion’s Printing and Publishing Company. The choice of the name encompassed the essence of the “Redemption of Zion” concept.[165] Zion’s Printing and Publishing Company was incorporated in October 1907.[166] Zion’s also began the production of missionary tracts, hymnals, and books.[167]

Figure 20. Mission Home and Office, 1907.

Figure 21. Latter-day Saint Chapel, Completed in 1914.

In 1912 ground was broken for a $25,000 chapel on the corner of Pleasant and Walnut and close to the mission home. The chapel was dedicated by President Joseph F. Smith in November 1914.[168]

Figure 22. Otto Fetting (1871–1933).

1920–1994: The Redemption of Zion Continues

The Church of Christ: Revelation to Build a Temple

While a physical presence of these three church organizations had certainly been well established by the early 1920s, the building of the temple was another matter. However, on February 4, 1927, at his home in Port Huron, Michigan, Church of Christ Apostle Otto Fetting launched a dramatic effort toward building the temple on the Temple Lot.[169] That morning, Fetting reported a visitation by a heavenly messenger, whom he subsequently identified as John the Baptist, wherein he was told: “The revelation that was given for the building of the temple was true and the temple soon will be started.”[170] The church was commanded to erect the temple on the “sacred space” owned by the Church of Christ.[171]

Figure 23. Bishop Frisbey Breaks Ground for the

Church of Christ Temple on April 6, 1929.

On March 22, 1928, Fetting announced another angelic visitation and accompanying message. It specifically proclaimed that construction on the temple was to begin in the year 1929 and was to be completed within seven years.[172] From the moment this message was broadcast throughout the church, the physical undertaking to build the House of the Lord would play a major role within the church for years to come.

In accordance with the instructions given in vision to Fetting, the Church of Christ held an impressive groundbreaking ceremony on Saturday, April 6, 1929.[173]

The Kansas City architectural firm of Norman L. Wilkinson was hired in 1930 by the church to develop sketches and plans for the proposed edifice.[174] When asked by a reporter for the local Independence Examiner regarding the cost of the proposed temple, Wilkinson replied: “the cost would be somewhere around a half million dollars.”[175] The Kansas City Star headlined and showcased on the front page of their September 7, 1930, edition, the prepared sketches of the “Extraordinary Temple the Church of Christ Has Begun To Build.”[176]

Figure 24. Architectural Drawing of the Proposed

Church of Christ Temple, 1930.

Excavation commenced soon thereafter.[177] However, the building of the temple, for a number of reasons, never materialized.[178]

Figure 25. Church of Christ Temple Foundation, circa 1935.

In 1946, the city of Independence offered to backfill, at the city’s expense, the 1930s excavation site for the temple.[179] Currently, the Church of Christ has no plans for the physical construction of the House of the Lord, even though the church does continue to maintain a temple fund.[180]

The Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints: Temple Plans and Revelation

Acquiring the land for the eventual building of the temple had been an ongoing function of the RLDS Church for many years.[181] Prophet-President Frederick M. Smith, in his April 6, 1926, conference address to the church stated:

And must I mention still before us the great task of building ultimately the Temple to which we have all looked forward? I have not forgotten it. I do not forget it. For in my dreams of Zion it is always in a prominent place of perspective. Can words make it any plainer than the foregoing that the building of the Temple is yet in the future? We will await developments.[182]

In 1942, Smith asked Church Historian Samuel A. Burgess to look into whether the temple “might be shifted considerable from that spot [the Church of Christ’s 2.75 acres] and still be in the confines of the sixty-three acres.”[183] Burgess answered two weeks later and advised Smith that: “Any spot can be with even reasonable certainty be pointed out … since no land was owned at the dedication it would seem that north and west should be as much consecrated as south and east.” He concluded: “In other words, the exact spot is not known.”[184]

Church members rejoiced in 1968 when Prophet-President W. Wallace Smith announced a revelation at the Church’s World Conference that proclaimed: “The time has come for a start to be made toward building my temple in the Center Place. It shall stand on a portion of the plot of ground set apart for the purpose many years ago by my servant Joseph Smith, Jr.” The site was selected by 1974.[185]

Ten years after selecting the specific site for the temple’s construction, the long-awaited revelation setting the building process in motion was announced by Prophet-President Wallace B. Smith (son of W. Wallace Smith) to Church members at the April 1984 World Conference:

The temple shall be dedicated to the pursuit of peace. It shall be for the reconciliation and for healing of the spirit. It shall also be for a strengthening of faith and preparation for witness. … Therefore, let the work of planning go forward, and let the resources be gathered in, that the building of my temple may be an ensign to the world of the breadth and depth of the devotion of the Saints.[186]

The ground-breaking ceremony was held on April 6, 1990[187] and the impressive temple was dedicated April 17, 1994.[188]

Figure 26. Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Temple

Under Construction, ca. 1992–1993.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: Visitors’ Center

The property purchased by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in 1904 remained undeveloped until 1968. After two different attempts over the years by the City of Independence/Board of Education to purchase the property from the Church,[189] and concerned about the reality of eminent domain by the city of Independence, the Church made an announcement in December 1967 for the present Visitors’ Center. Plans were quickly developed and formally approved in April 1968.[190] A groundbreaking ceremony was held the following August.[191] Interestingly, in the development of those plans in early 1967 by church architect, Emil Fetzer, and with input directly from Alvin R. Dyer and approval by President David O. McKay, the awareness of the Joseph Smith inspired, expanded, twenty-four temple complex prepared in early 1833 was definitely taken into consideration. On March 10, 1967, a meeting of Dyer and Fetzer was held with McKay in his Hotel Utah apartment office. Dyer recorded the highlights of this session in his diary:

Figure 27. Latter-day Saints Visitors’ Center, Dedicated in 1981.

We reported to the President that our study in this direction was to undertake, if we could … to ascertain which of the temple buildings designated would presumably be located on that part of the temple land that the Church owned. This we had arrived at [and] would be concentrated upon, for the erection of a building for the purpose intended … the basic structure of which could be used at a future date as part of the temple complex.

Dyer continued:

The proposed structure would be two stories high with a floor dimension of 61’0” x 87’0”, which dimension is the same as revealed to the Prophet Joseph as the size of the complex buildings.[192]

The Visitors’ Center stands on the northwest corner of the twenty-six acres at the intersection of Walnut and River streets. It is located south of the Community of Christ temple, and southeast of the chapel and headquarters’ offices of the Church of Christ. The edifice was dedicated on May 31, 1971, by President Joseph Fielding Smith.[193]

Perspectives of the Three Churches After 1994

Almost from its inception, the young Church of Christ, founded by Joseph Smith Jr. in April 1830, was imbued with a millenarian spirit. Asserting divine direction for the fast-growing church, Zion was, at first, only described as “on the borders by the Lamanites.” But with Smith’s visit to western Missouri in the summer of 1831, the city of Zion, or the New Jerusalem, was specifically situated in Jackson County with the center place designated as the village of Independence. Furthermore, the 1831 Church was told that the Millennial Temple was to be built “upon a lot not far from the courthouse.” For more than two years an attempt was made by members of the struggling Church to live the Law of Consecration and establish the city of Zion.[194] That effort came to a tragic end in November 1833 when the Church was literally driven en masse out of Jackson County.[195]

Figure 28. 1935 Drawing of the Original December 1831 Partridge Purchase.

The phrase “Zion shall be redeemed,” specifically meaning a physical return to Jackson County, was first proclaimed by Smith in October 1833. With the reestablishment of a physical presence in Jackson County by the Church of Christ in 1867, followed by the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints in 1877, and then in 1900 by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the Redemption of Zion was undertaken in a most literal sense. However, today, little is said publicly of the Redemption of Zion by any of the various branches of the Restoration Movement.

Figure 29. Aerial Layout Map of Temple Lot Property Today.

The three churches discussed in this essay will now be highlighted regarding their thoughts and positions on the center place, the New Jerusalem, the importance of the Temple Lot, and the Millennium.

Church of Christ

In 1952 there were rumors that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints had offered a large sum of money, perhaps a million dollars, for the two and three-quarters acres owned by the Church of Christ. Historian and author Craig S. Campbell interviewed Apostle William Sheldon in December 1990 regarding those rumors. Sheldon told Campbell that at one time The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints “offered us a blank check” for the property.[196]

Beginning in 2005, I had the pleasure and opportunity to meet with Apostle Sheldon on many occasions. At one such occurrence, I asked him: “What amount would it take for the Church of Christ to sell the Temple Lot?” His answer: “You could offer us a million dollars or a postage stamp. We would not take either.”[197] On another occasion, I asked Sheldon a question regarding the church’s position on trying, again, to build the Millennial Temple on their property. He replied: “The temple was not a core objective of the church” and added “the primary focus of the church is missionary work and building up the Kingdom of God.”[198] Sheldon also stated: “The Church of Christ considers as their sacred duty to be not only the physical custodian of the property [the Temple Lot], but, additionally, and more importantly, the spiritual custodian of the Kingdom of God.”[199]

Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints

Of significance in reviewing the more recent events in the post-1994 era and future of the Temple Lot from the perspective of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints was the change of their name. As early as 1992 delegates to the World Conference of the Church asked the First Presidency to recommend a “much shorter institutional name.” The discussion continued over the next eight years. Finally, at the 2000 World Conference, the delegates voted to change the name to Community of Christ while legally retaining the incorporated name. The change became effective on April 6, 2001.[200]

Figure 30. Community of Christ Temple, Dedicated 1994.

The Community of Christ takes the position that the Church has built the temple “in the Center Place”[201] as envisioned by Joseph Smith in 1831. In accordance to revelatory instruction given to Prophet-President W. Wallace Smith and to his successor Prophet-President Wallace B. Smith, the “plot of ground set apart for this purpose … by my servant Joseph Smith, Jr.” was selected for “building my temple in the Center Place.” The temple was dedicated in April 1994.[202] At the time of the “groundbreaking” ceremony in 1990, wanting to clarify the church’s position regarding the Millennium, Smith stated to a reporter: “We are not building our temple as a means of signaling the Second Coming.”[203]

The RLDS Church produced a brochure in 1978 titled: The Temple: Ensign of Peace. One of the attractive pages is headed: “The Dream is Now: Purposes of the Temple.” The opening statement states simply: “The Temple will stand as a symbol of life’s deepest and truest meanings … as an architectural symbol revealing the contemporary meaning of the life and ministry of JESUS CHRIST.” Of the several statements listed, there are no comments regarding the Millennium or the New Jerusalem.[204] Quoting again from Craig S. Campbell, he remarked:

The RLDS Church in the twentieth century has reversed direction from a millenarian and literal theology toward a more diverse nonmillennial doctrinal atmosphere. … While other Latter Day Saint groups have had difficulty sanctifying space in Independence, in many ways the nonmillennialization of the Temple Lot area is the opposite. The [Community of Christ] is desanctifying space, perhaps because, consciously or unconsciously, it feels the history of the Saints, especially Missouri history, is too difficult to reconcile with modern culture treads. … If one looks beyond the substantial dissent, the church has created for itself novel and powerful meanings for the twenty-first century. But these are far from traditional Latter Day Saint symbolism.[205]

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

During the past fifty or sixty years little has been said by authorities of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints regarding the Redemption of Zion, the city of the New Jerusalem, the Millennium, or the temple or temples to be built in the center place.

Perhaps the most written commentary on the subjects relative to this discussion of the events relating to the city of New Jerusalem and the Millennium Temple are found in Bruce R. McConkie’s, subject-oriented, Mormon Doctrine, which first appeared in 1958.[206] Under the heading “New Jerusalem” he stated that “the city of New Jerusalem will be built on the American continent.” McConkie continued: “it is to be built by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; Jackson County, Missouri, is the spot designated by revelation for its construction.” He added, however, “It shall be built when the Lord directs.”[207] And under the heading “Zion,” McConkie points out that the city of Zion is also called New Jerusalem and reiterates that it will be built in Jackson County.[208]

In 1972, Alvin R. Dyer, apostle and former member of the First Presidency, published an enlarged edition of his history of the early church in Missouri, containing glowing reports of the expansion of the Church’s holdings in the area. In his preface, Dyer emphasized that the prophetic history and future of the area “is a vital subject to every Latter-day Saint. … And come what may, in the time of the Lord, we, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have a committed destiny in the ‘center place.’”[209]

As part of the United States bicentennial fervor, the Church published The Great Prologue: A Prophetic History And Destiny of America in 1976. Apostle and author Mark E. Peterson wrote that the culmination of America’s divine calling would occur when “the great modern City of New Jerusalem will be built in Jackson County, Missouri.” He added: “It is the center of the land, and there the city of Zion, or the New Jerusalem, will be built, a place of refuge and peace for the latter days.”[210]

Interestingly, only three years later in 1979, the Church quietly edited its tenth Article of Faith. Prior to this date it had declared “that Zion will be built upon this [the American] continent.”[211] Beginning with the 1979 publication of the scriptures, the tenth Article of Faith now reads “that Zion (the New Jerusalem) will be built upon the American continent.”[212]

While some may dismiss this rewording as a long-overdue edit or nothing more than a simple clarification, the fact that the name of the millennial city of New Jerusalem was added to the language specifically, and shortly after the publication of The Great Prologue, certainly signified that the Church had not discounted or distanced itself from the early revelations given to the Prophet Joseph Smith in 1830 and 1831. Rather, the Church subtly added significance to this tenet of basic belief.

During the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, the Church has continued to quietly acquire land, not only in Jackson County, but throughout western Missouri.[213] Campbell, in concluding his thoughts on this topic in a chapter headed “LDS Views Since 1900,” made this statement:

Figure 31. Latter-day Saint Kansas City Missouri Temple, Dedicated in 2012.

Despite church growth, the Kansas City area remains a paradox of the LDS realm. Some say that hesitation is bred of uncertainty, but the LDS Church does not want to cause undue millenarian speculation and unrest among the members.[214]

Nearly forty years later, after dedicating the Visitors’ Center, and to meet the needs of a growing church membership the surrounding three-state area, the Church announced plans to construct a temple in the Kansas City vicinity on October 4, 2008.[215] The groundbreaking ceremony took place on May 8, 2010.[216] An impressive dedication ceremony occurred on May 6, 2012.[217]Rather than utilizing the twenty-six acres purchased in 1904, the Church built the temple near the city of Liberty in Clay County, twelve miles north of Independence and across the Missouri River.

However, as those who listened to the October 2020 General Conference will attest, there has never been in recent memory more prophetic emphasis on the topics of the “gathering of Israel”[218] and the work of “preparing ourselves and the world for the Second Coming of the Lord.”[219]

Final Thought

What else is required? How is it to be attained? And, perhaps, most importantly, what further direction will be forthcoming regarding the Millennial Temple and the city of New Jerusalem? Regarding the ultimate fulfillment implied in the adage “Redemption of Zion”, perhaps the statement of Apostle William Sheldon (Church of Christ) is applicable to all of the expressions of the Restoration. He said: “We will simply await the Lord’s further direction.”[220] His thoughts are not much different from those of Bruce R. McConkie, who wrote in 1958, referring to the New Jerusalem and its attendant Millennial Temple: “It shall be built when the Lord directs.”[221]

One thing is certain about the future of the Temple Lot in the “center place” of Zion. In a revelation given to Joseph Smith on December 16, 1833, the Lord reminded his prophet: “There is none other place appointed than that which I have appointed; neither shall there be any other place appointed than that which I have appointed, for the work of the gathering of my saints” (LDS Doctrine and Covenants 101:17, 20; RLDS Doctrine and Covenants 98:4g–h).

R. Jean Addams is a lifetime Mormon History enthusiast, independent historian, and author. He and his wife Liz reside in Woodinville, Washington. He recently completed his twentieth year as a volunteer Institute of Religion instructor. He holds a BS in Accounting and an MBA from the University of Utah and is happily retired. Addams has presented and published several articles dealing with the “Redemption of Zion” and the “Church of Christ (Temple Lot).” His most recent articles include: “Zion’s Printing & Publishing Company: From the Redemption of Zion to Corporation,” (Journal of Mormon History, April 2020) ; “The Return of the LDS Church (1900-1907) to Jackson County and the Redemption of Zion,” (John Whitmer Historical Association Journal, Fall/Winter 2018); “The History and Acquisition of the Original Temple Lot Property in Independence, Jackson County, Missouri,” (Mormon Historical Studies, Spring 2019); and “A Contest for Sacred Space,” in The Ancient Order of Things: Essays on the Mormon Temple (Signature Books, 2019). He is the author of Upon the Temple Lot: The Church of Christ’s Quest to Build the House of the Lord, (John Whitmer Books, 2010). Addams is a past president of the John Whitmer Historical Association, and a member of the Mormon History Association, the Sons of the Utah Pioneers, and the Missouri Mormon Frontier Foundation. His interests, besides family, include fishing and skiing.

Notes for Figures

1. George Edward Anderson Glass Plate Negative Collection, 1897-1927, PH 725, Church History Library, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Salt Lake City, Utah. Photo taken in 1907.

2. Photo by R. J. Addams, 2018.

3. .Map prepared by Alexander L. Baugh, R. J. Addams, and Christopher Higham in 2019. Baugh and Higham are members of the faculty/staff at Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah.

4. Photo by R. J. Addams, 2020.

5. Photo by R. J. Addams, 2013.

6. Church History Library, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Salt Lake City, Utah, MS 2568 1. Revised drawing prepared at the direction of Joseph Smith, Jr. in Kirtland, Ohio, in 1833 by Frederick G. William. The drawing was carried by Orson Hyde and John Gould to Edward Partridge and others in Independence, Missouri, in September 1833. Used with permission.

7. Church History Library, MS 2568 1.

8. Church History Library, MS 2567. Original drawing prepared at the direction of Joseph Smith, Jr. in Kirtland, Ohio, in 1833 by Frederick G. William and mailed to Edward Partridge and others in Independence, Missouri, in June 1833. Used with permission.

9. Photos by R. J. Addams, 2016.

10. Photo courtesy of William (Bill) Curtis (b. 1936), Inde-pendence, Missouri. Used with permission.

11. Steel engraving by Frederick Piercy, in James Linforth and Frederick Piercy, Route from Liverpool to Great Salt Lake Valley (Liverpool; Franklin D. Richards; London: Latter-Day Saints’ Book Depot, 1855), 64. Brigham Young University, Harold B. Lee Library, Special Collections, VQ M273.41 P611r 1855 copy 2. https://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/digital/collection/NCMP1820-1846/id/17396/ (accessed March 8, 2021). Public Domain.

12. Linforth and Piercy, Route from Liverpool, 112.

13. Painting by John Willard Clawson, dated 1936. Gospel Media, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Permission for noncommercial use. https://www.church

ofjesuschrist.org/media/image/lds-prophet-lorenzo-snow

-clawson-c6e5fc5?lang=eng (accessed March 7, 2021).

14. Photo courtesy of Bill Curtis. Used with permission. This is the first known photo of the Temple Lot. The chapel was completed in 1889 and the photo taken presumably shortly thereafter.

15. Photo courtesy of the Church of Christ (Temple Lot), Independence, Missouri. Used with permission. The photo is noted “1890s.”

16. a. Photo courtesy of Bill Curtis. Used with permission. Date of photo is ca 1890s. b. Photo courtesy of Community of Christ Library-Archives, Independence, Missouri. With permission. Photo undated. Rachael Killebrew, librarian-archivist, has graciously facilitated my research and requests for material and other information.

17. Photograph of painting by Earnest Webbe, “Dream Of The Temple That Is To Be,” Autumn Leaves 20, no. 5 (May 1907), 193. http://www.latterdaytruth.org/pdf/100069.pdf (accessed February 28, 2021). Webbe, a professional illustrator, was born in Brixton, Surrey, England in 1876 and later immigrated to the United States. https://search.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/sse.dll?dbid=6598&h=10440179&indiv=try&o_cvc=Image:OtherRecord (accessed February 28, 2021).

18. Photo courtesy of Special Collections and Archives, Merrill-Cazier Library, Utah State University, Logan, Utah, A-0409. Used with permission. Date of photo is ca 1910.

19. Photocopies of the receipts were generously provided to the author by Thomas and William Smart (Salt Lake City, Utah, and Kirtland, Washington, respectively), grandsons of William H. Smart to whom the receipts were written in 1904 and 1905. Photocopies provided in 2006. These receipts and other related documents have susequently been donated to the William H. Smart Collection, Special Collections, Marriott Library, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah.

20. Photo courtesy of Bill Curtis. Used with permission. Date of photo is ca 1907.

21. Photo courtesy of Bill Curtis. Used with permission. Date of photo is post-1914.

22. Photo courtesy of Paul D. Savage (b. 1951), Grain Valley, Missouri. Otto Fetting was born in 1871 and died in 1933. Photo undated.

23. Photo courtesy of the Church of Christ (Temple Lot). Used with permission. The photo is dated April 6, 1929.

24. Zion’s Advocate 7, no. 17 (November 1, 1930), front cover. http://www.cocsermons.net/zions_advocate/Zions_Advo

cate_1930_11_November.pdf (accessed March 8, 2021).

25. Photograph by C. Ed Miller, courtesy of the Church of Christ (Temple Lot). Used with permission. The photo is ca 1935.

26. Photo courtesy of Community of Christ Library-Archives. Used with permission. Date of photo is ca 1992-1993.

27. Photo courtesy of Ronald E. Romig (b. 1948), Independence, Missouri. Used with permission. Date of photo is 2017.

28. Photo of original 1935 document courtesy of Community of Christ Library-Archives. Used with permission. At the request of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints the Hands Surveying Company of Kansas City, Missouri was hired to prepare a “Plat of the Original Temple Lot” sold by J. H. Flournoy to Edward Partridge on December 19, 1831.

29. Aerial layout map of “Independence Temple Lot” (as of 2017) courtesy of cartographer John Hamer (b. 1970), Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Used with permission.

30. Photocopy courtesy of Community of Christ Library-Archives, Independence, Missouri. With permission. Date of image is 1935. No date of when this image was initially microfilmed is available.

31. Kansas City Missouri Temple, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/temples/details/kansas-city-missouri-temple?lang=eng (accessed March 8, 2021).

Endnotes

1 . Doctrine and Covenants, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1967); Doctrine and Covenants, Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (now known as Community of Christ) (Independence, MO: Herald House, 1958). Inasmuch as the time period discussed in this article primarily deals with the earliest days of the Church of Christ, reference to the compiled revelations of Joseph Smith Jr. (referred to as “sections”) are recorded in a church publication known as the Doctrine and Covenants (beginning in 1835). Since The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the Reorganized Church of Latter Day Saints arrange and number “sections” differently, both churches’ publications will be cited as shown here when applicable.

2 . The use of Latter Day or Latter-day Saint at this point in our early history did not exist. The rare use of that terminology only appears after the re-naming of the Church in 1834. As such, we will use the term Mormon here.

3 . Michael H. MacKay, Gerrit J. Dirkmaat, Grant Underwood, Robert J. Woodford, and William G. Hartley, eds., Documents, Volume 1: July 1828–June 1831, vol. 1 of the Documents series of The Joseph Smith Papers, eds., Dean C. Jesse, Ronald K. Esplin, Richard L. Bushman, and Matthew J. Grow (Salt Lake City: Church Historian’s Press, 2013), 113, 128–29.

4 . O. B. and Joanne Chiles Eakin, Record Of Original Entries To Lands In Jackson County, Missouri (Independence, MO: n.p., 1985), 23. After its creation in 1827, Jackson County encompassed most of present-day Cass and Bates Counties located to the south of the present Jackson County line.

5 . Jackson County Missouri Court Minutes, Book 1: 1827–1833, entry no. 80007, March 20, 1827. This entry and date record the Act of Organization of Jackson County on December 15, 1826 by the state of Missouri. This historic volume is available at the Jackson County Historical Society, Independence, Missouri. I was granted permission to photo the original pages. I acknowledge the able assistance of Caitlin Eckard, Operations Manager & Archivist, Jackson County Historical Society.

6 . The History of Jackson County, Missouri: A History of the County, Its Cities, Towns, Etc. (Kansas City, Missouri: Union Historical Company, Birdsall, Williams & Co, 1881), 178; Jackson County Court Minutes, Book 1, entry no. 80008, March 29, 1827.

7 . Jackson County Court Minutes, Book 1: 1827–1833, entry no. 80019, May 22, 1827. The “romantic” tradition of the name “Independence” comes from the McCray family. As conveyed, this naming was the result of a military episode in early western Missouri. The garrisoned US Army personnel, after a fourteen-day siege, were ordered to abandon Fort Osage and retreat to Fort Cooper and to clear the way of any opposition. “Toward evening the main army arrived at the top of the high, broad plateau on which would rise Independence.” On being advised that the Indians had fled, McCray’s wife announced, “we have won our independence.” General McCray then proclaimed, “Very well, then, this shall be called Camp Independence.” Wilcox, Jackson County Pioneers, 128–129.

8 . Eakin and Eakin, Record Of Original Entries, 24.

9 . Wilcox, Jackson County Pioneers, 128–129, 152–153.

10 . While unexplained to the citizens of Jackson County, the determination of seminary sections provided by the enabling act that created the state of Missouri in 1821 had not yet been agreed to between the governor of Missouri and the US Secretary of the Treasury and was, undoubtedly, the underlying reason for the delay in the US government land sale. To resolve this matter of the seminary sections allotted and assigned, a subsequent Act of Congress was approved on January 24, 1827. It took nearly a year before Governor Miller returned the required enumeration (March 25, 1828) to the Secretary of the Treasury. The submitted enumeration was approved by Secretary Rush on June 6, 1828. See William F. Switzer, History of Boone County (St. Louis: Western Historical Company, 1882), 249–251. It should be noted that I selected this particular county history for references on this topic because of its excellent treatment of the “Seminary” land provisions granted to the Territory of Missouri and subsequently to the state of Missouri by the US Congress in 1818, 1820, and 1827.

11 . R. Jean Addams, “The History and Acquisition of the Temple Lot Property in Independence, Jackson County, Missouri,” Mormon Historical Studies 20 (Spring 2019): 15–17.

12 . James Muhn, “Preemption 1814–1841,” A Brief History of the Disposition and Administration of the Public Domain of Arkansas to 1908 (Denver: US Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 1997), 27–35, accessed July 2, 2016, https://webapp1.dlib.indiana.edu_visual_disk_library/index.cgi/1194863/FID3381/HISTORY/PREEMPT.TXT.

13 . Benjamin H. Hibbard, “Land Act of 1820,” A History of the Public Land Policies (New York: Peter Smith, 1939), 153, accessed July 22, 2016, https://www.revolvy.com/page/Land-Act-of-1820.

14 . Switzer, History of Boone County, 250–251.

15 . Switzer, History of Boone County, 249.

16 . Annette W. Curtis, interview by author, Independence, Missouri, June 4, 2016.

17 . Eakin and Eakin, Record Of Original Entries, 24.

18 . The provisions of the various Acts Of Congress dealing with the granting a township, or 36 sections, of land for a “seminary of learning” did not set any specific guidelines for when the land was to be sold by the state.

19 . Missouri Session Laws, Vol. 2: 1824–1836, 1830, Chapter 155, “Seminary Lands,” December 31, 1830 (Columbia, MO: Missouri General Assembly, 1839), accessed July 26, 2018, cdm.sos.mo.gov/cdm/ref/collection/molaws/id/42050, (hereafter additional references to Missouri Session Laws will include the appropriate year of enactment); Frank F. Stephens, A History of the University of Missouri (Columbia, MO: University of Missouri Press, 1962), 6.

20 . Wilcox, Jackson County Pioneers, 121–123.

21 . Wilcox, Jackson County Pioneers, 116, 121–123.

22 . Wilcox, Jackson County Pioneers, 116, 121–123.

23 . Frances Duggins, “My Most Interesting Ancestor Who Lived in Jackson County: Dr. Lawrence Flournoy,” A24, 1F10, Jackson County Historical Society, Independence, Missouri. This is a three-page typed document. Photocopy in my possession. Ms. Duggins states that the Flournoy brothers “all came to Jackson County in 1826.” Wilcox, Jackson County Pioneers, 122, 152. Wilcox states that the Flournoy family, including, at least Lawrence and Solomon, arrived with their cousin, James Shepherd in 1821. However, she later states that: “The Flournoy brothers, Jones H., Hoy B., and Solomon, all came to Jackson County in 1826, first living in the eastern part of the county.”

24 . Wilcox, Jackson County Pioneers, 121.

25 . Annette W. Curtis, Jackson County Missouri Patents Which Are Not U.S. Government Land Office Patents, (Independence, MO: Two Trails Publishing, 1999), 21, 24.

26 . William J. Curtis, “Historian Tells Story of House That Had Vital Role in the Past,” Jackson County Historical Society (Spring 1968): 4–7.

27 . W. Curtis, 4–7. Jones Hoy Flournoy was born on December 12, 1798, in Madison County, Kentucky. He was the son of Lawrence (Lorance) Flournoy and Theodocia Hoy. He married Clara Hickman in 1828. He died August 29, 1842, at Franklin, Howard County, Missouri. Flournoy family research compiled by Annette W. Curtis. Photocopy in my possession.

28 . “Mayors and Postmasters of Independence, Missouri,” Political Graveyard.com, accessed December 30, 2018, https://www.politicalgrave

yard.com/geo/MO/ofc/independence.html; Record of Appointment of Postmasters: 1832–September 30, 1971 (Series m-841), Missouri, Jackson through Montgomery Counties, Roll 72, first handwritten page, first line, National Archives, Washington D.C.; Richard G. Schultz, Missouri Post Offices 1804–1981 (St. Louis: American Philatelic Society, 1982); William G. Hartley, “Letters and Mail Between Kirtland and Independence: A Mormon Postal History, 1831–33,” Journal of Mormon History 35, no. 3 (Summer 2009): 163–189. Jones H. Flournoy was appointed postmaster effective June 14, 1831. He served in this capacity for 5 years. He replaced Independence’s first postmaster, Lilburn W. Boggs.

29 . Grant Underwood, The Millenarian World of Early Mormonism (Urbana, IL: University of Illinois, 1999). No specific page has been cited here. This text is an excellent read on the subject as captured in its title. Sample chapters include: “The Eschatological Background of Early Mormonism,” “Mormons and Millenarians,” and “The Bible, the Mormons, and Millenarianism.”

30 . Michael H. MacKay, Gerrit J. Dirkmaat, Grant Underwood, Robert J. Woodford, and William G. Hartley, eds., Documents, Volume 1: July 1828–June 1831, vol. 1 of the Documents series of The Joseph Smith Papers, eds., Dean C. Jesse, Ronald K. Esplin, Richard L. Bushman, and Matthew J. Grow (Salt Lake City: Church Historian’s Press, 2013), 183–85.

31 . “Indian Treaties and the Removal Act of 1830,” Office of the Historian, US Department of State, https://history.state.gov/milestones/1830-1860/indian-treaties (accessed October 31, 2018); “Indian Removal Act, (May 28, 1830), Encyclopaedia Britannica, https://www.britannica.com/topic/Indian–Removal-Act (accessed October 31, 2018). The Indian Removal Act was signed into law by President Andrew Jackson on May 28, 1830. The tribes primarily affected were the Five Civilized Tribes: Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek, and Seminole. Other tribes affected and removed included the Wyandot, Potawatomi, Shawnee, and Lenape.

32 . Parley P. Pratt, Autobiography of Parley P. Pratt, ed. Parley P. Pratt (his son), (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1938), 47, (hereafter Parley P. Pratt will be shown as P. Pratt to distinguish him from his brother, Orson Pratt).

33 . The four missionaries called to Missouri were: Oliver Cowdery, Peter Whitmer Jr., Ziba Peterson, and Parley P. Pratt. A fifth missionary joined them in Kirtland, Ohio, namely, Frederick G. Williams. He was baptized in Kirtland shortly before leaving for Missouri.

34 . Joseph Smith Jr., History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, ed., B. H. Roberts, 2nd ed. rev., 7 vols. (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1971), 1:145–146 (hereafter cited as History of the LDS Church); Joseph Smith III and Heman C. Smith, The History of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, 8 vols. (Lamoni, Iowa: Herald Publishing House and Bookbindery, 1896; Independence, Missouri: Herald Publishing House, n.d.), 1:168–169 (hereafter cited as the History of the RLDS Church).

35 . Robin Scott Jensen, Robert J. Woodford, and Steven C. Harper, eds., Revelations and Translations/Manuscript Revelation Books, Volume 1, (1828–1834), vol. 1 of the Revelations and Translations/Manuscript Revelation Books series of The Joseph Smith Papers, eds., Dean C. Jesse, Ronald K. Esplin, Richard L. Bushman (Salt Lake City: The Church Historian’s Press, 2009), 103.

36 . MacKay, et al., Documents, Volume 1, 317–327; History of the LDS Church, 175–177; History of the RLDS Church, 1:192–194. There is some discrepancy as to the actual date(s) of the conference, i.e., June 3rd, 4th, or 6th.

37 . MacKay, et al., Documents, Volume 1, 332n466.

38 . History of the LDS Church, 188; History of the RLDS Church, 1:201. The Smith party left Kirtland on June 19 and included Joseph Smith, Sidney Rigdon, Edward Partridge, Martin Harris, Joseph Coe, Sidney Gilbert and his wife, and, newly arrived and converted, William W. Phelps.

39 . Matthew C. Godfrey, Mark Ashurst-McGee, Grant Underwood, Robert J. Woodford, and William G. Hartley, eds., Documents, Volume 2: July 1831–January 1833, vol. 2 of the Documents series of The Joseph Smith Papers, eds., Dean C. Jesse, Ronald K. Esplin, Richard L. Bushman, and Matthew J. Grow (Salt Lake City: Church Historian’s Press, 2013), 5–12; History of the LDS Church, 188; History of the RLDS Church, 1:201. Smith, Harris, Partridge, Phelps, and Coe arrived on July 14, 1831. Rigdon and the Gilberts reached Independence the following week.

40 . Godfrey, et al., Documents, Volume 2, 5–12. The “city of Zion” is also referred to as the “city of New Jerusalem.” See LDS Doctrine and Covenants 28, 49, 84 and RLDS Doctrine and Covenants sections 27, 83.

41 . Eber D. Howe, Mormonism Unvailed, “Letter 6” (1832; repr., Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2015), 285. This reproduction of the original book has a “preface” by Dan Vogel. The specific information quoted in the text is from “Letter 6,” Fall 1831. This is one of nine letters written by Ezra Booth to the Ohio Star, October–December 1831, 255–312.

42 . Jackson County Court Minutes, Book 1, entry no. 80199, February 2, 1929.

43 . Pearl Wilcox, “Early Independence in Retrospect: Part II,” Saints Herald 106, no. 2 (January 12, 1959): 10–12. The Herald was first published in Cincinnati, Ohio, in January 1860, and initially titled The True Latter Day Saints’ Herald. Thereafter, publication was at Plano, Illinois, beginning April 1863, and then transferred to Lamoni, Iowa, in October 1881. The plant and offices were moved once again in 1921 to Church headquarters in Independence, Missouri. The first issue at the new facility is dated May 24, 1921. Beginning in 1860 this publication was the official periodical of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. The publication’s name was changed to the Saints’ Herald in January 1877. Isleta L. Pement and Paul M. Edwards, A Herald to the Saints: History of Herald Publishing House (Independence, MO: Herald Publishing House, 1992), 42, 55, 69, 78, 136; Inez Smith Davis, The Story of the Church (Independence, MO: Herald Publishing House, 1942), 393; History of the RLDS Church 3:238–241. In April 2001 the name was officially shortened to Herald. Mark A. Scherer, The Journey of a People: The Era of Worldwide Community, 1946 to 2015 (Independence, MO: Community of Christ Seminary Press, 2016), 520. This is an excellent 3-volume set (although not noted as such) covering different time periods of the history of the RLDS/Community of Christ Church.

44 . Orson Pratt, Journal of Discourses, 26 vols. (1854–1886; repr., Lithographed in the United States: n.p., 1966), 21:153–154. (Lecture delivered November 1, 1879, at Logan, Utah Territory). (Hereafter date and location of the discourse will follow.) (Orson Pratt will be shown as O. Pratt to distinguish from his brother Parley P. Pratt). See also N. B. Lundwall, Temples of the Most High (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, n.d.), 246–261. Chapter 16 is titled “The Independence Temple Site” and contains several lectures delivered by Orson Pratt, B. H. Roberts, Brigham Young, and Lorenzo Snow.

45 . Godfrey, et al., Documents, Volume 2, 12–21; O. Pratt, Journal of Discourses 18:160. (Lecture delivered July 18, 1875, at Salt Lake City, Utah Territory); F. Henry Edwards, The Edwards Commentary on the Doctrine and Covenants (Independence, MO: Herald Publishing House, 1986), 232. Edwards’ commentary referenced here is specifically in regard to RLDS Doctrine and Covenants 58.

46 . Switzler, History Of Boone County, 254; Eakin and Eakin, Record Of Original Entries, 24.

47 . Missouri Session Laws, Vol. 2, 1824–1836, 1830, December 31, 1830.

48 . Missouri Session Laws, Vol. 2, 1824–1836, 1830, December 31, 1830.

49 . Edward Partridge to My Dear Wife, Independence, Missouri, August 5, 1831, MS 23154 (Partridge Letters), The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Church History Library, Salt Lake City, Utah (hereafter, Church History Library). I am indebted to H. Michael Marquardt for alerting me to this material.

50 . I maintain that permission to venture onto Flournoy’s squatter’s claim was absolutely essential. To suggest that a group of men, all newcomers of approximately two weeks, and therefore relying, of necessity, on that same local community for supplies and lodging, would proceed to trespass onto a known claim would have immediately alienated the small town in a most adverse way. Furthermore, it is illogical, I believe, to think that such an event could have been done in secret. Simply, there were too many new arrivals involved in such a small town atmosphere to go unnoticed. Addams, “The History and Acquisition of the Temple Lot Property in Independence, Jackson County, Missouri,” 32, 42–43.

51 . O. Pratt, Journal of Discourses, 24: 24. (Lecture delivered October 26, 1879, at Salt Lake City, Utah Territory).

52 . P. Pratt, Autobiography of Parley P. Pratt, 195.

53 . William E. McLellin, Herald 29, no. 5 (March 1, 1882): 67. Certainly McLellin would have been shown the exact spot by Partridge, or others that had participated in the dedication, and told of the details surrounding this extraordinary event soon after his arrival in Independence in 1831.

54 . An Illustrated Historical Atlas Map–1877 (1877; repr., Independence in 1831. MO: Lew Printing, 2007), 45, 73. This reprint was produced under the direction of the Jackson County Historical Society; Atlas of Jackson County, Missouri (Kansas City, MO: Gallup Map & Supply, 1931), Section 3 Twp 49 R 32.

55 . Four of the five individuals who reported or recorded this event in their histories or correspondences indicated, by name, eight individuals being present at the dedication but each listing has a different mix.

56 . Interestingly, Ziba Peterson, one of the five original missionaries, is not mentioned. Peterson’s absence might be due to concerns expressed regarding Peterson in a revelation received on August 1, 1831, prior to the dedication event. (LDS Doctrine and Covenants 58:60; RLDS Doctrine and Covenants 58:14b).

57 . Karen Lynn Davidson, Richard L. Jensen, David J. Whittaker, Histories, Volume 2: 1831–1847, vol. 2 of The Joseph Smith Papers, eds., Dean C. Jesse, Ronald K. Esplin, and Richard L. Bushman (Salt Lake City: Church Historian’s Press, 2012), 12; McKiernan and Launius, An Early Latter Day Saint History: The Book of John Whitmer, 80; H. Michael Marquardt, “The Independence Temple of Zion,” Restoration Studies 5, no. 4 (October 1986): 13–17.

58 . Godfrey, et al., Documents, Volume 2, 12–13. (LDS Doctrine and Covenants 58:58, 60:6; RLDS Doctrine and Covenants 58:13b, 60:2e).

59 . Godfrey, et al., Documents, Volume 2, 12–13. (LDS Doctrine and Covenants 58:14, 24, 62; RLDS Doctrine and Covenants 58:4a, 6a,15b).

60 . A. Curtis, Jackson County, Missouri Land Patents Which Are Not U.S. Government Land Patents, 56.

61 . A Missouri State patent (certificate or deed) for “Seminary” land was issued to Flournoy on May 28, 1833. “Many times in early days a piece of property was sold before the original land purchaser had a patent (deed) himself.” Annette W. Curtis, “Mormon Land Ownership in Section 3 Twp 49 R32,” Missouri Mormon Frontier (no volume), no. 40 (February–June 2007): 3. At any “seminary” land sale officiated by the state of Missouri, the purchaser would have been issued a receipt by the state’s appointed “receiver” at the time of the sale/purchase. It was on the basis of this receipt that the county recorder would recognize a legitimate sale of a person’s recently acquired seminary land to another individual and record the same in the official property record of the appropriate county.

62 . Jackson County, Missouri, Property Records, Book B, 1, Independence, Missouri.

63 . The various names used herein refer to the acreage purchased by Edward Partridge in December 1831. While there is a difference between the much smaller site of dedication and the 63.27 acres purchased, the names noted here are generally interchangeable. There are numerous references to this property in what is known as the Temple Lot Suit or Temple Lot Case by those who testified (of which there were many) between 1891 (filing) and 1896 (conclusion) when the US Supreme Court was required to intervene. The suit itself was over rightful ownership of the smaller portion of the 63.27 acres or, more specifically, the dedication site itself (August 3, 1831), consisting of 2 1/2 acres then owned by the Church of Christ and contested by the RLDS Church. The US Supreme Court declined to hear the case and remanded the case back to the US Court of Appeals, which had overturned the US District Court’s initial ruling in favor of the RLDS Church. The “end result” was that there was no ownership change, i.e., the property was rightly owned by the Church of Christ. For more information see the following: R. Jean Addams, “An Introduction to the Temple Lot Case,” Signature Books Library, http://www.signaturebookslibrary.org/essays/templelot.htm; Ronald E. Romig, “The Temple Lot Suit After 100 Years,” John Whitmer Historical Association Journal 12, (1992): 3–15; Paul E. Reimann, The Reorganized Church and the Civil Courts (Salt Lake City: Utah Printing Company, 1961), 149–64; R. Jean Addams, “The Church of Christ (Temple Lot) and the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints: 130 Years of Crossroads and Controversies,” Journal of Mormon History 36, no. 2 (Spring 2010): 77–79; Typescript copies of the Temple Lot Case can be researched at various locations including the following: Community of Christ Library-Archives, Independence, Missouri; Kansas City (Missouri) Public Library; and Church History Library, Salt Lake City, Utah. Copy of the Temple Lot Case in my possession (hereafter cited as the Temple Lot Case).

64 . Elwin C. Robison. The First Mormon Temple: Design, Construction, and Historic Context of the Kirtland Temple (Provo, UT: Brigham Young University Press, 1997), 8–9.

65 . Gerrit J. Dirkmatt, Brent M. Rogers, Grant Underwood, Robert J. Woodford, William J. Hartley, eds., Documents, Volume 3: February 1833–March 1834, vol. 3 of the Documents series of The Joseph Smith Papers, eds., Ronald K. Esplin and Matthew J. Grow (Salt Lake City: Church Historian’s Press, 2014), 121–130.

66 . Dirkmatt, et al., Documents, Volume 3, 131–146.

67 . Dirkmatt, et al., Documents, Volume 3, 147–148.

68 . Dirkmatt, et al., Documents, Volume 3, 148.

69 . Dirkmatt, et al., Documents, Volume 3, 271-272, 287.

70 . Dirkmatt, et al., Documents, Volume 3, 123; Richard H. Jackson, “The City of Zion Plat,” in S. Kent Brown, Donald Q. Cannon, and Richard H. Jackson, eds., Historical Atlas of Mormonism (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1994), 44–45; Arnold K. Garr, Donald Q. Cannon, and Richard O. Cowan, eds., Encyclopedia of Latter-day Saint History (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2000), 211.

71 . Dirkmatt, et al., Documents, Volume 3, 128–129. Punctuation, capitalization, and spelling have been corrected in the above quote.

72 . Craig S. Campbell. Images of the New Jerusalem: Latter Day Saint Faction Interpretations of Independence, Missouri (Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee Press, 2004), 138–139.

73 . See Brandon S. Plewe, S. Kent Brown, Donald Q. Cannon, and Richard H. Jackson, eds. Mapping Mormonism: An Atlas of Latter-day Saint History (Provo, UT: BYU Press, 2012), 44–45.

74 . Dirkmatt, et al., Documents, Volume 3, 187; James B. Allen and Glen M. Leonard, The Story of the Latter-day Saints, 2nd ed. (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1992), 187.

75 . William W. Phelps had been called by revelation (Independence – July 1831) to “be planted in this place, and be established as a printer unto the church” (LDS Doctrine and Covenants 57:11; RLDS Doctrine and Covenants 57:5a). In the fall of 1831, back in Kirtland, he was charged with the purchase of a printing press (to be acquired in Cincinnati on his return to Missouri) and the establishment of the Church’s first newspaper The Evening and Morning Star. The first issue was published in July 1832. History of the LDS Church, 1:217, 273–284.

76 . History of the RLDS Church, 1:316; History of the LDS Church, 1:390–391.

77 . History of the LDS Church, 1:237.

78 . “‘Regulating’ the Mormonites,” Niles’ Register (Baltimore, MD), September 14, 1833, 48.

79 . Thomas M. Spencer, “Introduction,” Thomas M. Spencer, ed., The Missouri Mormon Experience (Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 2010), 11.

80 . History of the LDS Church, 1:395, 407; Church History in the Fulness of Times (Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1989), 134; B. H. Roberts, ed., A Comprehensive History of the LDS Church, 6 vols. (Salt Lake City: Deseret News Press, 1930), 1:358–59, Cowdery would have left shortly after a “Memorandum of Agreement” was signed by the Jackson County “Citizens Committee” and by church leaders in Independence on July 23, 1833.

81 . Roberts, Comprehensive History of the Church, 1:339.

82 . History of the LDS Church, 1:416–21. Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon, in company with Freeman Nickerson, commenced a mission that would take them to Nickerson’s home in “Upper Canada.” Smith’s revelation occurred at “Father Nickerson’s at Perrysburg, New York.”

83 . Dirkmatt, et al., Documents, Volume 3, 320–324.

84 . History of the RLDS Church, 1:435; Church History in the Fulness of Times, 141. Pratt and Lyman arrived in Kirtland on February 22, 1834.

85 . Dirkmatt, et al., Documents, Volume 3, 457–463.

86 . For excellent readings on this subject see Roger D. Launius, Zion’s Camp (Independence, MO: Herald Publishing House, 1984); James L. Bradley, Zion’s Camp 1834: Prelude to the Civil War (Salt Lake City: Publishers Press, 1990); James L. Bradley, The Eternal Perspective of Zion’s Camp (Logan, UT: n.p., 2004).

87 . Bradley, Zion’s Camp 1834: Prelude to the Civil War, 286; Roberts, Comprehensive History of the LDS Church, 1:358–59.

88 . Matthew C. Godfrey, Brenden W. Rensink, Alex D. Smith, Max Parkin, Alexander L. Baugh, eds., Documents, Volume 4: April 1834–September 1834, vol. 4 of the Documents series of The Joseph Smith Papers, eds., Ronald K. Esplin. Matthew J. Grow, and Matthew C. Godfrey (Salt Lake City: Church Historian’s Press, 2016), 69–77.

89 . Bradley, Zion’s Camp 1834: Prelude to the Civil War, 207. Depending on the source, the number of those succumbing to the disease varies from thirteen to eighteen. Some lists include church members who were living in Clay County but not specifically members of Zion’s Camp. Fourteen is the number given (13 men and 1 woman with names) by Heber C. Kimball, Joseph Noble, and Elizabeth Rollins Lightner.

90 . Launius, Zion’s Camp, 153.

91 . Godfrey, et al., Documents, Volume 4, 102–08; Ronald E. Romig and Michael S. Riggs, “Reassessing Joseph Smith’s ‘Appointed Time for the Redemption of Zion,’” The Missouri Mormon Experience, Spencer, ed., 29.

92 . Godfrey, et al., Documents, Volume 4, 73.

93 . Leland H. Gentry, A History of Latter-day Saints in Northern Missouri (Provo, UT: BYU Studies, 2000), 24. Recommended readings on this time period include: Stephen C. LeSueur, The 1838 Mormon War in Missouri (Columbia, MO: University of Missouri Press, 1990) and Alexander L. Baugh, A Call to Arms: The 1838 Mormon Defense of Northern Missouri (Provo, UT: BYU Studies, 2000).

94 . Baugh, A Call to Arms: The 1838 Mormon Defense of Northern Missouri, 109. The date of Order No. 44 (from Governor Lilburn W. Boggs to General John B. Clark) is October 27, 1838.

95 . Dirkmatt, et al., Documents, Volume 4, 69–77.

96 . The murder of the Smith brothers occurred on June 27, 1844. Preston Nibley, Joseph Smith the Prophet (Salt Lake City: Deseret News Press, 1944), 549–56; Richard P. Howard, The Church Through the Years, 2 vols. (Independence, MO: Herald Publishing House, 1992), 1:296.

97 . Steven L. Shields, Divergent Paths of the Restoration: A History of the Latter Day Saint Movement, 3rd ed. (Bountiful, UT: Restoration Research, 1982), 31.

98 . Shields, Divergent Paths of the Restoration, 28–29, 36–48, 50–56, 60–65.

99 . Shields, Divergent Paths of the Restoration, 65–74, 76–83.

100 . Joseph Fielding Smith, Essentials in Church History (Salt Lake City: Deseret News Press, 1947), 395. On September 24, 1845, in response to the Quincy citizen’s committee, Brigham Young answered that “we purpose to leave this country next spring.” It was well known that Joseph Smith had previously contemplated a move to the West.

101 . Richard and Pamela Price, The Temple of the Lord (Independence, MO: Richard and Pamela Price, 1982), 46–47.

102 . Jackson County, Missouri, Property Records, Book B, 1, Independence, Missouri.

103 . Temple Lot Case, 251 (Weston testimony).

104 . Journal History, April 26, 1848. Statement of J. S. Kelting.

105 . History of the RLDS Church, 1:315; History of the LDS Church, 1:376.

106 . P. Pratt, Autobiography of Parley P. Pratt, 54.

107 . Price and Price, The Temple of the Lord, 44.

108 . History of the LDS Church, 4:132. Partridge died May 27, 1840.

109 . Journal History, April 26, 1848.

110 . History of the LDS Church, 3:274.

111 . Journal History, April 26, 1848.

112 . Journal History, April 26, 1848.

113 . Journal History, April 26, 1848. The “equivalent” was worth much more than the $300. Pearson either brought with him, or made arrangements for, what the Partridge family needed most: two wagons, five yoke of cattle (ten oxen), and six horses, items in short supply on the extreme fringes of civilization. Price and Price, The Temple of the Lord, 54.

114 . Journal History, April 26, 1848. Lydia Partridge (Huntington), wife; and daughters Eliza, Emily (Young); Caroline (Lyman). Two of Partridge’s heirs, daughter Lydia and son Edward did not sign. The four women who signed the deed all used Partridge as their last name although three of them were married.

115 . Jackson County, Missouri, Property Records, Book N, 203, Independence, Missouri. Recorded by Samuel D. Lucas, June 16, 1848.

116 . Jackson County, Missouri, Property Records, Book N, 203, Independence, Missouri.

117 . Arthur M. Smith, Temple Lot Deed (Independence, MO: Board of Publications Church of Christ, 1954), 6–7.

118 . Crow Creek Record, From winter of 1852 to April 24, 1864 (Independence, Missouri: Church of Christ (Temple Lot), n.d.), preface. Note: The “w” in “winter” is not capitalized. The title is at as it appears in the publication of the Church of Christ (Temple Lot) but is not titled as such on the original document. The original document also does not have a preface. The original document is titled: The Record and History of the Crow Creek Branch of the Church of Jesus Christ (of Latter day Saints) which was organized on the 6th day of April A.D. 1830. Note: There is no hyphen between “Latter” and “day;” Woodford County, Illinois, Property Records, John H. and Elizabeth Ann Hedrick to Granville Hedrick, 29 November 1849, E:279; James B. and Minerva Martin, John H. Hedrick and Elizabeth Anne, and America and Mary Jane Hedrick to Granville Hedrick, 25 February 1850, E:280–81; and Jane Hedrick to Granville Hedrick, 14 January 1851, Eureka, Illinois, E:278–79. Granville Hedrick’s farm was located approximately a mile-and-a-half directly west of Washburn in Cazenovia Township, Woodford County. Woodford County History (Woodford County, IL: Woodford County Sesquicentennial History Committee, 1968), 20. Washburn was originally named Half Moon Prairie by early settlers who thought the prairie had that shape.

119 . Granville Hedrick was born in Clark City, Indiana, in 1814, was converted to Mormonism between 1839 and 1843. According to one Church of Christ record, he was baptized by Hervey Green in 1843, probably in Washburn, where Hedrick owned a large farm that his father had purchased in 1834 and which Hedrick had acquired from his widowed mother (see previous footnote). Hedrick was also ordained an elder between 1841 and 1843. “More Testimony If Called For,” Truth Teller 1, no. 2 (August 1864): 31. Interestingly, Hedrick purchased property in Johnson County, Kansas, about thirty-five miles southwest of Independence in 1874 (rather than Jackson County as directed by revelation in 1864) when he was sixty and made his home there until his death in 1881.

120 . The Truth Teller was the official monthly newspaper of the Church of Christ published between July 1864 and June 1865 at Bloomington, Illinois. Publication was restarted in June 1868 at Independence, Missouri (two issues only). Of note: the name used in the mast is the “Church of Jesus Christ (of Latter Day Saints).”

121 . Granville Hedrick, “Revelation,” Truth Teller 1, no. 1 (July 1864): 4. The personal delivery of the revelation by an angel does not appear in the 1864 article, or, to my knowledge, anywhere else in print. Nicholas F. Denham, in an emotional reminiscence, related that, as a teenager, the Hedrick family showed him the bed that Granville Hedrick was sleeping in when “an angel appeared to him and gave him the revelation to return to Jackson County.” Nicholas F. Denham, interview by author, September 2005.

122 . Richard and Pamela Price, The Temple of the Lord (Independence, MO: Price Publishing Company, 1982), 77. This book prints the testimony of John Taylor (a member of the original Church but not the third president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) in the Temple Lot Case: “The corner stone was up above the ground that marked the Temple, and I saw it myself with these eyes.”

123 . Jackson County, Property Records, Jacob Tindall to John Hedrick, 22 August 1867, 50:331–32 (lot 21); John Montgomery to John H. Hedrick, 24 September 1867, 50: 332 (lot 20); and George W. Buchanan to John H. Hedrick, 12 December 1867, 53:526–27 (lot 16); Joseph C. and Mary Irwin to William Eaton, 9 July 1873, 104: 311 (lots 17, 18, 19, 22); and Maria McClanahan and Susan Nelson to William Eaton, 7 March 1874, 104:517 (lot 15), Independence, Missouri.

124 . History of the RLDS Church, 3:209. Jason W. Briggs was baptized and ordained an elder in 1841 in the original Church. After Joseph Smith’s assassination, he followed James Strang and William Smith, became disillusioned, and presided over the New Organization’s first conference in 1852. He was ordained an apostle in 1853 and became president of the quorum of apostles. The RLDS conference in 1885 did not sustain him, and he formally withdrew in 1886. He died in 1899. Zenas H. Gurley Sr. was baptized and ordained an elder in the original Church in 1838, followed James Strang and William Smith after Joseph Smith’s death, and was ordained an apostle in the New Organization in 1853. He functioned in this capacity until his death in 1871.

125 . History of the RLDS Church, 3:201. Jason W. Briggs received this revelation in October 1851 and published the text in the Messenger (Salt Lake City, UT) 2, no. 1 (November 1875): 1. This periodical, published 1874–77, has been reprinted by Price Publishing Company of Independence, 1996.

126 . History of the RLDS Church, 3:209; Joseph Smith III was the eldest surviving son of Joseph Smith Jr. and Emma Hale Smith. He was born in Kirtland, Ohio, on November 6, 1832. Smith was only eleven years old when his father was murdered at Carthage, Illinois. When Brigham Young led the majority of the Mormons in the Nauvoo, Illinois, area west, young Joseph’s mother and siblings stayed behind. Emma’s family remained aloof from the claims of the many aspirants to the mantle of her husband. In the late 1850s, several individuals began to assimilate many of the Latter Day Saints that had remained in the Midwest. Certain of these individuals believed that Joseph Smith III should be the head of the New Organization. In early 1860 Smith agreed and on April 6, 1860, (thirty years to the day that his father had organized the original Church) he was sustained as “President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.” On February 5, 1873, in an effort to distinguish the Smith III-led church from the Brigham Young-led church of the same name headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah, the name was changed to the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Joseph Smith III presided over the RLDS Church for over fifty-four years. His death occurred at Independence, Missouri, on December 10, 1914. Roger D. Launius, Joseph Smith III: Pragmatic Prophet (Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1995), various; Mary Audentia Smith Anderson and Bertha Audentia Anderson Hulmes, eds., Joseph Smith III and the Restoration (Independence, MO: Herald Publishing House, 1952), various.

127 . Shields, Divergent Paths of the Restoration, 65–74. Shields used “New Organization of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.” Ronald E. Romig, former Community of Christ archivist, email message to author, February 7, 2008, clarified: “The term ‘New Organization’ was never an official name of the church. The name was: Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. However, the term [New Organization] was and still is often used to describe the early Reorganization.” See also Charles Millard Turner, “Joseph Smith III and the Mormons of Utah,” (PhD diss., University of California, 1985), chap. 4; Bert C. Flint, An Outline History of the Church of Christ (Temple Lot) (Independence, MO: The Board of Publications, Church of Christ, 1953), 92–96.

128 . William Marks had been president of the Nauvoo Stake at the time of Joseph Smith’s death but was not sustained by the Church in October 1844. He briefly followed James Strang. Marks formally associated with the New Organization in 1859, was mouth for the ordination of Joseph Smith III in 1860, and served as a counselor to Smith until his death in 1872. History of the RLDS Church, 3:721–26; Roberts, Comprehensive History of the LDS Church, 2:455.

129 . History of the RLDS Church, 3:264; Frederick B. Blair, comp., Memoirs of President W. W. Blair (Lamoni, IA: Herald Publishing House, 1908; Independence, MO: Price Publishing Company, 1994), 30–31; Mary Audentia Smith Anderson, ed., Memoirs of President Joseph Smith III (1832–1914), photo–reprint edition, Richard P. Howard, ed. (Independence, MO: Herald Publishing House, 1979), 72. The Anderson edition was serialized in the Herald, November 6, 1934–July 31, 1937.

130 . Marjorie F. Spease, “A Pattern from History,” Genesis of the Remnant Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Independence, MO: n.p., 2003), 30. The national negative publicity about Mormon polygamy was a major reason for emphasizing this difference in the Church’s name, beginning in the 1860s. See also History of the RLDS Church, 3:709–12.

131 . Joseph Smith [III], “Truth Vindicated,” Herald 6, no. 4 (August 15, 1864): 49. Shortly after Hedrick’s April revelation, Joseph III counseled the members at a special conference at Amboy, Illinois, on June 25, 1864: “You are forbidden to receive his [Hedrick’s] teachings.” Minutes, Special Conference held at Amboy, 25 June 1864, Community of Christ Archives-Library.

132 . History of the RLDS Church, 4:166–67; Joseph Smith III and Henry Stebbins, “Notes on Travel,” Herald 24, no. 2 (January 15, 1877): 25.

133 . Roberts, Comprehensive History of the Church, 3:155–157.

134 . “Special Conference at Salt Lake City,” Millennial Star, Supplement 15, no. 1 (January 1, 1853): 11. The Supplement was sold separately (and was advertised in the January 1 edition) but was bound and included in the volume for the year 1853. It contained the full proceedings of a “Special Conference of Elders,” held at the Salt Lake Tabernacle (old), on August 28, 1852.

135 . Stan Larson, ed., A Ministry of Meetings: The Apostolic Diaries of Rudger Clawson (Salt Lake City: Signature Books in association with Smith Research Associates, 1993), 70.

136 . John R. Haldeman, “Secretary’s Report,” Searchlight 1, no.7 (August 1896): 56. The Searchlight was the official organ of the Church of Christ (Temple Lot) between February 1896 and March 1900.

137 . Church Record (Independence, MO: Church of Christ), 65, cited by Flint, An Outline History of the Church of Christ (Temple Lot), 114–15.

138 . Church Record (Independence, MO: Church of Christ), 65.

139 . Richard A. Wheaton, Temple Lot Plat (from plat used in 1890s Temple Lot Suit), plotted by Richard A. Wheaton, P.E., August 1999 (from Temple Plans, Photo Interpretation, Other Surveys, and Records). Copy courteously provided to author by Richard A. Wheaton.

140 . Stan Larson, ed., A Ministry of Meetings: The Apostolic Diaries of Rudger Clawson, 70.

141 . History of the RLDS Church, 5:488–89.

142 . History of the RLDS Church, 5:488–89.

143 . Journal History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (chronological scrapbook of typed entries and newspaper clippings, 1830–present), February 8, 1900, 2; “Probable Amalgamation,” Independence Sentinel, March 1, 1900, 2.

144 . It was understood by all parties (Church of Christ, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints) that the property held by the Church of Christ specifically included that “spot for a temple” as recorded in the revelation to the prophet Joseph Smith, dated July 1831 (LDS Doctrine and Covenants 57:3; RLDS Doctrine and Covenants 57:1d).

145 . Journal History, February 21, 1900, 2–24.

146 . Journal History, February 21, 1900, 2–24.

147 . Jones H. Flourney and Clara Flourney, Deed to Edward Partridge, 19 December 1831, Independence, Missouri, Jackson County, Property Records, B:1. Today the 63.27 acres is owned (approximately) as follows: Community of Christ 40.5, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints 20, Church of Christ (Temple Lot) 2.75.

148 . Journal History, February 21, 1900, 13.

149 . Journal History, February 21, 1900, 13.

150 . Richard A. Brown, An Illustrated History of the Stone Church (Independence, MO: Herald Publishing House, 1988), 5, 6–7, 8, 10–11.

151 . Joseph Smith III, “The House of the Lord, As Seen in Vision” Saints Herald 25, no. 11 (June 1, 1878:161–63. http://books.google.com/boo

ks?id=F8HTmuNcyDYC.

152 . Earnest Webbe, “Dream Of The Temple That Is To Be.” Autumn Leaves 20, no. 5 (May 1907), 193. http://www.latterdayturth.org/pdf/100069.pdf (frontispiece featuring a drawing of a painting by Webbe, based on the dream of Joseph Smith III).

153 . C. Ed Miller, “Question Time,” Saints Herald 98 no. 34 (August 20, 1951):14. http://www.latterdaytruth.org/pdf/100265.pdf.

154 . Anderson, Memoirs of President Joseph Smith III, 451.

155 . “To Build an Auditorium,” Jackson Examiner, April 16, 1920, 4; History of the RLDS Church, 7:385–86.

156 . “Moving Lamoni Printing Office Here,” Jackson Examiner, May 6, 1921; History of the RLDS Church, 7:434.

157 . “History of the Central States Mission” (no author or editor is indicated and no date is given). The “History” is a typewritten document of seventy-five pages with appendices. Copy located by author at The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Missouri Independence mission offices, Independence, Missouri, in 2010. A photocopy was generously provided to me at that time. St. John, Kansas, is located in south-central Kansas.

158 . William J. Curtis and Annette W. Curtis, eds., The Missouri Indepen-dence Mission: 1883–2005, The Return to Zion, 4th ed. (Independence, MO: n.p., 2005), 158–59.

159 . Untitled news item, Jackson Examiner (Independence, MO), April 22, 1904, 1; “Buying Independence Property,” Evening and Morning Star 5, no. 2 (May 1904): 2. Note: as early as October 22, 1903, President Joseph F. Smith announced at a meeting of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles that “Pres Duffin of the S. W. States mission had been instructed to proceed to Independence at once and negotiate for said property being authorized to offer not to exceed $20,000, but to get it for $16,000, if possible.” Larson, The Apostolic Diaries of Rudger Clawson, 668–69. Obviously, Duffin’s “authorization” was subsequently increased.

160 . Joseph F. Smith, John R. Winder, and Anthon H. Lund, to William H. Smart, 18 April 1904. After thanking Smart for his donation, the First Presidency stated: “We … have great pleasure in saying that we have recently purchased nearly twenty six acres of this temple lot property for which we paid $25,000.” A handwritten receipt included with the letter specified that the donation was for the “Jackson County Temple Fund.” The receipt bears the same date and is signed by James Jack, cashier. Later, the fund’s name was preprinted on prenumbered receipts. The prenumbered receipts are for donations to the “Jackson County Temple and Redemption of Zion” fund. First Presidency receipts for Smart’s additional donations are dated February 13, 1905 and December 30, 1911. Color photocopies of the letter and all three receipts were generously provided to the author by Smart’s grandsons, Thomas and William. For more information on William H. Smart, see William B. Smart, Mormonism’s Last Colonizer: The Life and Times of William H. Smart (Logan: Utah State University Press, 2008).

161 . Robert D. and Mary W. Mize, to James G. Duffin, October 11, 1905, Jackson County, Missouri, Property Records, 265:323.

162 . Samuel O. Bennion was born June 9, 1874, in Taylorsville, Utah, and was called to the Central States Mission on November 9, 1904. He replaced Duffin on October 1, 1906. Bennion served as president until January 20, 1934. Almost a year earlier, he had been sustained at the April 1933 General Conference to the First Council of Seventy where he served until his death on March 8, 1945. “Samuel Otis Bennion,” Grandpa Bill’s General Authority Pages, accessed November 22, 2010, http://www.gapages.com/benniso1.htm.

163 . “History of the Central States Mission,” 28. Note: At this time, approximately fifty members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (up from approximately thirty-five in 1903) lived in the Kansas City-Independence area; Curtis and Curtis, The Missouri Independence Mission, 162.

164 . “The Liahona,” Jackson Examiner, March 25, 1907; Curtis and Curtis, The Missouri Independence Mission, 10. This publication was named the Liahona for its first eleven issues beginning with volume 1, no. 1, dated April 6, 1907. It was then consolidated with the Elders’ Journal (published by the Southern States Mission in Chattanooga, Tennessee) and renamed Liahona: The Elders’ Journal (1907–42), hereafter cited as Liahona. “To Consolidate with ‘Liahona,’” Jackson Examiner, April 26, 1907, 3.

165 . Gerrit J. Dirkmaat, Brent M. Rogers, Grant Underwood, Robert J. Woodford, and William G. Hartley, eds., Documents, Volume 3: February 1833–March 1834, vol. 3 of the Documents series of The Joseph Smith Papers, eds., Ronald K. Esplin and Matthew J. Grow (Salt Lake City: Church Historian’s Press, 2014), 457–463.

166 . “Now a Corporation,” Jackson Examiner, October 17, 1907. Samuel O. Bennion was a major stockholder. Other stockholders were mission presidents in North America for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

167 . “History of the Central States Mission,” 28. The first known missionary tract published by Zion’s Printing and Publishing Company appeared in June 1908: The Forerunner: Devoted to Fair Play/Opposed to Bigotry. In 1916, the first Independence edition of the Book of Mormon was published. Chad J. Flake and Larry W. Draper, A Mormon Bibliography: 1830–1930, 2 vols., 2nd ed. (Provo, UT: Covenant Communications for the Religious Studies Center, BYU, 2004), 1:420.

168 . “Mormon Church Is Ready: The $25,000 Independence Structure to Be Dedicated,” Kansas City Times, November 21, 1914, 18; “The New Mormon Church: Building a Handsome One to Be Dedicated Sunday,” Independence Examiner, November 20, 1914, 4; “New Temple Dedicated: President Joseph F. Smith of Salt Lake City, Conducted Simple Ceremony in New Church,” Independence Examiner, November 23, 1914, 1; “Rival Prophets Friends: Saints and Mormons Mingled at Church Dedication,” Kansas City Times, November 23, 1914, 5; “Dedication,” Liahona 12, no. 24 (December 8, 1914): 376.

169 . Otto Fetting was born November 20, 1871, in Casco, Michigan. He was baptized a member of the RLDS Church on February 9, 1891. During the period referred to as SDC (Supreme Directional Control) in the RLDS Church he transferred his membership to the Church of Christ (Temple Lot) where his leadership skills were readily recognized; he was ordained an apostle in 1926. Fetting continued to receive visitations and inspired “messages.” As noted in footnotes hereafter, controversy developed and Fetting was subsequently excommunicated in 1930, the result of “Message 12.” This message required rebaptism of all those transferring membership into the Church of Christ. Fetting thereafter organized the “Church of Christ with the Elijah Message.” He died January 30, 1933. Shields, Divergent Paths of the Restoration, 131; Wikipedia, s.v. “Otto Fetting,” last modified December 18, 2013, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_Fetting.

170 . “A Message from ‘The Messenger,’” Zion’s Advocate 4, no. 5 (May 1927): 69; The Word of the Lord (1943; repr., Independence, MO: Church of Christ With The Elijah Message, 1971), 7–8. Fetting sequentially numbered all “Messages” as they were received.

171 . Word of the Lord, 7–9.

172 . Otto Fetting, “Manifestation Received By Apostle Otto Fetting,” Zion’s Advocate 5, no. 5 (May 1928): 70; Word of the Lord, 13–16.

173 . Julius C. Billeter, The Temple of Promise: Jackson County, Missouri (Independence, MO: Zion’s Printing and Press Company, 1946), 139; “Sacred Soil Broken for the New Temple: Bishop Frisbey Sinks the Spade into the Tough Sod While Multitude Looks On,” Independence Examiner, April 8, 1929, 1.

174 . “Chose an Architect,” Independence Examiner, April 16, 1930.

175 . “Go Ahead with Temple,” Independence Examiner, August 15, 1930.

176 . “The Outer Court of Extraordinary Temple the Church of Christ Has Begun To Build with the Intention of Creating a Structure Which Will Defy the Ages,” Kansas City Star, September 7, 1930, 1.

177 . “Clearing Temple Lot: Trees Being Removed from Temple Site–Wood Will be Used in Making Furniture,” Independence Examiner, April 26, 1929; “From the Building Committee,” Zion’s Advocate 6, no. 6 (June 1929): 73; “Find Historic Stone Upon the Temple Lot: Believed by Church of Christ Officials to Be One Set There by Mormon Prophet,” Independence Examiner, May 29, 1929, 1.

178 . “Prophet Fetting Is Out: The Church of Christ ‘Silences’ Its Visionary,” Kansas City Star, October 13, 1929; “Silence Otto Fetting: Church of Christ by Vote of 92 to 67, Adopts Resolution,” Independence Examiner, October 14, 1929. Flint, An Outline History of the Church of Christ, 142, stated that the church’s membership at the time of the October “Special Conference” approximated four thousand and that “nearly one-third of the membership” left the church and followed Fetting. While an exaggeration on Flint’s part, there was a significant departure of church members. See Thomas W. Williams, “What a Change: Now that Certain Men Are in Power!,” Messenger 5, no. 12 (December 1929): 100. This matter of litigation was more than “withholding funds.” The suit stated the funds had been used for personal gain. The stated amount of damages sought was $338.40. See also “Continue Church Case: More Time in Church of Christ Suit Versus Otto Fetting and W[illiam] P. Buckley,” Independence Examiner, January 6, 1930; Leon A. Gould, “Awake, Saints, Awake,” Zion’s Advocate 14, no. 11 (November 1937): 290–92; Richard B. Trowbridge, “That the People May Know,” Zion’s Advocate 17, no. 9 (September 1940): 137; “In the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri, at Independence, December Term 1942, Thomas E. Barton, Archie Bell and Joseph [James] E. Yates, as Trustees for, Church of Christ, (Temple Lot) an Unincorporated Religious Organization[,] Plaintiffs vs. Richard B. Trowbridge, Defendant: Receiver’s Final Report and Application for Final Discharge,” Zion’s Advocate 20, no. 4 (April 1943): 52–53; Arthur M. Smith, Bert C. Flint, and James E. Yates, “Action of the Quorum of Twelve: Independence, Missouri, October 7, 1943,” Zion’s Advocate 20, no. 12 (December 1943): 185.

179 . “Minutes of Ministers’ Conference, 1946,” Zion’s Advocate 23, no. 5 (May 1946): 70–71. This conference authorized the city of Independence to “back-fill” the excavation site.

180 . “Minutes of the 2002 April Ministers’ Conference,” Zion’s Advocate 79, no. 4 (April 2002): 23. Report indicates $89,894 in an account labeled “Temple Fund” and an additional listing of a $25,000 CD (Certificate of Deposit) also designated as “Temple Fund.”

181 . In 1925 the RLDS Church organized the Independence Development Trust. In 1927 it became the Central Development Association and was incorporated in 1930. CDA Bx 1–4, Community of Christ Archives-Library, Independence, Missouri. I am indebted to Barbara Hands Bernauer for bringing this collection to my attention and facilitating my research.

182 . F. M. Ball, “Is This the Temple?,” Messenger 4, no. 3 (March 1928): 40.

183 . Frederick M. Smith to Samuel A. Burgess, 21 August 1942, Temple Lot, Subject Collection, P22, f 111, Community of Christ Archives-Library.

184 . Samuel A. Burgess to Frederick M. Smith, 8 September 1942, Temple Lot, Subject Collection, P22, f 111, Community of Christ Archives-Library.

185 . Herald 121, no. 5 (May 1974): 7.

186 . The revelation was announced April 10, 1984. The Temple: Ensign of Peace (Independence, MO: Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, n.d.). A copy of the booklet is in my possession.

187 . “Temple Groundbreaking: Order of Service,” Independence Temple: Groundbreaking Service 1990 (Independence, MO: Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, 1990), 3. A copy of the program is in my possession; Jan Smith, “Temple Building Under Way,” Independence Examiner, April 6, 1990.

188 . Scherer, The Journey of a People, 486. See also Marquardt, “The Independence Temple of Zion.”

189 . Paul E. Reimann, “A Generous Gift from the First Presidency in 1950 for Education at Independence, Missouri,” M277.78 R367g, Church History Library. This is a twenty-four-page document or report prepared for the “Church Library” in 1983 by Reimann upon the request of Thomas G. Truitt. It was not a published article. The mayor of Independence and the city’s school board president traveled to Salt Lake City in 1950 to discuss the matter of purchasing the church acreage with President George A. Smith of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. A donation was promised and, subsequently, a gift of $25,000 was proffered and accepted with thanks and appreciation. Ironically, this was the same amount that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints paid for the twenty-six-acre tract of land in 1904. In 1967 the Church was again approached by the city of Independence concerning the use of the vacant land. Alvin R. Dyer, diary, 12 October 1967, accn 1334, box 46, f 4, Gregory A. Prince Collection, Special Collections, Marriott Library, University of Utah.

190 . Independence Examiner, December 7, 1967.

191 . “Mormons Plan Independence Visitors’ Center,” Saints Herald 115, no. 12 (June 15, 1968): 7; “Visitors’ Center Ceremony Set,” Independence Examiner, August 3, 1968, 1; “Ceremony at a Mormon Project Site,” Kansas City Star, August 4, 1968, 7. The Saints Herald reported that the estimated cost of the Visitors’ Center was $500,000.

192 . Alvin R. Dyer, “Report of Meeting with President David O. McKay,” diary, March 10, 1967, accn 1334, box 46, f 6.

193 . “LDS Dedicate Center Before Storm Hits,” Independence Examiner, June 1, 1971, 1; Joseph Fielding Smith, “The First Prophet of the Last Dispensation,” Ensign 2, no. 4 (August 1971): 5–6.

194 . Lyndon W. Cook, Joseph Smith and The Law of Consecration (Provo, UT: Grandin Book Company, 1985), 6; History of the LDS Church, 1:364–65; Church History In The Fulness of Times, 98; Alvin R. Dyer, The Refiner’s Fire: The Significance of Events Transpiring in Missouri (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1969), 50–56. Note: The imprint on the cover is titled the Refiner’s Fire: Historical Highlights of Missouri.

195 . Spencer, The Missouri Mormon Experience, 8–11.

196 . Campbell, Images of the New Jerusalem, 160.

197 . William A. Sheldon, Church of Christ Apostle, interview by author, October 4, 2006.

198 . William A. Sheldon, Church of Christ Apostle, interview by author, April 2006.

199 . Sheldon, interview by author, April 2006.

200 . W. Grant McMurray, “Forward: Our Name and Our Heritage,” Saints Herald 148, no.1 (January 2001): 4; 2000 World Conference Transcript, 164, Community of Christ Archives-Library.

201 . Dedication of the Temple, Independence, Missouri, Sunday, April 17th, 1994 (Official program for the dedication service). A copy of the program is in my possession.

202 . Scherer, Journey of a People, 486.

203 . Jennifer Howe, “Sacred Ground,” Kansas City Star, April 5, 1990, E1.

204 . The Temple: Ensign of Peace (no publication information is given), 7.

A copy of the booklet is in my possession.

205 . Campbell, Images of the New Jerusalem, 236–37.

206 . Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1958), passim.

207 . McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 480–83.

208 . McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 773–75.

209 . Dyer, The Refiner’s Fire, Preface.

210 . Dyer, The Refiner’s Fire, 173; The Great Prologue: A Prophetic History And Destiny of America (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1975), 19–20; Campbell, Images of the New Jerusalem, 172–73.

211 . Articles of Faith 1:10 (1951 Latter-day Saint edition), 60.

212 . Articles of Faith 1:10 (1981 Latter-day Saint edition), 61.

213 . “Church buys 4,250 acres for investment in Missouri,” Deseret News, Church News, December 16, 1978, 12 (This is the land upon which the Church built the Kansas City Temple 2008–2012); LR 1562 44, February 12, 1944 (Purchase of 30 acres at Adam-ondi-Ahman) Church History Library; Alvin R. Dyer, diary, October 6, 1969, Prince 1334, Box 48, f 10. Discussion regarding purchase of multiple parcels of land at Adam-ondi-Ahman.

214 . Campbell, Images of the New Jerusalem, 203–04.

215 . Wikipedia, s.v. “Kansas City Missouri Temple,” last modified November 13, 2013, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansas_City_Missouri_Temple.

216 . Wikipedia, s.v. “Kansas City Missouri Temple.”

217 . Wikipedia, s.v. “Kansas City Missouri Temple.”

218 . Russell M. Nelson, “A New Normal,” Ensign or Liahona, November 2020, 118.

219 . Nelson, “A New Normal,” 119.

220 . Sheldon, interview by author, April 2006.

221 . McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 483.

JOSIAH TO ZORAM TO SHEREM TO JAROM

AND THE BIG LITTLE BOOK OF OMNI

Val Larsen

Abstract: The first 450 years of Nephite history are dominated by two main threads: the ethno-political tension between Nephites and Lamanites and religious tension between adherents of rival theologies. These rival Nephite theologies are a Mantic theology that affirms the existence of Christ and a Sophic theology that denies Christ. The origin of both narrative threads lies in the Old World: the first in conflicts between Nephi and Laman, the second in Lehi’s rejection of King Josiah’s theological and political reforms. This article focuses on these interrelated conflicts. It suggests that Zoram, Laman, Lemuel, Sherem, and the Zeniffites were Deuteronomist followers of Josiah. The small plates give an account of how their Deuteronomist theology gradually supplanted the gospel of Christ. As the small plates close, their last author, Amaleki, artfully confronts his readers with a life-defining choice: having read the Book of Mormon thus far, will you remain, metaphorically, with the prophets in Zarahemla and embrace the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ, or will you return to the land of Nephi and the theology you believed and the life you lived before you read the Book of Mormon?

The first 450 years of Nephite history in the Book of Mormon narrative are dominated by two main threads: the ethno-political tension between Nephites and Lamanites and religious tension between adherents of rival Nephite theologies. One of these theologies affirms the existence of Christ. The other denies Christ. The origin of both narrative threads lies in the Old World: the first in conflicts between Nephi and Laman, the second in Lehi’s rejection of King Josiah’s theological and political reforms. Having been born around the same time as Lehi, Josiah lived from 649 to 609 BC and reigned for 31 of his 40 years. He was king when Laman, Lemuel, Sam, and Nephi were born and probably when Laman and Lemuel came of age. His policies and actions were surely salient in the life of Lehi and all his family while they lived in Jerusalem. However, the Book of Mormon suggests that his policies and actions were largely not supported by Lehi, Nephi, and Jacob.[1] Others who accompanied Lehi on his migration, including Laman and Lemuel, apparently did accept the reforms, thus bringing this Old World theological rivalry with them to the Promised Land. This rivalry reverberates throughout the history recorded in the small plates of Nephi and into the Book of Mosiah as a contest between competing Sophic and Mantic theological traditions.[2]

Josiah’s Reforms

Josiah’s theological and political reforms began at age 18, when Shaphan the scribe gave him the Book of the Law (Torah) discovered by Hilkiah the high priest during a renovation of Solomon’s temple. This book, which many scholars believe to be part of the current book of Deuteronomy,[3] condemned the people’s conception of God and the behavioral codes they followed. It predicted that Josiah’s kingdom would be destroyed because the people had forgotten Yahweh and the law handed down by Moses.[4] Having torn his clothing to signify distress, Josiah undertook aggressive theological and political reforms that cast down the old social order and erected a new one.[5]

The belief system that Josiah upended in his reform must be reconstructed from its residue in the Bible and other ancient texts and from archeological remains. Since all interpretations are composed from scattered fragments, there are many points on which scholars differ in their reconstructions. These numerous differences notwithstanding, many critical scholars believe that prior to Josiah’s reforms, some or most of his people thought of the gods as a divine family, as a council of gods analogous to human royal families and royal courts. They seem to have understood God to be the corporeal Lord Isaiah and Micaiah saw sitting on his temple throne surrounded by angels (Isaiah 6:1–4, 8:18; 2 Chronicles 18:18). They viewed him as the Elohim described in Psalm 82:1 who stands in the midst of a council of Gods. Members of that divine council may have included Elohim’s wife, Asherah, his seventy sons who ruled the nations of the earth, the son Yahweh being the God of Israel (Deuteronomy 32 7–9),[6] and the host of heaven, his angelic army, who likewise surrounded him and made him the Lord of Hosts (Joshua 5:13–15). In addition to their temple home on earth, these divine beings had a heavenly home and were associated with the sun, moon, and stars (2 Kings 23:5).[7]

While we must speculate on how all the elements of this system of belief held together, the Bible text is quite clear about particular beliefs and practices that Josiah rejected and violently suppressed in his reform. The underlying theme of his reforms was a political and theological centralization that, at the limit, verged on monism.[8] The most obvious manifestation of Josiah and the Deuteronomists’ monism was their stringent monotheism, a conception of God expressed in the Shema and subsequent elaborations: “Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord”; “I, even I, am he and there is no god with me” (Deuteronomy 6:4, 32:39).[9] Within this strictly monotheistic conception of God, the identities and acts of El and Yahweh were conflated in the one God Yahweh Elohim. The existence of any other divine beings relevant to Israel was denied.[10]

Josiah violently enforced this new orthodoxy. His people had objects that probably signified Asherah: statues with the trunk of a tree at the bottom and the figure of a woman at the top, and almond trees trained to grow in the shape of a menorah.[11] One Asherah object had been in the temple for most of its history, at least 236 years,[12] and another had stood in a high place of worship on the Mount of Olives, apparently since the time of Solomon.[13] Josiah dragged the Asherah in the temple down into the Kidron valley and burned it there (2 Kings 23:6). He cut down the Asherah on the Mount of Olives (2 Kings 23:13–14). Also destroyed in the Kidron valley were various tokens of the heavenly host that had been in the temple (2 Kings 23:11). This destructive violence was not confined to Jerusalem. Josiah went to Beth-el, where Jacob had set up a pillar and made a covenant with Elohim (Genesis 31:13) and to all the high places where his people worshipped. He destroyed the altars and Asherahs and killed all the priests who officiated in those sacred places (2 Kings 23:15- 20). In an act consistent with the Deuteronomist condemnation of his father Amon, his grandfather Manasseh, and most of his other ancestors since Solomon, he desecrated graves and burned the bones of the people buried near the high places (2 Kings 23:16).

Josiah and the Deuteronomists also threw into question the visible corporeality of God. Still reflecting the old beliefs, Exodus had portrayed the leaders of Israel as seeing, like Isaiah and Micaiah, an embodied God: “Then went up Moses … and seventy of the elders of Israel: And they saw the God of Israel: and there was under his feet as it were a paved work of a sapphire stone” (Exodus 24:9–10). The Deuteronomists changed that theology, declaring “ye heard the voice of the words, but saw no similitude; … for ye saw no manner of similitude on the day that the Lord spake unto you in Horeb: Lest ye [make] the similitude of any … male or female” (Deuteronomy 4:12, 15–16). Consistent with this Deuteronomist denial that God could be seen was Josiah’s militant aniconism, his aggressive destruction of all images of purported gods.[14] Likewise consistent was Deuteronomy’s new “name theology,” the repeated suggestion that it was the imperceptible, intangible name of God, not God himself as previously suggested, which dwelled in the Holy of Holies (e.g., Deuteronomy 14:23, 16:2, 26:2). While it was probably not fully formed in Josiah’s time (though some Jewish scholars think otherwise),[15] this conception of Yahweh as a transcendent, solitary God was the foundation of the monist metaphysics that ultimately prevailed among Jews and Christians, a metaphysics that frames God as the sole self-existent BEING, the ground of all being, who created all other things ex nihilo. The name Yahweh, the third person singular “HE IS,” is derived from eyeh asher eyeh, I AM THAT I AM (Exodus 3:14) and may have been read to imply that God was the fundamental ground of all being. Whether Josiah and the Deuteronomists clearly or only dimly perceived this theological possibility, their reform put the Judeo- Christian tradition on a path that ultimately led theologians to that conclusion.[16]

Josiah and the Deuteronomists’ reforms also included a new emphasis on strict adherence to the Law of Moses as specified in Deuteronomy and other texts. The Passover and other rituals prescribed by Moses were restored after having been neglected since the time of the judges (Deuteronomy 23:21–23). The written law was declared to be complete and unchangeable: “Ye shall not add unto the word … neither shall ye diminish ought from it” (Deuteronomy 4:2). This emphasis on the text empowered the king and the scribes he appointed to control religious beliefs and practices.[17] Deuteronomy declared illicit prophecy and other forms of divination, which might disrupt the political and religious order. Prophecy could be accepted only after it was no longer prophecy, i.e., only after unfolding events had proved it to be true (Deuteronomy 13:1–3; 18:21–22). Anyone revealing new knowledge or teaching anything inconsistent with Deuteronomy must be killed (Deuteronomy 13:6–10), possibly by having the people “hang him on a tree” (Deuteronomy 21:22).

It is hard to overstate the importance of Josiah anchoring his reform and his authority in a text. As Moshe Weinfeld has noted: “It was the sanctification and publication of the ‘book of the Torah’ in the time of Josiah which gave rise to scribes with the ability and competence to handle the scripture.” The origin of Sophic, scribal, Rabbinic Judaism “had its roots in the time of Josiah when the process of canonization of scripture started [and when] in national, social, and military matters the written scribal Torah already prevailed.”[18] Thus, Josiah and the Deuteronomist scribes laid down foundations for the practice of a form of Judaism that would persist until and beyond the time of Christ and that would motivate the charge that Jesus blasphemed when he claimed to bring new knowledge and to be the son of God, i.e., a God with God (Matthew 26:63–65).

Weinfeld notes that “the scribal attitude toward the monarchy is a positive one” and “that the Deuteronomist could not conceive of the implementation of the moral law contained in the ‘book of the Torah’ in the absence of the monarchy. … To his mind the Torah was the ideal logical constitution for a monarchic regime.”[19] So though probably enacted sincerely, the reforms of Josiah, Shaphan, and Hilkiah were also politically convenient. They concentrated and centralized political and religious power in the hands of the monarch. Sacrifices and other religious rituals had been practiced throughout the kingdom, notably, in places like Beth-el, Shiloh, and Shechem where Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob had worshipped. Deuteronomy mandated that all sacrifices and other key rituals be performed only in the temple at Jerusalem (Deuteronomy 12:13–14). There, through scribes he appointed to interpret scripture and priests he appointed to perform rituals, the king could tightly control religion and, through religion, more fully control the allegiances and behavior of his people.

Lehi’s Rejoinder

Like Josiah, Lehi, after being given a sacred book, feels called to bring a message of reform to Jerusalem and fathers an enduring theological tradition. The two sacred books both have temple provenance and share the message of impending doom for Jerusalem. But the manner in which each man receives his respective book and his interpretation of the book’s import is completely different.[20] As noted above, Josiah’s sacred book comes to him from the temple in Jerusalem, the house of God (or of God’s name) on the earth, and is given to him by Shaphan, a human scribe, thus underscoring the book’s status as text subject to Sophic, scribal interpretation. Based on their reading of the book, Josiah and his disciples view keeping the law of Moses as the proper terminus of a spiritual life (2 Kings 23:21–25).

Lehi’s sacred book comes to him from the throne of God in heaven and is given to him by Yahweh ben Elohim, God with God, thus underscoring the book’s Mantic status as revelation and its core message that salvation comes only through the Son of God.[21] Based on that revelation, Lehi and his disciples view the Law of Moses not as a terminus but as a temporary token of the coming Christ: “we keep the Law of Moses, and look forward with steadfastness unto Christ … We speak concerning the law that our children may know the deadness of the law … and 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 Nephi 25:24–27).

The superiority of Lehi’s theology is marked by its grounding in a more fundamental reality. The provenance of Lehi’s book is the heavenly temple that Josiah’s earthly temple merely imitates and symbolizes. Lehi receives with his sacred book the living tradition which, the Book of Mormon suggests, had become in Josiah’s temple and theology in many respects a hollow shell.

Lehi’s First Vision

The temple provenance of Josiah’s sacred book is fully explicit in the Bible. The temple substance of Lehi’s experience is almost equally explicit in the Book of Mormon. Lehi’s first vision opens when he sees a pillar of fire resting on an unhewn desert stone, an apt symbol of the unhewn stone altar in Solomon’s temple on which holocaust offerings are made signifying the atoning Christ of whom Lehi and his book will testify. Lehi’s first vision also suggests that Josiah’s newly reformed Jerusalem is now a new Egypt, from the darkness of which a pillar of fire will lead Lehi and his family to a new Promised Land.

When Lehi returns home and casts himself upon his bed, his first vision resumes, and he passes from the altar in the outer court of the temple through the literal veil the temple veil signifies and sees “God sitting upon his throne, surrounded with numberless concourses of angels” (1 Nephi 1:8). This is El, the corporeal Lord of Hosts, surrounded by the Host of Heaven. El’s throne is the heavenly referent of the mercy seat, its earthly analog that sits behind the veil in the Holy of Holies of Solomon’s temple.

Then, in a scene resonant for modern temple attendees, Lehi sees a God with God: “One descending out of the midst of heaven, [whose] luster was above that of the sun at noon-day” (1 Nephi 1:8). Like the gods Josiah sought to suppress, this second, white-robed God is linked with the sun, an object in the heavens.

Apostles, e.g., Peter, James, and John, likewise descend from heaven and come to the man Lehi bearing a heavenly message. Like the One they follow, they are linked with objects in the heavens: “he also saw twelve others following him, and their brightness did exceed that of the stars in the firmament” (1 Nephi 1:10).[22]

The descending Yahweh gives Lehi a sacred book and bids him read. Having read from the book, Lehi exclaims, “Great and marvelous are thy works, O Lord God Almighty!” (1 Nephi 1:14). Lord God Almighty is the King James translation of the Hebrew phrase Yahweh El Shaddai, so in saying this Lehi may offer praise to Yahweh the Son, El the Father, and Shaddai, the Mother God, Shaddai, like Asherah possibly being a name for Mother in Heaven.[23] Lehi praises Yahweh, El, Shaddai because they will not suffer those who come to them to perish.[24] “And after this manner was the language of my father in the praising of his God [Elohim]; for his soul did rejoice and his whole heart was filled, because of the things which he had seen, yea, which the Lord [Yahweh] had shown unto him” (1 Nephi 1:14–15). Back translating Lord and God through King James English to their Hebrew equivalents, we get Elohim and Yahweh. Lehi caps his testimony by saying that his vision “manifested plainly of the coming of a Messiah, and also the redemption of the world” (1 Nephi 1:19).

Whereas Josiah desecrated graves, burned the bones of the dead, and largely repudiated his ancestors, the kings who preceded him and the legacies they handed down, Lehi seems to view his ancestors and their legacy positively. After acquiring the brass plates, he searches them to find his genealogy. Reading the genealogy inspires him and he begins to prophesy (1 Nephi 5:16–17). From the genealogy, he specifically cites his righteous ancestors Jacob and Joseph of Egypt (1 Nephi 5:14). When he praises Yahweh El Shaddai for not permitting followers to perish, Lehi may have in mind the patriarchal blessing Jacob gave Joseph, for that blessing is about to be fulfilled by Lehi and his family.[25] That blessing, like Lehi’s exclamation of gratitude, seems to invoke Son (Abir/Yahweh), Father (El), and Mother (Shaddai): “Joseph is a fruitful bough … whose branches run over the wall: … his hands were made strong by the hands of the mighty one [ריבא Abir, always Yahweh][26] of Jacob; (from thence is the shepherd, the stone of Israel). Even by El [לא translated God] … who shall help thee; and by Shaddai [ידש translated Almighty], who shall bless thee with … blessings of the breasts [םידש, shaddaim in Hebrew], and of the womb” (Genesis 49:22, 24–25). Shaddai is a name for God that, as here, typically appears in the Bible in contexts where fertility, especially female fertility, is in play. Word play in this passage links Shaddai, the God(ess) with shaddaim, breasts.[27] All uses of the word Almighty in the KJV Old Testament are translations of Shaddai.[28] So whether the phrase Yahweh El Shaddai is read narrowly as referring only to the corporeal Father and Son or broadly as referring to Father, Son, and Mother, Lehi’s theology is not compatible with the stringent, aniconic monotheism of Josiah and the Deuteronomists.[29]

Lehi’s temple first vision functions in the Book of Mormon as a kind of prologue for what follows, the establishment of a separate temple tradition. Don Bradley has suggested, citing much evidence, that the creation of a tabernacle and a temple was a major theme in the lost Book of Lehi.[30] While it may have been more apparent in the lost pages, this theme is sufficiently apparent in the Book of Mormon we have.

In First and Second Nephi, both parts of Lehi’s temple first vision are expanded upon in the subsequent narrative and temple teaching. Thus, Lehi marks his break with Josiah’s Jerusalem by building his own altar in the desert and making multiple holocaust offerings on it (1 Nephi 5:9; 7:21- 22). This episode echoes the pillar of fire on the unhewn stone in Lehi’s first vision and violates Josiah and the Deuteronomists’ proscription on making sacrifices outside of Jerusalem. The second part of Lehi’s temple first vision, his look into heaven and subsequent encounter with the One dressed in a lustrous white robe, is further developed when Yahweh continues his earthly mission to Lehi by serving as Lehi’s (then Nephi’s) guide in their respective tree of life temple visions. These visions, usually referred to as Lehi’s dream, bring both Lehi and Nephi back to heaven and back into the presence of the divine beings who dwell there.

Lehi’s Dream

Like Lehi’s first vision, which begins in the desert outside Jerusalem, Lehi’s dream begins in “a dark and dreary wilderness” when “a man … dressed in a white robe” approaches, stands before Lehi, and says: come, follow me (1 Nephi 8:5–6). Yahweh, the One who descended from heaven in a sun-white robe, now stands before Lehi, and will guide him back to the heaven he saw while lying upon his bed in Jerusalem. Having followed his guide through the “dark and dreary waste” for many hours, Lehi, in prayer, speaks to Yahweh, “the Lord,” asking “that he would have mercy on me.” To ask is to receive: “And it came to pass that I beheld a tree, whose fruit was desirable to make one happy. And … I did go forth and partake of the fruit thereof.” Like other elements already mentioned, the tree of life marks this dream as a temple vision.

Now let us pause and consider the context in which Lehi sees the sacred tree in this temple vision, for the context marks the vision as a pointed rejection of Josiah’s reforms. The pointedness of the rejection becomes apparent if we recognize that the dream is set in Jerusalem. Mount Moriah, the temple mount, was the highest point in Jerusalem. East of the temple was the Mount of Olives. Between the two high places was the narrow Kidron valley into which pure water flowed from the Gihon spring and filthy water from dangerous flash floods. Each of these topographical features appears in the dream.

The two greatest and most spacious buildings in Jerusalem were the temple and the king’s palace. Both could be referred to with the Hebrew word hekal, which could signify the largest room in the temple, the temple as a whole, the king’s palace, or any large building. If Lehi used the word hekal, as seems likely, when talking about the great and spacious building, alternative translations were the great and spacious temple or great and spacious palace.[31] Both temple and palace, like the building in Lehi’s dream, were on the verge of a great fall and like that building were full of people whose “manner of dress was exceedingly fine” (1 Nephi 8:27). Kings and nobles always wear fine clothing, and the Torah mandated fine clothing for the priests in the temple (Exodus 28:5–8, 39; 39:27–29). Among those who mocked Lehi were the temple priests (2 Chronicles 36:14–16).

Overlaying Lehi’s dream onto the landscape of Jerusalem, the sacred tree in the dream is located on the Mount of Olives, the very place of worship where Josiah had cut down the Asherah grove and ended worship at sacred trees. Lehi is led to a sacred tree on the mount by his guide, the corporeal God Yahweh, and there partakes of its fruit. That Yahweh is the guide is apparent not only from his earlier descent from heaven in a white robe, but also from the connection between the only two white things in the dream, the guide’s robe and the fruit of the tree, which signifies the body of Christ that Christians symbolically eat. Being the future location of the Garden of Gethsemane (Luke 22:39), the place where Christ will ascend into heaven following his resurrection (Acts 1:9–12) and where he will return to earth at the second coming (Zech. 14:1–4, 9),[32] the Mount of Olives is the perfect place for Lehi, Sariah, Sam, and Nephi to come to the Savior and be saved. And it is a place where Laman and Lemuel would be expected to refuse, as they do (1 Nephi 8:35), to come to a sacred tree and worship, were they disciples of Josiah and the Deuteronomists.

In the dream, a mist of darkness arises from the Kidron valley (1 Nephi 8:23–24; 12:16–17), the place where Josiah burned the Asherah and the tokens of the Host of Heaven which had been in the temple (2 Kings 23:4–6). The darkening mist might thus be read as, among other things, Deuteronomist doctrines that led the people astray by obscuring the connections between El, Asherah, Yahweh, and the Host of Heaven.

Nephi’s Vision of Lehi’s Dream

The connection between the tree and the heavenly and earthly mothers of Yahweh is made quite clear in Nephi’s experience of Lehi’s dream, which begins where Lehi’s dream ended, in heaven where the tree is located. The Spirit of the Lord[33] carries Nephi up to a high place, where he sees some of what his father saw and much else besides. By answering a question correctly, Nephi qualifies himself to pass through the veil and enter the presence of El.[34] His guide, Yahweh, ushers him into heaven, then exclaims “Hosanna to the Lord, the Most High God” as if entering the presence of the Father.[35] Most High God translates the Hebrew El Elyon. Nephi is declared blessed because he believes in both Father and Son (1 Nephi 11:6).

As is typical in temple contexts, Nephi is first told what he will see, after which he then sees it. Still in heaven, he is informed he will see “the tree which bore fruit which thy father tasted,” then descending out of heaven from that tree, the Son of God. What had just been given as plan now occurs in actuality. Nephi sees a tree of superlative beauty, a tree that exceeds all earthy beauty and whiteness. Then Yahweh, the Spirit of the Lord, commands Nephi to “Look!” “And I looked to look upon him, and I saw him not; for he had gone from before my presence” (12). The Son of God has departed the presence of his Heavenly Father and Mother. Suddenly, Nephi finds himself on the Earth, in Nazareth, where he sees the virgin Mary, who is linked to the heavenly tree by being white and fair but whose beauty exceeds that only of all other virgins. An angel descends from heaven to be Nephi’s new guide and repeats Yahweh’s command, “Look!” Nephi looks again as he had when commanded before to look at Yahweh and this time sees Mary, “the mother of the son of God, after the manner of the flesh” cradling in her arms a baby, “the Son of the Eternal Father.” The qualification that Mary is the mother of the Son of God after the manner of the flesh is necessary only because the Son of God has another Mother after the manner of the spirit, the being of superlative whiteness and beauty whom Nephi saw in Heaven and from whom Yahweh descended to earth.[36]

The angel tells Nephi that the tree, probably meaning the fruit of the tree, is the love of God which sheddeth itself abroad in the hearts of the children of men. The object of the Father’s love, the love of his life, is the Son, who is signified metonomously by his red blood which sheddeth itself abroad and together with his white flesh (the white fruit of the tree) weekly finds place in the hearts of the children of men.

But the object of God’s love is also the Mother. The Gihon Spring, also known as the Virgin’s Spring,[37] which had flowed into Kidron from the temple mount, has now been shifted to the Mount of Olives where it flows from the sacred tree as a fountain of living waters, the waters of spiritual birth. Tree and fountain, both symbols of Mother in Heaven, are also declared by the angel to be objects of God’s love. The firstborn’s spiritual birth, previously symbolized in heaven by his descent from the tree, is now signified on earth by Christ’s emergence from the inherently feminine waters of baptism. This event immediately follows the declaration that tree and fountain, like the sacramental body of Christ, are that which God loves (1 Nephi 11:25–27).

In Jerusalem, under the leadership of Josiah, the king, the priests, and all the elites of the city had made war upon the Mother, the Son or sons, and all the Host of Heaven who were revered in the theology that Josiah suppressed. In Lehi’s dream, multitudes of finely dressed people mock and point and seek to dissuade others from worshipping at the tree on the Mount of Olives. Under pressure from these elites, most seem to turn away from that worship. But in Nephi’s experience of the dream, he is told the elites will be punished: their great building is destined to fall, and the fall thereof will be exceedingly great (1 Nephi 11:36). Twenty-two years after Josiah’s death and 13 years after Lehi’s departure from Jerusalem, the temple and palace were both destroyed by the Babylonians.

Lehi, Jacob, and Zenos’s Olive Allegory

A sacred tree features prominently in each of the three main accounts Nephi gives of Lehi’s teaching: the dream, the olive allegory, and his last blessings/sermons. Nephi reports Lehi’s teaching on the olive allegory very briefly (1 Nephi 10:12–14), says a little more on that topic himself (1 Nephi 15:12–16), then Jacob gives the full account quoting Lehi’s fellow prophet, Zenos. The plurality of divine beings is assumed in the allegory. The Lord of the Vineyard is El, his main servant a composite, but mostly Yahweh. The other main element in the narrative, a tree, has three main parts: a trunk and roots, branches, and fruits. The trunk and roots are four times called the “Mother tree” (Jacob 5:54, 56, 60) and celebrated “because of their goodness” (Jacob 5:36–37, 59). The nations of the world are branches grafted into that tree. All souls in the world are fruits of that tree.

That Asherah might be conceived of as the trunk and roots of a tree in the time of Lehi and Zenos is supported by an artifact commonly discovered in Jerusalem from Lehi’s time: a goddess figurine that is the trunk and roots of a tree on the bottom and the torso and head of a woman on the top.[38] In the allegory, human souls, the fruit, have gone bad because they have grown too distant from the roots of the tree which are good. When the Lord of the vineyard asks how the fruit became corrupted, the servant answers:

Is it not the loftiness of thy vineyard — have not the branches thereof overcome the roots which are good? And because the branches have overcome the roots thereof, behold they grew faster than the strength of the roots, taking strength unto themselves. Behold, I say, is not this the cause that the trees of thy vineyard have become corrupted? (Jacob 5:48)

In his introduction to the allegory, Jacob stated:

The Jews were a stiffnecked people; and they despised the words of plainness, and killed the prophets, and sought for things that they could not understand. Wherefore, because of their blindness, which blindness came by looking beyond the mark, they must needs fall; for God hath taken away his plainness from them and delivered unto them many things which they cannot understand, because they desired it. And because they desired it God hath done it, that they may stumble. (Jacob 4:14)[39]

In the god El who dwelled bodily in the temple, who had a wife, Asherah, and sons, including Yahweh, the Jews had a theology easy to understand. In the Deuteronomist one god Yahweh-Elohim, who became, or would become, the wholly other transcendent first mover and ground of all being, the loftiest Jews, the elites, developed a theology that eschewed plainness and looked beyond the corporeal and familial mark. Following the lead of Zenos and Zenoch, Lehi seems to resist that theological transition.

Lehi’s Patriarchal Blessing for Jacob

While blessing his son Jacob near the end of his life, Lehi provides, in his discussion of the need for opposition in all things, the clearest example of philosophical reasoning we find in ancient scripture. Lehi’s words to Jacob can be read as a pluralist’s philosophical rejoinder to the monist metaphysics of Josiah and the Deuteronomists. Where their thinking tended toward a reduction of multiplicity to oneness, Lehi insisted on the fundamental duality or plurality of all things. Oneness, monism, he asserts is nihilistic: “if it should be one body it must remain as dead, having no life, neither death” (2 Nephi 2:11). Were existence not a compound of opposites, both things to act and things to be acted upon, “all things must have vanished away” (2 Nephi 2:13). On Lehi’s view, the metaphysical structure of existence must be pluralistic or there would be nothing.[40]

At the end of this blessing/sermon, Lehi mentions two divine beings who stand in opposition to each other, the fallen angel Satan who seeks to destroy humanity and the mediating Messiah who seeks to save them. He then again mentions sacred trees, the tree of knowledge of good and evil and the tree of life.[41] Satan is associated with the first tree, the Messiah Jesus with the second. Each of these preeminent sons of God might be read, as in Lehi’s dream, as the fruit of a Heavenly Mother signified by the tree. These trees mark a cycle of departure from Father and Mother in Heaven and a return to them. Thus, Lehi appears to hold to an older, pluralistic theology that is incompatible in many fundamental ways with the reforms of Josiah.

Laman and Lemuel, Faithful Deuteronomists

Grant Hardy has suggested that “Laman and Lemuel are stock characters, even caricatures,” cardboard villains whose actions are irrationally evil.[42] But there are many indications they were, instead, pious Deuteronomist followers of Josiah, the great political and religious leader of their youth. All their actions are not just authorized, they are mandated in Deuteronomy chapter 13. Deuteronomy obligated them to obey their father (Deuteronomy 5:16) but also to violently resist and put to death any prophet or dreamer of dreams or brother — even one who showed signs and wonders — who led them away from Deuteronomist truth (Deuteronomy 13:1–10; 18:20). Given these scriptural mandates and obligations, to understand their motives for acting as they did, one need only stipulate that Laman and Lemuel were sincere when they bore testimony as follows: “we know that the people who were in the land of Jerusalem were a righteous people; for they kept the statutes and judgements of the Lord, and all his commandments according to the Law of Moses; wherefore, we know know that they are a righteous people; and our father hath [wrongly] judged them [and wrongly] led us away because we would hearken unto his words” (1 Nephi 17:22). Laman and Lemuel’s pious Deteronomism is manifest both in their initial submission to their father and in their testimony that Josiah’s followers in Jerusalem were righteous. The contradictory obligations to honor their father but cleave to Deuteronomist theology explain why they first follow Lehi out of Jerusalem, but then repeatedly rebel against him and Nephi in moments when Deuteronomist mandates are violated and when their remaining connections with Jerusalem and Josiah’s political and religious order are severed.

Josiah and Deuteronomy mandated that sacrifices be made only in Jerusalem (Deuteronomy 12:13–14). Laman and Lemuel first rebel when Lehi, who is not a Levite, builds an altar outside of Jerusalem and offers a sacrifice on it (1 Nephi 2:7, 11–13). They complain that their father is a visionary man, probably a ḥôzeh, implying false prophet.[43] Speaking of this rebellion, Nephi says Laman and Lemuel “were like the Jews at Jerusalem, who sought to take away the life of my father” (1 Nephi 2:13). In saying this, Nephi means to condemn Laman and Lemuel. As Deuteronomists, they may hear the condemnation as a compliment on their fidelity to the faith of their youth and its clear command that they violently resist and kill apostates.

Laman and Lemuel next rebel after being chased from Laban’s house. Impoverished and branded as robbers, their opportunity to resume their former lives would seem to be lost. They begin to beat Nephi and Sam whom they blame for this forced separation from the holy city and their former way of life, then, as instructed by Deuteronomy, ignore a sign or wonder that could lead them astray: the angel who appears and informs them that the Lord has chosen Nephi to rule over them.[44]

Laman and Lemuel next rebel as they take their final departure from Jerusalem with Ishmael and his family. Nephi reports, “they were desirous to return unto the land of Jerusalem,” the place where in their view people righteously follow God’s law. Speaking as a prophet, Nephi admonishes them sharply (1 Nephi 7:8–15). In response, “they sought to take away [his] life” (1 Nephi 7:16), precisely what Deuteronomy instructed them to do if a prophet tried “to thrust [them] out of the way which Yahweh [their] God commanded [them] to walk in” (Deuteronomy 13:5). As previously described, they next rebel in Lehi’s dream by refusing to worship at a sacred tree seemingly located on the Mount of Olives where Josiah had chopped down the Asherah grove and where refusal would manifest loyalty to Josiah’s one God, Yahweh, and to a Deuteronomist interpretation of scripture.

They next rebel when Ishmael dies and, perhaps with him, any hope of returning under his aegis to a respectable life in Jerusalem. But with or without Ishmael, they remain “desirous to return again to Jerusalem” instead of being led away by their false-prophet father and brother who “says that the Lord has talked with him … . But behold, we know that he lies unto us [and] worketh many things by his cunning arts that he may deceive our eyes [and] lead us away into some strange wilderness [where he] may make himself a ruler and king over us” (1 Nephi 16:36–38). In addition to condemning theologies like those of Lehi and Nephi, Deuteronomy affirms the special status of the firstborn (Deuteronomy 21:17), so Laman and Lemuel resent Nephi “who has taken it upon himself to be our ruler and our teacher, who are his elder brethren” (1 Nephi 16:17). Laman urges others to join him in killing Lehi and Nephi, but the Deuteronomist rebels are pacified, temporarily, by another of the signs and wonders their Sophic faith urges them to ignore and which they later do ignore: a chastisement by the voice of the Lord.

They again rebel when Nephi urges them to help him build a ship, which will carry them far from the place of hallowed memory they still long for, Jerusalem, where living among the righteous, they “might have been happy.” Indeed, “it would have been better that they had died [rather than come] out of Jerusalem” (1 Nephi 17:20–22). To persuade them to help him, Nephi attempts to leverage their sure testimonies of Moses, the Deuteronomist hero, citing mighty deeds they “know” he did in leading the Exodus. Nephi frames their beloved Jerusalem as a new Egypt from which they have been led by God. Citing the Deuteronomist Jews of Jerusalem who sought to take away Lehi’s life, Nephi again equates Laman and Lemuel with them: “ye also have sought to take away his life; wherefore, ye are … like unto them” (1 Nephi 17:44). Perhaps after thanking him for the compliment, Laman and Lemuel move to throw their false-prophet brother into the sea, but they are then once again restrained by a wondrous sign: the shocking power of Nephi. Having rebelled once again during the sea voyage, when Lehi dies in the Promised Land, Laman reasserts his claim to the primacy Deuteronomy afforded him. He and others again try to kill Nephi and, thus, precipitate the final split between Lamanites and Nephites (2 Nephi 5:2–3).

To summarize, while Nephi and the Book of Mormon frame them as villains, the many faults Lehi and Nephi see in Laman and Lemuel might be reframed as stubborn fidelity and diligent obedience to the mandates of Josiah and the Deuteronomist faith they embraced in their youth. Their intransigence in the face of signs and wonders resembles that of the Jews in the time of Christ who shared and were motivated by the same Sophic, Deuteronomist faith that apparently motivated Laman and Lemuel.

Deuteronomist Theology in the Promised Land

While Lehi, Nephi, and Jacob all appear to reject Deuteronomist theology, it is also apparent that other Nephites embraced it. The brass plates contained a copy of Deuteronomy (1 Nephi 5:11), and as we shall see, Sherem was a committed Deuteronomist. The mystery is how this Josianic theology opposed by Lehi, Nephi, and Jacob not only came to the New World but came to be the predominant theology of the Nephites. One possibility is Lamanite influence. A more likely possibility is Zoram. Whatever the source, an important element of its spread was almost certainly political interests of the Nephite kings that were aligned with those of King Josiah.

Zoram the Deuteronomist

The Book of Mormon provides ample grounds for believing that Zoram was a Deuteronomist. The text strongly suggests that he was a learned scribe. He held “the keys of the treasury” (1 Nephi 4:20) and was clearly the keeper and guardian of the brass plates. When Nephi carried out his daring plan to acquire the plates, he felt compelled to take Zoram with him though he surely would have preferred to depart Laban’s house alone. Zoram knew Laban well, so in taking Zoram, Nephi increased the risk of being discovered as, indeed, he eventually was when he called to his brothers. But Nephi apparently felt he would risk more by taking the plates to a supposed theological gathering without Zoram, their keeper and explicator, than with him.

That Zoram was a learned and confident man is apparent from his interaction with his putative master as he and Nephi carry the plates through Jerusalem. In what was surely a one-sided conversation given Nephi’s need to remain disguised, Zoram boldly expressed his opinion “many times” (1 Nephi 4:27) as he and Nephi traveled to and through the city walls. Since he expressed them so freely to “Laban,” who was almost certainly a Deuteronomist, Zoram probably had conventional views that would not upset Laban or the other power elites Nephi calls the “elders of the Jews” (1 Nephi 4:22).[45] Zoram very likely discussed religion on this walk, for the men Laban had been visiting and whom Zoram thinks they are going to visit were “the brethren of the church” (1 Nephi 4:26), which probably means some of the Deuteronomist priests who had mocked and threatened Lehi. The occasion seems to have been a Passover festival when a theological discussion would have been especially appropriate.[46] When Zoram discovered that Nephi was not Laban, “he began to tremble, and was about to flee,” but Nephi “did seize [him] and held him, that he should not flee” (1 Nephi 4:30–31). Zoram then faced a choice between death and being “a free man like unto us if he would go down in the wilderness with us” (1 Nephi 4:32–33). Unsurprisingly, under duress that some of his descendants still resented 500 years later (Alma 54:23), he chose to go with Nephi and his brothers.[47]

In his account of the acquisition of the brass plates, Nephi framed himself as a modern Moses, as one who led enslaved Israel (signified by Zoram) out of a new Egypt into Sinai and, having miraculously subdued his enemies and crossed a daunting sea, on to the Promised Land. A key part of this parallel is his descent into Sinai bearing the Law of Moses.[48] But Nephi was not the only person who could view himself as the bearer of the law. Zoram’s deep theological knowledge and strong theological opinions, his closer and longer connection with the brass plates, probably mean that he came to Sinai and the Promised Land confidently bearing an alternative, Deuteronomist theological tradition. And to the authority of long association with the plates and of great scribal learning, Zoram probably added the authority of age. Judging from his marriage to the oldest daughter of Ishmael (1 Nephi 16:7), he was probably older than Nephi or any of his brothers.[49] The text indicates that Nephi and Zoram were close friends. Lehi says of Zoram, “I know that thou art a true friend unto my son, Nephi, forever” (2 Nephi 1:30). But friends can differ in their theology. And given his oath that Zoram would be free like himself, Nephi surely respected Zoram’s right to believe and even teach as he pleased.

We have, then, an account that provides for the establishment of vibrant Mantic, Christ-centered and Sophic, Deuteronomist traditions among the Nephites. While he framed himself as the bearer of the written law, Nephi’s authority was ultimately prophetic. It was grounded in miracles performed and revelations received. There is no indication that Zoram performed miracles or received revelations. But scribes do not need either to be authoritative. They have a strong secondary authority grounded in the profound primary authority of scripture. Their literacy and learning, their deep familiarity with the scriptural text gives them Sophic authority that has historically proven to be more durable than its Mantic counterpart.[50]

Jacob’s Critique of the King

Given that the only kings he had known were Josiah, the faithful Deuteronomist, and his sons, it is noteworthy that Nephi did not believe his people should have a king (2 Nephi 5:18). Subsequent events suggest that his reluctance to establish a monarchy was prophetic, that Deuteronomism was an especially alluring temptation for a king. That reluctance notwithstanding, Nephi acceded to the wishes of his people and served as both their king and their high priest. As death approached, he divided his secular and religious power, appointing an unnamed successor (probably his or Sam’s oldest son)[51] as king and Jacob (and his brother Joseph) as high priests (Jacob 1:9, 18). Both king and priest inherited legitimate power from Nephi who was much loved by his people (Jacob 1:10). Eventually, those two centers of power came into conflict.

In discussing the period following Nephi’s death, Jacob affirms his own faithfulness to the mandate Nephi had given him, but implicitly condemns the second king for dereliction of duty.[52] Jacob condemns the king because he allowed a malignant status hierarchy to develop in which some Nephites dominate others and seize the usual worldly rewards of illicit sex, money, and power.[53] While he is critical of economic stratification and exploitation, Jacob is most scathing about the instrumental use of women and children to form political alliances through dynastic plural marriages: the king and his principal supporters apparently permitted surrounding pagan allies to “lead away captive the daughters of [the Nephites]” (Jacob 2:33) while they themselves took plural wives and concubines from among the daughters of the surrounding peoples — or, at least, that is what they were planning to do.[54] Since marriage, concubinage, and political alliances all fall under the purview of the king, Jacob’s criticisms of these practices are clearly directed at the second king. Jacob repeatedly mentions similar sins committed by previous kings, David and Solomon (Jacob 1:15–16, 2:23–24), and implicit in all his criticisms is the kingship code in Deuteronomy 17:14–20 which forbids both of the behaviors Jacob condemns: “Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold.” Thus, Jacob used prestige conferred upon him by Nephi and the authority of Deuteronomy to condemn his close acquaintance, the second king, and to forestall the typical abuses of royal privilege and power.

Jacob’s condemnation of him posed a serious threat to the power of the second king.[55] Though the Nephite king could appoint and remove high priests (Mosiah 11:5; 25:19), defrocking Jacob would have been politically fraught given his appointment by Nephi and his status as a son of Lehi. So instead of a direct attack on Jacob, the angry king seems to have enlisted Sherem to rid him of this turbulent priest. Using Deuteronomy, the same book of scripture that Josiah used to supplant the old theology and that Jacob used to critique the king, Sherem will try to undermine Jacob’s prophetic and priestly authority and to condemn his teaching. If successful, he will establish a Deuteronomic order like that of Josiah in which all power is centered in the hands of the king and his scribal and priestly subordinates who authoritatively interpret scripture and limit the potentially disruptive power of prophets. Prophets speak with the Mantic authority of the King in heaven and often challenge the Sophic authority of the king on earth.

Sherem, Agent of the King

Sherem appears at a pivotal moment in Nephite history. Some have suggested that Sherem was not a Nephite, that he was a Jaredite or Mulekite.[56] But his distinguishing characteristics all suggest that he was born and grew up among the Nephites, or possibly the Lamanites. Sherem is literate, eloquent, and well versed in the scriptures found in the brass plates. He is a master of the Nephite language and culture and is a Deuteronomist (Jacob 7:4, 7, 10). Nephite origins seem to be the most plausible explanation for this constellation of facts. And Zoram is the most plausible original source for this vigorous alternative theological tradition among Nephi’s people.[57] As noted above, close reading of First Nephi supports the view that Zoram was the father of the Deuteronomist tradition in the land of Nephi. And Sherem has the attributes, including a similar name, that one might expect to find in a son or grandson of Zoram if Zoram were a Deuteronomist scribe.[58]

The belief that Sherem was an outsider is undergirded by Jacob’s first statement about him: “after some years had passed away, there came a man among the people of Nephi, whose name was Sherem” (Jacob 7:1). But Jacob’s impersonal description of Sherem as “a man” does not indicate that he was an outsider. Jacob also called his intimate acquaintance, the second king, “a man” (Jacob 1:9). What this opening may imply is that Zoram did not aggressively proselytize Nephi’s people to believe his Deuteronomist theology rather than Nephi’s theology of Christ. Zoram may have confined his teaching to his own family. Now Sherem, unlike his progenitor and with the support of the disgruntled king, goes among the people of Nephi, actively and successfully proselytizing them to believe the Deuteronomist theology of Zoram rather than the Christ focused theology espoused by Jacob.

That Sherem was permitted to actively proselytize the Nephites to believe his theology is strong evidence that he had the support of the king. Were the king’s views the same as those of the high priest, Jacob, there is little chance that Sherem would have been allowed to teach an alternative theology even as an insider, let alone as an outsider.

Sherem’s usefulness to the king would have been a function not only of his theology, which denied prophets like Jacob the right to play their disruptive prophetic role, but also of his rhetorical and political skills.[59] Sherem had been teaching for a while and was popular because he knew how to flatter the people as he taught them (Jacob 7:2). He apparently attempted to leverage that popularity to depose Jacob by purposely gathering a crowd to witness his confrontation with the high priest. He does this by going from place to place ostentatiously seeking to find Jacob, who should have been easy to find in a relatively small community. Jacob twice mentions this ostentatious search, first stating that Sherem “sought much opportunity that he might come unto me” (Jacob 7:3) and then quoting Sherem to the same effect: “Brother Jacob, I have sought much opportunity that I might speak unto you” (Jacob 7:6).

Having gathered a crowd, one that he may have intended to become the Deuteronomist mob the people are commanded to form to attack and kill heretic prophets (Deuteronomy 13:6–10), Sherem confronts Jacob with arguments that seem to flow out of the quintessential Deuteronomist text mentioned above: “hearken, O Israel, unto the statutes and unto the judgments, which I teach you, for to do them … . Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it” (Deuteronomy 4:1–2). As John Welch has noted, Sherem buttresses his general charge that Jacob has changed or abandoned the Law of Moses with the more specific charge that he has committed three capital crimes: causing the people to apostatize, blasphemy, and false prophecy.[60] Sherem’s charges against Jacob are stated in part as follows:

Thou goest about much, preaching that which ye call the gospel, or the doctrine of Christ. And ye have led away much of this people that they pervert the right way of God, and keep not the law of Moses which is the right way; and convert the law of Moses into the worship of a being which ye say shall come many hundred years hence. And now behold, I, Sherem, declare unto you that this is blasphemy; for no man knoweth of such things; for he cannot tell of things to come. And after this manner did Sherem contend against me. (Jacob 7:6–7)

Turning the tables on Jacob who had used Deuteronomy to critique the king, Sherem now uses that book to challenge Jacob’s authority and doctrine. Arguing, presumably, from the statement that “there is no god with me” (Deuteronomy 32:39), Sherem declares that “there should be no Christ” (Jacob 7:2). Backed by a potential mob, he alludes in Jacob 7:7 to the Deuteronomy passage which urges the people to put to death anyone, including a prophet or miracle worker, who causes them to “go after other gods [i.e. Christ], which thou hast not known” or who would “thrust thee out of the way [Sherem’s ‘right way’] which the LORD thy God commanded thee to walk in” (Deuteronomy 13:2, 5). These allusions to Deuteronomy suggest that Sherem is deadly serious and that Jacob’s life is in danger during this encounter.

Sherem ultimately demands that Jacob establish his divine bona fides by providing a sign by the power of the Holy Ghost, a sign that Deuteronomists are counseled to reject if it is given (Deuteronomy 13:1- 3) and that Jacob says Sherem would have rejected: “yet thou wilt deny it” (Jacob 7:14). Jacob refuses to provide the requested sign. But a sign is given by God.[61] Sherem receives the measure he meant to mete, the Talionic justice he advocated. He is struck down and eventually dies because he has “perverted the right way” and caused the people to worship a false God.

But before he dies, Sherem the Sophic scribe receives more than the Talionic justice he contemplated for Jacob. He has his own revelatory, Mantic experience of the power and grace of God, ironically the very sign “by the power of the Holy Ghost” (Jacob 7:13) that he had requested: “the power of the Lord came upon him, insomuch that he fell to the earth. And it came to pass that he was nourished for the space of many days” (Jacob 7:15).[62] Like Alma_2 and others who follow in the Book of Mormon,[63] Sherem is struck down and then spiritually nourished by the power of God. Like Alma_2, after he regains consciousness some days later, Sherem addresses the people he had deceived and declares the faith in Christ he has gained through a first-hand experience of God’s power. He now declares that the scriptures, rather than denying the possibility of Christ, in fact testify of him. Like Alma_2, he now knows something “of hell, and of eternity, and of eternal punishment” but also of “the power of the Holy Ghost, and the ministering of angels” (Jacob 7:17- 18). Unlike Alma_2, he does not have an assurance of salvation. He fears that he may have committed an unpardonable sin by lying unto God.

Sherem’s lie was embodied in a kind of false consciousness, belief in a place holder religion that could anesthetize the spirit and keep it from seeking its true religious home. He promulgated a religion that had the form of godliness but denied the power thereof. Like Noah’s Deuteronomist priests who would later teach the same false religion, he justified abuses of the king. Though ever learning, Sherem had never come to the knowledge of the truth. He had wrested the scriptures and transformed the religion of the living, redeeming council of Gods into the worship of an ancient and absent law giver whose will was reified in texts that could be authoritatively interpreted only by scribes like himself who were in the pay of and were controlled by the king.

While Sherem still fears he may be lost, his last words — “I confess unto God” — and the effect of his final testimony on others both hint that he will be saved by Christ, who focuses not on what we have been but on what we have become through grace. The crowd that has gathered to hear Sherem now experience what he had earlier experienced: “when the multitude had witnessed that he spake these things as he was about to give up the ghost, … the power of God came down upon them, and they were overcome that they fell to the earth” (Jacob 7:21). For them (and presumably for Sherem who had the same experience), “peace and love of God was restored again” (Jacob 7:21, 23).[64] The people “searched the scriptures” Sherem had taught them to misread in light of Sherem and Jacob’s testimonies that they testify of Christ (Jacob 7:23). So, though he had been a wicked man, Sherem on his deathbed becomes Jacob’s ally in bringing the people to faith in Christ. Following this confrontation with Sherem (and with the belated help of Sherem), Jacob and the doctrine of Christ seem to triumph.

But they don’t. While Jacob and Sherem seem to create a temporary space for the faith of Lehi, Nephi, and Jacob to exist alongside Deuteronomism, belief in Christ will ultimately disappear from the land of Nephi and the small plates. This loss of the knowledge of Christ is fully apparent 350 years later when the gospel must be restored to the Nephites through valedictory sermons by Benjamin and Abinadi, to whom the gospel has been revealed anew.[65] These restorations make it clear that Christ and the atonement were no longer remembered, and understood by the Nephites. The original theology of Sherem and the second king, which emphasized Deuteronomic adherence to the Law of Moses, has prevailed.

Sheremites in the Land of Nephi

In the next section of this article, we will review what the small plates tell us about how the gospel of Christ was gradually lost in the land of Nephi. But let us here first demonstrate that Sherem’s Deuteronomist theology carried the day, supplanting Jacob’s gospel of Christ. Presumably, our best index of what religious and political ideas prevailed in the land of Nephi will be the beliefs and practices of the revanchist Zeniffites who were the final Nephite inhabitants of that land. Having loved the land of Nephi so well that they returned to it after departing with Mosiah, the Zeniffites presumably continued to practice the religion and politics that had become normative in their beloved homeland.

In his account of the land of Nephi 350 years after Jacob, Mormon tells a story that recapitulates the encounter between Jacob and Sherem, with the important difference that the original theology of Sherem, not the theology of Jacob, is now the official religion of the kingdom. The original and recapitulated narratives share the same three main actors: the king, the high priest, and an interloper; the same two theologies: Deuteronomism and the gospel of Christ; and the same story arc: the interloper is defeated and dies but his theology ultimately prevails. The prophet role is reshuffled among the main actors, but the story told in the Book of Mosiah at the end of Nephite history in the land of Nephi is structurally very similar to the one told in the Book of Jacob at the beginning of that history.

The precipitating problem in each narrative is the material and sexual excesses of the second king in the dynasty that governs in the land of Nephi. In each narrative, the excesses are described and a prophet steps forward to condemn the materialism and sexual license of the king and his people (Jacob 2:1–35; Mosiah 11:1–15, 20–25). In the first narrative, the prophet role is played by the High Priest, Jacob, who administers the established faith, the gospel of Christ that has been handed down from Lehi and Nephi. In the second narrative, the prophet role is played by the interloper, Abinadi. In each narrative, the critique of the king sets up a conflict between his critic and a figure or figures who defend him. In each case, the defender of the king is one or more Sophic Deuteronomists. In each case, the Deuteronomist defenders of the king hold that salvation comes only through the Law of Moses (Jacob 7:7; Mosiah 12:28, 13:27) and condemn the prophet as a blasphemer for saying that God will come down among men (Jacob 7:7; Mosiah 17:8). The basis for both critiques of the gospel is the Deuteronomist doctrine that there can be no god with God.[66]

Table 1. Parallel Theological Change Narratives.

KING: 2nd Nephite King, unnamed

Attributes: sexual/material excess

KING: 2nd Zeniffite King, Noah

Attributes: sexual/material excess

HIGH PRIEST: Jacob (Prophet)

Official Theology: Gospel of Christ

HIGH PRIEST: Amulon (Agent of King)

Official Theology: Deuteronomism

INTERLOPER: Sherem (Agent of King)

New Theology: Deuteronomism

INTERLOPER: Abinadi (Prophet)

New Theology: Gospel of Christ

STORY ARC: Interloper is defeated and dies but his views ultimately prevail. Jacob’s descendants become Deuteronomists, subjects of the king.

STORY ARC: Interloper is defeated and dies but his views prevail. The children of Amulon embrace the Gospel of Christ.

We thus find the Sophic tradition and Deuteronomist beliefs espoused by Sherem are well established as the orthodox religion in the land of Nephi 350 years after the death of Sherem and Jacob. Now completely disconnected from the Mantic tradition that renewed it and kept it vibrant, the Sophic Deuteronomism of Noah and his priests has become debased and corrupt.[67] A brief, implicit account of how the Nephites lost the gospel of Christ is given in the books of Enos, Jarom, and especially Omni.

Familial and National Decline

Because the account in the small plates is a peculiar mixture of family and national history, we must often infer what is happening in the entire land of Nephi from what is happening to Jacob’s family. And what we discover in this record is a pattern of social and spiritual decline. As Table 2 indicates, from the time of Nephi to the time of Chemish, each successive scribe except Amaron writes many fewer words than his predecessor did. Then, the state of the family and state of the nation reaches its nadir in the time of Abinadom, who writes slightly more than his father Chemish. Mentions of the Savior (Messiah, Christ, Son, Holy One) also decline dramatically and completely disappear after Jarom. Only the last scribe, Amaleki, a special case discussed below, again mentions the Savior and gives a lengthier history than those who preceded him.

Table 2. Words Written by Each Small Plates Scribe.

Writer

Words

Messiah

Christ

Son

Holy One[68]

Nephi

50414

25

29

18

20

Jacob

14924

2

25

1

17

Enos

1185

3

Jarom

748

1

Omni

163

Amaron

159

Chemish

70

Abinadom

98

Amaleki

937

1

2

The social and spiritual decline of Jacob’s family and the Nephite people is apparent in details reported about each scribe’s life and times. Each man is less imposing than his predecessor. Nephi, who stands at the head of the line — Jacob is as much adopted son as brother (2 Nephi 2:3) — is an extraordinary figure, a prophet and patriarch, an architect, builder, and king. In the land of Nephi — not incidentally, a land named after him — he embodies both civil and religious authority. Jacob acknowledges Nephi’s great influence when he notes that the people began to grow hard in their hearts and indulge in wicked practices only after Nephi died (Jacob 1:15).

Jacob, who succeeds Nephi as the keeper of the small plates, is a spiritual prodigy, even Nephi’s equal in things spiritual. He beholds the Savior and receives an assurance of exaltation while still a youth (2 Nephi 2:3–4). He becomes a presiding High Priest in the land (2 Nephi 5:26). But, though it is considerable, Jacob’s stature doesn’t equal Nephi’s. As noted above, civil and religious authority were divided in his time. Jacob remains influential, but his social influence is countervailed by that of the less righteous king.[69] In his temple sermon, Jacob persuades people to repent of their sins, but these are sins, as Jacob himself notes, which the people didn’t begin committing until after Nephi’s death, so great was the stature of Nephi. In Jacob’s time, Sherem and others begin to reject the doctrine of Christ and publicly teach a competing Deuteronomist theology.

Though he is, in the end, a very good man, Jacob’s son Enos does not have the spiritual and social stature of his father who was a paragon of youthful rectitude and a key community leader.[70] Jacob’s words about Christ sink deep into the heart of Enos, and he provides us with a model of earnest repentance. Following his conversion, Enos prophesies of things to come (Enos 1:19), but he is not, like his father, the High Priest. He is just one more of the “exceedingly many prophets” among the Nephites (Enos 1:22) who find “there was nothing save it was exceeding harshness, … exceeding great plainness of speech, [that] would keep them from going down speedily to destruction” (Enos 1:23). The prophetic tradition and doctrine of Christ are still alive, but the people are growing resistant to them.

While Jarom is another fine man, he has even less stature in the community than Enos. Unlike Enos, he doesn’t write any prophesies or revelations, for, he says, “what could I write more than my fathers have written?” (Jarom 1:2). Unlike Nephi, Jacob, and Enos, he doesn’t seem to be among those who actively and prominently teach the gospel to the people. He speaks of the Nephite prophets, priests, and teachers in the third person, as if he were not one of them (Jarom 1:10–12). Jarom describes the people of his time as being hardhearted, deaf, blind, and stiffnecked (Jarom 1:3).

Unlike his grandfather Jacob, Jarom does not critique the Nephite kings of his day. The kings, he says, are “mighty men in the faith of the Lord” who lead them into battle and very strictly enforce observance of the Law of Moses (Jarom 1:5).[71] Deuteronomy required the king to make a personal copy of the Torah and carry it with him at all times (Deuteronomy 17:18–19), so this account of the kings may describe devout Deuteronomist Sheremites (a reading consistent with the beliefs and practices we observe later). But even though they probably do not personally embrace it, these kings permit Jacob’s Mantic theology to coexist with the Sophic Deuteronomism of Sherem. Jarom tells us the prophets and priests of his time teach “the law of Moses, and the intent for which it was given; persuading them to look forward to the Messiah, and believe in him to come as though he already was” (Jarom 1:11). This verse, which clearly refers to Christ, is the last mention of the Savior in the land of Nephi until Abinadi reintroduces Christ to the people of Noah who have no knowledge of him. During the following two hundred and twenty or thirty years, Christ will never again be mentioned by the scribes who write in the land of Nephi.[72]

This reading of the Book of Jarom assumes that the kings who followed the second king continued to prefer the Sheremite theology that served their political interests. It assumes continuity that leads directly from the beliefs of Sherem to those of Noah and his priests. Don Bradley offers an alternative reading of Jarom that frames Jarom’s time as the pinnacle of Nephite cultural achievement and righteousness.[73] In Bradley’s reading, peak righteousness and peak prosperity coincide two hundred years after Lehi’s migration. A rapid descent into wickedness and massive destruction soon follow. This reading does not provide a clear account of why Noah shared Sherem’s views. On the other hand, my account above does not explain why the Nephites attain peak prosperity while embracing a Josianic faith that brought destruction to Jerusalem. If Bradley’s reading is right — and much evidence supports it — the decline we see in the status of the Jacob family does not perfectly match the state of Nephite civilization in this moment. However, the condition of society and the Jacob family again converges in the Book of Omni.

We come, now, to the Book of Omni, where this pattern of decline continues and accelerates. One hundred and forty pages are devoted to treating the lives of the first four generations who lived in the land of Nephi. The next four generations and approximately half of the time covered in the Small Pates are treated in only thirty verses, a striking change in the pace of narration. But it isn’t only the pace of the narration that drastically accelerates as the Book of Omni begins. The moral collapse of the scribal line also accelerates as we meet in order Omni, Amaron, Chemish, and Abinadom. Omni is the first scribe in Jacob’s line who may be described as “a wicked man.” He openly confesses his sins saying, “I have not kept the statutes and the commandments of the Lord as I ought to have done” (Omni 1:2). While he accepts the moral teachings of his ancestors, Omni is a warrior, not a prophet or teacher, and he focuses primarily upon the secular topic of war, having spent his life fighting in the wars of the king. Apparently a representative type for his generation, it should not surprise us that the secular and warlike Nephite nation suffered massive destruction shortly after the death of this wicked man of war.

By specifically characterizing his wickedness as a failure to keep the “statutes and commandments of the Lord,” Omni marks himself as a Deuteronomist. The law of Moses is frequently alluded to as the statutes/commandments/judgments of the Lord in Deuteronomy and Exodus. Along with Omni’s use, statute appears only three other places in the small plates. Laman and Lemuel used Omni’s phrasing to commend the Jerusalem Deuteronomists who “were a righteous people” because “they kept the statutes and judgements of the Lord, and all his commandments, according to the law of Moses” (1 Nephi 17: 22). Then, in his deathbed plea, Lehi appears to seek common ground with Laman and Lemuel by plaintively framing his ministry to them as a call to observe the statutes and judgments of the Lord: “I desire that ye should remember to observe the statutes and the judgments of the Lord; behold, this hath been the anxiety of my soul from the beginning” (2 Nephi 1:16). Finally, in what appears to be rhetoric calibrated to defuse Laman and Lemuel’s accusations of infidelity, Nephi declares immediately after separating from his brothers: “We did observe to keep the judgments, and the statutes, and the commandments of the Lord in all things, according to the law of Moses” (2 Nephi 5:10). But as noted above, for Nephi, keeping the law was not the end in itself it appears to be for the Deuteronomists Laman, Lemuel, and Omni (2 Nephi 25:27).

Omni’s first son, Amaron, is the exception who proves the rule. He seems more righteous than his father, but there are extenuating circumstances. In the Book of Mormon, there is something about a national cataclysm that clears the eyes and loosens the tongue of a worthy scribe. So upon the larger pattern of national decline, a secondary pattern must be superimposed in which a man of great spiritual and literary stature arises in the last days of a civilization to record the final collapse and offer a final moral evaluation. Amaron, like Ether, Mormon, Moroni, and Amaleki, is such a man. He reports that in his day “the more wicked part of the Nephites were destroyed,” then artfully explains why: “For the Lord would not suffer . . . yea, he would not suffer that the words should not be verified, which he spake unto our fathers, saying that: Inasmuch as ye will not keep my commandments ye shall not prosper in the land. Wherefore, the Lord did visit them in great judgment” (Omni 1:5–7). The negations pile up: not, not, not, not, not, and then the people are destroyed.

So like the other great chroniclers of doom, Amaron artfully marks the moral significance of the national disaster he records. And like them, he is unable to regenerate his own goodness. It is striking that, Mormon excepted, none of these men have sons. As a consequence, they cannot follow the usual custom of passing their records and record keeping duties on to their son. Whatever the significance of this childlessness may be historically — and it may be pure accident — literarily it is an apt symbol of the spiritual exhaustion which besets these cultures as they near their end. Goodness can no longer renew itself. Only evil multiplies.

Amaron passes the plates to his brother Chemish, who reinforces the pattern of decline by being a moral cipher. In his perfunctory entry Chemish says, in effect, “it is our custom to write, so I have written. There you have it. I make an end.” He lacks moral commitment. His compliance is dead letter.

But it is the son of Chemish, Abinadom, who brings the line to its spiritual nadir. He declares on the one hand, “I with my own sword, have taken the lives of many of the Lamanites” (Omni 1:10) and on the other, “I know of no revelation save that which has been written, neither prophecy” (Omni 1:11). While Sophic citations of past prophecy are still possible, the Mantic tradition has been extinguished among the Nephites.[74] Abinadom’s life appears to be wholly secular and primarily devoted to taking the lives of his fellowmen. So from the time of Nephi to the time of Abinadom, the scribal line seems to have experienced continual decline in social and moral stature and an ultimate decline in faith with only one man, Amaron, breaking the pattern. Knowledge of and belief in Christ have disappeared, supplanted by the Deuteronomist faith that prevails among the Zeniffites.[75]

Amaleki: the Eighth Generation

The last author to write in the small plates is Amaleki, a man of Mantic faith but Sophic methods. A skilled writer, he gives an artful account of the end of Nephite civilization in the land of Nephi and of the phoenix-like rebirth of prophetic religion out of the ashes of that civilization. Having completed the history of that land, he passes the small plates on to King Benjamin, the prophet leader of a new political order and new gospel dispensation. Amaleki ends the small plates by posing for his readers the fundamental life choice each of them must make having read the record: will they metaphorically return and live in the Sophic land of Nephi or will they remain in the Mantic land of Zarahemla, the place they have come to by reading the words of Nephi, Jacob, and other prophets in the small plates.

Amaleki is the eighth generation from the time of father Lehi. The number eight is very often associated with new beginnings in scripture.[76] The best example is Christ’s resurrection on the eighth day which inaugurates humanity’s resurrection to immortality and the possibility of eternal life. In the Book of Mormon, the eighth generation of inhabitants in the land twice experience a dramatic new beginning in the political and spiritual life of the Nephite nation.

Table 3. Birth, Decline, Rebirth in Eight Generations.

Generation

Land of Lehi/Nephi

Land of Zarahmela (Nephi)

1

Lehi

Mosiah_1 (Zeniff)

2

Nephi, Jacob

Benjamin (Noah)

3

Enos

Mosiah_2, (Limhi, Alma)

4

Jarom

Alma_2, Ammon_2, Aaron, Omner, Himni

5

Omni

Helaman_2, Shiblon, Corianton

6

Amaron, Chemish

Helaman_3

7

Abinadom

Nephi_2

8

Amaleki

Nephi_3

In the time of Nephi_3, the eighth Nephite generation in the land of Zarahemla/Bountiful, Christ came to the Americas, did away with the law of Moses, and inaugurated a golden age of faith and peace among the Nephites. Earlier, in the time of Amaleki, the Nephites left their ancestral homeland, the land of Lehi/Nephi after living there for eight generations and began a new religious and political life in the land of Zarahemla.

In Omni, major changes — authorial, spiritual, and geographic — occur in the transition from verse 11 to verse 12 and from the seventh to the eighth generation since Lehi. In verse 11, Abinadom, who has spent his life killing Lamanites in endless wars, knows of no contemporaneous revelation or prophecy. In verse 12, Amaleki opens with Mantic Mosiah who is warned in a dream that, to escape endless war, Nephites who will hearken to the voice of the Lord must flee to the land of Zarahemla. Having the mantle of a prophet and bearing the brass plates, Mosiah and the faithful who follow him help the Mulekites recover their ancestral language and religion. Mosiah becomes king of the combined peoples. Later, his son, Benjamin, to whom Amaleki gives the small plates, calls his people to the temple and restores the Gospel of Christ that they lost while living in the land of Nephi (Omni 1:25).

Being like Mosiah, a member of both the last generation to live in the land of Nephi where his people have lived for four hundred years and the first generation to live in the new land of Zarahemla, Amaleki is a pivotal figure who lives at a pivotal moment in Nephite history. Four hundred years! Imagine what Amaleki and other Nephites felt as they chose, under duress but trusting in the Lord, to leave the ancient seat of their culture. The importance of this event is reflected in the fact that Nephites “go up” to the land of Nephi in all subsequent returns mentioned in the Book of Mormon just as Jews in the Bible always “go up” to Jerusalem and up to the temple, the homes of their heart.[77] Given the emotional resonance of the land of Nephi for the Nephites, it is unsurprising that Amaleki has a retrospective sensibility. Though firm in his commitment to accept guidance given by God through a prophet, Amaleki’s thoughts remain focused on a time and place that have been tragically and irrecoverably lost.

Back to the Future

Amaleki artfully expresses both his sense of loss and his Mantic faith in the way he structures his historical narrative, for the stories he tells regress both temporally and morally. His narrative focuses on four migrations, all but the last of which he records in reverse chronological order. And so his narrative moves backward in time, treating earlier and still earlier migrations, and backward morally, treating migrations which are increasingly less successful in their temporal and spiritual outcomes.

Amaleki first recounts the most recent and, from his point of view, most successful exodus, Mosiah’s migration from the land of Nephi to the land of Zarahemla. As noted above, this migration represents a second beginning for the Book of Mormon, the establishment of a second set of eight generations, who will live in Zarahemla/Bountiful until Christ comes. This migration recapitulates at the close of the small plates the migration with which the plates opened, again establishing the Nephites in a homeland where they will dwell for many centuries and be the standard bearers of the true faith.

Amaleki highlights ironic similarities between Nephi’s founding migration to the land of Nephi and Mosiah’s disestablishing migration from that same land. The two migrations have the same immediate cause, conflict with the Lamanites, the same divine call to migrate, the same sounding of the people, the same hasty departure, the same warnings and revelations, preaching and prophesying. Amaleki highlights this ironic parallel as he describes Mosiah’s migration by echoing rather explicitly Nephi’s account of his journey from the land of Lehi or First Inheritance to the land of Nephi. (Compare 2 Nephi 5:5–8 with Omni 1:12–13.)[78] Seeking peace, Mosiah gathered his people to the temple in the land of Shilom[79] (Mosiah 11:13) and departed into the wilderness, eventually arriving in the land of Zarahemla. The crucial point is that Mosiah led a righteous, and from Amaleki’s point of view, completely successful migration which saved his own people physically and the people of Zarahemla spiritually.

Amaleki next recounts the earlier, less successful migration of the Mulekites from Jerusalem to the land of Zarahemla. The remnant of this migration has fallen into cultural and spiritual decay. According to Amaleki, “their language had become corrupted; … and they denied the being of their creator; and [neither] Mosiah, nor the people of Mosiah, could understand them” (Omni 1:17). While the Mulekites are in a fallen state, they receive with rejoicing the restoration of the scriptures through the prophet Mosiah, so they are not entirely lost. (Indeed, for Amaleki’s readers, they model the appropriate response for a once faithful but now apostate people when the gospel is restored to them.) Mosiah becomes king of both peoples. The graft of a righteous Nephite branch saves the massive and still vigorous Mulekite root.

Immediately following his account of the earlier but morally less successful Mulekite migration, Amaleki recounts the still earlier and still less successful migration of the Jaredites. In this account, the Jaredite people are described as having departed righteously from the Tower of Babel. But they then unrighteously dwindled to a single man, Coriantumr. In Amaleki’s day, only an engraved stone and scattered bones remain to tell the tale of this once great people.[80] He ends his account of the Jaredites in such a way as to emphasize their moral failure: “And the severity of the Lord fell upon them according to his judgments, which are just; and their bones lay scattered in the land Northward” (Omni 1:22).[81]

Amaleki intends for these concluding comments on Jaredite civilization to do double duty. They are also an epitaph for Nephite civilization in the land of Nephi, a token of the just judgment the Zeniffites will merit. Later, in the Book of Mosiah, Mormon places the Zeniffite discovery of Jaredite bones scattered in the land Northward (Mosiah 8:7–8) immediately after a reading of Zeniffite history (Mosiah 8:5–6). In their moment of ultimate misery as they attempt to find Zarahemla, the place they wrongly left, the Zeniffites discover these scattered Jaredite bones which signify the just judgment they merit for having rejected the counsel of God that came to them through the prophet Mosiah.

By recounting these earlier migrations, first the migration of Mosiah, then the increasingly less successful migrations of the Mulekites and Jaredites, Amaleki creates a rhetorical context in which he can conclude the chronicle of his homeland by recounting a final, tragic migration back to the land of Nephi. This last migration does not continue Amaleki’s pattern of temporal regression literally. But figuratively, it does, for it is a desperate journey into the past. Notwithstanding their decision to leave the land of Nephi and follow Mosiah to Zarahemla, a number of Amaleki’s contemporaries, including his brother, were unable to reconcile themselves to the loss of their homeland. After living in Zarahemla for a time, they resolved to return home to the land of Nephi.

This decision to return is a mistake. It continues Amaleki’s pattern of moral regression, for this is the least justifiable of all the migrations he treats. Each of the other three migrations were undertaken at the Lord’s behest to escape destruction in a collapsing society. No matter how badly they ended up, the migrations were initially justified. But this migration represents at the very outset a rejection of the Lord’s counsel. It is the equivalent of Lehi returning to Jerusalem or Jared to Babel. A first half- migration is led not by a prophet of God but by a “stiffnecked man.” It ends in disaster: the stiffnecked man “caused a contention among them; and they were all slain, save fifty in the wilderness, and they returned again to the land of Zarahemla.” Not put off by this great failure — we see here what a powerful hold the land of Nephi had on the imagination of these Nephites — “others to a considerable number … took their journey again into the wilderness” (Omni 1:28–29). Amaleki never hears from them again.

This second group of people is Zeniff’s colony. As noted above, we learn about their subsequent tragic history in the Book of Mosiah. In that telling, Amaleki’s point is reinforced: the migration proves to be a serious error and a dead end. Decimated by continual conflict with local Lamanites, a conflict that God had foreseen and sought to forestall, the people are ultimately desperate once more to leave the land of Nephi and settle, even if it be as slaves, in the land of Zarahemla (Mosiah 7:15). When the Zeniffites attempt to find Zarahemla and, thus, save themselves, they discover instead the scattered bones of the Jaredites, which seem to prophesy their own ultimate destiny (Mosiah 8:6–7). Because we hear about them later, we may be inclined to think of Amaleki’s allusion to these Zeniffites in the final four verses of the small plates as a transition which sets the stage for that story which is to follow. But to see the migration in that way is to lose the force and point of Amaleki’s narrative.

Knowing as he does that departure from the land of Nephi was commanded by the Lord, that the first effort to return there was a disaster, that only a few of those who left survived and made it back to the land of Zarahemla, that the Lamanites remain sufficiently powerful to attack Nephites even in the distant land of Zarahemla (Omni 1:24), Amaleki surely believed and expects us to believe that all these people are dead, that their futile effort to return to the land of Nephi represents the final tragedy of that land. In recounting the fate of the Jaredites, Amaleki went back to the future. He expects that, as with the Jaredites, the severity of the Lord will fall upon these Nephites according to his judgements which are just. He is confident that, like those of the Jaredites, their bones lie scattered in the land of Nephi, unburied and unmourned.

Such an ending perfectly fits the pattern of spiritual and political decline among those who reject prophets that he finds recorded in the small plates. He has structured his narrative such that what is known — the fate of the Jaredites mentioned just before he discusses this ill- advised migration — fills in what he assumes we cannot know: the final fate of these faithless Nephites who rejected the Mantic leadership of a prophet and returned to the land of Nephi to be its last Nephite inhabitants. Thus, the image we are meant to have in our mind as the small plates close — and it is not far off the mark from what actually happened — is the same as the one Ether gave us of the slain armies of Shiz and Coriantumr and the one Mormon gave us as he looked over the “flesh, and bones, and blood” of tens of thousands of his people who were “left by the hands of those who slew them to moulder upon the land” (Mormon 6:15–20).

Gifts Given and Rejected

In Omni 1:23–26, between the image of Jaredite bones scattered over the land, token of the severity of the Lord’s just judgment on those who reject him, and the departure of the faithless, revanchist Zeniffites, Amaleki inserts a seam in his migration narrative that tells us what the departing faithless will face and what they will miss. In verse 24, he speaks of “serious war and much bloodshed between the Nephites and the Lamanites.” Confronted even by those who remain in Zarahemla, this is what will consume the lives of the Zeniffites and what they mostly would have escaped had they remained in Zarahemla to be led by the prophet king Benjamin, “a just man before the Lord.”

By leaving Zarahemla, the Zeniffites also lost the opportunity to hear Benjamin reintroduce faith in “the Holy One of Israel.” They will forego the spiritual gifts “of prophesying, and … revelations, and … the ministering of angels, and … speaking with tongues, and … interpreting languages” (Omni 1:25).[82] Though the Lord will eventually send a prophet, Abinadi, to warn against the folly of following King Noah, Benjamin’s wicked counterpart in the land of Nephi, most Zeniffites will have no opportunity to “come unto Christ, who is the Holy One of Israel, and partake of his salvation, and the power of his redemption … and be saved” (Omni 1:26). The people who remain in Zarahemla do receive these blessings under the tutelage of King Benjamin (Mosiah 2:1–5:15).

Mantic Faith, Sophic Methods

The apt, seemingly prophetic quality of this seam in the migration narrative is probably a fruit of the Spirit. Amaleki is obviously a man of Mantic faith. He was brought up, however, in a time “when there were no revelations save that which had been written, neither prophecy” (Omni 1:11). And there are indications that his methods of composition are those of a Sophic scribe. Outside of his migration narrative, most of the things he says quote existing scripture. (In this respect, he is very much like Limhi, another product of that Sophic culture.)[83] His list of gifts of the spirit in verse 24 cites a possible Ur text that is also quoted, more extensively, by Moroni and Paul (Moroni 10:8–18; 1 Cor. 12:8–18).[84] His other gospel reflections in verse 26 mostly quote Nephi or Jacob.

Table 4 details the text of Omni 1:26 and the number of times others in the Book of Mormon use the italicized phrase.

Table 4. Omni 1:26 Phraseology Used by Others in the Book of Mormon.

Omni 1:26

Nephi

Jacob

Mormon & Moroni

Christ

All Others

And now, my beloved brethren,

17

16

11

15

I would that ye should come unto Christ,

1

2

who is the Holy One of Israel,

20

17

1

and partake of his salvation,

2

and the power of his (the) redemption.

1

2

Yea, come unto him,

5

and offer your whole souls as an offering unto him,

1

3

1

and continue in fasting (fast) and praying (pray),

11

1

and endure to the end;

4

1

1

1

and as the Lord liveth,

4

3

1

6

ye will (shall) be saved.

1

2

Ten of the eleven phrases of Amaleki’s theological statement include words taken verbatim or nearly verbatim from Nephi or Jacob. Setting aside the special cases of Mormon, Moroni, and Christ, only five phrases Amaleki uses in this verse are used by the many other people who are quoted in the Book of Mormon. Almost half of the incidence of shared words are Alma saying “my beloved brethren,” an expression he used frequently. That phrase and the common oath, “as the Lord liveth,” make up 85% of the overlap with all other Book of Mormon authors.

Mormon, and especially Moroni, are special cases because, as I argue in Moroni’s Model: Imitatio Amaleki,[85] there is compelling evidence that Amaleki, the last historian of the land of Nephi, directly influenced their late writings. All of Moroni’s uses of the phraseology in Table 4 and almost all of Mormon’s appear in their accounts of their own civilization’s collapse, the precise context where Amaleki’s words would be most pertinent to their theme. Moroni, who wrote the final chapters of the Book of Mormon, clearly adopted rhetorical strategies and verbiage used by his most similarly situated predecessor, Amaleki.

The heavy vocabulary dependence in Table 4 suggests that Amaleki learned the Gospel of Christ and developed his testimony by immersing himself in the writings of Nephi and Jacob. Revelation having ceased and Christ having been forgotten in the land of Nephi, there seems to have been no other way, apart from personal revelation, for him to have learned about the Savior. Though he was a prophet, even Mosiah seems to have been unacquainted with the doctrine of Christ. Benjamin learned the name and mission of the Savior not from his father but from an angel (Mosiah 3:1–8).

Thus Amaleki, whose tutors are the dead prophets Nephi and Jacob, seems to be a follower of Christ stranded in an unbelieving time, who now sees the first stirrings of a Mantic revival and prophetic restoration of the gospel. Situated himself at the beginning of a restoration, he implicitly calls upon those who read him to embrace the restoration that will be in process when they read his words.

Like Unto Us

We live in a time which, like that of Amaleki, is saturated in Sophism, the religious sectarian Sophism that was prevalent in the 1820s, which says there are “no such things as visions or revelations in these days” (Joseph Smith — History 1:21) and the naturalistic, secular Sophism prevalent now that denies the existence of spiritual gifts and the rationality of “the gospel or doctrine of Christ,” arguing, among other things, that “no man can tell of things to come” (Jacob 7:6-7). And in our time, as in Amaleki’s, there is an unfolding Mantic restoration of the gospel of Christ that, through the ministrations of prophets, is reestablishing ancient truths and bringing new spiritual light and knowledge into the world.

Amaleki artfully marks two paths that are open to people thus situated who have read through the small plates and have come to his concluding message. Reflecting clear thinking about the options that is probably the product of extended, passionate discussions with his brother, Amaleki confronts his readers with a life-defining question: Will you remain with the prophets in Zarahemla or will you return to the land of Nephi. Amaleki and his brother are our surrogates. God honors our agency, so like them, we get to choose the world in which we will live, the Sophic land of Nephi or the Mantic land of Zarahemla.

If having read the small plates, we exercise Sophic faith, we will live in a world where projections from the imagination and self-perceptions of Joseph Smith form the text of the Book of Mormon. We may read the vocabulary similarities in the writings of Nephi, Jacob, Amaleki, Mormon, and Moroni as artifacts of the Mosiah first, Words-of-Mormon last composition of the Book of Mormon.[86] (Tight integration between the books of Omni and Mosiah that I discuss elsewhere[87] makes that reading problematic.) We may read the engraved stone of Coriantumr with its ancient history written in a language that only a prophet can translate as a reflection of Smith’s aspiration to have such a text and to be such a prophet. We may read Amaleki’s exhortation that people not return to the land of Nephi but rather remain in Zarahemla with a prophet and Christ and gifts of the Spirit as a final value proposition that Smith put to his 19th-century readers as he wrapped up the writing of his book. We may read the implied warning about the severity of the Lord’s just judgment falling upon us if we return to the land of Nephi as attempted coercion through an empty threat. Such a reading would come as no surprise to the last author of the small plates, whether it be Joseph Smith or Amaleki. The small plates tell us that the rejection of revelation and the leadership of prophets is the norm for humanity.

But if, having read the small plates, we exercise Mantic faith, we will live in a world suffused with the presence and power of God, where to restore lost truths the corporeal Father and Son appear in pillars of fire to prophets, ancient and modern. Elohim will be for us behind the temple veil in the most holy place. Yahweh will be for us an unblemished lamb, sacrificed for our sins upon the altar of the temple, and he will be the atoning Christ suffering for us in the Garden of Gethsemane and on the cross. We will have a Mother as well as a Father in Heaven. We will see richness in the relationships between Book of Mormon authors, Amaleki being a close reader of Nephi and Jacob, Mormon and Moroni close readers of Amaleki. We will adhere to a living faith, animated by manifest gifts of the Spirit and guided by prophets who still walk among us.

While the small plates, as they close, imply that we get to choose which of the two lands we will live in, Sophic Nephi or Mantic Zarahemla, Amaleki makes it clear that we do not fully determine what we encounter in those metaphorical lands. And the outcomes he briefly describes are much more fully revealed by Mormon in the Book of Mosiah. The land of Nephi becomes the debauched, sensual kingdom of King Noah. The temple in the land of Zarahemla becomes the holy place where inhabitants of the land are reborn as purified sons and daughters of Christ through the valedictory ministrations of their prophet king, Benjamin. Decide, Amaleki implicitly tells us, where you want to live.[88]

Val Larsen was born and raised in Moreland, Idaho. He earned BAs in Philosophy and English from BYU, an MA and PhD in English from the University of Virginia, and a PhD in marketing from Virginia Tech. While teaching at Virginia Tech, Truman State University, and currently at James Madison University, he has published articles on Flannery O’Connor’s fiction, the Book of Mormon, and a wide variety of marketing topics.

1 . While Lehi rejected many of Josiah’s reforms, as shown below, he presumably celebrated the termination of child sacrifice in the Hinnom Valley and may have viewed some other reforms positively. Rappleye suggests as an analogy the Latter- day Saint view of the Protestant reformation. He also provides much evidence that Laman and Lemuel more broadly supported Josiah’s reforms. Neal Rappleye, “The Deuteronomist Reforms and Lehi’s Family Dynamics: A Social Context for the Rebellions of Laman and Lemuel,” Interpreter: A Journal of Moromon Scripture 16 (2015): 90, https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/the-deuteronomist-reforms-and-lehis-family-dynamics-a-social-context-for-the-rebellions-of-laman-and-lemuel/.

2 . Nibley defines these terms as follows: “The Greek word Mantic simply means prophetic or inspired, oracular, coming from the other world and not from the resources of the human mind … . The Mantic is … ‘vertical’ Judaism, i.e. the belief in the real and present operation of divine gifts by which one receives constant guidance from the other world … . The Sophic, on the other hand, is … ‘horizontal’ Judaism — scholarly, bookish, halachic, intellectual, rabbinical.” Hugh W. Nibley, “Three Shrines: Mantic, Sophic, and Sophistic,” in The Ancient State: The Rulers and the Ruled, eds. Stephen D. Ricks and Donald W. Parry (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1991). See also H. Curtis Wright “A Sophic and a Mantic People,” Brigham Young University Studies 31, no. 3 (1991): 51–65.

3 . For a brief survey of the scholarship that leads to this conclusion (and alternative, conservative views) see David Malick, “The Book of Josiah’s Reforms,” Bible.org, https://bible.org/article/book-josiahs-reform.

4 . This follows the sequence of events reported in 2 Kings: discovery of the book first, reforms second. 2 Chronicles reverses the sequence, mentioning the reforms before the discovery of the book. Consistent with Chronicles, some scholars suggest Josiah’s reforms inspired the composition of Deuteronomy rather than Deuteronomy inspiring the reforms. “Critical scholars generally tend to interpret the core of the book [of Deuteronomy] as a sort of manifesto, written in support of Josiah’s efforts to centralize the religion of Israel in Jerusalem. According to Weinfeld (Moshe Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School [Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 1972]), Deuteronomy is … a profound monument to the theological revolution advocated by the Josianic circles. This revolution involved attempts to eliminate other shrines and centralize all worship of YHWH in Jerusalem, as well as to ‘secularize,’ ‘demythologize,’ and ‘spiritualize’ the religion. It sought to replace traditional images of divine corporeality and divine enthronement in the Temple with more abstract, spiritual notions reflected in its ‘name theology.’” Daniel I. Block, The Gospel According to Moses: Theological and Ethical Reflections on the Book of Deuteronomy (Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2012), 5.

5 . See the following articles for alternative views on Josiah and his reforms. The interpretation in this article is more consistent with the reading of Christensen than with that of Hamblin. Benjamin L. McGuire, “Josiah’s Reform: An Introduction,” Interpreter: A Journal of Moromon Scripture 4 (2013): 161–63, https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/josiahs-reform-an-introduction/; William J. Hamblin “Vindicating Josiah,” Interpreter: A Journal of Moromon Scripture 4 (2013): 165–76, https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/vindicating-josiah/; Kevin Christensen “Prophets and Kings in Lehi’s Jerusalem and Margaret Barker’s Temple Theology,” Interpreter: A Journal of Moromon Scripture 4 (2013): 177–93, https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/prophets-and-kings-in-lehis-jerusalem-and-margaret-barkers-temple-theology/.

6 . Unlike in the Masoretic text from which the KJV was translated, the older Dead Sea Scrolls fragments of Deuteronomy and Septuagint variants both end verse 8 with “according the number of the sons of God,” suggesting that each nation had one of the 70 divine sons of El Elyon (the Most High) as its god, with Yahweh (the Lord) being the God of Israel. This accords with Canaanite texts which mention that El had 70 sons. See Michael S. Heiser, “Deuteronomy 32:8 and the Sons of God,” Bibliotheca Sacra 158 (January–March 2001): 52–74.

7 . John Day, Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan (London: Continuum International, 2010); William G. Dever, Did God Have a Wife? (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2005); Raphael Patai, The Hebrew Goddess, 3rd ed. (Detroit, MI: Wayne State University Press, 1990); Judith Hadley, The Cult of Asherah in Ancient Israel and Judah: Evidence for a Hebrew Goddess (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2000); Margaret Barker, The Mother of the Lord (London: T&T Clark, 2012), loc. 1209–1210 of 13900, Kindle; Kevin Christensen “Paradigms Regained: A Survey of Margaret Barker’s Scholarship and Its Significance for Mormon Studies,” FARMS Occasional Papers 2 (2001).

8 . On the topic of centralization, see Block, The Gospel According to Moses. For a more detailed discussion of Josiah’s monism, see Val Larsen, “First Visions and Last Sermons: Affirming Divine Sociality, Rejecting the Greater Apostasy,” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 36 (2020): 52–58, https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/first-visions-and-last-sermons-affirming-divine-sociality-rejecting-the-greater-apostasy/.

9 . Christ both affirmed the Shema (Mark 12:29) and yet claimed to be the Son of God, a God with God. He apparently saw no contradiction in asserting both truths. But read literally as it seems to be in Deuteronomy, the statement appears most consonant with the stringent monotheism of Judaism or Islam.

10 . Some scholars suggest that Israel was Monarchist, not Monotheist in Josiah’s time, i.e., that it believed Israel had only one God but did not deny the existence of other gods who governed other nations. Even if this point is technically correct, it is irrelevant when considering the differences between Josiahan and Lehite theology, since both focused on the God of Israel. Whatever his beliefs may have been about the gods of other kingdoms, Josiah aggressively destroyed the tokens and representatives of all other gods within his kingdom. Performatively, he was a stringent monotheist for whom there was no God of Israel but YHWH, who stood alone. For Lehi, there was both a Father and a Son and, arguably, a Mother God, along with the Host of Heaven he saw surrounding God.

11 . Joan E. Taylor, “The Asherah, the Menorah, and the Sacred Tree,” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 66 (1995): 39–50.

12 . “Of the 370 years during which the Solomonic Temple stood in Jerusalem, for no fewer than 236 years (or almost two-thirds of the time) the statue of Asherah was present in the Temple, and her worship was a part of the legitimate religion approved and led by the king, the court, and the priesthood.” Patai, The Hebrew Goddess, 50.

13 . “The grove” in the King James Bible translates the word Asherah.

14 . Ancient people, like modern people, were able to distinguish between statues of a god and the god him or herself. We worship Christ, not the Christus statue. They worshipped their gods, not the iconic representations of those gods, though they sometimes regarded the image as “a representation of the god in a canonical shape.” See Karel Van Der Toorn, Scribal Culture and the Making of the Hebrew Bible (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2009), 148. Josiah’s destruction of all icons was probably an attack both on all other gods except Yahweh and on the idea that Yahweh was a corporeal being who could be represented iconically.

15 . Yehezkal Kaufmann, The Religion of Israel, From Its Beginnings to the Babylonian Exile, trans. and ed. Moshe Breenberg (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1960), 60; Trude Weiss Rosmarin, Religion of Reason (New York: Bloch, 1936).

16 . For an internet-accessible and readable survey of the Jewish understanding of Exodus 3:14, see K.J. Cronin “The Name of God as Revealed in Exodus 3:14,” Exodus 3:14 (website), https://exodus-314.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/the_name.pdf. This article, which includes citations readers may check to verify the accuracy of the summaries, notes that the following historically prominent Jewish scholars have read eyeh asher eyeh and the free standing eyeh at the end of the verse as providing a first person etymology for third person YHWH: Shlomo Yitzchaki (Rashi), Judah Halevi, Samuel ben Meir (Rashbam), Ibn Ezra, Moses Maimonides, Nahmanides (Ramban), Menachem Recanati, Moses Meldelssohn, Hermann Cohen, Martin Buber, Nahum Sarna, and Jeffrey Tigay. Summarizing the views of these scholars, Cronin writes: “We have … encountered a widespread opinion amongst Jewish thinkers, grammarians and kabbalists that eyeh is the first person equivalent of the third person name YHWH and that eyeh has the same meaning as YHWH” (ibid., 32). The article likewise notes that many of these thinkers, focusing on the root hayah, read eyeh asher eyeh as affirming that God is BEING, the ground of all that exists. That reading is one of the two dominant Jewish interpretations of the verse’s import. See Encyclopedia.com, s.v. “God, Names of,” by Marvin Fox, last updated February 19, 2021, https://www.encyclopedia.com/religion/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/god-names. See also Margaret Barker, The Older Testament (London: SPCK, 1987), 165–67.

17 . Ben Parks notes the relationship between a closed canon, stability, and the maintenance of status quo power. “On the one hand, a closed canon served many cultural purposes: in periods where cultural, social, and religious change was constant, a consistent notion of authorized boundaries brought stability and validated authority. Whenever orthodoxy was challenged, the closed limits of a scriptural canon provided the most strident defense.” Benjamin E. Parks, “The Book of Mormon and Early America’s Political and Intellectual Tradition,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 23, no. 1 (2014): 168.

18 . Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 162–63.

19 . Ibid., 168, 170–71.

20 . For a more extended discussion of the contrast between the views of Josiah and Lehi, see Larsen, “First Visions and Last Sermons,” 37–84.

21 . Don Bradley similarly compares and contrasts the reform of Josiah, which is Sophic, and of Mosiah, which is Mantic. Don Bradley, The Lost 116 Pages: Reconstructing the Book of Mormon’s Missing Stories (Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2019), 271–72.

22 . Deuteronomy 4:19 condemns these linkages with sun and stars that Nephi uses without compunction, and as noted in the text, Josiah destroyed tokens of the linkage to the sun, moon, and stars.

23 . On Mother in Heaven in history and scripture, see Kevin L. Barney, “Do We Have a Mother in Heaven?”, FairMormon, 2001, https://www.fairmormon.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Kevin-Barney-MotherInHeaven.pdf. See also Val Larsen, “Hidden in Plain View: Mother in Heaven in Scripture,” SquareTwo 8, no. 2 (2015), http://squaretwo.org/Sq2ArticleLarsenHeavenlyMother.html.

24 . The singular pronouns thou and thee provide grounds for contesting this reading. But in the Book of Abraham, translated after the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith changed the singular pronouns that referred to God to plurals and suggested that the same would be done in the Bible were it translated correctly. “In the very beginning the Bible shows there is a plurality of Gods beyond the power of refutation … . The word Eloheim [sic] ought to be in the plural all the way through … . When you take [that] view of the subject, it sets one free to see all the beauty, holiness and perfection of the Gods.” Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, ed. Joseph Fielding Smith (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1976), 372. Presumably, the same changes could have been made in the Book of Mormon. Brigham Young said, “I will even venture to say that if the Book of Mormon were now to be re-written, in many instances it would materially differ from the present translation,” Journal of Discourses (Liverpool : George Q. Cannon, 1862) 9:311.

25 . See Michael Austin “A Theory of Types,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 26 (2017): 58–59.

26 . The other five occurrences of ךיבא, Abir (Psalms 132:2, 5; Isaiah 1:24, 49:26, 60:16) all explicitly state that the mighty one (sometimes rendered mighty God) is Yahweh.

27 . David Biale, “The God with Breasts: El Shaddai in the Bible,” History of Religions 21, no. 3 (1982): 240–56.

28 . Almighty is a conjectural translation that assumes a linkage with the word דדש, shadad, meaning destroyer or plunderer. Given associations with procreation and posterity, the God with breasts or Goddess seems to be a more appropriate translation.

29 . The aniconism of Josiah was anticipated by his ideological predecessor, Hezekiah, who destroyed the brass serpent, the Nehushtan (2 Kings 18:4). What Hezekiah had cast down, Nephi repeatedly elevates as an especially important iconic symbol of Christ (1 Nephi 17:41; 2 Nephi 2 Nephi 25:20).

30 . Bradley, The Lost 116 Pages, 145–47, 286.

31 . D. John Butler, Plain and Precious Things (Scotts Valley, CA: CreateSpace, 2012), 57.

32 . In Jewish tradition, when the Messiah comes to the Mount of Olives, he will enter the temple through the eastern gate, accompanied by the Shekhina, the feminine aspect of God. The Shekhina is said to have exited the temple through the eastern gate just before it was destroyed, i.e. she departed the temple in the time when Josiah was dragging the Asherah from the temple through the eastern gate into into the Kidron Valley. See Larsen, “Hidden in Plain View: Mother in Heaven in Scripture.”

33 . There may be an equivocation on the term Spirit of the Lord. Nephi seems to have been carried to the threshold of heaven by the Holy Ghost. He then encounters Yahweh. Both are referred to as the Spirit of the Lord. As is the case in the Old Testament, Book of Mormon divine titles are sometimes conflated. The title Spirit of the Lord most often refers to the Holy Ghost, the indwelling Being through whom Father and Son typically influence people on earth. But it can also refer to the Son who existed as a spirit prior to his birth. To distinguish between the Spirit of the Lord when it refers to Yahweh qua spirit and when it refers to the Holy Ghost, we should focus on domain and function. The domain of the Holy Ghost is the earth and its function is indwelling. Indwelling encounters with the Spirit on earth are always the Holy Ghost. The domain of the Son is both heaven and earth, he being the spiritual and corporeal mediator between the two. To distinguish between the Holy Ghost and the Son, we must focus on function. The Holy Ghost does not appear before us. Rather, he dwells within us. The Son does appear before us in heaven (as he does in Lehi’s first vision) and on earth (as he does in Lehi’s dream). These appearances include his coming to the brother of Jared, where he declares: “this body, which ye now behold, is the body of my spirit” (Ether 3:16). They include appearances in which Moses converses with Yahweh face to face as a man speaketh unto his friend (Exodus 33:11) and they include Nephi’s vision of Lehi’s dream.

34 . David E. Bokovoy, “‘Thou Knowest That I Believe’: Invoking The Spirit of the Lord as Council Witness in 1 Nephi 11,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 1 (2012): 1–23, https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/thou-knowest-that-i-believe/.

35 . As indicated in the text, various cues make it clear that Nephi’s initial guide is Yahweh. So it is Yahweh who says, “Hosanna to the Lord, the Most High God” as Nephi enters the presence of El Elyon. In this phrase, Most High God is in apposition to the Lord. If the word Lord translates the Hebrew Yahweh as in the KJV, this phrase confounds the identities of Yahweh, the Son, and El Elyon, the Father. If Yahweh is speaking about El, the phrase does not make sense. One possible solution for this problem is to assume that the underlying Hebrew is Adonai, the plural of the Hebrew word for Lord, thus meaning Lords. Like Yahweh, the word Adonai is translated as Lord in the KJV. Adonai, like Elohim, is a plural, so Adonai might be an apt word to use when affirming the Lordship of Elohim. Here, the word Adonai might not confound the divine identities of Father and Son. But while ad hoc explanations of this kind may address local problems, contradictions like this cannot be consistently resolved across all appearances of the words Lord and God in the Book of Mormon or Bible. In the end, we probably must posit as our explanation for the inconsistencies some combination of translator discretion, evolving understanding of who the Gods are, and overlapping roles and shared purpose among members of the Godhead.

36 . On the sacred tree as mother, see John S. Thompson, “The Lady at the Horizon: Egyptian Tree Goddess Iconography and Sacred Trees in Israelite Scripture and Temple Theology,” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 38 (2020): 166, https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/the-lady-at-the-horizon-egyptian-tree-goddess-iconography-and-sacred-trees-in-israelite-scripture-and-temple-theology/.

37 . Barker, Mother of the Lord, loc. 1007, 1012, 2795, 13900 of 13900, Kindle.

38 . Barker cites Kletter on the distribution of the Asherah figurines (Barker, Mother of the Lord, 119). See Raz Kletter, The Judean Pillar-Figurines and the Archaeology of Asherah (Oxford, UK: British Archaeological Reports, 1996), 4, 10, 45, 47. Dever strongly affirms that the figurines represent Asherah (Dever, Did God Have a Wife, 58).

39 . For a more detailed discussion of the context and import of these verses, see Val Larsen, “A Mormon Theodicy: Jacob and the Problem of Evil,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 15 (2015): 255–60, https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/a-mormon-theodicy-jacob-and-the-problem-of-evil/.

40 . For a more detailed discussion of Lehi’s philosophical reasoning and how it may be read as a rejoinder to Deuteronomist monism, see Larsen, “First Visions and Last Sermons,” 65–66.

41 . The tree in this last sermon, like that in Lehi’s dream, is the Tree of Life (1 Nephi 15:21–22).

42 . Grant Hardy, Understanding the Book of Mormon (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2010), 33.

43 . Neal Rappleye, “The Deuteronomist Reforms and Lehi’s Family Dynamics,” 92. John A. Tvedtnes, “A Visionary Man,” in Pressing Forward with the Book of Mormon: The FARMS Updates of the 1990s, eds. John W. Welch and Melvin J. Thorne (Provo, UT: FARMS, 1999), 29–31; Matthew Roper, “Scripture Update: Lehi as a Visionary Man,” Insights 27, no. 4 (2007): 2–3.

44 . It is unsurprising that Laman and Lemuel hold fast to long-held beliefs in the wake of a single angelic visitation and even after seeing a number of seemingly miraculous events. Believers understand that the adversary sends angels and performs miracles (see D&C 129); they are not easily turned from their faith by apparent miracles performed by those of other faiths. Nonetheless, as an anonymous peer reviewer noted, their response is inappropriate. It differs dramatically from that of Alma who was, likewise, visited by an angel: “Whereas Alma reflects on his own sins after the angel appears, Laman and Lemuel look to fear and resentment and all the things they have to give up and the hardships they face. The two stories demonstrate the difference between self-examination and self-justification, one approach leading to repentance and the other preventing it.”

45 . On the identity of the “elders of the Jews,” see John A. Tvedtnes, The Most Correct Book (Salt Lake City: Cornerstone, 1999), 59–75.

46 . Bradley, The Lost 116 Pages, 121–44.

47 . Ammoron, who expressed this resentment, probably had a mixed heritage because he was quite clearly also of Mulekite descent. He inherited from his brother Amalickiah a rebellion of “those of high birth,” probably Mulekite descendants of David who were attempting to reestablish a Mulekite monarchy in the wake of Mosiah_2’s abdication. But most of Ammoron’s subjects were Lamanites who had no stake in a conflict between Nephites and Mulekites. Ammoron aligns himself with his Lamanite subjects by emphasizing his Zoramite roots and claiming a shared grievance that was directed, like that of the Lamanites, against Nephi. See Alma 51:8–9 and 54:24.

48 . Val Larsen, “Killing Laban: The Birth of Sovereignty in the Nephite Constitutional Order,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 16, no. 1 (2007): 31–34.

49 . Keith J. Allred, “Who was Second Nephi?” Dialogue, A Journal of Mormon Thought 42, no. 4 (Winter 2009): 3.

50 . Prophetic authority soon disappeared in both Judaism and Christendom in the decades following Christ’s death and resurrection, but scribal authority has remained powerful to the present day. Even the political/religious authority of Mosiah and Benjamin seems to have been substantially rooted in their possession of the brass plates. See Benjamin’s emphasis on the plates as he prepares to abdicate in favor of Mosiah_2 in Mosiah 1:2–8.

51 . Allred, “Who was Second Nephi?” Allred notes that Nephi passes the small plates to Jacob instead of to a son. This may indicate that he had no son. If Nephi had no son, Sam or Sam’s oldest son would have had a claim under succession principles that were typical in ancient Israel and subsequent Book of Mormon history. Allred addresses Mosiah 25:13, the main evidence that the second king was Nephi’s son.

52 . Welch notes that direct criticism of the king was not allowed. For both legal and political reasons, Jacob’s criticism is somewhat subtle and indirect. John W. Welch, The Legal Cases in the Book of Mormon (Provo, UT: Brigham Young University Press and the Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship, 2008), 159–60.

53 . The conflict between Jacob and the new king is discussed in more detail in Larsen, “A Mormon Theodicy,” 248–54.

54 . Brant Gardner, Second Witness: Analytical and Contextual Commentary on the Book of Mormon, Volume 2, Second Nephi—Jacob, (Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2007), 484–99. John L. Sorenson, “When Lehi’s Party Arrived in the Land, Did They Find Others There?,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 1, no. 1 (1992), 1–34. Larsen, “A Mormon Theodicy,” 251.

55 . See John W. Welch, “The Case of Sherem,” in The Legal Cases in the Book of Mormon, 113–14 for a discussion of Jacob’s political critique.

56 . Hugh Nibley, Lehi in the Desert & The World of the Jaredites (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1988), 243–44; Alan C. Miner, Step by Step Through the Book of Mormon, vol. 2 (Springville, UT: Cedar Fort, 1996), https://stepbystep.alancminer.com/jacob_7.

57 . Keith Thompson makes a strong case for Sherem being a son or grandson of Zoram. A. Keith Thompson, “Who was Sherem?,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 14 (2015): 1–15, https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/who-was-sherem/.

58 . Sherem has the skills of a scribe, and in Hebrew, the names of Zoram (םרז) and Sherem (םרש) differ only in their initial consonant. So Sherem might be named, loosely, after his father or grandfather Zoram. One etymology for Sh-R-M is the east Semitic word šarāmu meaning “to cut out, to hack out.” Were he a Deuteronomist scribe, Zoram would probably be familiar with this Assyrian/Babylonian meaning. And he might have charged his descendant with the mission Sherem has clearly taken up: to cut or hack out of the Nephite religion the older elements inconsistent with Deuteronomism. See Book of Mormon Onomasticon, s.v. “Sherem,” last updated August 5, 2019, https://onoma.lib.byu.edu/index.php/SHEREM. Close reading also suggests that the Lamanites were Deuteronomists, so it is possible that Sherem was a Lamanite who joined the Nephites, perhaps with the motive of gaining access to his beloved brass plates and Deuteronomy.

59 . Weinfeld notes that Deuteronomists were skilled in the use of language and focused, in particular, on moving crowds through oral rhetoric. “The Deuteronomic orator often employs rhetorical phrases … and he repeats those phrases again and again as if to hypnotize his audience … . Having chosen the oration as their literary medium, the Deuteronomic authors put their speeches into the mouths of kings and political leaders … . This emphasis on vast audiences in the oration scenes and the detailed enumeration of the various leading classes participating in them is peculiar to the book of Deuteronomy and deuteronomic literature.” Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 173.

60 . John Welch suggests that Sherem “may have contested Jacob’s doctrines and interpretations of the law for thoroughly pious reasons.” He notes the connection between Zoram and Sherem and discusses the danger Jacob faced in the confrontation with Sherem. Welch, “The Case of Sherem,” 108–20.

61 . See Duane Boyce, “Reclaiming Jacob,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 22 (2016): 107–29, https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/reclaiming-jacob/. Boyce persuasively argues that Jacob equivocates on the word sign: “Thus, even though Jacob uses the word ‘sign’ both times, he uses it in two different senses, just as the Lord does” (p. 119). Jacob refuses to provide the sign Sherem requested, some miraculous manipulation of the natural world, a sign that would not have persuaded Sherem had it been given. Instead, God provides Sherem with a demonstration of his power that the skeptic does find persuasive.

62 . While no explicit agent is specified for the passive verb “was nourished” in 7:15, the usual attribution of people nourishing now helpless Sherem seems misguided. The power of the Lord often comes upon people in the Book of Mormon and causes them to fall to the ground, then nourishes them spiritually (Alma 18:42- 43; 19:13; 36:10). The reading most consistent with the power of God and other appearances of this phenomenon in the Book of Mormon is that Sherem is now nourished by God’s power. His subsequent testimony and acknowledgement of the Holy Ghost are evidence he was nourished spiritually.

63 . Alma_2 (Alma 36:1–23), King Lamoni, his wife, servants, and Ammon_2 (Alma 19:1–16), and the Apostle Paul (Acts 22:6–1).

64 . While I don’t share his reading of Jacob’s motives, I am persuaded by Adam S. Miller’s reading of Sherem’s fruitful ministry to the people he had once deceived. Adam S. Miller, Future Mormon (Draper, UT: Greg Kofford Books, 2016), loc. 624 of 3903, Kindle.

65 . See Mosiah 3:2–4 and 12:1.

66 . Sherem’s role as agent of the king is more implicit than Amulon’s. It is apparent from the placement of the story immediately following Jacob’s take down of the king and from the fact that Sherem was allowed to preach a theology which was at odds with the theology of Nephi and Jacob, the High Priest.

67 . An anonymous peer reviewer noted that “the story of Amulon and his priests is told to highlight their behaving like the fallen angels in the Enochic (very Mantic) literature, and then meeting the same fate.”

68 . An anonymous peer reviewer for this article pointed out that the notion of religious decline and apostasy in Table 2 is strengthened by Margaret Barker, who comments on “a pattern clearly associated with the Holy One. Many of its elements are of the later apocalypses, such as visions, heavenly tablets, theophany, and angelic judgement … and there are associations with the temple” (Barker, The Older Testament, 106). That set of associations underscores the significance of writers after Nephi and Jacob dropping the term Holy One.

69 . Toward the end of his life, Jacob concedes the normativity of the king’s record and views: “the record of this people being kept on the other plates of Nephi [the large plates kept by the king], wherefore, I conclude this record [the small plates]” (Jacob 7:26). At Jacob’s death, the king could replace him with a fully subordinate High Priest and establish his preferred theology. Omni 1:11 links the normativity of the king’s record with a complete absence of revelation and prophesy.

70 . Offering a plausible reading, Spencer W. Kimball wrote, “like many sons of good families [Enos] strayed” (Spencer W. Kimball, Faith Precedes the Miracle [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1972], 209).

71 . Unlike their progenitor, Jacob’s descendants are subordinating themselves to the king. By the time of Omni and Abinadom, they are fully subordinate agents of the king who devote their lives to fighting his wars.

72 . As noted in Table 2, Amaleki mentions Christ, but he is writing in the land of Zarahemla.

73 . As noted in the text, while the kings may be devout Deuteronomists, it is also possible that they remain followers of Christ in Jarom’s day though it is not clear how or why they changed their beliefs from Jacob’s time to Jarom’s. Citing Jarom 1:5–9, Bradley argues Nephite civilization reached its material and spiritual apex in the land of Nephi during the life of Jarom, around the year 400. At that time, the people are very prosperous and seem to be righteous enough to be protected by God. While this may be their civilizational apex, it is not the apex of the Jacob family’s moral and social standing. Bradley notes that 80 years later in 320, Nephite civilization in the land of Nephi has declined to the point that it merits a major warning from God through Aminadi, then suffers massive destruction. Bradley, The Lost 116 Pages, 212–14.

74 . See John L. Clark, “Painting Out the Messiah: The Theology of Dissidents,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, 4, no. 2 (2002): 16–27; Gary L. Sturgess, “The Book of Mosiah: Thoughts about Its Structure, Purposes, Themes, and Authorship,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, 4, no. 2 (1995): 107–35.

75 . For an alternative, more charitable assessment of the lives of Omni, Chemish, and Abinadom, see Clifford P. Jones, “The Prophets Who Wrote the Book of Omni,” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 34 (2020): 221–44, https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/the-prophets-who-wrote-the-book-of-omni/. Jones reads against the grain of the text, denying that Omni was “a wicked man” and that there were no revelations in the time of Abinadom. His reading fits with Mormon’s statement that the small plates contain an account “of the prophets from Jacob down to the reign of this king Benjamin” (Words of Mormon 1:3), which could mean that all keepers of the plates from Nephi to Benjamin were prophets. While consistent with what Mormon says, this interpretation does not explain how knowledge of Christ could have been forgotten and why it needed to be restored through Benjamin and Abinadi. The plain meaning of Omni, Amaron, Chemish, and Abinadom’s words — that an apostasy occurred — does explain why a restoration was necessary.

76 . Examples include circumcision on the 8th day, baptism at age 8, 8 people on Noah’s ark, Jaredites crossing the ocean in 8 ships, Lehi’s 8 years in the wilderness followed by a water passage to the Promised Land, and Aeneas being healed by Peter after 8 years of sickness. I am indebted to my wife, Allison, for these and other examples.

77 . “Why Does Nephi Always Go Down to the Wilderness and Up to Jerusalem?” Book of Mormon Central, Jan. 7, 2016, http://www.knowhy.bookofmormoncentral.org/content/why-does-nephi-always-go-down-wilderness-and-jerusalem.

78 . I discuss a more ironic and still stronger parallel between migrations, the Mosiah and Zeniff migrations, in Larsen, “Prophet or Loss: Mosiah_1/Zeniff, Benjamin/Noah, Mosiah_2/Limhi” (lecture, Third Annual Book of Mormon Studies Conference, Logan, UT, October 2019).

79 . The spelling of Shilom and Shalom (peace) are identical in Hebrew. A vowel shift from a to i could easily have occurred. On shalom/shalem and the temple, see Butler, Plain and Precious Things.

80 . Amaleki may feel some kinship with Coriantumr who lived as an alien among the Mulekites, keeper of a text written in a language foreign to them.

81 . Amaleki also echoes Amaron’s earlier destructive “great judgment” in the land of Nephi (Omni 1:7).

82 . Limhi cannot interpret languages; Mosiah_2 is a seer who can (Mosiah 8:12–17). Benjamin received the ministering of angels (Mosiah 3:2).

83 . Ironically, the figure in the Book of Mormon most like Amaleki may be the scholar king, Limhi, the last Nephite king in the land of Nephi. As with Amaleki, most everything he says seems to be quoted from some text written by others. John Gee, “Limhi in the Library,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 1, no. 1 (1992): 54–66. As noted in the text, the connecting thread is that Limhi, like Amaleki, was raised in the Sophic culture of the land of Nephi.

84 . See Nicholas J. Fredercik, “Evaluating the Interaction Between the New Testament and the Book of Mormon: A Proposed Methodology,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 24 (2015): 1–30, for a review of perspectives on this textual parallel.

85 . Forthcoming.

86 . Brent Lee Metcalfe, “The Priority of Mosiah: A Prelude to Book of Mormon Exegesis,” in New Approaches to the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1993), 395–444. See also Clifford P. Jones, “That Which You Have Translated, Which You Have Retained,” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 43 (2021): 1–64, https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/that-which-you-have-translated-which-you-have-retained/.

87 . Larsen, “Prophet or Loss.”

88 . For testimony on the importance of this choice, see Soloveichik’s reflections on the profound existential consequences of living as King David did in a Mantic time rather than as modern Jews do in a Sophic time. Meir Y. Soloveichik, “David, We Hardly Knew Ye,” Commentary (June 14, 2017).

MUCH MORE THAN A READER:

THE LATEST IN CHIASTIC STUDIES

FOR INTERESTED SCHOLARS

AND LAY READERS ALIKE

Steven L. Olsen

Review of Chiasmus: The State of the Art, edited by John W. Welch and Donald W. Parry (Provo, UT: BYU Studies and Book of Mormon Central, 2020). 358 pages. $24.68, paperback.

Abstract: This collection of essays represents the latest scholarship on chiasmus. They were selected from papers delivered at an academic conference at Brigham Young University in 2017. Articles reflect both “the state of the art” and the state of the technique in chiastic studies.

In the academic world, readers are published collections of articles that represent the breadth, depth, variety, and history of the best scholarship on a given theme. Readers may reflect the current nature of scholarly understanding or indicate a turning point in the intellectual interest in a subject. They often supplement textbooks as principal sources in undergraduate lower or upper division courses.

This new collection of essays edited by Jack Welch and Donald Parry is an academic reader in multiple senses:

1. It introduces students of all ages and experience levels to the latest research in chiastic studies as manifest in a variety of ancient literary sources, including the Hebrew Bible (six articles), Christian Bible (two articles), Book of Mormon (one article), and Mayan texts (one article). In addition, Professor Welch himself illustrates the comparative value of chiasmus in analyzing several homicide narratives in the Bible and Book of Mormon.

2. It complements and updates the standard and still valuable collection of articles on chiastic studies published four decades earlier, also edited by Professor Welch.[1]

3. It offers an operational definition of this ancient literary convention and considers its rhetorical value for writers, redactors, editors, readers, and critics.

4. It includes an extended bibliography of published works on chiasmus.

But this volume is much more than an academic reader. Collectively, these essays are also a statement of respect for Professor Welch, who recently retired as one of the leading international contributors to this scholarly tradition and who introduced chiastic studies to Latter-day Saint scholars a half century ago after he had discovered the traditional Hebrew literary convention used throughout the text of the Book of Mormon.[2] Scholarly studies of the Book of Mormon have not been the same since. The event that gave rise to this “state of the art” publication was an academic conference at Brigham Young University in August 2017.[3] This celebration brought together dozens of scholars and clerics to reflect on this standard but not uncontroversial literary convention of (primarily) the ancient Near East.

Those who are more than a little familiar with this convention recognize chiasmus as a specialized and complex expression of parallelism, an even more ubiquitous literary convention of biblical Hebrew.[4] As generally understood, chiasms are an inverted parallelism, in which several linguistic elements flow in reverse order around a central axis, e.g., A/B/C/D/E/D’/C’/B’/A’. The center element (in this case, “E”) is not only its structural fulcrum but also its interpretive nexus.

While the standard form of chiasms seems clear and straightforward, their actual appearance in literary texts is anything but. As with most sophisticated literary conventions, chiasms evidence considerable variation as used by skilled authors, editors, and redactors, who are not following linguistic rules as much as making literary sense of crucial contents. The protean nature of chiasms renders their study relevant to a wide variety of rhetorical purposes (interpretation, retention, clarity, and focus, to name a few), a wide range of aesthetic skills (from simple and direct to sophisticated and complex), and all levels of textual inclusion (from individual phrases, sentences, paragraphs, and ideas to entire descriptions, settings, themes, narratives, and compositions). Thus, the search for and analysis of chiasms can be rewarding and insightful but also subject to misuse and abuse.

The scholarship in this volume represents not only the “state of the art” but also the “state of the technique or method.” Eight of the essays focus largely on the artistry and interpretive value of chiasms, while the final three essays examine the technical criteria and methods that define and distinguish them. Technical studies may be necessary to protect against the tendency to be overly skeptical of their existence altogether or naively enthusiastic about their use and purpose.

These essays provide excellent examples of the remarkable hermeneutical and rhetorical insights into ancient texts that can come from chiastic studies as well as the analytical rigor required to gain the resulting insights. I offer a few personal favorites that exemplify both qualities.

John W. Welch (“Narrating Homicides Chiastically,” pp. 151–76) applies chiasmus comparatively to ancient Hebrew law codes regarding homicide as well as several biblical narratives involving murder. This test case is especially salient because of the absolute seriousness of homicide in biblical cultures. This article claims that if the concept of chiasmus can delimit, clarify, and interpret the concept and instances of such a terrible act as murder, then its value as an analytical tool in the Hebrew Bible is unsurpassed. After demonstrating the relevance of this perspective in several biblical cases, Welch takes on one of the most problematic passages in the Book of Mormon — Nephi’s killing of the Jewish leader Laban (1 Nephi 4:4–27). He illustrates how the concept of chiasmus reveals the depth of meaning of this tragic event and the crucial role the event plays in the larger Nephite narrative. At the same time, Welch uses the troubling instance of homicide to illustrate the many sophisticated literary functions that chiasmus can serve in a sacred text.

Here I tentatively offer a suggestion that may add meaning to Welch’s study of the death of Laban. The chiastic structure of the narrative recognizes 1 Nephi 4:14–15 as its axis. The centerpiece of this key narrative in this sacred record is not only a reminder of the necessity to keep God’s commandments, as Welch observes. It is also, and perhaps more importantly the rehearsal of God’s first recorded words to Nephi, which serve as the foundation of an eternal covenant that defines and guides this “remnant of Israel” for a millennium and becomes the anchor of their core, eternal identity, and the basis of their eventual destruction and promise for an eventual restoration in the end of time (see 1 Nephi 2:20–21). Thus, the death of Laban symbolizes the preservation of God’s covenant with this extended family of exiles, whose written legacy will be the means of renewing and fulfilling that covenant of salvation on behalf of all mankind in the last days. Nephi’s chiastic structuring of the death of Laban reinforces this central truth claim of the Book of Mormon.

Noel Reynolds’s essay on 2 Nephi (“Chiastic Structuring of Large Texts: 2 Nephi as a Case Study,” pp. 177–92) provides another remarkable insight into the interpretive value of chiasmus. Based on established academic norms, Reynolds illustrates how the entire book of 2 Nephi is bound, structured, and focused for interpretive purposes. In an article- length study, he is able to propose his grand thesis only by a chiastic structuring of dominant themes of Nephi’s second book. Recognizing the subjective quality of using ideas or themes to illustrate the presence of chiasms, Reynolds illustrates that the axis of the book- length chiasm (2 Nephi 11:2–8, which bears witness of Jesus Christ) can be framed as a layered series of more specific chiasms, using every word of the English translation of the text. This elegant, detailed, and comprehensive analysis not only silences the skeptics but also encourages an advocate – maybe even Reynolds himself – to illustrate the extent to which the entire book of 2 Nephi can be understood word- for-word as a complex series of multi-layered chiasms. Doing so would indeed be a coup for chiastic studies!

Douglas Buckwalter (“Jesus and the Roman Centurion (Matthew 8:5– 13): A Window to Chiasmus and Apostolic Pedagogy,” pp. 193–206) illustrates how chiasmus, as one literary convention, combines with other literary conventions, most notably repetition and contrasting parallelism, to reveal an intricate structuring of Matthew 8:1–11:1. Facing the same dilemma of restricted space as Reynolds, Buckwalter details specific insights to be gained by focusing in detail on one of the several miracles included in this extended passage: the healing of the centurion’s servant (Matthew 8:5–13). Buckwalter demonstrates that skilled authors craft their texts using a wide array of literary conventions, not just chiasms. He illustrates that the point of a textual analysis is to better understand the text as an integrated whole rather than simply to identify its constituent parts. Serious readers can only hope that chiastic studies can progressively embrace a fuller inventory of diverse literary conventions to reveal the complex, sophisticated, and layered meanings embedded in sacred texts, including the Book of Mormon.

Finally, Gabriella Gelardini (“From ‘Linguistic Turn’ and Hebrews Scholarship to Anadiplosis Iterata: The Enigma of a Structure,” pp. 231– 56) places chiastic studies generally and her analysis of the book of Hebrews specifically into a long theological and philosophical tradition. She does so not simply for the sake of academic elegance but also to provide a theoretical frame for her study. I appreciate her attention to a theoretical perspective because all too often students of a particular subject or issue like chiasmus can become so focused that they forget that their studies are part of a larger intellectual and cultural endeavor. Such an insular approach risks the danger of assuming a privileged and self-evident “truth” to one’s chosen subject. Professor Gelardini demonstrates not only the inherent limits of such a position but also the analytical benefits of a more inclusive theoretical perspective.

I strongly recommend this book to every reader with a modicum of interest in literary studies, cultural studies, religious studies, Near East studies, and Latter-day Saint studies. Undoubtedly, you will recognize other essays in the collection as your favorites. Like these scholars, I salute Professor Welch for his persistence in advancing chiastic studies generally and bringing an awareness of chiasmus into the mainstream of Latter-day Saint scholarship. With these scholars, I wish him well in whatever endeavor ignites his intellectual passion in the next phase of his life.

Steven L. Olsen received AM and PhD degrees in cultural anthropology from the University of Chicago in 1978 and 1985, respectively. For the past three decades he has filled various professional and administrative positions with the Church History Department in Salt Lake City, including Senior Curator and Managing Director. Major projects completed under his leadership include the major exhibits: A Covenant Restored: Historical Foundations of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and Presidents of the Church at the Church History Museum; the historic site restorations, Joseph and Lucy Mack Smith Farm and Sacred Grove and Book of Mormon Historic Publication Site (western New York), Historic Kirtland and John and Else Johnson Home (northeast Ohio), Cove Fort and Brigham Young Winter Home (Utah); and the Church History Library in Salt Lake City.

1 . John W. Welch, ed., Chiasmus in Antiquity: Structures, Analyses, Exegesis (Hildesheim, DEU: Gerstenberg, 1981).

2 . John W. Welch, “Chiasmus in the Book of Mormon” BYU Studies 10, no. 1 (1969): 69–84.

3 . For full proceedings of the conference, including recordings for selected sessions, see https://chiasmusresources.org/chiasmus-open-conference-state-art. The volume being considered in this review is available for free, in PDF format, at https://byustudies.byu.edu/journal/volume-592-supplement-chiasmus-2020/.

4 . E.g., Adele Berlin, The Dynamics of Biblical Parallelism (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1985). The prevalence of parallelism in the Book of Mormon is seen in Donald W. Parry, comp., Poetic Parallelisms in the Book of Mormon, foreword by John W. Welch (Provo, UT: Brigham Young University, Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship, 2007).

EDFU AND EXODUS

John Gee

Abstract: In this essay John Gee draws a connection between the Egyptian “Book of the Temple” and the book of Exodus, both in structure and topic, describing the temple from the inside out. Gee concludes that both probably go back to a common source older than either of them.

[Editor’s Note: Part of our book chapter reprint series, this article is reprinted here as a service to the LDS community. Original pagination and page numbers have necessarily changed, otherwise the reprint has the same content as the original.

See John Gee, “Edfu and Exodus,” in Temple Insights: Proceedings of the Interpreter Matthew B. Brown Memorial Conference, “The Temple on Mount Zion,” 22 September 2012, ed. William J. Hamblin and David Rolph Seely (Orem, UT: The Interpreter Foundation; Salt Lake City: Eborn Books, 2014), 67–82. Further information at https://interpreterfoundation.org/books/temple-insights/.]

Matthew Brown wrote many books on a variety of topics,1 but the one topic that held his interest and to which he kept returning was the temple. He invited me to give this paper only a couple of days before his untimely passing.

Exodus

The first Israelite temple was the portable temple in the wilderness, better known as the tabernacle, whose description is provided in the book of Exodus. This description begins in the twenty-fifth chapter and runs through the twenty-eighth chapter.2 It first describes the ark of the covenant^3 — a portable shrine carried on staves by priests (see Exodus 25:10–22)4 — followed by the table for the shewbread (see Exodus 25:23–30),5 the lampstand (see Exodus 25:31–40),6 the curtains (see Exodus 26:1–7), their coverings (see Exodus 26:7–14), the boards (see Exodus 26:15–30),7 the veil (see Exodus 26:31–32),8 and the arrangement of the holy of holies (see Exodus 26:33–37). Next the altar is described (see Exodus 27:1–8), followed by a description of the courtyard (see Exodus 27:9–19). Finally, the garments of the priests are described (see Exodus 28:1–43).

A number of features of the description of the tabernacle compare with Egypt. These include the “gilded wooden frames socketed together and covered with curtains,” a description that “was based directly on long-established Egyptian technology.”9 It occupied “the center of a rectangular camp of the Hebrew tribal groups (see Num. 2). This compares directly with the war tent of Ramses II in its shield-palisaded rectangular camp.10 “The ark of the covenant was a gilded box carried upon removable gilded poles (Exodus 37:1–4). This is a specifically Egyptian usage …. Egyptian sacred barque shrines were also carried on such poles by priests in a procession.”11 The Hebrew term for the acacia wood out of which the tabernacle was constructed is a loan word from Egyptian,12 as is the technique of overlaying that wood with metal.13 The term for linen used in the construction of the tabernacle is likewise an Egyptian loan word.14 The leather used in the tabernacle’s construction might also be an Egyptian loan word.15 The incense dish mentioned in the description of the tabernacle is “hand,” derived from the hand-shaped incense cups depicted in Egypt.16 Three of the measures — the hin, the ’êpâ, and the ’ammâ — come from Egypt.17

This, however, is not the extent of the comparisons that can be made with Egypt.

Edfu

The ancient temple has a long history. Temple studies have been going on for a number of years, but those doing temple studies normally overlook the Egyptian evidence. Egypt has more than one hundred fifty temples,18 providing a large number of archaeological remains. Many of these temples also are filled with inscriptions. Additionally, a number of papyri from temple archives have been recovered.

Among the papyri recovered are a number of copies of a work still unpublished, called “The Book of the Temple” by its editor because it deals with the layout of the temple and the work of the priests.19 It exists in hieroglyphic, hieratic, demotic, and Greek versions^20 from all over Egypt^21 and in multiple manuscripts, twenty from Tebtunis alone.22 Most of the manuscripts date from the Roman period, but the text goes back earlier — although the editor, Joachim Quack, has demurred to say how much further back it goes.23 At least one of the manuscripts dates to the Ptolemaic Period. While most of these manuscripts are unpublished, a couple of versions have been published.24 One of these, adapted from the so-called Book of the Temple, is the bandeau inscription of the temple of Edfu.25

The Edfu bandeau inscription contains a historical prologue introducing the building of the temple followed by a description of the temple, room by room. As Dieter Kurth has noted, “the ancient text makes an excellent guidebook” to the Egyptian temple.26 “The description is planned, accurate, detailed, and complete. If we allow ourselves to be guided through the temple by the author of this inscription, we shall see the building with the eyes of a competent contemporary.”27A parallel also exists for the Dendara temple,28 but “an overarching study of all bandeaux inscriptions of the late temples does not exist yet” but some general patterns have been discussed.29 I have used the description from Edfu because it is fuller than the Dendara inscription, providing more detail about the rooms and for what they are used.

The Edfu inscription describes the temple: “These monuments which his majesty and his fathers made are the image of the heavenly temple”; it also says that the inscription will contain “a knowledge of their chapels, a report of their halls, an account of their measurements and their columns, a revelation of their doorways, a list of their stairways, a report of the number of their upper chambers, a knowledge of their gates and the doors in them to every place onto which they open, an account of their walls perfectly decorated by master craftsmen of the house of life,”30 which has been argued to be the temple scriptorium, “where books connected with religion and cognate matters were compiled.”31

The structure of the Edfu bandeau inscription begins first with a historical introduction describing how the temple was begun under the reign of Ptolemy III Euergetes and finally finished under the reign of Ptolemy X Alexander I.32 The temple was planned out by Ptolemy III “himself together with the goddess Seshat.”33 The correct position of the temple was given by divine decree,34 and “the primordial gods rejoiced while circumambulating it.”35 The sanctuary was completed twenty-five years later under Ptolemy IV Philopater.36 After the sixteenth year of Ptolemy IV, “the curse of rebellion occurred after the ignorant rebelled in the south and work ceased on the throne of the gods.”37 This condition lasted until the nineteenth year of the reign of Ptolemy V, when construction resumed.38 This rebellion, under Horronophris and Chaonnophris, is mentioned in the Rosetta Stone.39

As interesting as the historical portion of the inscription is, our primary focus here is the description of the temple. It begins with a description of the holy of holies, called the Emsun.40 “The Emsun is in its midst, the first chapel, the great seat” of the god.41 “Its length is 8⅓ cubits, and its width is 5⅔ cubits; its walls are inscribed with the council of gods of the Emsun and their images.”42

The inscription then describes the other chapels coming off the hall surrounding the bark shrine, starting to the right of the Emsun and continuing on through those on the right-hand side, then going to the left of the Emsun and following through the left-hand side.43 All these chapels, nine in total, open out onto the hall that encircles the bark shrine. These shrines belong to “the ennead of the nome”44 — that is, the council of gods that belong to the region.

The bark shrine or “great seat is in their midst surrounding it, 19^5/6 by 10⅓ cubits.”45 The ark, a portable shrine shaped like a boat and carried on staves by priests, resided here.46 “The rituals of the lord are his: The revelation of the face of God, offering righteousness to its creator, and burning incense for the ark.”47

The first of these rituals, the revelation of the face of God, is part of a series of rituals that are found on the alternating first registers of the interior walls of the great seat. These include “mounting the steps,”48 “drawing back the bolt,”49 “unloosing the seal,”50 “revealing the face of god,”51 “seeing god,”52 and “praising god four times.”53 This could also be abbreviated simply as “seeing god”54 and is equated with worship.55

The offering of righteousness is also explicitly given three times in the great seat.56 The offering of righteousness is “thought of [by modern scholars] as an archetypal offering, a supreme offering into which all other offerings are subsumed.”57 It occurs in both royal and private settings and in both temple and funerary contexts.58 The purpose of this offering is to grant salvation to the offerer.59

The fumigation of the ark transfigures it, preparing it for the manifestation of the god.60 The great seat has a simple incense offering^61 coupled with a depiction of doing so in front of the ark.62

Proceeding with the description of the temple of Edfu, the bandeau inscription records: “The central hall is in front of it,”63 referring to the great seat. “It is twenty cubits by nine cubits. The shrines of the gods are in it.”64 Off to one side is a shrine for the god Min, and on the other is the food altar.65

There is an open-air court off of this room called the wabet or pure place.66 “Ointment, clothing, and protective amulets are offered to provide the god with his regalia after his majesty is purified with his soap and water jars so that his spirit may unite with his image.”67 This description from the bandeau inscription matches that of a modern scholar who carefully analyzed the inscriptions inside the pure place: “The central themes of the rites performed in the wabet are the purification and censing of the statues of the gods, their clothing with linen, anointment, and adornment with protective insignia and royal regalia.”68 “The ritual activities performed within and depicted and described on the walls of the wabet show a strong resemblance to a number of other rituals …. These rituals can be observed in the temple (the Daily Temple Ritual), in the funerary sphere (the ritual of the ‘opening of the mouth’ and even the embalming ritual), and also in the royal sphere (e.g. in the confirmation of the pharaoh in his power …).”69 “The preparation consists in the purification, clothing with linen, anointing, and provision of protective amulets … and food-offerings to the statues of the gods …. These activities are followed by the presentation of items characteristic of the theology of the temple and its central deity.”70 So “the distinction scholars make between temple rituals and funerary rites is not self-evident, especially with regard to the rites performed in Ptolemaic and Roman temples.”71

In front of the central hall is the offering hall.72 “It is decorated on its face with the rites of the divine rite and all the instructions pertaining thereto.”73 The divine rite, as we know from a ritual roll in Berlin, is the daily temple ritual.74 The rituals in this papyrus in Berlin are broken into two parts: first, rites for entering the sanctuary and seeing the god^75 and second, offerings made to the god.76 The inscriptions on the wall pertain to the offerings portion of the divine rite. The Berlin papyri seem to have only the first portion of this second part. Some of the middle of the offering ritual is missing, but the end is contained in a papyrus in Turin and Cairo.77 Thus in the offering hall at Edfu^78 we have depicted rituals for offering incense,79 putting fat on the fire,80 offering joints of meat,81 offering beer,82 offering white bread,83 offering wine,84 offering milk,85 libating the offerings to the gods,86 offering incense and libations,87 offering libations,88 offering divine offerings,89 lifting the offerings,90 bringing the god to his food,91 offering an offering table,92 and entering after the reversion of offerings.93 At Edfu there are also other rituals depicted, such as rattling sistra;94 offering a clock;95 offering images of the gods;96 offering other beverages;97 purifying the altar;98 offering oil;99 lifting cakes;100 offering royal offerings;101 offering papyrus and geese;102 offering bouquets;103 offering invocation offerings;104 offering righteousness;105 performing rituals;106 giving the crook and flail;107 giving life, stability, and power to the nose;108 praising the sun as it sets in the west;109 and offering honey.110

Staircases leading to upper rooms flank the offering hall.111

“The great hall is in front of it, with twelve pillars, great supports, beautiful in appearance. It is 37 cubits long and 15 cubits wide.”112 “It is called the chamber of happiness.”113 “It is like a papyrus thicket.”114 Off this room are chambers dedicated to washing,115 anointing,116 whitening clothing,117 and adorning with amulets.118

“The forehall comes after it. It is higher than these and larger than them.”119 It contains “eighteen beautiful columns.”120 “This hall, which is in front of the forehall, is larger than it,” and measures “ninety cubits from south to north and 80 cubits from west to east.”121 “Thirty-two columns surround it in its circuit like a falcon’s nest.”122 “Its name is place of overthrowing the serpent,123 the enemy of the sun-god.”124

“A pylon stands in front of them which is 120 cubits long, 60 cubits high to their head, and 21 cubits in thickness.”125 “They have been decorated with the inscriptions on all the instructions of opposing foreigners.”126 “Two obelisks stand in front of them to penetrate the clouds of heaven.”127 These obelisks provide an Egyptian analogue for the “pillars” Jachin and Boaz that were found in Solomon’s temple (see 1 Kgs. 7:15–22, 41–42).128

Similarities

Exodus and Edfu are similar in many ways. They both start with a historical introduction and then provide a description of the temple. Like the Edfu bandeau inscription, the book of Exodus begins with a historical prologue (see Exodus 1–24). This story is well-known and ritually commemorated in the Passover festival. They both start from the sanctuary and work out. Both are concerned with measurements. They differ in that the Edfu inscription concentrates on the room, while Exodus concentrates on the furniture.

Because the Edfu inscription is based on the so-called Book of the Temple, the text dates as early as the Book of the Temple. How early is that? The Edfu inscription provides a date of a manuscript of the Book of the Temple to the reign of Ptolemy X Alexander I, and the pattern for the temple, which the inscription follows, was laid out under Ptolemy III Euergetes. How far earlier can this be traced?

Although manuscripts of the text are lacking, we could see how far back elements of the text go by looking at temples to see if they follow the general architectural layout specified in the Book of the Temple and whether their decoration matches that given. It is, of course, easier to specify this research program than to carry it out. We will look at temples founded going back in time from Edfu, founded under Ptolemy III Euergetes, and compare them with the inscription.

There was a new temple for Min at Coptos under Ptolemy II Philadelphus, but “unfortunately, nothing remains of the new temple, except a few parts of the high temple platform with two parallel staircases.”129 Ptolemy II also founded a temple at Theadelphia, but it is “now completely destroyed.”130 Ptolemy I built a temple at Terenutis that “was found, destroyed down to the foundation trenches.”131 Ptolemy also built a new temple at Tebtynis.132 This is the temple whose cellars provide the Tebtunis temple archive, “mostly second-century AD papyri containing religious, scientific, literary, administrative, and private texts, in hieratic, demotic and Greek, to do with the temple and its priests,”133 including twenty different manuscripts of the so-called Book of the Temple.134 Surely we should expect this temple to follow the same pattern. It probably did; “surface fragments where the temple once stood showed that it had been built of stone and decorated with painted reliefs, but only the mudbrick foundations survive.”135 We can probably date the so-called Book of the Temple to at least the reign of Ptolemy I.

For the earlier Persian Period in Egypt, we have some difficulties. The initial “121-year Persian domination left minimal traces in Egyptian architecture, and even the number of stelae, stone sarcophagi, and other monuments in Egyptian style decreased significantly.”136 In the later Persian Period, there was some building. Most Persian Period pharaohs extended or enlarged previous buildings. Nectanebo II, however, began construction of a temple for Isis and Osiris at Behbeit el-Hagar.137 “The temple has collapsed, and its tumbled blocks cover an area 80 m long and 50 to 60 m wide. It may have been destroyed by a strong earthquake in antiquity and “ongoing stone robbing has reduced the pile considerably.”138 Nectanebo also seems to have begun a major temple at Sebennytos because there were about forty inscribed blocks at the site in 1911, but “no official excavation of the site is recorded.”139

For Saite times, the Ammoneion of the Siwa Oasis was built under the reign of Amasis. “Besides the Hibis temple in the El-Kharga Oasis, it is the only standing temple of the 26th Dynasty.”140 It is a smaller temple, about fifteen by fifty-two meters,141 and incompletely published. Psammetichus II built the Hibis Temple in the Kharga Oasis, which is a small temple^142 that is missing many of the elements of the larger temples like Edfu.

In Kushite times, Taharqa built three very similar temples at Tabo, Kawa, and Sanam,143 and it would appear that the Hibis temple in Kharga is based on these. “The organization of these temples discloses that only minor details had changed in temple building since the New Kingdom and that older plans and decoration programs were purposefully followed.”144 This indicates that the temples follow a set plan. The so-called Book of the Temple may not have existed in its form in Edfu but something like it existed.

This brings us to the New Kingdom temple of Medinet Habu. Similar in shape to the Edfu temple, the interior of the rooms, particularly around the area of the holy of holies, is quite different from Edfu. For example, at Edfu, the hall of the Ennead does not surround a central bark shrine but is set to the left of the holy of holies.145 Nevertheless, the temple has the pylon, the open court, and the multiple hypostyle halls. Much of the rear of the temple has been destroyed, including most of the innermost hypostyle hall, so we cannot compare the decoration. The pylon, however, is decorated precisely as laid out in the Edfu temple. With its scenes of Pharaoh smiting the enemies,146 it has been “decorated with the inscriptions on all the instructions of opposing foreigners.”147 This motif is continued around the sides of the temple with the inscriptions describing Ramses III’s triumphs against foreign enemies.148 So that portion of the so-called Book of the Temple seems to go back to the New Kingdom.

Furthermore, it has long been noted that the ritual in the various temples is similar if not identical to each other.149 The content of the rituals is not necessarily adapted to the individual deities and sometimes is not connected with the gods the rituals are used to worship.150

Conclusions

There was clearly something like the Book of the Temple that goes back to the New Kingdom. It standardized temple forms, functions, and decorations. This means that there may have been some connection between an early form of the Book of the Temple and the book of Exodus. Both start with a historical prologue followed by a description of the temple. Both follow a similar format, describing the temple from the inside out. Both are concerned with the dimensions of the sacred space. One can make a plausible, although hardly demonstrable, case that both the Edfu bandeau inscription and the book of Exodus were influenced by an early version of the so-called Book of the Temple. There might be a stronger case to be made, but that will have to wait for the complete publication of the Book of the Temple.

Notes

1. Matthew B. Brown and Paul Thomas Smith, Symbols in Stone: Symbolism on the Early Temples of the Restoration (Salt Lake City: Covenant Communications, 1997); Matthew B. Brown, The Gate of Heaven: Insights on the Doctrines and Symbols of the Temple (Salt Lake City: Covenant Communications, 1999); Matthew B. Brown, All Things Restored: Confirming the Authenticity of LDS Beliefs (Salt Lake City: Covenant Communications, 2000); Matthew B. Brown, A Pillar of Light: The History and Message of the First Vision (Salt Lake City: Covenant Communications, 2009); Matthew B. Brown, Plates of Gold: The Book of Mormon Comes Forth (Salt Lake City: Covenant Communications, 2003); Matthew B. Brown, Joseph Smith: The Man, the Mission, the Message (Salt Lake City: Covenant Communications, 2004); Matthew B. Brown, Receiving Gifts of the Spirit (Salt Lake City: Covenant Communications, 2005); Matthew B. Brown and Val W. Binkerhoff, Prophecies: Signs of the times, Second Coming, Millennium (Salt Lake City: Covenant Communications, 2006); Matthew B. Brown, The Plan of Salvation: Understanding our Divine Origin and Destiny (Salt Lake City: Covenant Communications, 2007); Matthew B. Brown, Exploring the Connection Between Mormons and Masons (Salt Lake City: Covenant Communications, 2009).

2. For the setting of this description in the outline of the book, see Nahum M. Sarna, “Book of Exodus,” in The Anchor Bible Dictionary (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 2:692-93.

3. Menahem Haran, Temples and Temple-Service in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1978), 153.

4. Haran, Temples and Temple-Service in Ancient Israel, 156.

5. Haran, Temples and Temple-Service in Ancient Israel, 153.

6. Haran, Temples and Temple-Service in Ancient Israel, 153.

7. Haran, Temples and Temple-Service in Ancient Israel, 150-51.

8. Haran, Temples and Temple-Service in Ancient Israel, 152.

9. K. A. Kitchen, “The Exodus,” The Anchor Bible Dictionary (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 2:706; K. A. Kitchen, On the Reliability of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2003), 276-79; Richard S. Hess, Israelite Religions (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), 204. For some biblical scholars the main controversy is whether the boards overlapped or not: Richard Elliott Freidman, Who Wrote the Bible? (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1987), 174-174-87; James K. Hoffmeier, Ancient Israel in Sinai (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), 198-201.

10. Kitchen, “Exodus,” 706; Kitchen, On the Reliability of the Old Testament, 278.

11. Kitchen, “Exodus,” 707; Hoffmeier, Ancient Israel in Sinai, 213-14.

12. Hoffmeier, Ancient Israel in Sinai, 209-11.

13. Hoffmeier, Ancient Israel in Sinai, 211-12.

14. Hoffmeier, Ancient Israel in Sinai, 212.

15. Hoffmeier, Ancient Israel in Sinai, 212-13.

16. Hoffmeier, Ancient Israel in Sinai, 215-16.

17. Hoffmeier, Ancient Israel in Sinai, 218-20.

18. For an overview, see Dieter Arnold, Die Tempel Ägyptens: Götterbewohnungen, Baudenkmäler, Kultstätten (Zürich: Artemis & Winkler, 1992). This is more comprehensive than Richard H. Wilkenson, The Complete Temples of Ancient Egypt (London: Thames & Hudson, 2000).

19. Joachim Friedrich Quack, “Die Überliferungsstruktur des Buches vom Tempel,” in Tebtynis und Soknopaiu Nesos: Leben im römerzeitlichen Fajum, ed. Sandra Lippert and Maren Schentuleit (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2005), 105.

20. Quack, “Die Überliferungsstruktur des Buches vom Tempel,” 105.

21. Joachim Friedrich Quack, “Das Buch vom Tempel und verwandte Texte: Ein Vorbericht,” Archiv für Religionsgeschichte 2 (2000): 1; Quack, “Die Überliferungsstruktur des Buches vom Tempel,” 105.

22. Quack, “Die Überliferungsstruktur des Buches vom Tempel,” 107.

23. Quack, “Das Buch vom Tempel und verwandte Texte,” 1-2.

24. Quack, “Das Buch vom Tempel und verwandte Texte,” 2-3; Quack, “Die Überliferungsstruktur des Buches vom Tempel,” 105-106.

25. Émile Chassinat, Le temple d’Edfou VII, MMIFAO 24 (Caire: Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale, 1932), hereafter Edfou VII followed by page and line numbers; Dieter Kurth, Treffpunkt der Götter: Inschriften aus dem Tempel des Horus von Edfu (Zürich: Artemis & Winkler, 1994), 66-80; Dieter Kurth, Edfou VII (Weisbaden: Harrassowitz, 2004), 1-30; Dieter Kurth, The Temple of Edfu: A Guide by an Ancient Egyptian Priest, trans. Anthony Alcock (Cairo: The American University in Cairo Press, 2004).

26. Kurth, The Temple of Edfu, 1, cf. 3.

27. Kurth, The Temple of Edfu, 3.

28. Sylvie Cauville, “Les inscriptions dédicatoires du temple d’Hathor à Dendara,” Bulletin de l’Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale 90 (1990): 83-114.

29. Christian Leitz, Die Tempelinschriften der griechisch-römischen Zeit, Quellentexte zur ägyptischen Religion 1 (Münster: Lit Verlag, 2004), 86-87.

30. Edfou VII 11 8-12 2.

31. Alan H. Gardiner, “The House of Life,” Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 24 (1938): 157-179.

32. Edfou VII 1-10.

33. Edfou VII 6 1.

34. Edfou VII 6 1-2.

35. Edfou VII 6 3.

36. Edfou VII 6 3-4.

37. Edfou VII 6 6-7.

38. Edfou VII 6 7-8.

39. Rosetta Stone demotic line 11, in Stephen Quirke and Carol Andrews, The Rosetta Stone (London: British Museum, 1988), 14-15.

40. The vocalization for this word is known from the Greek name Haremsunis; see Erich Lüddeckens, Heinz-Josef Thissen, W. Brunsch, G. Vittmann, and K.-Th. Zauzich Demotisches Namenbuch (Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag, -2000), 1:821.

41. Edfou VII 13 1.

42. Edfou VII 13 2-3.

43. Edfou VII 13 3-15 3.

44. Edfou VII 15 2-3.

45. Edfou VII 15 3-4.

46. Edfou VII 15 4-5.

47. Edfou VII 15 6-7.

48. Edfou I 24-25.

49. Edfou I 40.

50. Edfou I 25-26.

51. Edfou I 40-41

52. Edfou I 26

53. Edfou I 41-42.

54. For an overview, see Sylvie Cauville, L’offrande aux dieux dans le temple égyptien (Leuven: Peeters, 2011), 259.

55. P. Rhind I 3/d9 = 2/h10, 6/d1 = 6/h1, P. Rhind II 4/d8 = 4/h7, 7/d4 = 7/h4, in George Möller, Die beiden Totenpapyrus Rhind des Museums zu Edinburg (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1913), Tafel III, VI, XV, XVIII; see also Georg Möller, Die beiden Totenpapyrus Rhind des Museums zu Edinburg (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1913), 1:14*; John Gee, “Glossed Over: Ancient Egyptian Interpretations of their Religion,” in Evolving Egypt (Oxford: Archaeopress, 2012), 73.

56. Edfou I 28-29, 43-44, 47-48.

57. Emily Teeter, The Presentation of Maat: Ritual and Legitimacy in Ancient Egypt (Chicago: The Oriental Institute, 1997), 82. Teeter’s work is largely restricted to New Kingdom material. For an overview from the Ptolemaic period, see Cauville, L’offrande aux dieux dans le temple égyptien, 197-98.

58. Teeter, The Presentation of Maat, 81-90.

59. For the phrase, see Teeter, The Presentation of Maat, 55-69. Teeter’s grammatical analysis is not convincing. For the interpretation, see John Gee, “A New Look at the di `nḫ Formula,” in Acts of the Tenth International Congress of Demotic Studies, ed. Mark Depauw and Yanne Broux (Leuven: Peeters, 2014), 73-82; John Gee, “Some Neglected Aspects of Egypt’s Conversion to Christianity,” in Coptic Culture: Past, Present and Future, ed. Mariam Ayad (Stevenage: The Coptic Orthodox Church Centre, 2012), 52-54. See also the discussion in Cauville, L’offrande aux dieux dans le temple égyptien, 161.

60. Cauville, L’offrande aux dieux dans le temple égyptien, 36-38.

61. Edfou I 33-34, 42-43.

62. Edfou I 43.

63. Edfou VII 15 7.

64. Edfou VII 15 8-9.

65. Edfou VII 15 9-16 1.

66. Edfou VII 16 1.

67. Edfou VII 16 2.

68. Filip Coppens, The Wabet: Tradition and Innovation in Temples of the Ptolemaic and Roman Period (Prague: Czech Institute of Egyptology, 2007), 148.

69. Coppens, Wabet, 157-58.

70. Coppens, Wabet, 160.

71. Coppens, Wabet, 206.

72. Edfou VII 16 5.

73. Edfou VII 16 6.

74. P. Berlin 3055 1/1, in Rituale für den Kultus des Amon und für den Kultus der Mut, Hieratisch Papyrus aus den Königlichen Museen zu Berlin (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1901), Tafel I.

75. P. Berlin 3055 1/2-25/6, in Rituale für den Kultus des Amon und für den Kultus der Mut, Tafel I-XXV.

76. P. Berlin 3055 25/6-37/8, in Rituale für den Kultus des Amon und für den Kultus der Mut, Tafel XXV-XXXVII.

77. Ernesta Bacchi, Il rituale di Amehotpe I (Torino: Museo di Torino, 1942).

78. Although I am using material from the offering hall, I am following the order in the Ritual of Amenhotep from Cairo and Turin.

79. Edfou I 474-75, 476-77, 489, 498, 499-500, 502; Bacchi, Il rituale di Amehotpe I, 17-18, 24-26, 35, 43-45. For discussion, see Cauville, L’offrande aux dieux dans le temple égyptien, 36-38.

80. Edfou I 478, 489-90; Bacchi, Il rituale di Amehotpe I, 18.

81. Edfou I 452, 490, 497-98; Bacchi, Il rituale di Amehotpe I, 18. For discussion, see Cauville, L’offrande aux dieux dans le temple égyptien, 77-79.

82. Edfou I 459-60, 462; Bacchi, Il rituale di Amehotpe I, 18, 19. For discussion, see Cauville, L’offrande aux dieux dans le temple égyptien, 49-50.

83. Edfou I 477-78; Bacchi, Il rituale di Amehotpe I, 19-20. For discussion, see Cauville, L’offrande aux dieux dans le temple égyptien, 72.

84. Edfou I 448, 449-50, 458-59, 461-62; Bacchi, Il rituale di Amehotpe I, 20-21. For discussion, see Cauville, L’offrande aux dieux dans le temple égyptien, 43-47.

85. Edfou I 452-53; Bacchi, Il rituale di Amehotpe I, 21.

86. Edfou I 486-87; Bacchi, Il rituale di Amehotpe I, 21-22.

87. Edfou I 482, 500, 501, 503; Bacchi, Il rituale di Amehotpe I, 21-22. For discussion, see Cauville, L’offrande aux dieux dans le temple égyptien, 34-35.

88. Edfou I 477, 484-86, 490-91; Bacchi, Il rituale di Amehotpe I, 22-24, 42-43, 46. For discussion, see Cauville, L’offrande aux dieux dans le temple égyptien, 22-23.

89. Edfou I 487-88, 491-92, 503-505; Bacchi, Il rituale di Amehotpe I, 26-32, 48-50. For discussion, see Cauville, L’offrande aux dieux dans le temple égyptien, 66.

90. Edfou I 450-51; Bacchi, Il rituale di Amehotpe I, 32-35, 58-65.

91. Edfou I 483-84; Bacchi, Il rituale di Amehotpe I, 35-41.

92. Edfou I 450, 461-62, 475, 498-99; Bacchi, Il rituale di Amehotpe I, 45-46. For discussion, see Cauville, L’offrande aux dieux dans le temple égyptien, 59-61.

93. Edfou I 501-502; Bacchi, Il rituale di Amehotpe I, 45-46.

94. Edfou I 447-48, 500-501. For discussion, see Cauville, L’offrande aux dieux dans le temple égyptien, 171-73.

95. Edfou I 448-449. The translation is somewhat anachronistic, see Penelope Wilson, A Ptolemaic Lexikon (Leuven: Peeters, 1997), 238-29.

96. Edfou I 451.

97. Edfou I 460, 462-63. For discussion, see Cauville, L’offrande aux dieux dans le temple égyptien, 48-49.

98. Edfou I 471. For discussion, see Cauville, L’offrande aux dieux dans le temple égyptien, 26.

99. Edfou I 471-72. For discussion, see Cauville, L’offrande aux dieux dans le temple égyptien, 122-24.

100. Edfou I 473. For discussion, see Cauville, L’offrande aux dieux dans le temple égyptien, 71.

101. Edfou I 474. For discussion, see Cauville, L’offrande aux dieux dans le temple égyptien, 63.

102. Edfou I 476. For discussion, see Cauville, L’offrande aux dieux dans le temple égyptien, 86-87.

103. Edfou I 480-81, 497. For discussion, see Cauville, L’offrande aux dieux dans le temple égyptien, 93-95.

104. Edfou I 492.

105. Edfou I 478-79. For discussion, see Cauville, L’offrande aux dieux dans le temple égyptien, 197-98.

106. Edfou I 479-80, 494, 495. For discussion, see Cauville, L’offrande aux dieux dans le temple égyptien, 66.

107. Edfou I 480. For discussion, see Cauville, L’offrande aux dieux dans le temple égyptien, 162-63.

108. Edfou I 481. For discussion, see Cauville, L’offrande aux dieux dans le temple égyptien, 160-61.

109. Edfou I 481-82.

110. Edfou I 495. For discussion, see Cauville, L’offrande aux dieux dans le temple égyptien, 110-11.

111. Edfou VII 16 6-17 3.

112. Edfou VII 17 3-4.

113. Edfou VII 17 4.

114. Edfou VII 17 5, following the translation in Kurth, The Temple of Edfu, 65.

115. Edfou VII 17 6-7.

116. Edfou VII 17 5-6. For discussion, see Wilson, Ptolemaic Lexikon, 109.

117. Edfou VII 17 8-9.

118. Edfou VII 17 10.

119. Edfou VII 17 10-11.

120. Edfou VII 17 12.

121. Edfou VII 18 6-7.

122. Edfou VII 18 8.

123. Wilson, Ptolemaic Lexikon, 836-37.

124. Edfou VII 18 9.

125. Edfou VII 19 2-3.

126. Edfou VII 19 3-4.

127. Edfou VII 19 8.

128. Carol Meyers, “Jachin and Boaz,” Anchor Bible Dictionary, 3:597-98.

129. Dieter Arnold, Temples of the Last Pharaohs (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), 160-61.

130. Arnold, Temples of the Last Pharaohs, 159.

131. Arnold, Temples of the Last Pharaohs, 155.

132. Arnold, Temples of the Last Pharaohs, 155; Roger Bagnall and Dominic W. Rathbone, Egypt From Alexander to the Early Christians (London: The British Museum Press, 2004), 149.

133. Bagnall and Rathbone, Egypt From Alexander to the Early Christians, 149.

134. Quack, “Die Überliferungsstruktur des Buches vom Tempel,” 107.

135. Bagnall and Rathbone, Egypt From Alexander to the Early Christians, 149.

136. Arnold, Temples of the Last Pharaohs, 92.

137. Arnold, Temples of the Last Pharaohs, 125.

138. Arnold, Temples of the Last Pharaohs, 125.

139. Arnold, Temples of the Last Pharaohs, 127-28.

140. Arnold, Temples of the Last Pharaohs, 90.

141. Arnold, Die Tempel Ägyptens, 191.

142. Arnold, Temples of the Last Pharaohs, 77-79; Arnold, Die Tempel Ägyptens, 153-56.

143. Arnold, Temples of the Last Pharaohs, 59-60.

144. Arnold, Temples of the Last Pharaohs, 60.

145. The Epigraphic Survey, Medinet Habu — Volume VII (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1964), Figure 16 and Plates 488-500.

146. The Epigraphic Survey, Medinet Habu — Volume I (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1930), plate 6; The Epiraphic Survey, Medinet Habu — Volume II (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1932), plates 101-102.

147. Edfou VII 19 3-4.

148. The Epigraphic Survey, Medinet Habu — Volume I; The Epiraphic Survey, Medinet Habu — Volume II (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1932), plates 68-93, 101-108, 113-117.

149. A Rosalie David, Religious Ritual at Abydos.

150. David A. Warburton, “The Significance of Shared Aspects of the Daily Temple Rituals,” in 8. Ägyptologische Tempeltagung: Interconnections between Temples, ed. Monika Dolińska and Horst Beinlich (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2010), 205-11.

John Gee is the William (Bill) Gay Research Professor in the Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship at Brigham Young University. He is also the chair of the Egyptology and Ancient Israel section of the Society for Biblical Literature. He has published articles on a variety of subjects, including the Egyptian temple.

“THE MESSIAH WILL SET HIMSELF AGAIN”:

JACOB’S USE OF ISAIAH 11:11

IN 2 NEPHI 6:14 AND JACOB 6:2

Matthew L. Bowen

ABSTRACT: In sermons and writings, Jacob twice quotes the prophecy of Isaiah 11:11 (“the Lord [ʾădōnāy] shall set his hand again [yôsîp] the second time to gather the remnant of his people”). In 2 Nephi 6:14 and Jacob 6:2, Jacob uses Isaiah 11:11 as a lens through which he interprets much lengthier prophetic texts that detail the restoration, redemption, and gathering of Israel: namely, Isaiah 49:22–52:2 and Zenos’s Allegory of the Olive Trees (Jacob 5). In using Isaiah 11:11 in 2 Nephi 6:14, Jacob, consistent with the teaching of his father Lehi (2 Nephi 2:6), identifies ʾădōnāy (“the Lord”) in Isaiah 11:11 as “the Messiah” and the one who will “set himself again the second time to recover” his people (both Israel and the righteous Gentiles who “believe in him”) and “manifest himself unto them in great glory.” This recovery and restoration will be so thoroughgoing as to include the resurrection of the dead (see 2 Nephi 9:1–2, 12–13). In Jacob 6:2, Jacob equates the image of the Lord “set[ting] his hand again [yôsîp] the second time to recover his people” (Isaiah 11:11) to the Lord of the vineyard’s “labor[ing] in” and “nourish[ing] again” the vineyard to “bring forth again” (cf. Hebrew yôsîp) the natural fruit (Jacob 5:29–33, 51–77) into the vineyard. All of this suggests that Jacob saw Isaiah 49:22–52:2 and Zenos’s allegory (Jacob 5) as telling essentially the same story. For Jacob, the prophetic declaration of Isaiah 11:11 concisely summed up this story, describing divine initiative and iterative action to “recover” or gather Israel in terms of the verb yôsîp. Jacob, foresaw this the divine action as being accomplished through the “servant” and “servants” in Isaiah 49–52, “servants” analogous to those described by Zenos in his allegory. For Jacob, the idiomatic use of yôsîp in Isaiah 11:11 as he quotes it in 2 Nephi 6:14 and Jacob 6:2 and as repeated throughout Zenos’s allegory (Jacob 5) reinforces the patriarch Joseph’s statement preserved in 2 Nephi 3 that this figure would be a “Joseph” (yôsēp).

Nephi regarded the prophecy of Isaiah 11:11 (“And it shall come to pass in that day, that the Lord shall set his hand again [yôsîp] the second time to recover the remnant of his people … ”)[1] as having transcendent covenant significance. He recognized that the Lord’s “set[ting] his hand again” — literally, “add[ing] his hand” — to gather the “remnant” of Israel “the second time” would signal his “commenc[ing]” the work to fulfill all of the covenants of the Father for the final time.[2]

Beyond his wholesale quotation of Isaiah 11 in 2 Nephi 21, Nephi quotes Isaiah 11:11 in two additional Gezera Shawa-type[3] juxtapositions with quotations of Isaiah 29:14 (“Therefore, behold, I will proceed [yôsīp] to do a marvellous work among this people,” see 2 Nephi 25:17, 21; 2 Nephi 29:1) on the basis of the use of the verb yôsîp/yôsīp in both passages[4] (cf. also 1 Nephi 22:8–12). For his part, Nephi’s brother Jacob also understood Isaiah 11:11 as nothing less than a prophecy of the final and complete[5] gathering of Israel in fulfillment of divine covenant. Jacob quotes Isaiah 11:11 twice in juxtaposition with other prophetic texts in 2 Nephi 6:14 and Jacob 6:2.

In 2 Nephi 6:14, Jacob interpretively quotes Isaiah 11:11 as part of a catena (or “chain”) of Isaianic texts and allusions (e.g., Isaiah 49:22–23; 29:8; 49:23–24; 11:11; 28:16; 29:6) as an introduction (2 Nephi 6:6–15) to his covenant speech comprising 2 Nephi 6–10.[6] This covenant sermon, which includes important doctrinal statements about the implications of Christ’s atonement for Israel and humankind, was likely given at the temple in the city of Nephi,[7] perhaps at the time of the autumn festival complex and the Day of Atonement.[8] In the sermon, Jacob offers a sophisticated and rich exegesis of Isaiah 49:22–52:2 (quoted in full in 2 Nephi 6:6–7; 2 Nephi 6:16–8:25).[9] Jacob’s use of Isaiah 11:11 in 2 Nephi 6:14, as part of the Isaiah catena, provides a prophetic framework for the fulfillment of the covenant made effective through Jesus’s atonement. Much later in life, Jacob uses Isaiah 11:11 in Jacob 6:2 as one of two major hermeneutical lenses[10] through which he interprets the entirety of Zenos’s Allegory of the Olive Tree — a grand parable of Christ’s Atonement and the fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant.[11]

In this study, I will explore both of Jacob’s uses of the prophecy of Isaiah 11:11 (in 2 Nephi 6:14 and Jacob 6:2) within the contexts in which he uses it and the implications of each. I will further examine the specific relationship between Jacob’s quotation of Isaiah 11:11 in 2 Nephi 6:14 as part of his covenant sermon (2 Nephi 6–10) and Jacob’s use of Isaiah 11:11 as a hermeneutical lens (or interpretive framework) for Zenos’s allegory in Jacob 6:2. Jacob’s use of Isaiah 11:11 in both instances suggests that he saw Isaiah 49:22–Isaiah 52:2 and Zenos’s allegory (Jacob 5) as telling essentially the same story: the gathering, redemption, and restoration of the house of Israel, including Israel’s full restoration in the flesh (i.e., resurrection from the dead, cf. Romans 11:15).[12] Hence, I further propose that Jacob’s description of “the Messiah … set[ting] himself again” (2 Nephi 6:14) has important implications for the identity of the servant of the Lord of the vineyard (and his fellow-servants) and the nature of their latter-day “labor” to gather Israel for the final time. Jacob understood that the Messiah would accomplish this through a commissioned “servant” with royal and priestly authority. These texts hint that the servant would be a “Joseph.”

“The Messiah … Made Manifest” as Suffering Servant

and Divine Warrior: 2 Nephi 6:14

John W. Welch has proposed that Jacob gave the speech preserved in 2 Nephi 6–10 at the recently-built temple in the land of Nephi,[13] possibly “at or shortly after Nephi’s coronation as king.”[14] This scenario, however, must allow for a roughly ten-year gap between the time that Nephi’s people “would [willed] that I should be their king” (2 Nephi 5:18) and Nephi’s eventual assumption of kingship,[15] if he ever really indeed assumed such.[16]

At first, Nephi appears to decline the proposition that he “be their king” (“But I, Nephi, was desirous that they should have no king; nevertheless, I did for them according to that which was in my power,” 2 Nephi 5:18), just as Gideon appears to decline the offer of dynastic rule in Judges 8:22–23: “Then the men of Israel said unto Gideon, Rule thou over us, both thou, and thy son, and thy son’s son also: for thou hast delivered us from the hand of Midian. And Gideon said unto them, I will not rule over you, neither shall my son rule over you: the Lord shall rule over you.” Gideon then proceeds to act like a king (establishing a cult site at Ophrah [Judges 8:26–27], having a large harem [Judges 8:29–30]), even naming a son Abimelech (“my father is king”), with its double entendre “my Father [God] is king”/“my father [Gideon] is king.” Katie Heffelfinger argues that Gideon is, in fact, accepting the offer of kingship even in the act of declining it.[17]

It is conceivable that Nephi does something similar. Nephi “build[s] a temple … after the manner of the temple of Solomon” (2 Nephi 5:16) — i.e., a royal cult site. Nephi’s small plates record is superscripted with the subtitle “his reign and ministry,” which should probably be understood in terms of the Israelite/Judahite notion of mĕlûkâ (“status as king,” “kingship,” or “kingdom”)[18] or mamlākâ (“dominion,” “kingdom,” “kingship,” “royal sovereignty”)[19] rather than the centuries later Nephite notion of regime as in “the reign of the judges.”[20] Also, Jacob records that Nephi eventually “anointed a man to be a king and a ruler over his people. Now according to the reigns of the kings … wherefore the people were desirous to retain in remembrance [Nephi’s name], and whoso should reign in his stead were called by the people second Nephi and third Nephi etc., according to the reigns of the kings” (Jacob 1:9). This second “king and a ruler” was likely Nephi’s own son (see especially Mosiah 25:13).[21] Whatever the case, a royal, temple, covenant context makes best sense as the Sitz im Leben for Jacob’s first recorded sermon.

John Thompson identifies Jacob’s speech in 2 Nephi 6–10 as a “covenant speech” given at the time of the ancient Israelite autumn festival complex,[22] which includes the Feast of the Tabernacles (sukkôt). Under Thompson’s model, 2 Nephi 6:1–4 form a kind of “preamble and titular.”[23] 2 Nephi 6:5–9:22 constitutes the “historical overview and [the] covenant speech proper.”[24] 2 Nephi 9:23–26 provides “the stipulations of the covenant/treaty.”[25] 2 Nephi 9:27–43 lists out “cursings and blessings” for “those who do not keep the law.”[26] Finally, there follows a “witness formula” in 2 Nephi 9:44 in which Jacob invokes the Lord as a witness that he was “rid of [the] blood” of his people and a “recording of the contract” by urging his people to “remember the words of your God” (i.e., the terms of the covenant).[27] Jacob’s use of Isaiah 11:11 in 2 Nephi 6:14, then, belongs to the “historical overview” portion of the covenant speech, as does most of the rest of the Isaiah material that Jacob quotes (see especially the quotation of Isaiah 51–52 in 2 Nephi 7–8 and Jacob’s interpretation of Isaiah in 2 Nephi 9).

In Jacob’s covenant speech, the Lord’s “way of deliverance” for Israel (and all humankind) from monster-enemies death (Mot), hell (Sheol), and the devil had a firm basis in his previous ransom and redemption of Israel from monster-enemies Rahab (Egypt), Yamm (the Sea), and the Dragon.[28] Israel and Zion can rely on the Lord to gather and protect them precisely because he has done so in the past: “Wherefore after they are driven to and fro — for thus saith the angel: many shall be afflicted in the flesh and shall not be suffered to perish because of the prayers of the faithful — wherefore they shall be scattered and smitten and hated. Nevertheless the Lord will be merciful unto them, that when they shall come to the knowledge of their Redeemer, they shall be gathered together again to the lands of their inheritance” (2 Nephi 6:11; cf. 1 Nephi 10:14). The horizon of this gathering extends even beyond death and hell (physical death and the intermediate state of the spirit world) to resurrection. In other words, the resurrection from the dead “to lands of their inheritance” constitutes a vital part of that promised regathering (see especially 2 Nephi 9:1–22).

An important part of Jacob’s rhetorical strategy in his covenant speech is his adaptation of Isaiah’s so-called “Zion theology.”[29] This expression refers to the perceived doctrine or premise in Isaiah’s writings that Yahweh’s promises regarding the inviolability or unconquerability of Zion were unconditional and irrevocable. These included promises such as the Lord’s dynastic promise to David in 2 Samuel 7:16 regarding his “house” being “established” or “made sure” (wĕneʾman bêtĕkā … ) — understood to be a “sure house” (bayit neʾĕmān,[30] i.e., a perpetual dynasty)[31] in the context of later conditional reiterations of that covenant (see, e.g., 1 Kings 8:25; 9:5).

Some divine promises, like the promise of the resurrection of the dead, represent unconditional divine promises.[32] In fact, Luke interprets Isaiah’s covenant expression “the sure mercies of David [ḥasdê dāwid hanneʾĕmānîm]”[33] (Isaiah 55:3) — a phrase referring to the guaranteed covenant promises to David — as having direct reference to Jesus Christ and the resurrection (see Acts 13:34). Yahweh’s promises to Ahaz of preservation and protection for Jerusalem and the house of David from the Syro-Ephraimite and (later) Assyrian threat in Isaiah 7 notwithstanding Ahaz’s unfaithfulness,[34] arguably represent the type of promise in view here. Matthew recognized that the “Immanuel” prophecy in Isaiah 7:14 and the divine preservation of the Davidic line had special significance for Jesus as a Davidic descendant. The “Immanuel” child of the 8th century BCE — son of Ahaz, Isaiah himself, or otherwise — symbolized that “God” was “with” Jerusalem and the house of David (Isaiah 8:8, 11). Jesus in the 1st century CE did not merely symbolize “God with us”; indeed, he came as “God with us” in the flesh (see Matthew 1:23; 17:17; 28:20).

In 2 Nephi 6:13, Jacob invokes so-called “Zion theology” when he employs the language of two important Isaianic Zion prophecies: Isaiah 29:7–8 (“they that fight against Zion”)[35] and Isaiah 49:23 (“lick up the dust of thy feet”; “they shall not be ashamed that wait for me”): “Wherefore, they that fight against Zion and the covenant people of the Lord shall lick up the dust of their feet; and the people of the Lord shall not be ashamed. For the people of the Lord are they who wait for him; for they still wait for the coming of the Messiah” (2 Nephi 6:13). With the “Zion theology” of Isaiah 29:7–8 and 49:23 as a backdrop, Jacob transforms Isaiah 11:11 into one of the most powerful expressions of so-called “Zion theology” conceivable:

Isaiah 11:11

2 Nephi 6:14

And it shall come to pass in that day, that the Lord [ʾădōnāy] shall set his hand again [yôsîp] the second time to recover the remnant of his people, which shall be left, from Assyria, and from Egypt, and from Pathros, and from Cush, and from Elam, and from Shinar, and from Hamath, and from the islands of the sea.

And behold, according to the words of the prophet, the Messiah will set himself again [yôsîp] the second time to recover them. Wherefore he will manifest himself unto them in power and great glory unto the destruction of their enemies, when that day cometh when they shall believe in him. And none will he destroy that believe in him.

Jacob, who had been taught by his father Lehi that redemption comes “in and through the Holy Messiah” (2 Nephi 2:6), identifies the figure of ʾădōnāy (“the Lord”) from Isaiah 11:11 (cf. Psalms 110:1) with “the Messiah.” Accordingly, he makes “the Messiah” the subject of the verb rendered “set himself again” (cf. Hebrew yôsîp). This adaptation suggests that the Messiah’s “recovering” (i.e., gather[ing] together, v. 11) his people as Divine Warrior “a second time” and “manifest[ing] himself unto them in power and great glory” was preceded by a first attempt — or earlier attempts — at recovery that met with unwillingness on the part of the house of Israel.[36] Jacob had reference to this attempt at gathering when he stated “after he should manifest himself, they should scourge him and crucify him, according to the words of the angel which spake it unto me” (2 Nephi 6:9).

The Lord’s “set[ting] himself” or “manifest[ing] himself” a “second time” to gather his people coincided with his “proceed[ing] to do a marvelous work and wonder” (Isaiah 29:14; 2 Nephi 25:17; 29:1) with the coming forth of the contents of “the book that is sealed” (Isaiah 29:11). The “words of the book” would come forth, in the words of Moroni “to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ, the eternal God, manifesting himself unto all nations” (Book of Mormon title page). In other words, the Lord’s “set[ting] himself” or “manifesting himself” a “second time” to Israel and to the world, would begin with the coming forth of the Book of Mormon prior to his Second Coming in glory.

The promise of gathering in Isaiah 11:11–12, including the images of the gathering “hand” and the lifted up “ensign” [Hebrew nēs] or standard in Isaiah 11:12, paints a picture very similar to the prophecy of Isaiah 49:22–23, which Jacob had previously quoted in 2 Nephi 6:6–7: “Thus saith the Lord God: Behold, I will lift up [ʾeśśāʾ] mine hand [yādî] to the Gentiles [gôyim, nations] and set up my standard [my ensign, nissî] to the people. And they shall bring thy sons in their arms, and thy daughters shall be carried upon their shoulders. And kings shall be thy nursing fathers, and their queens thy nursing mothers. They shall bow down to thee with their faces towards the earth and lick up the dust of thy feet. And thou shalt know that I am the Lord; for they shall not be ashamed that wait for me” (2 Nephi 6:6–7). One important exegetical result of Jacob’s use of Isaiah 49:22–23 (2 Nephi 6:6–7, 13) in connection with Isaiah 11:11–12 (2 Nephi 6:14), is that the former text in the broader covenant context of Jacob’s speech gives a detailed picture of just how his ancient hearers and modern readers can expect the fulfillment of Isaiah 11:11–12. In other words, Jacob uses Isaiah 11:11–12 to adumbrate the more detailed prophecy of Isaiah 49:22–52:2 in his covenant speech (2 Nephi 6–10) and convey his prophetic vision of its fulfillment. He will use Isaiah 11:11 (11–12) very similarly to adumbrate Zenos’s prophetic allegory as recorded in Jacob 5 (cf. Jacob 6:2).

In addition to its attestation in Isaiah 11:12 in connection with Israel’s gathering, there exists one additional attestation of nēs (“ensign,” “standard”) in Isaiah 11, two verses earlier: “And in that day there shall be a root [šōreš] of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the people; to it shall the Gentiles seek: and his rest shall be glorious.” The “root of Jesse” and the “ensign” nēs in Isaiah 11:10 were interpreted widely in Second Temple Judaism[37] as having reference to a Messianic king. For example, Paul quoted Isaiah 11:10 as having reference to Jesus Christ (ἡ ῥίζα τοῦ Ἰεσσαί, hē riza tou Iessai, “the root of Jesse”) and John, on the same basis, describes Jesus as ἡ Ῥίζα Δαυίδ (=hē riza Dauid, “the root of David,” Revelation 5:5).

Jacob’s use of Isaiah 11:11 (11–12) in 2 Nephi 6:14 supports this interpretation of Isaiah 11:10. Lehi’s interpretation of the prophecy of Joseph in Egypt, which also employs the language of Isaiah, further supports this christological/messianic interpretation of Isaiah 11:10:

2 Nephi 6:14

2 Nephi 3:5

And behold, according to the words of the prophet, the Messiah will set himself again [yôsîp] the second time to recover them. Wherefore he will manifest himself unto them in power and great glory unto the destruction of their enemies, when that day cometh when they shall believe in him. And none will he destroy that believe in him.

Wherefore Joseph [yôsēp] truly saw our day, and he obtained a promise of the Lord that out of the fruit of his loins the Lord God would raise up a righteous branch unto the house of Israel, not the Messiah, but a branch which was to be broken off, nevertheless to be remembered in the covenants of the Lord, that the Messiah should be made manifest unto them in the latter days in the spirit of power unto the bringing of them out of darkness unto light, yea, out of hidden darkness and out of captivity unto freedom.

Lehi’s words to Jacob’s brother Joseph, as preserved in 2 Nephi 3:5, shed additional light on the meaning of Jacob’s picture of “the Messiah” who would “manifest himself unto [his people] in power and great glory.” Prior to the Messiah’s “destruction of [the] enemies” of his people, he would “be manifest unto them in the latter days, in the spirit of power” in bringing his people, like liberated war captives, “out of darkness unto light, yea, out of hidden darkness and out of captivity unto freedom.” Jacob describes the results of that divine action later in his speech: “And it shall come to pass that they shall be gathered in from their long dispersion from the isles of the sea and from the four parts of the earth. And the nations of the Gentiles shall be great in the eyes of me, saith God, in carrying them forth to the lands of their inheritance” (2 Nephi 10:8). Here again, Jacob incorporates the language of Isaiah 11:11–12 (“from the islands of the sea,” “[he] shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth”) and Isaiah 49:22 (“carried upon their shoulders”).

In March 1838 at Far West, Missouri, the prophet Joseph Smith offered a second interpretation for the “root of Jesse”: “What is the root of Jesse spoken of in the 10th verse of the 11th chapter? [i.e., Isaiah 11:10]. Behold, thus saith the Lord, it is a descendant of Jesse, as well as of Joseph, unto whom rightly belongs the priesthood, and the keys of the kingdom, for an ensign, and for the gathering of my people in the last days.” Beyond the traditional messianic interpretations, Joseph Smith saw in Isaiah 11:10 a prophecy of a mortal man living in the last days in whose hands would be concentrated both royal authority (“keys of the kingdom”) and priestly authority (“priesthood”).

This figure suggests both the figure of “the servant of the Lord of the vineyard” recurring throughout Zenos’s allegory and the polyvalent figure of the “servant” as found in Isaiah 48–53. Isaiah 49:3: “And [the Lord] said unto me, Thou art my servant, O Israel, in whom I will be glorified … And now, saith the Lord that formed me from the womb to be his servant, to bring Jacob again to him, Though Israel be not gathered, yet shall I be glorious in the eyes of the Lord, and my God shall be my strength. And he said, It is a light thing that thou shouldest be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel: I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth” (Isaiah 49:3, 5–6). In this text, the Lord commissions the prophet (cf. vv. 1–2)[38] or “Israel” (v. 3) as a “servant” to gather and “raise up the tribes” of scattered Jacob/Israel[39] (“though Israel be not gathered” [MT, wĕyiśrāʾēl lōʾ yēʾāsēp][40] or “to gather Israel to him” [*wĕyiśrāʾēl lô yēʾāsēp])[41] and to bring Jacob again to him.[42] In other words, Israel must gather Israel.

The commissioning of collective “Israel” as a servant (and “servants”) — a temple and priestly term[43] as well as prophetic — to gather “Israel” echoes the special commissioning of the servant of the Lord of the Vineyard and his fellow servants in Zenos’s allegory: “And it came to pass that the Lord of the vineyard sent his servant, and the servant went and did as the Lord had commanded him and brought other servants, and they were few. And the Lord of the vineyard said unto them: Go to and labor in the vineyard with your mights. For behold, this is the last time that I shall nourish my vineyard” (Jacob 5:70–71). When we consider the fulfillment of this prophecy, it is both interesting and significant that one of the most recurrent expressions in the Doctrine and Covenants is the expression, “my servant Joseph”[44] and numerous revelations address other specific individuals as “my servant.”[45] Several of these individuals receive their own “commissioning” as they are addressed with this expression.

“And in the Day That He Shall Set His Hand Again”:

The Servant[s] of the Lord of the Vineyard

and the Function of Isaiah 11:11 in Jacob 6:2

Jacob’s second direct quotation of Isaiah 11:11 occurs when he uses the latter text as a concise summary of Jacob 5:51–74 and thus as an interpretive lens for the entire allegory in Jacob 6:2. Jacob equates the Lord’s “set[ting] his hand again … to recover his people” with “the servants of the Lord” or the servants of the Lord of the vineyard “go[ing] forth in [the Lord’s] power to nourish and prune his vineyard”:

Isaiah 11:11

Jacob 6:2

And it shall come to pass in that day, that the Lord shall set his hand again [yôsîp] the second time to recover the remnant of his people, which shall be left, from Assyria, and from Egypt, and from Pathros, and from Cush, and from Elam, and from Shinar, and from Hamath, and from the islands of the sea.

And in the day that he shall set his hand again [yôsîp] the second time to recover his people is the day — yea, even the last time — that the servants of the Lord shall go forth in his power to nourish and prune his vineyard; and after that the end soon cometh.

Jacob’s second quotation of Isaiah 11:11 in Jacob 6:2, like the first quotation in 2 Nephi 6:14, employs the key Hebrew idiom yôsîp (or its functional scribal equivalent). Recalling Nephi’s quotation of Isaiah 11:11 and 29:14 in 2 Nephi 25:17 and (in reverse order) in 2 Nephi 29:14 as a wordplay on the name Joseph (cf. 2 Nephi 25:21),[46] we can plausibly posit that Jacob is engaging in a similar type of wordplay in 2 Nephi 6:14 and Jacob 6:2. I will discuss the significance of this further below.

Another key term in Isaiah 11:11 and Jacob 6:2, viewing the latter as a hermeneutical lens for Zenos’s entire allegory (Jacob 5), is the noun “hand” (Hebrew yad or yād). Jacob augments the image of the Lord “set[ting] his hand again the second time” to gather Israel with additional “hand” gesture imagery found in both Isaiah and Zenos’s allegory. Jacob avers, “And how merciful is our God unto us! For he remembereth the house of Israel, both roots and branches. And he stretches forth his hands unto them all the day long. And they are a stiffnecked and a gainsaying people, but as many as will not harden their hearts shall be saved in the kingdom of God” (Jacob 6:4). Jacob quotes part of Isaiah 65:2: “I have spread out my hands all the day unto a rebellious people.” Nearly the same language evident in Isaiah 65:2 — along with Isaiah 5:4, 6 — occurs in Zenos’s allegory, in Jacob 5:47: “But what could I have done more in my vineyard? [Isaiah 5:4] Have I slackened mine hand that I have not nourished it? Nay, I have nourished it and I have digged it and I have pruned it and I have dunged it, and I have stretched forth mine hand almost all the day long; and the end draweth nigh. And it grieveth me that I should hew down all the trees of my vineyard and cast them into the fire that they should be burned. Who is it that hath corrupted my vineyard?”

Although the Lord of the vineyard first mentions his intention to “labor again in the vineyard” a final time as early as Jacob 5:29–33, that final labor does not commence until Jacob 5:51 after he laments having “stretched forth mine hand almost all the day long” (Jacob 5:47). The divine hand in Jacob 6:2 (Isaiah 11:11) belongs to the same pair of hands mentioned in Jacob 6:4: “he stretches forth his hands unto them all the day long” (quoting Jacob 5:47 and Isaiah 65:2).

The Messiah “Set[ting] Himself Again”

as The Lord of the Vineyard Calling Servants

“to Bring Forth Again the Natural Fruit”

One of the earliest, unmistakable quotations from Zenos’s Allegory of the Olive Trees from the brass plates prior to Jacob’s full-length inclusion of it in Jacob 5 comes in Lehi’s interpretation of Zenos:[47] “And after the house of Israel should be scattered, they should be gathered together again, or in fine, after the Gentiles had received the fullness of the Gospel, the natural branches of the olive tree or the remnants of the house of Israel should be grafted in or come to the knowledge of the true Messiah, their Lord and their Redeemer” (1 Nephi 10:14).

Jacob’s later prophecy as a part of his covenant speech in 2 Nephi 6–10 appears to have direct reference to Lehi’s interpretation of Zenos: “wherefore they shall be scattered and smitten and hated. Nevertheless the Lord will be merciful unto them, that when they shall come to the knowledge of their Redeemer, they shall be gathered together again to the lands of their inheritance. And blessed are the Gentiles, they of whom the prophet has written … ” (2 Nephi 6:11–12).[48] Jacob uses the Gentiles mentioned in Isaiah 49:23 and 1 Nephi 10:14 to segue into his interpretive quotation of Isaiah 49:23 in 2 Nephi 6:13 (see above).

Lehi’s interpretation of Zenos’s allegory in 1 Nephi 10:14 and Jacob’s recapitulation of that interpretation in 2 Nephi 6:11–12 both employ the nearly identical expressions, “they should be gathered together again” and “they shall be gathered together again.” It is probable that the Hebrew idiom hôsîp/yôsîp (+ʿôd), “add,” “to do again, more,” “continue to do more,” “do something yet more”[49] underlies these expressions, at least conceptually. This idiom etiologizes the name Joseph (“may he add,” “may he do again”) in the Genesis narratives (see Genesis 30:24, 37:5, 8) and constitutes a key term in Isaiah 11:11, 29:14. We should also note that the Hebrew words qibbēṣ (“gather”) and ʾāsap (“gather,” “take away”), the latter of which etiologizes the name Joseph in Genesis 30:23 may also underlie the notion of “gathering” here.

In terms of semantics, the verbs yāsap and ʾāsap are closely related: yāsap — “add, increase” — and ʾāsap — “to gather, collect,” which in some contexts constitutes an “increase.” In Genesis 30:23–24, where Rachel explains Joseph’s naming, they express the antonymic notions of “taking away” and “adding.” In at least one passage, the waw-consecutive form wayyōsep also denotes “gathering”: “and he [David] gathered [wayyōsep]” (2 Samuel 6:1). Significantly, both are used as key terms in Isaiah 11:12 to describe the gathering of Israel:

And it shall come to pass in that day, that the Lord shall set his hand again [yôsîp] the second time to recover the remnant of his people, which shall be left, from Assyria, and from Egypt, and from Pathros, and from Cush, and from Elam, and from Shinar, and from Hamath, and from the islands of the sea. And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble [wĕʾāsap] the outcasts of Israel, and gather together [yĕqabbēṣ] the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth. (Isaiah 11:11–12)

Jacob sees Isaiah 11:11–12 as the appropriate conceptual framework for interpreting Zenos’s allegory. The Lord of the vineyard’s declared intention that he and his “servant[s]” (the divine “we”) would “labor again” in his corrupted vineyard in order “that I may preserve again good fruit” comes relatively early in the allegory (Jacob 5:29, 33). Thus, the Hebrew idiom yôsîp + verbal component (“do … again”) or its functional scribal equivalent occurs twice in the early part of the allegory. More noteworthy, however, this idiom constitutes a dominant motif in Jacob 5:51–77. That idiom occurs as many as thirteen times: Jacob 5:58, 60–61 (4x), 63–64 (possibly 2x), 67–68 (2x), 73–75 (3x), 77.[50]

Following his quotation of the entirety of Zenos’s allegory, Jacob immediately quotes Isaiah 11:11, offering it as the interpretive lens through which to view the whole of Jacob 5:51–77. It must be significant that Jacob quotes the same Isaiah passage that he transformed into such an emphatic expression of “Zion theology” in his covenant speech (see 2 Nephi 6:14). Jacob now uses that passage in which Hebrew yôsîp describes iterative divine action to serve as the key term to interpret Zenos’s allegory, especially that part of the allegory (Jacob 5:51–77) in which the same yôsîp idiom (or something very similar) occurs:

Jacob 5:61–63

Jacob 6:2

[W]herefore go to and call servants, that we may labor diligently with our mights in the vineyard, that we may prepare the way that I may bring forth again [cf. wĕʾōsîp < yôsîp] the natural fruit, which natural fruit is good and the most precious above all other fruit. Wherefore let us go to and labor with our might this last time; for behold, the end draweth nigh, and this is for the last time that I shall prune my vineyard. … Graft in the branches … and dig about the trees … that all may be nourished once again for the last time.

And in the day that he shall set his hand again [yôsîp] the second time to recover his people [quoting Isaiah 11:11] is the day — yea, even the last time — that the servants of the Lord shall go forth in his power to nourish and prune his vineyard; and after that the end soon cometh.

The lexical content of Jacob 6:2 makes it virtually certain that Jacob has the last movement of Zenos’s allegory (Jacob 5:51–77) generally in view there, but also Jacob 5:61–63 in particular, much of which he replicates in that verse. Moreover, Jacob’s quotation of Isaiah 11:11 and re-quotation of Zenos from Jacob 5:61–62 in Jacob 6:2 functionally equates the sentences “wherefore go to and call servants … that I may bring forth again the natural fruit” and “he [Yahweh] shall set his hand again the second time to recover his people.” In other words, for Jacob, the Lord “adding” (cf. wĕʾōsîp) to “bring forth again the natural fruit” meant his “adding” (yôsîp) his “hand … to recover his people.” As Lehi taught his son Joseph — and as Nephi and Jacob surely also learned — from the words of Joseph in Egypt regarding the human instrumentality of divine “adding” to “bring forth” and “adding” to “recover” or “gather”:

And his name shall be called after me [Joseph], and it shall be after the name of his father. And he shall be like unto me; for the thing which the Lord shall bring forth by his hand by the power of the Lord shall bring my people unto salvation. (2 Nephi 3:15)

Joseph — Hebrew yôsēp (“may he [God] add”) — the jussive form of yôsîp, is the evident key term in Jacob 5:61–62 (and more broadly in vv. 51–77) as well as 6:2. Taken together, the term “servant” and the replete use of the Hebrew idiom yôsîp in Jacob 5:51–77 bring to mind the expression “my servant Joseph” used ubiquitously throughout the Doctrine and Covenants[51] and the plural “servants” mentioned in Jacob 5:61, 70, 72, 75 and 6:2 remind us of the other individuals addressed as “servant” in those revelations.

We compare Jacob’s two individual quotations of Isaiah 11:11 to help round out his hermeneutical view of Isaiah’s prophecy:

2 Nephi 6:14 and 2 Nephi 3:5

Jacob 6:2

And behold, according to the words of the prophet, the Messiah will set himself again [yôsîp] the second time to recover them. Wherefore he will manifest himself unto them in power and great glory unto the destruction of their enemies, when that day cometh when they shall believe in him. And none will he destroy that believe in him. (2 Nephi 6:14)

Wherefore Joseph [yôsēp] truly saw our day, and he obtained a promise of the Lord that out of the fruit of his loins the Lord God would raise up a righteous branch unto the house of Israel, not the Messiah, but a branch which was to be broken off, nevertheless to be remembered in the covenants of the Lord, that the Messiah should be made manifest unto them in the latter days in the spirit of power unto the bringing of them out of darkness unto light, yea, out of hidden darkness and out of captivity unto freedom. (2 Nephi 3:5)

And in the day that he shall set his hand again [yôsîp] the second time to recover his people [quoting Isaiah 11:11] is the day — yea, even the last time — that the servants of the Lord shall go forth in his power to nourish and prune his vineyard; and after that the end soon cometh.

2 Nephi 6:14 and 2 Nephi 3:5 exhibit striking lexical and phraseological similarities: “will set [himself] again” (yôsîp) ≅ “Joseph” (yôsēp); “the Messiah will … be made manifest unto them in power and great glory” ≅ “the Messiah should be made manifest unto them in the latter days in the spirit of power”; “unto the destruction of their enemies” (acting as Divine Warrior) ≅ “unto the bringing of them out of darkness unto light and out of captivity unto freedom” (acting as Divine Warrior). In fact, Jacob plausibly relied on the language of Lehi (as recorded by Nephi), “the Messiah should be made manifest in the latter days” in foretelling of the “day” when “the Messiah … will manifest himself.”

Jacob 6:2 shares significant terminology with both 2 Nephi 6:14 and 2 Nephi 3:5, including “he shall set … again” (yôsîp)/Joseph (yôsēp), “power,” and “the day.” Jacob’s interpretation of Zenos through the lens of Isaiah 11:11 establishes congruity between his earlier statement that “the Messiah will … be made manifest unto them in power and great glory” (2 Nephi 6:14), Lehi’s statement that “the Messiah should be made manifest unto them in the latter days in the spirit of power” (2 Nephi 3:5), and his later statement that “the servants of the Lord shall go forth in his power to nourish and prune his vineyard” (Jacob 6:2). In other words, prior to Jesus Christ’s Second Coming, the Messiah would “manifest himself” or “be made manifest” to his commissioned servants (in theophanies and through the Holy Ghost) and through those same servants as they would “go forth in his power to nourish and prune his vineyard.” These servants would do all the work necessary to gather Israel a final time.

Moreover, Lehi’s (1 Nephi 10:14) and Jacob’s (2 Nephi 16:14) respective uses of the distinctive Hebrew title “the Messiah” — Hebrew māšîaḥ, “the anointed one” — in texts with strong lexical affinities to Isaiah 11:11–12 and the olive-horticulture and -harvest metaphor of Jacob 5 (interpreted through the lens of Isaiah 11:11 in Jacob 6:2) creates a Christocentric framework within which to view all of these passages. Given this context, when one considers what happened long ago in an olive garden called “Gethsemane,” it hardly needs to be pointed out just how profoundly appropriate was the meaning of the garden’s name: “oil press” (Aramaic gat šĕmānê = Hebrew gat šĕmānîm, both literally, “press of oils”).

Conclusion

Jacob twice uses the prophecy of Isaiah 11:11 (“the Lord shall set his hand again [yôsîp] the second time to recover [liqnôt, “buy, acquire”] the remnant of his people”) as an interpretive lens for understanding and explaining lengthier prophecies of Isaiah and Zenos that detail the restoration, redemption, and gathering of Israel (Isaiah 49:24– 52:2 [49:22–52:2]; Jacob 5). In 2 Nephi 6:14, Jacob uses language from Isaiah (Isaiah 11:11) and Lehi (2 Nephi 3:5) to identify Yahweh as “the Messiah” who will “set himself again [Hebrew yôsîp] to recover” his people (both Israel and the righteous Gentiles who “believe in him”) and “manifest himself unto them in great glory.” This recovery and restoration will be so thoroughgoing as to include the resurrection of the dead. In Jacob 6:2, Jacob equates the image of the Lord “set[ting] his hand again [yôsîp] to recover his people” (Isaiah 11:11) to the Lord of the vineyard’s “labor[ing] in” and “nourish[ing] again” the vineyard to “bring forth again” the natural fruit (Jacob 5:29–33, 51–77) into the vineyard.

All of the foregoing suggests that Jacob saw Isaiah 49:22–52:2 and Zenos’s allegory as telling essentially the same story as summed up in the prophetic declaration of Isaiah 11:11, which describes divine initiative and action to “recover” or gather Israel in terms of the verb yôsîp (“he shall set … again”). Jacob, foresaw this the divine action as being accomplished through the “servant” and “servants” analogous to those described by Zenos in his allegory. The idiomatic use of yôsîp in Isaiah 11:11 as quoted in 2 Nephi 6:14 and Jacob 6:2 and as repeated throughout Zenos’s allegory (Jacob 5) reinforces the patriarch Joseph’s statement preserved in 2 Nephi 3 that this figure would be a “Joseph” (yôsēp).

[Author’s Note: I would like to thank Suzy Bowen, Jeff Lindsay, Allen Wyatt, Victor Worth, Tanya Spackman, Don Norton, and Daniel C. Peterson.]

Matthew L. Bowen was raised in Orem, Utah, and graduated from Brigham Young University. He holds a PhD in Biblical Studies from the Catholic University of America in Washington, DC, and is currently an associate professor in religious education at Brigham Young University- Hawaii. He is also the author of Name as Key-Word: Collected Essays on Onomastic Wordplay and The Temple in Mormon Scripture (Salt Lake City: Interpreter Foundation and Eborn Books, 2018). He and his wife (the former Suzanne Blattberg) are the parents of three children: Zachariah, Nathan, and Adele

1 . Book of Mormon throughout will generally follow Royal Skousen, ed., The Book of Mormon: The Earliest Text (New Haven: Yale, 2009). Emphasis in all scriptural citations is mine.

2 . See 1 Nephi 14:17; 2 Nephi 3:13; 30:8; see further especially 3 Nephi 21:26–28; Mormon 3:17.

3 . Gezera Shawa (or gĕzērâ šāwâ = “equal statute”) is a later rabbinic term applied to the practice of mutually interpreting two passages in light of each other on the basis of a shared term. See, e.g., H. L. Strack and Günter Stemberger, Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash, trans. Markus Bockmuehl (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996), 18–19.

4 . Matthew L. Bowen, “‘He Shall Add’: Wordplay on the Name Joseph and an Early Instance of Gezera Shawa in the Book of Mormon,” Insights 30, no. 2 (2010): 2–4; Bowen, “Onomastic Wordplay on Joseph and Benjamin and Gezera Shawa in the Book of Mormon,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 18 (2016): 255–73, https://interpreterfoundation.org/onomastic-wordplay-on-joseph-and-benjamin-and-gezera-shawa-in-the-book-of-mormon/.

5 . The seven nations mentioned in Isaiah 11:11 from which Yahweh would yôsîp “his hand” to “recover [reacquire] his people” are perhaps as significant for their number as for the individual names mentioned.

6 . On 2 Nephi 6–10 as a “covenant speech,” see John S. Thompson, “Isaiah 50–51, the Israelite Autumn Festivals, and the Covenant Speech of Jacob in 2 Nephi 6–10,” in Isaiah in the Book of Mormon, eds. Donald W. Parry and John W. Welch (Provo, UT: FARMS, 1998), 123–50.

7 . John W. Welch, “The Temple in the Book of Mormon: The Temples at the Cities of Nephi, Zarahemla, and Bountiful,” in Temples of the Ancient World: Ritual and Symbolism, ed. Donald W. Parry (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1994), 334–37.

8 . Thompson, “Isaiah 50–51,” 128–36.

9 . Daniel Belnap, “‘I Will Contend with Them That Contendeth with Thee’: The Divine Warrior in Jacob’s Speech of 2 Nephi 6–10,” Journal of the Book of Mormon and Restoration Scripture 17, no. 1–2 (2008): 20–39, https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1438&context=jbms.

10 . One lens is Jacob 4:16–17, see Matthew L. Bowen, “‘I Have Done According to My Will’: Reading Jacob 5 as a Temple Text,” in The Temple: Ancient and Restored, Proceedings of the Second Interpreter Matthew B. Brown Memorial Conference, “The Temple on Mount Zion,” 25 October 2014, eds. Stephen D. Ricks and Donald W. Parry (Orem, UT: The Interpreter Foundation, 2016), 235–72.

11 . Jeffrey R. Holland, Christ and the New Covenant (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1997), 165–66.

12 . Romans 11:15: “For if the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead?” On the conceptual relationship between Romans 11 and Zenos’s allegory (Jacob 5), see James E. Faulconer, “The Olive Tree and the Work of God: Jacob 5 and Romans 11,” The Allegory of the Olive Tree, eds. Stephen D. Ricks and John W. Welch (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1994), 347–66, https://archive.bookofmormoncentral.org/content/olive-tree-and-work-god-jacob-5-and-romans-11.

13 . See Welch, “Temples in the Book of Mormon,” 322–37.

14 . John W. Welch, “Legal Perspectives on the Slaying of Laban,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 1, no. 1 (1992): 138, https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1006&context=jbms.

15 . Thompson, “Isaiah 50–51,” 123–50.

16 . For an evaluation of the evidence that suggests that Nephi’s status as “king” is ambiguous at best or even non-existent, see Noel B. Reynolds, “Nephite Kingship Reconsidered,” in Mormons, Scripture, and the Ancient World: Studies in Honor of John L. Sorenson, ed. Davis Bitton (Provo, UT: FARMS, 1998), 151–89, https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2489&context=facpub.

17 . Katie Heffelfinger, “‘My Father is King’: Chiefly Politics and the Rise and Fall of Abimelech,” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 33, no. 3 (2009): 277–92.

18 . Ludwig Koehler and Walter Baumgartner, The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (Leiden, NDL: Brill, 2001), 587. Hereafter cited as HALOT.

19 . HALOT, 595. See also *mamlākût, “royal dominion, kingship” (ibid.) The term malkût (“royal dominion,” “kingship, royal honor,” “royal accomplishments”) is used in generally later texts (see HALOT, 592–93).

20 . Reynolds (“Nephite Kingship Reconsidered,” 165) argues for the idea of regime based on “reign of the judges” in Mosiah 29:44 and “reign of the king” in 47. Nevertheless, Nephi’s own notion of “reign”/“kingship” would have been based on what he knew from personal experience growing up in Jerusalem and from the plates of brass. Mormon, writing in the 3rd century AD, was removed somewhat in time from what Nephi would have understood by the notion of “reign” or “kingship.”

21 . Keith J. Allred (“Who Was Second Nephi?” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 42, no. 4 [2009]: 1–17, https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5406/dialjmormthou.42.4.0001) attempts to make the case that Nephi’s political heir (“Second Nephi”) was either Sam or one of Sam’s sons. In support of this thesis he cites the tribal incorporation or “adoption” of Sam’s family into Nephi’s family by Lehi in 2 Nephi 4:31. The language Lehi used in this so-called “adoption” was that Sam’s “seed” would be “numbered with” Nephi’s “seed” and that Sam would “be even like unto [his] brother” (2 Nephi 4:11). While this language certainly seems to designate Nephi’s and Sam’s families as a single organizational (later political) unit under “like” patriarchs, it is a stretch to suggest that this is tantamount to “the inclusion of Sam and his posterity among Nephi’s descendants” or that “Sam may no longer be Nephi’s brother, but his adopted son” (p. 11) both of which his argument requires to avoid running afoul of Mormon’s statement in Mosiah 25:13. Allred himself recognizes the problem presented by Sam being older than Nephi (p. 4). Jacob’s statements that “Nephi began to be old and he saw that he soon must die. Wherefore he anointed a man to be king …” (Jacob 1:10) make little sense if the “man” is Nephi’s older brother Sam, who would be aging near death himself if he was indeed still alive. Nevertheless, he further reasons that since “[t]he text does not mention a son” of Nephi and because Jacob became heir to the Nephi’s small plates, “[i]t appears that either Nephi had no son or, for unknown reasons, his son was not the successor” (p. 4). This argument is largely one made from silence. Nephi mentions his immediate “children” on multiple occasions (see, e.g., 1 Nephi 18:19; 2 Nephi 4:15; 5:14; 25:6, elsewhere this designation seems to refer to later descendants), a gender-neutral term that would presumably include one or more “sons.” The simplest solution, in my view, is to accept Mormon’s statement in Mosiah 25:13 on its face and see one of Nephi’s sons as the “man” anointed in Jacob 1:10. Nephi’s initial plan to have the small plates kept by his “seed” (1 Nephi 6:6), may have been complicated and ultimately altered by Jacob’s emergence as a man of great spiritual stature (see especially 2 Nephi 11:3). It is not a stretch to recognize that Jacob would have been more qualified for the task of keeping the small plates than Nephi’s (putative) royal son, under whom “the people of Nephi … began to grow hard in their hearts and indulge themselves somewhat in wicked practices, such as like unto David of old, desiring many wives and concubines, and also Solomon his son” (Jacob 1:15).

22 . Thompson, “Isaiah 50–51,” 123–50.

23 . Ibid., 125–26.

24 . Ibid., 126.

25 . Ibid.

26 . Ibid., 126–27.

27 . Ibid, 127.

28 . Matthew L. Bowen, “Messengers of the Covenant: Mormon’s Doctrinal Use of Malachi 3:1 in Moroni 7:29–32,” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 31 (2019): 111–38, https://interpreterfoundation.org/messengers-of-the-covenant-mormons-doctrinal-use-of-malachi-31-in-moroni-729-32/. See also Belnap, “I Will Contend with Them That Contend With Thee,” 30–32.

29 . See, e.g., John H. Hayes, “The Tradition of Zion’s Inviolability,” Journal of Biblical Literature 82, no. 4 (December 1963): 419–26, https://www.jstor.org/stable/3264697. See further Taylor Halverson, “Ancient Israelite Zion Theology, Judeo-Christian Apocalypticism, and Biblical (Mis)interpretation: Potential Implications for the Stability of the Modern Middle East,” Comparative Civilizations Review 64 (Spring 2011): 75–89, https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1818&context=ccr.

30 . This phrase occurs at 1 Samuel 2:35; 25:28; 1 Kings 11:38.

31 . See also, e.g., Jeremiah 33:17.

32 . See e.g., 1 Corinthians 15:20–32 (especially vv. 22–26); Alma 11:41–45; 42:16–26.

33 . The “sure mercies” (ḥasdê dāwid hanneʾĕmānîm) are to be distinguished lexically from “tender mercies” (Hebrew raḥămîm) but both are rooted in divine covenant. We note that ḥesed/ḥasādîm and raḥămîm are paired together in Psalms 25:6; 40:11 [Masoretic Text 10, hereafter MT]; 51:1 [MT 3], and 69:16 [MT 17]. Thus Nephi’s statement in 1 Nephi 1:20 (“But behold, I Nephi will shew unto you that the tender mercies of the Lord is over all them whom he hath chosen because of their faith to make them mighty, even unto the power of deliverance”) should be understood in a covenantal context.

34 . Cf. Isaiah 7:11: “If you do not have faith, it is because you have not been faithful” (translation mine).

35 . Isaiah 29:7–8: “And the multitude of all the nations that fight against Ariel, even all that fight against her and her munition, and that distress her, shall be as a dream of a night vision. It shall even be as when an hungry man dreameth, and, behold, he eateth; but he awaketh, and his soul is empty: or as when a thirsty man dreameth, and, behold, he drinketh; but he awaketh, and, behold, he is faint, and his soul hath appetite: so shall the multitude of all the nations be, that fight against mount Zion.”

36 . See, e.g., Matthew 23:37; Luke 13:34; 3 Nephi 10:4–5.

37 . See, e.g., David Aune, Revelation 1–5, Word Biblical Commentary 52a (Dallas, TX: Word, 1997), 350–51.

38 . The language here is ambiguous enough to refer to the prophet Isaiah or some other prophet, who may be accompanied by other servants. It can also be interpreted messianically to refer to Jesus Christ and his disciples (see the use of Isaiah 49:6 in Luke 2:32 as a prophecy of Jesus and Paul’s and Barnabas’s use of Isaiah 49:6 to describe their mission to evangelize the Gentiles in Acts 13:47). From a Latter-day Saint perspective it can be interpreted to refer to the prophet Joseph Smith and his fellow servants (see further on). In a forthcoming study I will show how Nephi uses yēʾāsēp in Isaiah 49:5 (1 Nephi 21:5) as a wordplay on the name “Joseph.”

39 . Jacob and Israel are equivalent or interchangeable when referring to the tribes.

40 . The KJV follows Masoretic Text wĕyiśrāʾēl lōʾ yēʾāsēp and the Book of Mormon preserves the same reading.

41 . Other ancient witnesses to Isaiah 49:5 suggest that MT lōʾ (“not,” “no”) originally was lô (“to him”). For example, LXX reads: tou synagagein ton Iakōb kai Israel pros auton. Although, LXX reduces the matching (parallelistic) bicolon to a single colon, the verb synagagein clearly attempts to preserve the meaning of yēʾāsēp (“gather”) rather than lĕšôbēb (“bring back”). The Syriac Peshitta has ʾknš (“I will gather”).

42 . The Servant is “to bring Jacob back to Him, and that Israel be gathered to Him” (JPS). NIV has “to bring Jacob back to him and gather Israel to himself.” The New American Bible has “That Jacob may be brought back to him and Israel gathered to him.” The Jerusalem Bible has: “to bring Jacob back to him, to gather Israel to him.”

43 . For an excellent treatment of this subject from a Latter-day Saint perspective, see Donald W. Parry, “Service and Temple in King Benjamin’s Speech,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 16, no. 2 (2007): 42–47, 95–97, https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1428&context=jbms.

44 . See, e.g., D&C 1:17, 29; 5:1–2, 7, 9, 21, 23, 29; 6:18, 25, 28; 9:1, 4, 12; 17:4–5; 18:7; 19:3; 25:5; 28:2; 31:4; 35:17; 41:7; 43:12; 47:1; 50:37; 55:2, 6; 56:12; 60:17; 63:41; 64:5; 67:5, 14; 70:1; 78:9; 81:1; 82:11; 93:45; 100:9; 103:21–22, 35, 37, 40; 104:26, 43, 45–46; 105:16, 21, 27; 112:17; 115:1, 13, 16, 18; 124:1, 16, 22, 42, 56, 58–59, 72, 79, 89, 91, 94–95, 102–103, 105, 107, 112, 115; 125:2; 132:1, 7, 30, 40, 44, 48, 52–57, 60.

45 . E.g., “my servant Martin Harris” (D&C 5:1, 26, 32); “my servant John [Whitmer]” (D&C 15:1; 30:9); “my servant Peter [Whitmer]” (D&C 16:1); “my servant Oliver Cowdery” (D&C 18:1; 25:6; ); “my servant Parley P. Pratt” (D&C 32:1); “my servant Sidney [Rigdon]” (D&C 35:3; 36:2); “My servant Edward [Partridge]” (D&C 36:1). Many more examples could be multiplied here.

46 . Bowen, “He Shall Add,” 2–4; Bowen, “Onomastic Wordplay on Joseph and Benjamin,” 261–64.

47 . Noel B. Reynolds, “Nephite Uses and Interpretations of Zenos,” in The Allegory of the Olive Tree: The Olive, the Bible, and Jacob 5, eds. Stephen D. Ricks and John W. Welch (Provo, UT: FARMS, 1994), 21–49, https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2499&context=facpub.

48 . Cf. Jesus’s later statement to the Lamanites and Nephites at the temple in Bountiful: “Then will the Father gather them together again, and give unto them Jerusalem for the land of their inheritance” (3 Nephi 20:33).

49 . HALOT, 418.

50 . Matthew L. Bowen and Loren Spendlove, “‘Thou Art the Fruit of My Loins’: The Interrelated Symbolism and Meanings of the Names Joseph and Ephraim in Ancient Scripture,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 28 (2018): 294–96, https://interpreterfoundation.org/thou-art-the-fruit-of-my-loins-the-interrelated-symbolism-and-meanings-of-the-names-joseph-and-ephraim-in-ancient-scripture/. See also Bowen, “I Have Done According to My Will,” 247–48.

51 . See again D&C 1:17, 29; 5:1–2, 7, 9, 21, 23, 29; 6:18, 25, 28; 9:1, 4, 12; 17:4–5; 18:7; 19:3; 25:5; 28:2; 31:4; 35:17; 41:7; 43:12; 47:1; 50:37; 55:2, 6; 56:12; 60:17; 63:41; 64:5; 67:5, 14; 70:1; 78:9; 81:1; 82:11; 93:45; 100:9; 103:21–22, 35, 37, 40; 104:26, 43, 45–46; 105:16, 21, 27; 112:17; 115:1, 13, 16, 18; 124:1, 16, 22, 42, 56, 58–59, 72, 79, 89, 91, 94–95, 102–103, 105, 107, 112, 115; 125:2; 132:1, 7, 30, 40, 44, 48, 52–57, 60.

UNDERSTANDING COVENANTS ANEW:

USING ANCIENT THOUGHT TO ENRICH MODERN FAITH

Jeffrey Thayne

Review of Jennifer C. Lane, Finding Christ in the Covenant Path: Ancient Insights for Modern Life, (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center at Brigham Young University / Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2020). 188 pages. Hardcover, $29.99.

Abstract: In the first half of her book, Lane takes us on a tour of ancient worlds by introducing us to ancient words, such as bĕrît (covenant), gā’al (redemption), pānîm (presence of the Lord), and so forth, while deftly weaving linguistic and historical insights with personal narratives that ground these insights in the practical affairs of day-to-day living. In the second half of the book, Lane takes us on a tour of medieval art and images, centering on how art has been used to portray the Savior and His mission. Throughout the entire book, Lane centers the attention of the reader on Christ, inviting us to take upon ourselves His image and likeness and to more fully appreciate the images crafted of Him by artists of prior centuries.

Fifteen years ago, as an undergraduate, I sat in class as a psychology professor at Brigham Young University — now a dear colleague and coauthor — demonstrated that the way some Latter-day Saints teach and understand the concept of covenant can be (at times) impoverished. We often treat covenants in transactional terms, he argued, as if they were a particular kind of contract. In the way some Latter-day Saints talk about covenants, we keep God’s commandments in exchange for goods and services (like salvation).

This way of thinking about covenants can inadvertently shift how we think of core family relationships, since if we think of marriage as a kind of contract, we implicitly embrace an egoistic, instrumental understanding of marriage. We come to treat the Other in our marriage as a means to an end, rather than as an end in and of itself. The same thing can happen when we understand our relationship with God in similar terms. We can start to see our relationship with the divine as a sort of vending machine, dispensing blessings to us with the right configuration of button-pushes (in this case, acts of devotion or obedience).

In that psychology course many years ago, Edwin Gantt opened my mind to a new way of thinking about covenants. And I have never seen that new understanding of covenants more expertly articulated than it is in the second chapter of Finding Christ In the Covenant Path: Ancient Insights for Modern Life, by Jennifer C. Lane. This book promises and delivers a host of insights from ancient sources and worldviews to aid our modern efforts to embrace and live the covenant path.

Lane undertakes to strengthen our faith and commitment by challenging some of our modern preconceptions in light of alternatives found in more ancient languages and ways of thinking. Like a fish in water, we often do not see the ways in which modern assumptions shape our thoughts and behaviors and especially our interpretations of scripture. Lane invites us to see the ways in which our faith and discipleship flow forth from their ancient roots and origins. Our most sacred texts come alive when we can read them while stepping into the worldview assumptions of those who wrote them (and for whom they were originally written).

In the first half of the book, Lane takes us on a tour of ancient worlds by introducing us to ancient words, such as bĕrît (covenant), gā’al (redemption), pānîm (presence of the Lord), and so forth, while deftly weaving these linguistic and historical insights with personal narratives that ground these insights in the practical affairs of day-to-day living. Each of these chapters yielded pages of personal and spiritual reflection as I journaled my own journey through these concepts and ideas. Above and below are just a small sampling of the sorts of reflections prompted by each and every page of Lane’s book, which demonstrates the richness of her contributions.

A Relational Understanding of Covenants

Among a great many insights delivered in this masterful book, Lane makes a compelling case that making covenants with God is far less like entering into a contractual agreement and far more like being adopted into a family (with all this entails). “[I]n the ancient world,” Lane explains, “making a covenant wasn’t a matter of commerce. … Making a covenant in scriptural terms can best be understood as forming a new relationship” (8).

Lane further argues that who we are is bound up in our relationships. It is a habit in Western society to define ourselves by what is unchanging about us, that is, to see our core identity as wrapped up in what is fundamentally static and immovable about us. But I have argued on other occasions that in some ancient paradigms, who we are is bound up in what we do — and more particularly in our relationships with others around us.[1] I am my wife’s husband, my father’s son, my daughter’s father. This also implies that who we most fundamentally are can change as our relationships with others change.

And as Lane deftly argues, “Covenants change who we are because they change our relationship with those around us and their relationship to us” (8). This is part of the symbolism of the “new name” that God has occasionally given to those with whom He covenants (Jacob -> Israel, Abram -> Abraham). Name changes also follow marriage and adoption. “We are in a new relationship,” Lane explains, “and we are different than we are before. There is a new sense of family identity” (8–9).

Lane expertly connects these themes across the standard works, showing that this is precisely the sacred truth expressed by King Benjamin when he said, “Because of the covenant which ye have made ye shall be called the children of Christ, His sons, and His daughters; for behold, this day He hath spiritually begotten you; for ye say that your hearts are changed through faith on His name; therefore, ye are born of Him and have become His sons and His daughters” (Mosiah 5:7). In this central connection, Lane places Christ at the center of this understanding of covenant.

Exploring further Lane’s insight that covenants change our identity “because they change our relationship with those around us” (8), I would add that they change the nexus of enduring responsibilities we have for them. The part of me for which I’m most accountable to God is bound up in my responsibilities as a husband, father, son, and ministering brother. And covenants are what contour and bring divine life into these sacred relations. Covenants change our identity precisely because they change our most sacred duties and responsibilities.

Lane’s treatment of these subjects in this book has invited me to reflect on how I can similarly put Christ at the center of how I understand and seek to fulfill those responsibilities. Even as I come to understand myself in terms of my covenant relations and the responsibilities set forth by those covenants, I recognize that it is only in and through Christ that I can set forth to fulfill them with any degree of fidelity. It is Christ who changes us and fits us for the responsibilities He bestows upon us. (More on that shortly.)

Christ as Kinsman-Redeemer

Perhaps as evidence that our covenants with God are not contractual — as if by virtue of this covenant, God owes us goods and services (like divine protection) — is the fact that God allows His covenant people to be taken in bondage in various times and seasons. On a more personal level, He allows each of us to experience the depths of sorrow, temptation, isolation, and hardship. None of these is a sign that He has forsaken His promises to us, for His promise is not (and has never been) that we would be shielded from the pains, troubles, and captivities of mortality.

Rather, Lane explains, that divine promise is that when we do, He would be our Redeemer, acting as gō’ēl, our kinsmen-redeemer. In ancient Hebrew, this is a prescribed role whereby the eldest brother would seek out and set forth to redeem family members who had been enslaved or indebted. Through Christ, our gō’ēl, no matter how long we have dwelt in captivity, sojourned in the wilderness, or forgotten our heritage, God will eventually lead us back into our covenant identity as His children and chosen people. This is, for example, the promise He made to the early Nephite patriarchs — no matter how many generations they had lived in forgetful ignorance of God’s promises, He would nonetheless remember the Lamanites and bring them back into covenant relationship.

And so it is in our own lives. Our covenants we have made (and which God has made with us) do not imply that we will not spend time in spiritual captivity. We all face occasions when sin — anything from addiction to pride — keeps hold of us despite our best efforts to shake off those bands. Christ promises to step into His role as “kinsman- redeemer,” to claim us as His own and thus free us from the captivities of our Adversary. I especially found insight in Lane’s comments here:

We have to be willing to admit that we are in bondage to know that we need redemption. At the same time, until we trust that we have a Redeemer, it is almost impossible to break through the self-deceptions that comfort us into thinking either that what we are doing isn’t a problem or that it’s just the way we are and so there is nothing we can do about it. We have to face God and “acknowledge … that all his judgments are just” (Alma 12:15) and that we really have “sold [ourselves] for naught” (3 Nephi 20:38) in order to embrace the gift of Christ’s redeeming power. We must admit that we are in captivity before we can look to our Redeemer for help. (32)

Reverential Worship and Moral Accountability

Lane also contrasts our modern, Western emphasis on personal autonomy and freedom against a more ancient understanding of God as the one to whom we bow down and serve. “The democratic urge to feel that we are our own boss,” she explains, “can make it difficult to be in any relationships in which others tell us what to do. … Assumptions that no one has the right to command us will not help us navigate a divine relationship that precedes and transcends time and history” (39). Christ, she explains, is our Lord and King, with all that this implies — not by virtue of birth, but by virtue of the covenants we have made with Him.

And this means we are no longer our own masters. I’d like to add to Lane’s insights here the fact that we often misunderstand agency as a sort of rational autonomy — the right to decide for ourselves what is right and wrong for us. But agency has a moral dimension to it: it is not merely choice but choice within the context of right and wrong. Absent a moral context, we are merely rational agents, not moral agents. It is our moral agency that God so heavily treasured in the premortal councils. He was far less concerned about abstract choice, as He was the potential for moral accountability.

The implications of this are staggering and under-explored. Moral accountability is the engine of personal transformation. Choosing between two morally neutral options (say, a red shirt or a blue shirt when dressing in the morning) does not effect a change in our very soul, but choosing between two morally freighted choices (speaking compassionately or resentfully to a friend) does precisely that. And this further implies that covenants expand our moral agency by making more of our everyday actions morally significant.

For example, perhaps drinking coffee is a morally neutral option for someone who has made none of the covenants we have, but it is a morally freighted option for Latter-day Saints. And as such, we have expanded the dimensions of our moral accountability and given ourselves more occasions for spiritual growth and development through the exercise of our moral agency, as we serve and heed the commands and directives of our Lord and King. The covenants we make in Holy Temples do this writ large — they circumscribe all aspects of our lives the vibrant color of moral potential and personal accountability.

Exploring Medieval Art

The second half of the book explores insights found in the study of medieval art. One example to illustrate: Lane describes a popular image of Christ referred to as The Man of Sorrows, which depicts Christ standing upright in a tomb but with visible wounds in His hands. In early examples, His eyes would be closed and His head bowed. Lane describes how this image portrayed both the suffering and resurrection of Christ, a man who has bought the world with His own blood and yet stands triumphant over death.

Lane uses this image to demonstrate that the Gospel sometimes centers on paradox and that what we often think of as “either/or” can instead be thought of as “both/and.” As Latter-day Saints, we sometimes emphasize in our iconography the resurrection of Christ and His triumph over death, and underemphasize His prior death and suffering. (For example, we have a tradition of not using crosses in our places of worship.) In contrast, the imagery of The Man of Sorrows serves as an example of both.

Extending beyond what Lane herself says, I took this as an invitation to embrace what sometimes seems like paradox. We worship a man who died to redeem us but who also conquered death. We strive to live our covenants while acknowledging that grace is our path to salvation. We treat the teachings of prophets past as having tremendous weight while also embracing ongoing revelation. We strive to uphold and reinforce strong moral norms while modeling the love and compassion of our Savior. We emphasize the justice of God while at the same time leaning on His infinite mercy.

All of this came in my reflections on Lane’s description of The Man of Sorrows and the way in which medieval artists thoughtfully conveyed worlds of meaning in their imagery of the Savior. Each chapter of the second half of the book led to similar explorations and reflections and with them a deeper appreciation of medieval art and imagery. I confess that before this book, I had little interest in medieval art, but I now feel nostalgia for art so rich with symbolism and meaning. Lane has brought to my attention an entirely new terrain that I am excited to explore.

Conclusion

Nothing more clearly illustrates the contributions of this book than the way every chapter centers the reader on the Savior Jesus Christ. In this, the book lives true to its name and to the purposes of the author, who shows a love for the Savior in every paragraph of the text. In her conclusion, Lane emphasizes the role of Christ in transforming us as people. She says,

We cannot be where he is and stay where we are. We cannot become as he is and stay as we are. But the good news is that, thanks to Christ’s ransom, the covenant path will take us there. Christ will take us there. That is the promise. That is his promise. … Our bondage lies in our hearts and minds. We do what we want, and so if we are not wanting what God wants, the problem is how to change what we want. Christ offers us a radical solution--to connect ourselves to him through covenant and to receive him through the ordinances, and then let his power and Spirit change our desires. (174–75)

The covenant path is a journey of transformation. It is a journey of change and redemption. We each embark on this journey with the expectation that the person who ends it will not be the same as the person who begins it. We take upon ourselves the name of Christ and in so doing take upon ourselves His image and His attributes. In the spirit of embracing paradox, with each step we are both returning to Him and walking with Him. I finished Lane’s book understanding more fully how we can find Christ in both our destination and our journey.

Jeffrey Thayne graduated from BYU with a bachelor’s and master’s degree in psychology. He completed his doctorate in Instructional Technology and Learning Sciences at Utah State University. He runs the popular Latter-day Saint Philosopher blog and spends time engaging in worldview apologetics (articulating and exploring the worldview assumptions that inform our faith). He currently resides in Rexburg, Idaho, with his wife and two children.

1 . See Jeffrey L. Thayne and Edwin E. Gantt, Who Is Truth? Reframing Our Questions for a Richer Faith (Rexburg, ID: Verdand Press, 2019).

NIBLEY’S EARLY EDUCATION

Zina Nibley Petersen

Abstract: In this intimate glimpse of Hugh Nibley’s childhood, written by his daughter Zina, we read of what it was like for Hugh to grow up as a gifted child with Victorian parents and, in turn, what it was like for Zina and her siblings to grow up as a child in the home of Hugh and Phyllis. These poignant, never-before-told stories reveal why, in Zina’s words, “Hugh’s uniqueness lay as much in his inabilities as in his abilities, as much in what he refused to learn as what he refused to allow to remain unexamined.” And though it was obvious that his mind was extraordinarily sharp, we learn why “it was Hugh Nibley’s heart that made the difference. And it was a very good heart.”

[Editor’s Note: Part of our book chapter reprint series, this article is reprinted here as a service to the LDS community. Original pagination and page numbers have necessarily changed, otherwise the reprint has the same content as the original.

See Zina Nibley Petersen, “Nibley’s Early Education,” in Hugh Nibley Observed, ed. Jeffrey M. Bradshaw, Shirley S. Ricks, and Stephen T. Whitlock (Orem, UT: The Interpreter Foundation; Salt Lake City: Eborn Books, 2021), 57–76. Further information at https://interpreterfoundation.org/books/hugh-nibley-observed/.]

In one of Hugh Nibley’s earliest memories, he was sitting under the dining room table while his parents discussed in hushed and horrified tones a terrible disaster they had just heard about. As he played on the Oriental rug and traced a chubby finger over the symbols that he would, in later years, learn how to read—they were the rug maker’s name in Arabic—above him, his father’s voice was saying something about how terrible it was. It was supposed to be invincible. It was supposed to be unsinkable. So many lives. He was telling his wife about the tragedy of the Titanic. Even in his nineties, Hugh Nibley always fully remembered feeling very saddened by his parents’ mood that day. He had just turned two years old.

My topic for tonight is the early education of Hugh Nibley. Not having been present for it, I find this daunting, but I will address it anyway. There are reasons why this topic is so intriguing. The reputation of Nibley the scholar or Nibley the man or Nibley the academic and religious savant, coupled with an awareness of how different he was, leads to a faintly voyeuristic fascination for all of us. How did he get like that? How did this begin to develop into whatever it was that we remember of Hugh Nibley? Can I answer that? Can anyone answer that?

As I grew up being his daughter, I was aware of the interest people had in him. I was aware that he was a teacher and a book writer and a defender of the gospel, but I did not share the disconnect—the sense that he was so different—until I learned it from the inside out. Here before me is an audience that, to at least some of you, sees Hugh Nibley more or less as an anomaly, as something different. But I’ve had to learn, and it has been admittedly and somewhat shamefully late, why and how he was an anomaly. Looking back, I think I used to assume that it was a content issue. His mind had a lot of stuff in it. The difference was one of degree but not type. I assumed that the main difference between all children, of which I was one, and all adults, of which he was one, was quantifiable.

I’m the cute one. I knew I was in the same boat with his admirers but further behind. We all knew that he thought more than we did. I knew that he had more languages in which to think. He had read more books, both to glean ideas from and to converse and engage with, than I would ever have. But, like the proverbial fish, I had no idea the water I swam in was wet. And so I absorbed his way of thinking, even as I easily dodged those languages and books and efforts that facilitated much of the content of his thoughts. I will get to that, to the content part. In fact, I promise that this talk will be larded with it. I do have a cache of “wowza” type stories about his experiences from his formal education, stories that are even actually true and that will impress upon all of us, myself not least, how rigorous was his early training, how lucky and blessed were his family situations and resources to allow him to pursue his education, to allow him to become what he became.

But then I want to point out briefly how little that mattered. Other people have had the content, though not, of course, exactly similar to his, and yet they have not been Hugh Nibley. So the stories, many of the stories that I’ll tell tonight, are documented in the biography my husband wrote about my father.[1] Boyd, being the meticulous scholar that he is, only published those anecdotes related by my father or siblings or his siblings that Boyd could then verify by means of some additional source. In this somewhat less formal context, and by being a blood relation, I am bound by fewer such strictures of scholarly rigor. And so what I say might be more along the lines of embellishment or informal reminiscence. That, however, does not mean that the anecdotes are false, just that it comes through my own experience, filtered through my recollections of conversations with Dad or with family members or friends.

There are the facts of the stories, and then there are the implications of the subject of them. Obviously, I will not be able to separate out neatly all those parts of his personality that were nature and which ones were nurture. I can say with some confidence that there was a basic conflict between those two in at least one area. He was born with an acute, deeply emotional sensitivity, and he was born in 1910 to very Victorian parents. Emotional displays were nothing if not a distasteful and downright inconsiderate reminder of human irrationality. I think if someone in that household had a feeling, they were firmly invited to take it outside or at least to turn a hostile wit on it to defuse its potential for disruption. This worked oh so well, especially for one both as naturally witty and prone to emotional weakness as he was. Sentimental drivel was Dad’s war cry if something moved him unexpectedly.

Many people have enjoyed Hugh’s acerbic wit. Several have suffered at his wielding of it. I would suggest, gently I hope, that Hugh’s world-class wit, irony, and sardonicism were a large part of his seawall against the flood of feeling that could, if he allowed it, overtake him. So for the most part, he did not allow it. This was a conscious decision and a conscious effort, not purely a reactionary defense. He freely owned it, if not recognizing the extent to which he came to rely on it. In a letter to his grandmother, as he was training for World War II, he wrote that while most of the other GIs were complaining miserably, he was rather enjoying himself. “The secret is to remain as detached from everything as a disembodied spirit,” he wrote, viewing even one’s own activities as something rather distant and amusing.

Seen in this light, the pattern of our feverish and ill-considered career presents some striking features. What strikes one most forcibly from the first is the fact that the people of our world are guilty of the tragic mistake of acting and thinking like animals, like mindless insects, or like some species of shellfish, to live and breed for a date and then disintegrate and leave nothing behind but a pestilential odor. Hugh could not tolerate this waste and tragedy of such an unconscious life. He observed others living that way, especially when he was in the army. He recorded the phenomenon with fierce judgment, and eventually he tried his best to wake people up out of it. How then did he become conscious? How did he get there—the question I posed at the beginning? And my answer is that I am not sure that he wasn’t always there.

I’m not sure he was ever asleep to some of the things we normal folks are unaware of. And the flip side is true as well. He was often profoundly oblivious to things, whether he walked or drove the car somewhere, for instance, upon which other people have a firm grasp. I think his facility with academics and self-teaching helped him to develop the defensive armor against the slings and arrows of life, the trivialities with which the rest of us poor slobs concern ourselves. But he did have to learn how to use those facilities in his own emotional defense. He wasn’t always prepared for what the world threw at him.

Kindergarten, for example, the world threw at him. On his first day, his mother sent him off in the morning and noticed the milkman and his horse-drawn cart doing his rounds. So, she asked the gentleman if he would see to it that Hugh got safely to school. Milk carts on delivery rounds not being very speedy, he was late. And the imposing figure of the school principal himself noticed the milk cart dropping him off. At the sight of the big man rushing out of the school toward him, Hugh figured he was in terrible trouble and turned around and ran all the way back to his house, where his surprised mother sat on the porch and, as he put it, “I flung myself into her arms to avoid the fiery retribution of authority.” After his mother and the principal straightened that situation out, he acclimated well and went with his satchel and his shining morning face creeping like a snail unwillingly toward school.

At the end of the first term, the class was reading the clown book. He says, “It was the hardest of them all; no one could do it. So, I raised my hand and rattled it off.”

“Why Huey!” exclaimed the teacher, “You didn’t tell me you could read.”

“Well, you never asked me,” he answered. So yes, he was a gifted kindergartner. That story is not remarkable in that he could read young—many children read young—but that he was innocent of its uses. The content of knowing how to read was in place, but not the software function of in which situations he should read. But if there was a gap in knowing how to use what he had, there was no gap at all between the values of his spirit and his behavior.

On his fifth birthday, his parents took him down for a special treat to visit his uncle Lou, who lived on a houseboat on the Willamette River. For his birthday present, Uncle Lou gave Hugh five new shiny pennies, one for each year of his life. In 1915, that was a nice payday for a small child, but not for Hugh. Leaving the grown-ups at the party to converse without him, Hugh wandered over to the railing of the boat and looked down poignantly at his handful of cash. He slowly dropped the pennies one by one into the river. “What’s money?” he remembers thinking. “Nothing there of real worth, who needs it?”

When he was in elementary school, he was, like the rest of the student body, tested with the latest psychometric test designed to place children by IQ. Mr. Barr, the principal administering the exam, told Hugh that if he were to go to sleep and not wake up for nine years, he’d still be ahead of all the other pupils in the school. The version I recall my father telling me was that they fired questions at him rapidly. Speed, apparently, was an important part of the measure of intelligence. And he was going higher and higher up the scale with vocabulary definitions. Then they came to a word—mosaic—and Hugh paused. He wondered, “Did they mean mosaic, as in the tile artwork of Roman architecture, or Mosaic, as in pertaining to the law of Moses?”

At his pause, it was assumed he’d reached his limit, and the administrator stopped the test. The score showed an IQ of over 200 points. Hugh was nine years old and in the fourth grade, and at that point he was yanked out of school and the principal came to his house to tutor him personally. He studied most of his subjects that the school system offered but at an accelerated and advanced rate. Mr. Barr taught most of it, but additional teachers were brought in for languages. In academics, Hugh continued to excel, and he fostered a love of a subject not taught in day schools, for obvious reasons: astronomy. He made a map of the moon when he was thirteen years old. He received a telescope as a gift and kept journals with drawings of the stages of the moon and observations about the planets. He also famously painted over a street lamp that was bothering his stargazing with light pollution. And once he came to breakfast, looking particularly odd. Sloan, his older brother, recalled, “It took us a while before we realized what was different about him.” He’d cut off his eyelashes so he could see through his telescope better.

Torn even at that young age by a fierce desire on one hand to know and learn everything he possibly could and, on the other hand, awareness of the dangers of academic snobbery and arrogance, familiarity with the cautionary tales in scripture about those who manipulate their knowledge and education for the sake of their own vanity, gain, or pride, Hugh both threw himself into school and yet continued to develop that famous detachment. He loved what he learned, but he was never very impressed with himself for knowing it. A letter to his grandfather from 1921 shows how little investment he placed in his ego. After saying that he stayed up until two in the morning, mostly drawing, he observed, “Drawing is like learning to play the violin; the more you know, the less you think you know. I am positive I know an awful lot.”

There is the tension in that turn of phrase. He’s aware of his shortcomings, and he is aware that he is not as aware of his shortcomings as he should be. There is a medieval trope or figure of rhetoric called occupatio, the inexpressibility claim in which a writer says he is incapable of a description and then proceeds to describe precisely why and how the indescribable cannot be described. Hugh, age eleven, is using a rhetorical flourish of false modesty to describe his own lack of talent. There is engagement with his own activity, and then there is that observing quality, that detachment as he watches himself, being both talented and yet not as skilled as he knows a person can be. His wry humor at his immaturity demonstrates his surprising and charming maturity.

In middle school, Hugh was skinny and scrappy and socially a klutz. In other words, he was in middle school. He’s the one with the dog on his lap—kind of hard to see which one he is there (fig. 5). His erudition did not, as we can imagine, win him points with the tough-kid crowds of Alta Loma School, nor did his naturally competitive drive to excel. “I was a show-off, I’ll say that, yes,” he says. An insufferable little know-it-all. Some of that, naturally, was insecurity about fitting in a new environment. But, as happens in most plucky schoolboy stories, things got better. Hugh found himself a larger, stronger, socially more suave best friend named Robert, a sort of bodyguard for the nerdy brainiac, which offered him some protection. And then he was also graduated to Los Angeles High School at thirteen, a year and a half early.

During this time, he experienced his sort of wake-up call to study ancient civilizations, languages, and peoples. It did not come as a result of study but as a spiritual experience among the books of his parents’ attic. As he contemplated a certain volume, a knowledge and a desire simply formed at its own will in him. “I knew quite clearly that these were real people. They had lives and loves. I knew they needed to be understood and we needed them to understand them, you see. So you see, I really had no choice in the matter.” I doubt he really wanted a choice in the matter. In high school, he also maintained his extracurricular hobbies, as well as academic subjects. He continued with astronomy and writing poetry. Music, as well, was something his mother wanted all of her children to pursue, at least to some degree. Hugh played the piano throughout his life, practicing and repeating the same errors in the same places as long as my childhood endured, and then some.

Music was a method of escape and meditation, however. He used the piano the way some people use needlework or running. It was a distraction. The physical motion, freeing his mind for the unconscious to work on a problem when the conscious had hit a dead end, hence the same musical mistakes. He was not invested in perfecting his piano playing—he was thinking. And here he is thinking very hard (fig. 6). When a situation arose that called for it, as when he accompanied my mother or one of us kids for an instrumental in church, he was fully capable of maintaining error-free piano playing and tempo, which is saying something, especially if you’ve ever heard how fast he could lurch through, say, the Moonlight Sonata.

High school was much more fun for Hugh than middle school. For one thing, he attended a very tony, very elite high school in Los Angeles. And for another thing, his best friend was a certain John Cage, later to become known for such musical experiments as 4’33”, which contains no notes, and sonatas and interludes that require various objects to be placed on the piano strings to produce weird noises when the piece is played. This wickedly disrupted and subversive intellectual was definitely Hugh’s kind of best friend. Unfortunately and maddeningly lost to my memory is a story about a particularly brilliant practical joke the two of them played on one of their teachers. I think it involved goats. If any one of you has heard it, please repeat it back to me.

Hugh’s favorite class was English because the teacher had the students memorize long passages from famous literature, which, once committed to memory, Hugh never really forgot and always relished. If one of us kids quoted a line from Shakespeare, it was a fair guess he could give us the next line or twenty, and then correct the mistake we made in the first. He loved things that were beyond the grasp of many other high school–age students. But this striving and competing with himself, holding himself to a higher standard than other children, had an ugly side as well. Spoiled by his mother’s insistence that Hugh be set apart from the other children, that he was somehow special, Hugh was unwittingly blinded to some forms of plain human decency.

My uncle Richard was the son just younger than Hugh. Assigned quite an unfair share of the household chores so that Hugh’s time could be freed up for higher things in the life of the mind, Richard once got very fed up with his older brother. He somehow convinced Hugh to come and help him dry the dishes that Richard had just washed. Hugh ambled over to the sink, picked up one cup and dried it and put it on the shelf, picked up another cup, dried it off, and put it on the shelf, picked up a third, looked at Richard and said, “But anyone can do this.” And he put it down and walked away. I don’t know how that story ended, but I harbor a guilty hope that there was some righteous fraternal violence involved.

Hugh was also in the ROTC in high school. This surprised me when I learned it, since he was such an adamant pacifist when I knew him. His enrollment in the ROTC was his mother’s idea. She had five sons, and the family knew which way the wind was blowing between the wars politically. The Nibley boys would be safer as officers than if they were drafted. So, it was officer training for all of them. What did not surprise me at all was to learn my daddy was typically Nibley about it, receiving the highest ranks in most areas, always the overachiever, and yet destroying the decorum of the final graded ceremonial drill by turning it into a spoof. His brother Sloan remembered it as sort of an Abbott and Costello slapstick thing. He got in trouble for that. Hugh despised pomp for pomp’s sake, and he saw far too much of it in the military. He knew that human dignity was an oxymoron and that nothing could be so truly dignified as a man confident enough to laugh at himself genuinely and nothing so pathetically laughable as imposed ingenuine dignity.

Better than school though, high school–aged Hugh loved his summers. He spent his summers immersed in the wilderness, as far into the wilderness as he possibly could. At fifteen, he worked in a California lumber mill that his father and grandfather owned and ran. I don’t know for sure, but I believe this was the time when his patient and willful detachment became a honed and practiced necessity for him. The reason I believe this is that I know how much he loves the wilderness, and I know that it pained him that his beloved grandfather was responsible for so much of its destruction.

On being asked to return home from the mill, Hugh wrote back to his mother:

What’s all this business of coming home. Let me live in Paradise while it lasts. I climbed Jackson’s Peak Sunday, and when I looked around, I saw not the great gray-green expanse of forest I had expected, but hundreds of miles of rocks and stubble broken here and there by well-thinned plains of dry pines. This would have been most disappointing had it not been for one great patch of woods. What a heaven it was to look down on those blue tops of those great, cool firs and know that there in her last stronghold lives Nature and all her great family. For to this citadel have flocked all the hosts of the forest. Here in this cold, green temple, oozing and dripping with a licentious profusity of life, I felt as if I were a trillion years old. Nothing seemed strange or unusual. Badgers, coons, deer, skunk, porcupines, snakes and all paid me a passing glance, and went on their business.

This is the only unlogged tract within a half a hundred miles of here—five hundred million feet of it—and owned, “the devil damn [it] black” by the Nibley-Stoddard Lumber Co. Soon it will be leveled to a desert—the streams will dry up and leave it to the sun, the sage brush, the snakes and the lizards.[2]

His summer job that year consisted of what they called feeding the hog, the steam engine–powered sawmill that ran nonstop, day and night, with the rejected wood of the majestic redwoods. Grandpa took these hundreds-and-hundreds-of-years-old trees, these redwoods, and he’d square them up and take only the hearts, only the center wood of the trunks for railroad ties. The rest was hauled off to be burned for the saws. That was something, that destruction there. Hugh found his grandfather’s love of entitlement to this nature to be appalling, and yet he loved his grandfather dearly. To maintain that love, he had to detach, to simply observe the damage Grandpa did to the earth and to Hugh’s own heart.

The next summer was both less and more traumatic and altogether much more to his liking. This is a photo that shows him at Aspen Grove shortly before his mission (fig. 9), but the adventure of the summer for him in 1926 was in Oregon. Hugh didn’t have to spend his time in the depressing environment of the clear-cut landscape that summer, but he did get attacked by a wolf. Not the first wolf. That one went away after he set fire to his celluloid hair comb, and the sparks frightened it out of the cave. It was the second wolf. It wasn’t the cougar, either. She left him pretty much alone, as did the bears after he figured out how to sleep in the crevice between fallen logs. At sixteen, Hugh had read Walden and Emerson and was brimming with the idealistic vision of living off the land. Hugh set out alone from his parents’ home in Southern California on a bus to Medford, Oregon. And from there, a family friend took him the final eighty miles to Crater Lake.

Not yet what it is now in terms of tourists and amenities, but also not yet legally protected, Crater Lake was wild. Hugh went on a weeks-long camping trip to a place virtually untouched by humans. His encounters with wildlife are verifiable. The cougar was likely one that had recently been sated on local livestock. So, it was not after him for food; forest rangers warned him about that. The cougar and my stupid sixteen-year-old future father shared a soulful moment staring at each other before the cougar finally went on its way. The rain in the forest of Oregon being legendary, Hugh spent quite a few nights in caves. In one, he encountered the first wolf, the one he chased off with pyrotechnics. The other wolf was a lot scarier. He was asleep in his bedroll and felt something tugging on his blanket. He woke up to see a wolf trying to make off with it, and he threw her a piece of bread. Rather than eating it, the wolf took it and turned and disappeared up the rise nearby, and then she came back.

At this, Hugh realized that she must be a mother feeding cubs, and he was a source of food. He gave her another piece of bread and planned his getaway. When she turned around, Hugh stood up and instantly the wolf, probably afraid he was a threat to the babies, sank her teeth into his thigh. The scar was visible when he wore his swim trunks. She apparently considered one bite to be enough of a warning because she didn’t follow up on the attack, and he didn’t stay around to see if she would. His wound eventually healed without infection, but also without the stitches it probably needed. And yet, that incident was still not the one to put him in most danger on that trip. That he did himself. Following the nature writers, he tried to live on the huckleberries that grew wild, along with a bag of raisins and raw wheat, and he got very sick. Also in another cave, rats ate his shoes. So, he walked the last forty miles home barefoot.

I was asked to speak about early education. I am pretty sure the summer of 1926 was very educational for him. By the next summer though, Hugh would be Elder Nibley, serving sometimes without benefit of companion in what was then called the Swiss-German Mission. Young as he was, he was called, as the Church had not yet set any absolute age limits on missionaries. Hugh’s older brother Sloan was preparing to go. And so, his parents and grandfather, who was by then a General Authority, arranged for Hugh to go out about the same time.

Another family story, and I’m not sure which uncle I heard this one from, has it that Hugh went and knocked himself out with missionary zeal and effort and that when they both came back home, Hugh’s bags were nearly empty since he had worn out most of his possessions or lost them or given them away. But Sloan opened his trunk to reveal a magnificent set of souvenir beer steins he had collected from his visit to bars and pubs all over central Europe.

Hugh’s mission involved another mix of formal training and unofficial education. A slight seventeen-year-old, he was nevertheless feisty, fiery, and convinced. Missionary training was different in the twenties. Hugh stayed at the training house in Salt Lake City for two weeks, mostly training in scripture study and gospel preparedness. And then, when the missionaries arrived at their destination, the language training began in earnest and by immersion. Hugh took to the language immediately, and his letters home indicate that his already opened eyes were seeing more than he could have anywhere else. He was seeing the beginnings of World War II. Most missionaries under the pressure of doing serious work, sometimes for the first time in their lives with that kind of intensity, will cut loose and goof off and then feel very guilty about having let off steam, perhaps temporarily losing the spirit of teaching.

But most missionaries actually goof off when they goof off. Hugh’s mission guilt line in his journal asks the terrible question, “Can one hour a day of Greek be playing the devil with my mission?” His naughty indulgence was in learning the original language of the New Testament. Germany was, as Hugh was acutely aware, the center of so much of the Western world’s ideals of civilization that it would have been difficult for a person such as he was to be there without enhancing his education. But alas, the formal study of ancient Greek must wait. And Hugh focused his energies on the spiritual condition of the German people, which he found alarming.

“There is a settled indifference,” Hugh wrote home. “The people of Germany were setting their hearts, not on something bad, but simply against anything good, anything that could help or change them.” This early in his life, he was not yet as aware as he would become of the specifics of the encroaching war, but he was very clear about the inevitability of it. In the blessing setting Hugh apart for his missionary service, Elder Melvin J. Ballard instructed him specifically, “Tell these people that unless they repent, they will be destroyed by fire from heaven.” This was a message several Germans found annoying.

In one town, Hugh was actually chased from a butcher shop by a woman wielding a meat cleaver. “Don’t you tell me about fire from heaven.” Within a dozen years, that town was destroyed in an allied firebombing raid. Hugh saw what remained of the butcher shop. It was a doorway. Yet at sixteen, Hugh learned about survival in the natural world. At seventeen, his missionary education was about survival among humans. This was not the kind of street smarts knowledge or sociological observation, but again, a return to that detachment, a keen spiritual insight into the workings of the souls, both of the individual people and of collectives that can become tribal, defensive, and dangerous.

Germany wasn’t a terrible state. More than one political thinker recognized that the Treaty of Versailles, which ostensibly ended World War I, was seen as a slap in the face to the German people and the German nation. While Hugh was on his mission, Hitler’s rise was not yet as progressed or as alarming as it would soon become. But the economic depression and the morale-crushing losses of the Great War were still stinging, setting the stage for a dictator and frustrating proselyting attempts of a young Elder Nibley. There was no question that Germany was suffering.

At one point, while Hugh was on his mission, a single American dollar could exchange for around one billion Deutsche Marks, and Hugh’s family was sending him $50 a month. He did not use it. One story that Boyd could not get Hugh to verify outright is still good enough that I have to tell you anyway. Hugh denied it outright the first time Boyd asked about it, but on further reflection, he said, “Well, I guess something like that probably happened.”

The story goes that the mission president wanted to take up a collection for a missionary, a missionary whose clothes were getting old and ratty, an anonymous collection for a new suit. Hugh was eager to contribute, figuring that since the poor fellow was out a suit, his shoes must be worn out as well. And so, he donated enough extra to buy the elder some new shoes. Only to find out the missionary in need was Elder Nibley.

The mission being, for so many Latter-day Saints, the singular rite of passage into adulthood, my impeccably thorough chronicling of Hugh’s early education comes to a halt here. He would come to return home, finish graduate degrees, and begin a professorial career in California, and join the US Army to fight against the people whom he had tried so hard to warn and to bring into the fold of the gospel. But I did promise at one point or threaten to convey how little the details and even the content of his education mattered in shaping him into what he was.

Part of Hugh’s uniqueness lay as much in his inabilities as in his abilities, as much in what he refused to learn as what he refused to allow to remain unexamined. In my last few minutes then, in no particular order and obviously varying in degree of seriousness, I numerate some of the things that everybody knows that, in fact, Hugh did not know, as well as some things that everybody should know but that he actually understood. So, these are some things that Hugh Nibley didn’t know.

There is no such thing as a free lunch! Could not get that into his head. Academic degrees make you smart. He didn’t know that. He didn’t know when it is entirely appropriate to interfere in a teenager’s life. And he didn’t know when it is appropriate to allow someone else to interfere in yours. One of his best friends came into his life because of that. It was a young man, not much older than me at the time, when I was very first married, who found out that he was dying of HIV/AIDS, and he decided that Hugh Nibley was somebody he needed to know. And Hugh Nibley was not necessarily approachable for a lot of people, but Jeff decided that it was time to interfere with Hugh Nibley’s life, and they became pretty good friends. But it took Jeff to teach him that.

He didn’t know where he left the car. Hardly ever. And he didn’t know the mysterious physics of strawberry jam. Everything was always sticky somehow, whenever he got around it. And he did not know that there is no existence but this life. That’s something he didn’t believe at all.

Here’s some things he did know. Generosity is simply the natural order of things. Nobody owns anything, so nobody can share. You just are. His generosity was so deep that it wasn’t even a blip on the radar. He did know that ultimately love and affection are not only more important than brains and drive, but they are the only important things. This was one he learned when he was ninety-four. He did know the Book of Mormon is the word of God. And likewise that Joseph Smith was a prophet. He also knew that institutions are as good or as bad as their members, that goodness and evil can be found all over. He knew which one was Beavis and which one was Butt-Head. I don’t know that. And he knew that repentance is the key to atonement, love, light, and knowledge.

The content bits of Hugh’s education are legion. There was a synchronicity of personality and talent in one person colliding with the resources, timing, historical moment, eagerness, and mission that did undoubtedly influence him. His brain and his mind were ready and able in the right place and in the right time. But that still wasn’t Hugh Nibley. Those were necessary though insufficient causes of Hugh Nibley. You might say that there was more to the mantic than the sophic of my father, and that would be right too, that would be getting warmer. Athletes call it heart when somebody puts more effort into a task than seems humanly possible. Lovers call it heart when they give their full devotion to each other. The root of the word believe is related to the word belove. Originally, it was not concepts one believed or believed in, but people were deities or saviors. When you believed, it was that you loved. Hugh believed. Ultimately though, his mind was uniquely keen, sharp, jam-packed, elegantly equipped, and indisputably well-trained. It was Hugh Nibley’s heart that made the difference. And it was a very good heart.

Zina Nibley Petersen (PhD, Catholic University of America) was an associate professor at Brigham Young University from 1995 to 2017, where she taught courses in early British literature and language. Her research interests include the literary history of Christianity, mysticism, women’s religious and spiritual issues, Chaucer, Malory, and King Arthur. She also follows developments in popular medievalism, which, as distinct from medieval studies, is the exploration of the uses and interpretation of the Middle Ages (for instance, the pre-Raphaelites or twentieth-century fantasy).

Figure 1. A Nibley family home evening with Krešimir Ćosić, the famous basketball player and coach who was playing for BYU at the time and to whom Hugh taught the gospel. Kreso is holding Zina, February 1972.[3]

Figure 2. Hugh, perhaps about

five years old.[4]

Figure 3. Among other things, Hugh noted an “apparent conjunction of Mars, Saturn and the moon” in this astronomy journal entry from

13 December 1925.[5]

Figure 4. A perspective drawing from Hugh’s sketch book.[6]

Figure 5. Sloanie Nibley with Philip and Richard in front;

Sloan and Hugh in back.[7]

Figure 6. Hugh “thinking very hard” as he plays the piano.[8]

Figure 7. Sloanie Nibley with Richard, Philip, Sloan, and Hugh, ca. 1918.[9]

Figure 8. Nibley Mills near La Grande, Oregon.[10]

Figure 9. Hugh (bottom center) at Aspen Grove camp, summer 1927.[11]

Figure 10. Hugh (right) and his brother Sloan as missionaries, August 1929.[12]

Endnotes

1 Boyd Jay Petersen. Hugh Nibley: A Consecrated Life (Draper, UT: Greg Kofford Books, 2002).

2 Hugh Nibley to Agnes Sloan Nibley, August 4, 1925, Charles W. Nibley Collection, MSS 1523, box 1, folder 1, L. Tom Perry Special Collections, Harold B. Lee Library, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah. The quote is from William Shakespeare, “The Tragedy of Macbeth,” in The Riverside Shakespeare, ed. G. Blakemore Evans (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1974), 1336, V.iii.11.

3 Courtesy of Christina Mincek. Photo ID: 2020_September_Nibley photos from Cristina Mincek_0013_a.jpeg.

4 Petersen Collection, box 10, folder 4. Photo HBLL-BoydP-_STW8622-ECR-Box10Folder4.jpeg.

5 Petersen Collection, box 1, folder 2. Photo ID: HBLL-BoydP-_STW8079-ECR-Box1Folder2.jpeg.

6 Petersen Collection, box 9. Photo ID: HBLL-BoydP-W0000241-EC-Box9.jpeg.

7 Petersen Collection, box 10, folder 4. Photo ID: HBLL-BoydP-_STW8638-ECR-Box10Folder4.jpeg.

8 Courtesy of David Nibley. Photo ID: piano.jpeg.

9 Petersen Collection, box 10, folder 4. Photo ID: HBLL-BoydP-_STW8717-EC-Box10Folder4.jpeg. See Petersen, Hugh Nibley, 28.

10 Petersen Collection, box 3, folder 2. Photo ID: HBLL-BoydP-_STW8206A-EC-Box3Folder2.jpeg.

11 Petersen Collection, box 10, folder 4. Photo ID: HBLL-BoydP-_STW8635-EC-Box10Folder4.jpeg. See Petersen, Hugh Nibley, 64. The sign identifies them as the “Brighamites” of Brigham High School. Above and to the left of the photo above Hugh are Harold (?) Clark and Russell Swensen.

12 Petersen Collection, box 10, folder 4. Photo ID: HBLL-BoydP-_STW8641-EC-Box10Folder4.jpeg. See Petersen, Hugh Nibley, 94.

Table of Contents

Title Page

Vast Prairies and Trackless Wilds of Snow: A Good Test of Sincerity

“Strong Like unto Moses”: The Case for Ancient Roots in the Book of Moses Based on Book of Mormon Usage of Related Content Apparently from the Brass Plates

The Ark and the Tent: Temple Symbolism in the Story of Noah

Resurrection Month

The Past and Future of the Temple Lot in Independence, Jackson County, Missouri

Josiah to Zoram to Sherem to Jarom and the Big Little Book of Omni

Much More than a Reader: The Latest in Chiastic Studies for Interested Scholars and Lay Readers Alike

Edfu and Exodus

“The Messiah Will Set Himself Again”: Jacob’s Use of Isaiah 11:11 in 2 Nephi 6:14 and Jacob 6:2

Understanding Covenants Anew: Using Ancient Thought to Enrich Modern Faith

Nibley’s Early Education